2004-10-13
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, when we came to government in 2001, a priority task was to put in place actions that would address the sluggish economy and establish a sound basis for the future. Within three months, we organised and conducted community forums around the Territory to seek input from Territorians. The community consultation culminated in November 2001 with the Economic Development Summit, which was co-chaired by Bob Collins and Neville Walker. The summit provided a unique opportunity for over 200 delegates and observers, representing business, unions, industry, indigenous communities and government across all regions of the Territory, to openly discuss our future.
Immediately after the summit’s conclusion, the government commenced the task of translating the directions that came out of the summit into a comprehensive strategy and action plan, subsequently released in June 2002, titled Building a Better Territory, The Economic Development Strategy for the Northern Territory.
My government has placed great emphasis on improving the business environment by creating the conditions where business and industry can flourish. The benefits of responsible fiscal management have been quickly passed on to business, including reductions to the payroll tax rate, an increased payroll tax threshold, and the future abolition of debits tax.
Additionally, the government’s record capital works program saw the commencement of strategic infrastructure projects essential to attract private sector investment, for example, the $38m Mereenie Loop Road, the $15m Litchfield Road, the bulk minerals facility at the rail port, and the new cruise ship terminal in Darwin – good examples of such infrastructure development. The evidence is now clear of an expanding economy with strong business confidence exhibited across many sectors, with the pastoral industry, mining, tourism and construction all experiencing better conditions. The Territory’s residential property market is demonstrating appreciable capital gains, with sales and profits in the retail sector also showing good results.
To complement the Territory’s growing trade flows and vast potential the international trade strategy, Building Stronger Territory Trade, was launched by my colleague the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development in October 2002. With the input of the International Business Council, this provided a clear plan for the development of Territory international trade.
The release of the manufacturing industry strategy, Making it in the Territory, launched by the same minister in February of this year, was a good example of an initiative to expand our economic base. Building a Better Territory highlighted the need to increase the tourist visitations to the Territory. The Tourism Strategic Plan 2003-07 released by the then Minister for Tourism in December 2002 was developed through extensive research, analysis and consultation and underpinned by the government’s allocation of $27.5m over three years for tourism promotion including destination marketing.
The Jobs Plan NT, Building the NT Workforce, was released in November 2003 by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. It is the Territory’s first comprehensive jobs plan and is underpinned by a $160m investment in training and skills development, ensuring that Territorians are equipped to take the opportunities that are being created. The provision of $7m in incentives to employees over three years to boost apprenticeships and traineeships will see the Territory on target to achieve 7000 commencements over three years.
In working to extend opportunities to regional and remote areas, the Minister for Regional Development released a Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy in May 2003. The government’s Remote Areas Telecommunications strategy and Indigenous Tourism strategy, when added to initiatives like the Indigenous Economic Development Taskforce, will lead to greater wealth distribution and opportunities and jobs among all regions of the Territory.
In Alice Springs, we now have the $27m Desert Knowledge Precinct under way together with the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre - the latter valued at $91m over seven years. These initiatives of my government will expand world attention to Central Australia by focussing on the challenges of living in the desert.
In the area of major projects and the development of new initiatives there is the $1.6bn LNG plant at Wickham Point. Add to that government investment of $13m in the Darwin Business Park provided logistical support for the rail port infrastructure.
The strategy referred to promoting development of a convention centre for Darwin; the government has gone much further. We decided to use the convention centre as a catalyst to stimulate a major new Darwin city waterfront development and revitalise 25 hectares of industrial land. I talked about that yesterday.
Madam Speaker, there has been considerable interest in progress and implementing the Economic Development Strategy and Neville Walker, co-chair of the Economic Development Summit, has written to participants and other interested parties advising of the availability of a highlights summary document, together with a detailed report on the web site.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, all of the summits, strategies, reviews, action plans, and glossy brochures will not cover up what Territorians know. This is an economy that has resulted in two years of zero economic growth. We may point to Access Economics which can forecast the potential of the Northern Territory economy and the capacity of this place to perform, but they have made the same predictions year after year, and this government has failed to capitalise on that potential. Once again, we have Access Economics out there forecasting a great future for the Northern Territory, but the Northern Territory has little confidence in the capacity of this government to realise that potential.
We have had a population in decline and no glossy brochure will cover that fact. We have had a 25% loss of commercial and retail tenancies in our capital city. Which capital city, I ask you, Chief Minister, would have one quarter of commercial and retail tenancies vacant? No glossy brochure will cover that from the mind of Territorians and particularly those who visit our CBD.
There has been no wealth-creating project developed under this government for which they have responsibility. They speak of a reduction in payroll tax, but that was a minimal reduction. In fact, your tax take increased in your last budget. You have the opportunity, with a $500m GST windfall, to significantly reduce payroll tax, as we have committed to do, to relieve the load on Territory businesses so that they can genuinely reduce unemployment by taking on young Territorians into apprenticeships and real trades.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I now table a document that details some highlights in the last three years to inform Territorians on progress made against our strategy and plan, and advise that a full list of the 357 priority actions in the strategy and the progress made against them is now available at www.otd.nt.gov.au.
In conclusion, after three years of hard work, despite what the Opposition Leader says, we see a very different economic climate in the Territory, one that independent analysts consistently rate as ‘good’ or ‘better’ than anywhere else in Australia.
This is a tribute to the vision of those who came together at the Economic Development Summit in 2001. It is also a tribute to the many industry and community representatives and public servants who have fulfilled their roles in turning the priority actions of the strategy into reality. However, there is much more to do and our future prosperity relies on maintaining our diligent work effort in partnership with business, unions and the broader community, a partnership to which my government is committed. Madam Speaker, with pride, I table the document.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, this morning I will update the House on the continuing program of school visits. I like to report to the House two or three times a year on where I have been. Since my last report in May, I have been to 34 schools, some of them more than once, and these schools are located right across the Territory including remote and regional areas.
Millner Primary School is run under the very effective leadership of principal, Ron Argoon. On 3 September, Millner Primary School held a pageant showcasing the multiculturalism of the school and the history of Darwin. It was a fantastic show. It was called My Darwin, My Place. My colleague, the member for Millner, also attended along with some 800 parents and community members who were enormously impressed as these children put on a wonderful performance starting with the interaction with trepang trade, right through significant events in Darwin’s history. It was a most impressive performance. I congratulate the school in total, but particularly Ms Betchay Mondragon, who did an outstanding job as Artistic Director, and Alison Mills, who assisted students in the indigenous songs and dances that they performed. The Chair of the School Council, Esther Eggar, was Stage Manager and she had a crew of 21 volunteers. It was a massive production for a primary school. The volunteers ensured that the event ran smoothly. Congratulations to all involved. I really did enjoy the evening.
Another great Darwin school is Manunda Terrace located in the electorate of my colleague, the member for Karama. I attended the school to present them with a cheque for $10 000 won by the school for their involvement in a major national competition, the World Recycling Games, conducted by Visy Recycling. I congratulate Visy for running this competition and for encouraging the involvement of students. The children learnt how to look after their environment in a practical way. Congratulations to them, their teachers and Dr Terry Quong.
As part of my efforts to visit schools, I have been able to speak with teachers and students at schools in Alice Springs, including Ross Park primary, Irrkerlantye Learning Centre, the Alice Steiner School, and St Philips. They are all impressive schools, albeit catering to significantly different groups and cohorts of students.
In my own region, I had the honour of being present at the opening of the Gawa Christian School. I congratulate everyone involved, particularly Jack Mechielsen and the Christian Schools Association which does a great job in the Territory. I wish Gawa Christian School and its students the very best for the future. It is in a particularly picturesque spot on the top tip of Elcho Island.
I also visited schools in Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Jabiru and Gunbalanya. I make particular mention of the riding and swimming program of Warrego Primary School. It is a small school but it has been boosting learning outcomes through a riding education program and looking after horses conducted by the principal, Mr Colin Baker. It is an outstanding program, and the kids have really benefited from the principal’s input. I was pleased to further assist them with a small grant when I visited there.
I recently returned from quite an extensive trip to schools along the Roper: Mataranka, Jilkminggan, Minyerri, Urapunga and Ngukurr. What struck me with every one of those schools was the tremendous vitality and energy within the schools, and particularly the involvement of the community and parents in the life of the school. I do not want to single one out but I mention Jilkminggan where the women preparing the morning teas and lunches are working towards Certificate 2 and Certificate 3 in Nutrition Education while they do that. They are able to do that program because everyone who has a child or student at the school puts in $20 out of their income into the school. It is self-funded, community-run, and the parents are working towards certificated courses in the preparation of that food. That was tremendous to see. In each of those schools, there was a particular feature where they particularly involved parents and communities.
It is a tremendous privilege, as minister for Education, to be able to visit these schools, and great fun along the way. I learnt a lot about what is happening on the ground and at the chalk face. I will be continuing this program of school visits right through the Territory to keep me in touch with the important issues in the system.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, as the shadow Education minister, I have also been visiting schools across the Territory. I have the great privilege to talk to a lot of parents about their aspirations for their children. Every parent, indigenous or not, aspire to have a better education system for their children. In my discussions with them, they are concerned that the minister has not addressed issues such as the transfer of Year 7 from primary schools to secondary schools in the secondary education report. This minister has been particularly deaf to their concerns.
When you go to Casuarina Secondary College, they talk about a Year 10 which is not coming into the college. The minister, again, turns a deaf ear to them. It is time that he starts to listen a bit more to the communities. He can visit as many schools as he likes, but when he does not listen to the community, it is a pointless exercise. It is more a self-promotion exercise than anything else.
The schools and their communities have endeavoured to work very hard with the very limited resources that they have to provide the best school environment they can possibly produce. I do not know whether the minister has attended the Palmerston campus of the Charles Darwin University, one that is his responsibility. Fifteen apprentices will be missing out for the next six months of their training because there is no instructor for bakery and pastry. These kids are now sitting for their exams this week and, hopefully, in a couple of weeks time they will come back to recommence their last six months of training. If there is an instructor missing, then it is important for this minister to ensure that he provides one so that these apprentices can continue their training.
While the minister might have been visiting schools across the Territory, he must listen to the community. If not, his visits are pretty pointless.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it is a bit raw to take criticism about not listening to the community when we have had an enormous and extensive consultative program with the community around the secondary review and, at this stage, no decisions have been made. So, to be accused of not listening to the community is a bit rich, to say the least.
The shadow minister is simply wrong in relation to the bakery and pastry cooks training at Palmerston. I have a brief in my office, and I will provide him with a copy of it later. I do not know who he has been talking to or listening to, but those students are in their block release now, and it is running as per normal. There is a change of dates, but no-one, no individual trainee apprentice is disadvantaged in this program. He is simply wrong, and I will provide him with a brief later giving him the facts.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, when we came to power in 2001, spending on health was uncontrolled and inadequate. Financial and management controls were poor, leading to a position where, every year, the Health Department blew its budget. This lack of controls and chronic under-funding meant that, often, the hospital ‘sucked up’ resources from other areas of the health system. This government embarked on a thorough review of the health system in a comprehensive restructuring of the department, including the imposition of strict controls on transfer of funds between different areas of the department. We brought the budget under control such that in 2003-04, for the first time in around a decade, there were no significant cost blow-outs in the budget. New funding was provided for new and expanded services, not to meet a lack of budgetary control.
The new structure and financial controls allowed us to set our strategic directions in Building Healthier Communities in February 2004 with 10 priority areas for action. The new systems within the Health and Community Services system mean that we can now allocate resources with confidence to our priorities, knowing that this is where the money will be spent. We have also significantly increased funding for our hospitals. Together, this means that no longer will budget crises in hospitals drain resources from non-acute areas. We have injected considerable resource into the system to improve and upgrade it. We have increased the Health and Community Services budget by a record $1.54m since 2001.
I want to outline the key commitments that we have delivered on. First, we are creating better hospitals. This includes $2.5m for a birthing centre at Royal Darwin Hospital; an allocation of $4.25m for a 12-bed hospice on the Royal Darwin Hospital campus, with individual rooms with ensuite facilities and access to individual private garden areas. Our commitment also includes $1.87m for staffing and operational costs; $6.1m to operate the new wing at RDH, including opening of the new Emergency Department, Critical Care Services, High Dependency Unit, Coronary Care Unit, and short stay ward; $11m over four years to improve the Intensive Care Unit/High Dependency Unit at Alice Springs Hospital, including new equipment, five new ICU/HDU beds, and more specialists and nursing staff; $2m for fire safety and airconditioning upgrade works at Alice Springs Hospital; $150 000 to refurbish the airconditioning in the kitchen at Katherine District Hospital, and $226 000 to purchase new equipment; and $1.5m for the construction of an eight-chair renal unit at Tennant Creek Hospital with ancillary services.
We are also putting more resources into supporting our staff. We have exceeded our commitment to fund 75 new hospital-based nurses in our first term. As of October this year, we have funded 97 positions, of which 76 are filled and 21 are in the process of being recruited. We have allocated over $10m to increase pay levels of nurses; $4.6m to provide an 11% pay rise for medical officers; and $1.6m for a new EBA for Territory dentists. We are also improving access to health services through $2.2m to improve child health services and outcomes with the recruitment of 25 staff based in Darwin, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs; $1.4m to phase out single-nurse posts in remote areas; $900 000 capital for the remote renal services; and $3m for Oral Health Services throughout the Northern Territory.
We are not pretending that this record spending in health will solve all the problems. We are dealing with a great level of need in the community, and with a situation of national and international shortage of key health staff. This means we have a health system that is under pressure, as are all health systems across the world.
Mr Dunham: You said it was a crisis.
Dr TOYNE: This is not a crisis. To continually describe it in these terms is to talk down the commitment and dedication of our staff. It also ignores the achievements of this government in increasing our spending on health to record levels. This government is doing the right thing. We have put the system in order, set the priorities, and committed the funds. This is our commitment to building healthier communities in the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the minister may well have a commitment, but the results speak for themselves. I do not know what planet he is living on when he talks about the achievements of him, his predecessor, or his government. They are an absolute disgrace when it comes to health. There is a list of things I could go into and two minutes is clearly not enough.
First, in relation to staffing details, my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, wrote to the minister in May 2004, as I understand it, asking for exact details and title of each new position which the government said it had created. I understand that no response has been received to that letter. This is the government, as I said yesterday, that closed down the Palmerston 24-hour medical clinic. There are staff shortages …
Mr Dunham: Closed down rehab.
Ms CARNEY: Closed rehab; opened rehab. This is a minister who has presided over a $50m blow-out in his budget. The budget papers speak for themselves. There is a $561m allocation, which blew out to $612m. Then we had the extraordinary situation where the CEO of Health sent an e-mail in about May of this year to his staff, saying: ‘We are on track’. Members will recall that various questions were put in the Estimates Committee hearing, most of which were unanswered.
This government needs all the money it can get, because it continues to pay $2000 a day for specialist anaesthetists from interstate to work at the Alice Springs Hospital. The emergency medicine specialist was squeezed out under this government. There is no permanent anaesthetic staff in Alice Springs; there are bed shortages in Darwin and Alice Springs. Twenty seven people on hospital trolleys in the Northern Territory, I would have thought, is unprecedented. The mess and the minister’s deceit about the closure of the ICU at Alice Springs will dog him. I will continue to chase him on it; that was a disgraceful performance. Ten elective surgery cases a month in Alice Springs are deferred; that is outrageous! At the Wadeye Health Clinic, for instance, not so long ago - in fact a month ago - there was a sign on the door saying: ‘Clinic closed due to nurse shortage,’ so the facts speak for themselves.
There is no hospice; there is no oncology unit; they were election promises, and this fantasy about getting 100 nurses, well, we will get the details of that provided the minister does us the courtesy of providing a reply.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Dr TOYNE (Health): It is good to see the member’s voice has recovered, Madam Speaker. Well, look, quite clearly …
Ms Carney: My voice might come and go but you will always …
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not think members in this House should be reflecting on the health status of other members. It is unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw that comment, minister.
Dr TOYNE: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I hope, member for Drysdale, that you remember that piece of advice that you just gave everybody else.
Mr Dunham: Yes, I will, Madam Speaker.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear that the member does not understand the difference between a blow-out and a planned expansion within the health system. I have detailed today to this House every single item that has contributed to the increased health expenditure. All those items were planned; all those items are adding capacity to our health system. All those items will improve the services available to Territorians.
We have a good record in health. I do not accept the unsubstantiated assertions from over there. I am sure that we are going to have plenty of debates but you had better back up some of your claims.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I rise to report on the progress of the Spanish Mackerel Gene Tag project, and the important role it will play in the management of fish stocks. In January 2002, the Spanish Mackerel Fishery Management Advisory Committee was tasked with undertaking a review of the Spanish Mackerel Management Plan. This review has now been completed in wide consultation with all the stakeholder groups involved in the fishery. I anticipate that the new plan …
Mrs MILLER: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am having great trouble hearing the minister. If you could speak a bit slower, thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: It sounds like we all have a hearing problem. Minister, big voice.
Mr VATSKALIS: I anticipate that the new plan will be released shortly, with an implementation date early in the new year. The objectives covered by the management plan are:
The key to any fishery management plan is sound research. Long-term catch data provides us with information we need to determine how much fish can be removed from a fishery per annum, without significantly impacting on sustainability. Although conventional tag and release programs have always provided useful information, there have been limitations. Physical tags can be lost and can even cause death to the fish through the process of capture and tagging. The gene tag process involves taking a DNA sample from fish in combination with conventional tagging. The Fisheries Group has developed a tagging pole that applies a standard plastic tag while at the same time also retaining a minute amount of tissue from which the DNA fingerprint of the fish can be determined.
The project involves extensive cooperation between our fishery group, the Queensland Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, and both commercial and recreational fishers. Over the four years of the project, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation is allocating more than $1.2m; in fact, the corporation regards this as one of the flagship projects that it is funding. The Queensland Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has the responsibility for developing the genetic protocols for the project. It has made real advances in identifying suitable matching techniques for Spanish Mackerel. It is expected that these techniques will also be applicable to a wide range of other fisheries.
Thus far, there has been one recorded capture of genetically tagged fish which is, in fact, a world first, and we expect several more as the genetic processing proceeds. The fish, which was first tagged by Mr Ray Colley at Lorna Shoals, was subsequently caught by Mr Carl Skyring while fishing at Loee Shoals. It showed that the fish had only moved a few kilometres in six weeks.
More than 800 Spanish Mackerel have been gene tagged to date with the assistance of recreational and commercial fishers, and a further 7000 fin tip samples have been collected to check for additional matches. Screening for recaptures is now moving full steam ahead and more matches in the database are expected to be revealed in the coming months.
We have an enthusiastic group of keen recreational mackerel fishers who have worked in close cooperation with AFANT, which is managing the distribution of tags and rewards. We have had overwhelming business support, with around $4000 worth of prizes donated for tagging competitions.
Madam Speaker, this is world-leading research being undertaken by the Northern Territory Fisheries Group. I congratulate Dr Rik Buckworth and his team for the job they are doing in helping to protect the sustainability of our fisheries.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. The biggest challenge I am going to have in listening to the reports is getting the minister to speak more slowly. I have great difficulty understanding what he is saying when he speaks very quickly.
I am looking forward to learning a lot more about the fishing industry. Of course, we know that recreational fishing plays an important part in the Northern Territory. I am looking forward to my briefings next week.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her comments and I will make an effort to speak slowly. It will take a while for her to get used to my accent. I understand that after a while, the previous shadow minister did not have too many problems, so you do get used to it. However, I will make an effort to speak slowly.
Once again, I congratulate Dr Rik Buckworth. He has done a fantastic job. He has developed a new sampling technique that is so effective and efficient that other countries like Canada, the United States and European countries are now copying our technique in order to tag and release their fish stock.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the AustraliaAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Amendment Bill is to amend the AustraliaAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act to extend the sunset date under section 14B(5) by 12 months.
The AustraliaAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act recognises access, electricity and water easements in favour of private land-holders adjoining the corridor. In addition, the act requires the Registrar-General to amend the Land Register to recognise those easements. During construction, owing to safety and construction requirements, the location of the access easements was varied. The act provides a mechanism to amend the Land Register to reflect the variations of those easements. The bill extends the availability of this mechanism to amend the Land Register by 12 months to enable the necessary amendments to be completed.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that courts are provided with fully tested evidence about relevant customary law issues when they are sentencing an offender. The bill implements one of the government’s commitments made in response to the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee’s Inquiry into Aboriginal Customary Law. The government made a commitment to developing mechanisms to ensure that where customary law is relevant in a case, the courts have access to fully tested evidence about the relevant customary law issues.
This bill provides a formal mechanism for raising issues relating to customary law, or the views of members of an Aboriginal community, when a court is sentencing an offender. It has long been an accepted practice for courts in the Northern Territory to accept and take into account evidence of relevant customary law when passing sentence on an indigenous person. Aspects of customary law and attitudes of members of a particular indigenous community towards an offence or an offender are often material facts that a court must take into account in the sentencing process.
However, the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal indicated in the case of Munungurr that it was not satisfactory for information on community views, or proposed tribal punishment, to be admitted in an informal manner. There is a risk that the material provided informally to the court on important issues would only be from the perspective of the offender or would not contain adequate detail. Rather, the courts should be provided with information directly from people who have appropriate knowledge about a community, its language and customs.
In many cases, indigenous people have directly provided courts with important information about customary law. However, despite the views of the court expressed in Munungurr, it remains common for information regarding customary law to be presented to a court in an informal manner. In addition, information may be presented without notice to the other party so they do not have an opportunity to undertake their own inquiries in relation to the information. In these situations, the court may then only be presented with information about aspects of customary law by one party which supports that party’s position and does not take into account conflicting views within the community on the issue.
The government recognises that some indigenous people are concerned about the way information about customary law is presented in courts, and that the informal presentation of information in the form of submissions from counsel representing an offender may not provide the court with adequate information about what, in many cases, are very complex issues.
Unfortunately, our attention is often drawn to the more controversial or difficult aspects of Aboriginal customary law. However, Aboriginal customary law in the Northern Territory is a significant and positive part of contemporary Aboriginal society and an important source of obligations and rights. Aboriginal customary law, as it is practised in contemporary Aboriginal communities, is the outcome of many historical, social and cultural influences, and is generally specific to a particular community or language group and subject to change over time. Therefore, there may be disagreement within the communities or groups on aspects of customary law and its application to particular circumstances. Research and consultation, particularly with indigenous women, has highlighted that some beliefs and practices presented to courts as embodying customary law do not adequately represent the views of all people of that particular community.
This bill formally recognises that information regarding Aboriginal customary law can make an important contribution when a court is sentencing an Aboriginal person for a criminal offence. While the most common example of this are cases where an offender is liable to receive punishment under customary law in relation to the offence, there are many other instances where information about customary law is relevant to an offender or an offence and needs to be taken into account in the interests of justice.
The bill, if passed, will require a party to criminal proceedings, who seeks to present information regarding aspects of customary law or the views of members of the community, to give notice to the other party and to provide the information by way of oral evidence in court, affidavit or statutory declaration. The amendment does not stipulate what notice should be given as the court will be able to make an assessment about what is a reasonable notice in each particular case. This will, of course, depend on many factors, including the nature of the information that a party wishes to present to the court, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and the facts giving rise to the offence.
The bill recognises that our system of criminal law is an adversarial model that relies on the prosecution and the offender to provide information relevant to the sentence. The bill seeks to provide a fair framework for the presentation of information on customary law that is consistent with the adversarial model.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to fulfil the Territory’s commitments under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Gene Technology to adopt in the Territory a uniform Australian approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms. For that purpose, this bill applies to the Gene Technology Act 2000, and the Gene Technology (Licence Charges) Act 2000 of the Commonwealth as a law of the Territory, and makes provisions to help ensure that the Commonwealth act and the law of the Territory are administered on a uniform basis by the Commonwealth, as if they constituted as single law of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth and all Australian states and territories are signatories to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Gene Technology. The inter-governmental agreement on gene technology recitals state that the Commonwealth, states and territories have agreed on, and I quote:
The cooperative national legislative scheme inter alia should, and I quote:
I will make a few background comments about gene technology. Biotechnology is a broad term that covers the practical use of biological systems to produce goods and services. It encompasses the transformation of materials by micro-organisms, for example, by fermentation, methods of propagation, such as plant cloning or grafting, and may involve genetic alteration through methods such as selective breeding. Recent advances in biotechnology provide ways of introducing very precise changes to genetic material.
Gene technology involves the modification of organisms by the direct incorporation or deletion of one or more genes to introduce or alter a specific characteristic or characteristics. Organisms so treated are called genetically modified organisms.
Current applications of gene technology worldwide include:
Some aspects of gene technology cause concern in relation to possible effects in non-target organisms, the health of the community, and the environment. In order to address these concerns, Australian governments have agreed to a consistent national legislative framework that requires scientifically assessing the likelihood and consequences of risks to human health and safety, and to the environment.
Most publicity and community interest has been on genetically modified organisms in agriculture. Data for 2003 shows that 18 countries grew GM crops over a total area of 67.7 million hectares, an increase in area of 15% over 2002. Six principle countries grew some 99% of the total area: the USA by far the largest with 42.8 million hectares, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, China and South Africa. The four commercialised GM crops are soya bean, maize, cotton and carnations. The most sought-after traits for genetically modified crops are herbicide tolerance, and insect resistance.
In Australia under the Gene Technology Act 2000, all field trials and commercial releases of genetically modified organisms - direct intentional releases into the environment - must be licensed by the Gene Technology regulator. So far, licences have only been issued for commercial release of genetically modified cotton, genetically modified canola and genetically modified carnations. Field trials have been licensed for other crops such as pineapples, paw paws, poppy seed and sugar cane.
The current Northern Territory participation in genetically modified organisms is restricted. Cotton trials at or near the Katherine Research Station have been in the order of 16 hectares in 1999, 16 hectares in 2000, 17 hectares in 2001, 45 hectares in 2002 and 70 hectares in 2003. Some 60 hectares are proposed in 2004. These trials are consistent with the government’s decision of October 2003, not to allow commercial cotton growing in the Northern Territory but to allow pre-existing research trials to continue in honouring prior arrangements to do so.
In terms of agricultural crops, some of the possible risks include the potential impact on traditional or organic crops; the possible effect on insect resistant crops or non-target insects such as butterflies; and the potential for transfer of genes from herbicide tolerance from genetically modified crops to related species resulting in herbicide resistant weeds. The order of magnitude of other Territory dealings with genetically modified organisms is as follows: the Menzies School of Health Research has one licence for investigations into Streptococcus, which does not involve intentional release of a genetically modified organism in environment. It also has nine notifications for a notifiable low risk dealing with Streptococcus, scabies and Chlamydia. A notifiable low risk dealing licence is also low risk licence not involving potential release of genetically modified organisms. The CSIRO has two notifiable low risk dealings and one exempt dealing with mangoes; and the Charles Darwin University has seven notifiable low risk dealings with plant phytoplasma.
Madam Speaker, I now return to the legislative framework. The legislative framework intergovernmental agreement and decision making procedures were developed with extensive consultation with all states and territories. The intention of this framework, which was negotiated over a period of two years, was to achieve a safe, transparent, robust, and nationally consistent regulatory arrangement to keep pace with development in this rapidly developing area.
In Australia, dealings with genetically modified organisms are controlled under the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. It provides for a Gene Technology Regulator to oversee and manage the assessment of risks to the health and safety of people and the environment associated with dealings with genetically modified organisms: a risk assessment process that requires the Regulator to seek advice from the states and territories on an application for a licence to authorise the intentional release into the environment of a genetically modified organisms, both on matters relevant to the preparation of the Risk Management Plan, and on that assessment and plan following their preparation:
The Gene Technology Act 2000 prohibits all dealings with genetically modified organisms unless the dealing is:
The Office of Gene Technology Regulator invites and encourages public involvement in the assessment process for the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. After assessing the risks in consultation with a wide range of expert groups, stakeholders and the public, the Regulator must decide whether any identified risks can be adequately managed before making a decision on applications.
A detailed risk assessment and risk management plan is prepared for every application for the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. A minimum of 30 days is set aside to give members of the public, a wide range of experts and other stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the risk assessment and risk management plan. The total statutory time frame to deciding applications to release in the environment is 170 days. It is 90 days for application for confined dealings in laboratories. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator has developed a proactive strategy for monitoring and compliance in line with the Gene Technology Act 2000.
Most monitoring in respect of each intentional release occurs at ‘high risk’ stages, such as flowering or harvesting times. In some cases, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator will also conduct unannounced spot checks to ensure that licence holders are complying with legislative requirements at all times. Findings from monitoring and compliance activities are reported in the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator quarterly report and annual report to the Commonwealth minister, with the reports available at the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s web site.
In conclusion, I repeat that the bill merely seeks to fulfil the Territory’s commitment under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Gene Technology and to be part of the national legislative framework. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to mirror amended provisions in the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, allowing for a single National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority. This authority is expected to provide a more efficient offshore petroleum safety administration regime. The Northern Territory Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act applies to the coast line of the Northern Territory at the mean low water marks seaward to a three nautical mile limit. This area is referred to as the Territory’s adjacent area. The corresponding Commonwealth act applies to Australian waters outside this.
The offshore petroleum industry is a major contributor to the economy and the domestic gas supplies in Australia. The industry also supports thousands of jobs. Over the past 25 years, the petroleum legislation has evolved. This evolution has assisted in ensuring security of oil and gas supplies and, as part of this, safety has been paramount. Safety is not only for those working in the industry, but also the general public.
Offshore safety is regulated according to whether the facility lies in Commonwealth or state or territory adjacent waters. Operators in several jurisdictions may be subject to two or more regulatory regimes. In 2001, the Commonwealth prepared a report on offshore safety, which found that the current system of petroleum regulation was inadequate, had unclear limitations, overlapping acts and inconsistent application between Commonwealth and jurisdictions. The Commonwealth responded to the report by initiating the creation of a National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority, commonly referred to as NOPSA. NOPSA will regulate occupational health and safety matters on offshore petroleum facilities in both Commonwealth and territory waters. Industry fully supported this because it was subject to different and, at times, overlapping sets of legal documents between Commonwealth and Territory waters. The Commonwealth has already passed legislation to enable the authority to undertake its regulatory activities in Commonwealth waters and to provide the safety authority with the ability to fully recover the cost of its operations through industry fees and levies.
With the Offshore Constitutional Settlement of 1967, the Commonwealth, states and Northern Territory agreed to, as far as practicable, administer the exploration and exploitation of petroleum resources with common principles and practices. This obligation requires the Territory to enact legislation to mirror the legislative changes made by the Commonwealth to enable the safety authority to carry out its occupational health and safety role in the Territory’s adjacent area waters. This will mean that certain Territory laws which currently regulate occupational health and safety matters on offshore facilities will be unapplied and a new Occupational Health and Safety Schedule inserted into the act.
Currently, occupational health and safety is covered by other Territory legislation. The new provisions in this schedule contain similar provisions to those that are currently in force in the Northern Territory. The new occupational health and safety schedule outlines the duties that have to be carried out by various people with responsibilities on an offshore facility, including the operator of the facility and employees or workers. It also extends to the manufacturers and suppliers of plant and substances to be used on the offshore facility to ensure that when properly used it is safe and without risk to the health and safety of the workers.
The occupational health and safety regime will be supported by the safety case approach outlined in the regulations of the act. Safety case approach requires the owner/operator of offshore facilities to provide for high standards of occupational health and safety procedures. The safety case approach is currently used in the offshore petroleum industry in Australia and other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Norway.
The proposed amendment will allow the Northern Territory to apply the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act Regulations to activities in the Territory adjacent area waters. The current Territory regime utilises an older outdated set of directions which are issued to titles holders. Those directions predate the new safety case regime currently adopted by the Commonwealth, other states and some overseas countries. By adopting these regulations, the Territory will be assured of maintaining the highest standards in offshore regulations, ensuring that companies exploring our waters come under the same requirement as well as in other jurisdictions.
The bill provides for the functions of the Safety Authority, which include the promotion of the occupational health and safety of persons on offshore petroleum facilities, and the development and implementation of monitoring and enforcement strategies to ensure compliance with occupational health and safety obligations. The Safety Authority is also able to investigate occupational health and safety incidents, and make reports and recommendations to the Territory and Commonwealth ministers on occupational health and safety matters. The Safety Authority is also empowered to cooperate with other Territory and Commonwealth agencies that may also have functions relating to offshore petroleum operations.
The bill gives the Territory minister the power to require the Safety Authority to prepare reports or give information in relation to the performance of the Safety Authority or in the exercise of its powers in Territory waters. The minister must also cause a review to be undertaken of the operations of the Safety Authority in Territory waters every three years, and a copy of the review report is to be tabled in parliament.
The bill also provides for a Safety Authority Board, which has the functions of giving advice and to make recommendations to the Chief Executive Officer of the Safety Authority, the state/territory and Commonwealth ministers and the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources. Advice may be given on policy or strategic matters relating to occupational health and safety issues on offshore facilities or the performance of the Safety Authority. The Safety Authority will commence operation on 1 January 2005.
I believe the provisions of this bill will benefit the petroleum industry by providing consistent occupational health and safety regulations on offshore facilities by a national Safety Authority that will be staffed by people with a unique mix of technical competence, judgment and skills. I am confident that the new Safety Authority will provide a high degree of confidence in the regulation of safety on offshore facilities, and the protection of the offshore work force.
In conclusion, it is important we act now to amend our legislation to mirror amended provisions in the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, allowing for a single, national offshore petroleum safety authority.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 26 August 2004.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I do have a few things to say about this bill, if that is all right with government, if they do not mind us on the floor of this parliament actually having some views in relation to legislation that government brings to this parliament. It being parliament, we would have thought, as indeed most other Australians think, that this is the appropriate place for us to raise objections, and to criticise, where appropriate, government legislation. I know that this is a government that does not like criticism in any shape or form, and will do whatever it can to deflect criticism. It is appropriate that I say that the CLP will not be deterred. All of us are paid well for this job and, collectively on this side of the Chamber, we will appropriately criticise legislation when it should be criticised. Members of the government should brace themselves because, exercising our right, we are going to say a few things in relation to this bill.
As we know, it seeks to change the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act yet again. Members who were paying attention – certainly we were on this side - will remember that, in August last year, we debated and passed a number of changes to this act - changes that were meant to address recommendations made by the task force into illicit drugs. Perhaps, at the time, the previous Minister for Health and Community Services oversaw a rush job because here we are again 12 months later overhauling the act again. What appears to have happened since the August 2003 sittings where we passed changes to this legislation is that, as a consequence of those changes, regulations had to be developed.
During the consultation and consideration given to the development of those regulations, it became apparent that the initial changes to the act created a number of problems. I will repeat that: during the consultation and consideration given to the development of those regulations, it became apparent that the initial changes to the act had created a number of problems. Those related particularly to the need to finalise the functioning of the clinical advisory committee, the need to better find the base level of regulatory control for Schedule 8 and restricted Schedule 4 substances, and the need to add substantial financial and gaol penalties to the act. That is what appears to have happened.
There was a lack of thinking through prior to last year’s work which was – well, some would say may have been caused by a pressure from the then minister to get a bill into parliament so that she could make a big fuss in the media and repeat the Labor mantra that they are tough on drugs. I note we have a crime statement before us and we can talk about what the government calls the drug problem in the Northern Territory later on today. Now we have a new minister, and he made it clear to the media during the last sittings that what they were going to do was ‘fix a few things up’. The new Minister for Health launched into the whole thing as though it was all new. Labor tried and succeeded, I believe, to get some more headlines on being tough on drugs. What the media, unfortunately, did not pick up on was the fact that it was all said and done last year. I will repeat that: it was all said and done last year.
Since the first try by the government to change this act with the amendments which government passed in August last year, it has sat on the shelf; the changes had not been enacted. So here we are again! - with an effort which has so far scored the minister a couple of radio interviews and an article in the Northern Territory News and, more importantly, further upset GPs who, again, get the message that by taking on the management of drug addicts they run the risk not only of fines but, now, imprisonment. If you think that this has gone down well, minister, in a certain valued but scarce section of our community, then we say to you: think again, it has not.
This raft of amendments to last year’s set of amendments does cover some housekeeping in relation to the advisory committee. They include things like dealing with issues such as quorums and the chair. The opposition supports those changes. They should have been appropriately brought before the House the first time round, but we see this trend emerging with government.
Another vast set of changes relate to the regulatory control of Schedule 8 and restricted Schedule 4 substances. I have a number of concerns in relation to that, for example, clause 20 relating to the display of a certificate of registration by an agency wholesaling poisons. The change being put forward is that a wholesaler or, for that matter, a retailer, has to be registered or licensed to store, supply or sell a poison. That is fair enough. However, if they are not registered or licensed, they cop a fine. The CLP is concerned that if they do not display their certificate they can be sent to gaol for up to two years. This is a government, of course, that has an aversion to sending people to gaol but they are not adverse to sending people to the clink if they are not registered or licensed. Inconsistencies and double standards abound.
As soon as we pass that, a person can be sent to gaol for not showing a certificate. This is a change brought in with this raft of amendments. We ask the minister why is the gaol sentence attached to the display of the certificate and not the failing to gain registration or licence prior to storing, supplying or selling a poison? Obviously, this matter will be discussed when we go to committee.
Madam Speaker, the member for Wanguri in his usual way is rabbiting on. It is very distracting. I would ask you to direct him to sit quietly.
Then follows a raft of changes, not just inserting penalties but financial and gaol terms to professionals like pharmacists, dentists and nurses, but also the dropping of whole sections such as section 28(4) of the principal act which relates to certain actions pertaining to the dispensing of Schedule 4 or 8 drugs. It begs the question: what has happened since all of this came in, in August? It smacks of incompetence somewhere. I will repeat that: it smacks of incompetence somewhere.
If I go to page 5 of the bill, which deals with section 29 of the act, there is change after change after change. Dare I use the expression but I will: dog’s breakfast is the expression that springs to mind. It does have the appearance that since the previous minister brought in this legislation consultation has occurred, major changes have been agreed to and someone, somewhere noticed that no penalties were in either. Then if we go to Part VA of the principal act there is barely a line that remains unaltered since August last year - page after page of it. This is an extraordinary set of changes to legislation. One has to ask what was the value of what was done last August.
I have now a copy of the current bill with the changes passed last year underlined. As I went through the amendments provided during the last sittings I found that I was crossing out time and time and time again amendments which had been passed last August. I say again, obviously, somewhere there has been a major problem and it smacks of incompetence.
It would be interesting if the minister could enlighten the House as to what really happened. Although, perhaps expecting him to be honest is aiming a bit high, but it would be good if he could explain to us and therefore Territorians what has happened since he took over. Here is hoping that in his reply or in the committee stage the matter will be sorted out.
In amongst the myriad of changes lurks one which has caused concern for prescribers. That is section 33 – Contents of prescription. There is the introduction of gaol penalties for medical practitioners if they do something wrong in relation to providing a script for Schedule 1, 4, 7 or 8 substances: the doctor can be gaoled for up to two years. The opposition believes that this new requirement is heavy handed. We do not support the gaoling of doctors as outlined in this act. Surely, all that needs to be done is that the Chief Health Officer, if there is a concern, simply withdraws the authorisation for a medical officer to be allowed to prescribe certain drugs. Alternatively, if some major breach occurs, then the medical registration board can, as most people know, revoke a doctor’s registration. The opposition believes that the threat of gaol is unnecessary particularly when government should be trying to find general practitioners who are prepared to provide a service to people addicted to drugs. I repeat: the CLP does not support the gaoling of doctors who have been trying to help addicts. It is difficult enough to get doctors to lend their assistance.
It is well recognised that many people who are addicted to drugs develop good skills at duping others in the community. These are people who learn how to tell lies, and tell them well, and experienced doctors know this. We can predict that a significant number of GPs will choose not to gain the necessary training and approval to be able to write scripts for maintenance pharmacotherapies because they know that they have to meet a lot of criteria when dealing with each case. You only have to study section 33 to gain an understanding of that, and if anything goes wrong, they are facing a big fine or, worse, gaol. We ask what happens if the patient gives the wrong name and has more than one doctor prescribing; does that doctor get in to trouble?
Much of what the doctor has to do will be based on the guidelines which, we understand, will eventually be published. We hope that the requirements will not be too onerous because according to section 33(1), a doctor could be fined or gaoled if these guidelines are breached. Here we are with a government which, to put it bluntly, stuffed up its attempt last year to get this right, not providing us or Territory doctors with a copy of the draft guidelines before we passed the legislation, and yet the guidelines are referred to in these amendments. If they are breached, the doctor can be sent to gaol for up to two years and this government apparently sits in the expectation that we will consent to that.
We do not and we will not. It is not just a view that we have collectively formed having regard to the aims of the bill and the contents of it. We have spoken to the right people in the right places, and it is generally not supported.
Today, caring doctors find themselves in a real quandary. They want to help their patients, but there is little help available for them. The government is keen for the Territory to be like all other Australian states and territories, and we see that everywhere, and in this instance it wants to be like everywhere else, hence drug maintenance programs.
In order to have this sort of thing, we need to provide our health practitioners with the same support services provided interstate. Our doctors do not have a fully functional, multi-disciplinary pain clinic to which to refer patients for assessment to see if they really do have pain or if they are addicts. Instead, we have a minimally staffed, minimally functioning pain clinic, where, as I understand it, if a doctor rings even during the week, they get an answering machine due to staff shortages.
In addition to this problem, the Alcohol and Drug Service, which is part of the minister’s Department of Health, is so short staffed that it takes up to five months, we are told, for an addict to be accepted into the program to receive drugs like methadone and buprenorphine. Once they are on the program, the pharmacy at that unit is only open from 10 am to noon, further hampering the scope of the program.
So we have a pain clinic and an alcohol and drug program that cannot cope with the demand and the staff are grossly overworked. When addicts cannot get help, they go back to their GP who, if they have jumped through the hoops and been authorised to deal with these patients, run the risk of making a mistake and finding themselves presumably de-registered, fined and possible in a prison cell.
Whilst speaking about poor resourcing in the much-heralded drugs area, I ask the minister to advise whether the problems with the Poisons Branch’s computer program have been addressed. Members will note that under this amended, amended legislation, doctors have to record details of their scripts and patients with this branch, which feeds information to the Chief Health Officer. We are advised that the IT program used by the Poisons Branch is not up to the task and it is almost impossible for a GP to ring the branch to find out promptly whether a patient is already logged onto the system and seeing another doctor - so much for setting up a system to deal with doctor shopping. It would be interesting to hear if the minister is satisfied with the Poisons Branch’s IT system. Is he, or is he not? If he is not, what is he going to do about it?
In conclusion, and before we get to the committee stage, the minister and his Labor mates go on and on about the Northern Territory having the highest rate in the country of prescriptions for MS Contin, an oral morphine product. What the minister deliberately fails to explain in his creative use of statistics is that, in other parts of Australia when MS Contin is prescribed in hospitals and other state services such as pain clinics and palliative care units, it is not notched up to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as it is here in the Territory. As we know, it is the PBS statistics which are used to illustrate the usage of MS Contin in the Territory, so, here we have all the hospital prescriptions in our statistics but interstate they do not. Hence, we get the large so-called blow-out which is constantly attributed to general practitioners in the Territory by this government. To that we say, shame on the minister and shame on the Chief Minister for sanctioning his actions in painting dedicated, valued general practitioners as criminals, all for a pathetic grab to get some media attention. For those who did not see it, I will quote an extract from the Northern Territory News, dated 29 August 2004, that speaks volumes:
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of these amendments to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Bill. This government is tough on drugs. Prior to the 2001 election, we promised Territorians that our three point plan in this regard would essentially address issues that had been overhanging from the previous government. The essence of these points was to:
I believe that our record on law enforcement in relation to illicit drugs is exemplary and speaks for itself, particularly in relation to reducing crime, especially property crime in our community. We have also moved to make life extremely tough for those involved in drug production and distribution through our Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, as well as provisions to declare drug houses, such as the infamous ‘Foils at Moil’.
Before describing the significant beneficial effects of our strategies, I will once again lay on the record the head-in-the-sand attitude of the previous government in not recognising the inextricable link between drugs and crime in the Northern Territory, particularly intravenous drug use. It was very interesting to hear the member for Araluen nitpick, and go around the sort of borders of everything, but she once again demonstrated that she is not prepared to talk about it. She once again demonstrated that there is an ideological objection on the other side to proper treatment and maintenance therapy for those who are unfortunate enough to be dependent on opiates.
Let us look at the link to crime. A study by the Australian Institute of Criminology published on 4 May 2000 stated:
Further, the Institute of Criminology also reported that in several jurisdictions where surveys were recently done, 86% of adult males detained on property offences tested positive to a drug of some type, excluding tobacco and alcohol. This evidence is in stark contrast to the opposition which, whilst in government, were in denial that there was a crime problem directly linked to drug use in the Northern Territory.
Here is an excerpt from an interview given by the then member for Katherine, the then police minister, Mr Mike Reed with Fred McCue on 17 January 2001:
He was talking about the link between drug use and property crime:
I have spoken before in this place about cannabis and crime in our northern suburbs. The notorious Foils at Moil is now shut under this government’s drug house legislation, much to the relief of long-suffering residents who had to endure the crime and disruption caused by this premises for countless years under the CLP which did nothing effective to close them down. Residents told me that Foils at Moil had been operating for seven or eight years! They continued to operate until there was a change of government.
Regarding drugs houses, it is pleasing to report that across the entire Northern Territory, two premises have been declared drug houses, whilst a further two have had a third notice served on them with the occupants vacating before the premises were actually declared drug houses. The results arising from the above premises have been 51 arrests, 21 summonses, and 51 summary infringement notices. We have been very active on this issue. In addition, as of 14 September 2004 under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act 2002, there have been 80 restraining orders granted on property, and property valued at $1.716m has been restrained. This is all property and proceeds of crimes mostly related to drugs. This is a government that is very active about it. This is something where the opposition really has a big weakness, and it is no wonder that the shadow minister for health just gleaned around or tried to varnish around this particular issue.
The amendments to the legislation that we are talking about today are about the second aspect of our Tough on Drugs strategy, namely: ‘to provide effective services for treatment and rehabilitation to reduce the amount of intravenous drug use in the community’.
It is a matter of history that the CLP, whether in government or in opposition, has had a major ideological problem with pharmacotherapy or drug treatment for those who are dependent on opiates such as morphine. The shadow minister for health demonstrated that today by dismissing the effectiveness of methadone maintenance and maintenance therapies. In government, they did not introduce these therapies, and they were particularly opposed to methadone maintenance therapy, as I believe they remain. However, to set the record straight, because I know people are going to play with it, they did have a methadone detoxification program which is entirely different from a maintenance program and quite less effective. Let us get our terminology right here; let us not start to twist the truth. When it comes down to it, they were opposed to methadone maintenance.
When this government came to office in 2001, Darwin in particular was awash with morphine illegally diverted from prescriptions, especially for MS Contin. Let us just look at it. These are figures derived from Health Insurance Commission data. You can see all the little ones here. In 1998 to 2003, you can see all the other states here - and this is on a per capita or per 10 000 populace. There is the Northern Territory there. Look at it! It is – oh - five times the national average. Do we have enough five times the incidence of cancer in the Northern Territory? Or the need for palliative prescriptions? I don’t think so, Madam Speaker. Do we have an older population in the Northern Territory which would require such medication? I don’t think so, Madam Speaker. What we have here is the previous government allowing this to continue. Previously in this House I have documented that my calculations based on what should be the use for the Northern Territory, shows that in those years upward of $10m per annum was probably diverted of this prescription morphine.
The cost to the taxpayer, and let’s be clear about this because this was all occurring under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, at its peak was somewhere between $500 000 to $750 000 per annum. The opposition when in government was saying, ‘We are not going to have the taxpayer paying for drugs to treat people on opiates’. The taxpayer was already paying to the tune of $500 000 to $750 000 a year through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That is the record, and the record also is that the Health Insurance Commission intervened late in the term of the former CLP government and it did have an effect on the prescribing patterns. Here is a graph. I have MS Contin in this orange/red colour and methadone 10 mg oral down the bottom here. Yes, there was a decrease from between 1999–2000 in the number of scripts. There was a decrease but it was not due to the previous government.
Mr Dunham: Yes, it was.
Dr BURNS: No, it was not. It was the Health Insurance Commission coming up here and saying that the prescription of drugs for the purposes of addiction is not allowed. They were the ones who had to come in and set the ground rules. It was not the previous government. However, you can see a continued fall since we came into government in the use of these drugs. There is a way to go and this is what these amendments are all about.
Madam Speaker, during that period many local doctors were in an untenable position because there was no methadone maintenance program and other pharmacotherapy such as buprenorphine.
Ms CARTER: Point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask if the minister could table that last graph that he has been showing?
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think he should table all of them.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister can table the graphs; he does not need to seek permission.
Dr BURNS: I am pleased to do it, Madam Speaker. They are all based on Health Insurance Commission figures. For the member for Macdonnell, when I first raised this issue, when I first came to this parliament, he was in disbelief until I showed him the figures, the table that I had on the Health Insurance Commission and I took him through my calculations. He has never rebutted it. That was three years ago. Those calculations might not be 150% accurate but my calculations are based on the use of these drugs elsewhere in Australia, extrapolating that that year should be at least equal in the Northern Territory and then the excess has to be morphine that has been diverted either for sale or for self use. It is as simple as that. It is not rocket surgery.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the resistance of the CLP can be readily seen from the following quote from the member for Port Darwin, then the shadow health minister, during the debate on illicit drug use in the Territory on the 25 February 2003. I quote from the member for Port Darwin. She said:
That is the position of the member for Port Darwin. I will cite some scientific evidence to rebut what the member for Port Darwin said. It is clear that, basically, the opposition has an ideological problem with methadone maintenance programs. Once again, they tried to say: ‘Well, the taxpayer is not going to pay for it’. Under them, the taxpayer was forking our $500 000 to $750 000 a year through the PBS for this excess morphine that found its way onto our streets.
Whilst not based on the research evidence, this opinion of the member for Port Darwin is comparatively mature when compared to the patronising and quite simplistic attitude of the member for Blain, the current Opposition Leader, who would lecture hopelessly opiate-dependent people like an old style school master to his pupils caught smoking cigarettes behind the shed. They were his words, ‘behind the shed’.
I quote from Hansard on 17 October 2002:
In contrast, this government has taken an evidence based approach. One of the most comprehensive and authoritive reviews on this topic is by Ward, Mattick and Hall, the editors, entitled Methadone Maintenance Treatment and Other Opioid Replacement Therapies published by Harwood Academic publishers in 1998. In this book, they have highlighted the findings of one of the few randomised control studies in this area. The randomised control study found that after two years, 70% of patients who had undergone methadone maintenance were no longer regularly using opiates or other drugs and were either employed or undertaking further education. They then point to the contrast:
There are the stark facts; a random control study, the benefits of methadone maintenance as opposed to the drug free, cold turkey treatment of the Leader of the Opposition.
Furthermore, a recent study in Sydney reported that the percentage engaging in property crime decreased from 35% to 9% after one year on the program.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Dr BURNS: That is the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, member for Drysdale. You can have your own little ideas; you have your ideology. I am interested in the science and results.
It is interesting to look back on what negative comments opposition members have made about the strategies this government implemented to reduce crime based on the nexus between drug use and crime. How wrong they were! For example, the member for Drysdale said on 25 February 2003:
Mr Dunham: Yes, there’s science for you! There’s some science!
Dr BURNS: Yes. We can demonstrate them. The member for Drysdale should note that recently published ABS recorded crime statistics for the Northern Territory, which are based on Northern Territory Police statistics that in relation …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you will have your chance.
Dr BURNS: Listen to this, member for Drysdale, it is in relation to the number of recorded victims of unlawful entry with intent involving property theft. These figures clearly show …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I will table this as well, Madam Speaker. This comes from their web site, and the figures clearly show that there has been a 37% decrease between 2001 and 2003 in these property offences. Based on advice from the Attorney-General, Northern Territory Quarterly Crime Statistics indicate there is likely to be a 47% drop in property crime between 2001 and 2004. So there we have it!
The member for Drysdale gave his opinion in 2003. The Attorney-General said, ‘Well, you are standing here saying it is going to be 50%; we are going to hold you to that’. Implicit in that, he was saying they do not believe it. Well, start believing, member for Drysdale: it is true. It is all about our strategies that I mentioned before, a raft of strategies addressing the issue of drug use in the Northern Territory, something that you never really effectively did in government, and that graph which has been circulated clearly shows that.
This is also why this government commissioned the Taskforce on Illicit Drugs in the Northern Territory, which finalised its report in May 2002 …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Dr BURNS: ... and we continue to act on a …
Mr Dunham: What did they say?
Dr BURNS: … number of recommendations to tighten up the control of prescription drugs, namely, firstly, that a mandatory notification or permit system be introduced in the Northern Territory …
Mr Dunham: We did that.
Dr BURNS: … for patient authorisation of prescribed …
Mr Dunham: Drugs shopping.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 51, the member for Drysdale is continually interrupting me. He is trying to disrupt what I have to say and I call a point of order on him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, we have put up with your interjections long enough today. Cease. You are on a warning, member for Drysdale. You are being too obstructive.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Secondly, that an up-to-date prescription monitoring system be established and, thirdly, that a panel be established to oversee policy and guidelines, deal with difficult patient issues, and audit practice in relation to the monitoring of Schedule 8 prescribing.
In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General and Minister for Health has already explained in detail why these further amendments to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act are required, and I do not propose to cover in detail all of these points. Suffice it to say that these amendments flow from detailed discussions with leading clinical experts, and they aim to strengthen the functions of the S8 and Restricted S4 Substances Clinical Advisory Committee.
This committee has a pivotal role in assisting the Chief Health Officer to set the guidelines for practitioners for prescription of S8 pharmacotherapies such as buprenorphine and methadone. It also advises the Chief Health Officer on a number of issues. These amendments provide a comprehensive but flexible framework to control the supply of S8s in particular, without impeding the clinical work of doctors and specialists and those patients receiving palliative care or other necessary drug therapies. The amendments cover all S8 drugs, but special requirements have been included to cover the prescription and supply of restricted S8s used in the treatment of drug dependence, such as methadone and buprenorphine, as well as other substances such as Ritalin and amphetamines.
The Clinical Advisory Committee is pivotal to this act, and it is worthwhile looking at the composition of that committee. There will be a pain specialist from each of Royal Darwin and Royal Adelaide Hospitals; there will be a public health specialist from the department’s Alcohol and Other Drugs program with pharmacotherapy experience. There will also be the President of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Medical Association, as well as a private medical practitioner and pharmacist with experience in pharmacotherapies. There will be two medical specialists from Alice Springs with public health and pharmacotherapy experience; the Chief Poisons Inspector, and another poisons inspector from the department, plus a health professional from the Department of Health and Community Services’ Alcohol and Other Drugs program with pharmacotherapy experience. Senior police may be invited to attend this committee, where appropriate, and they also have a vital role.
I have a long standing interest in this particular issue, as I have put on the record before. Many years ago, I was involved, through the AMA, with what was known as the S8 Committee. That was a committee trying to work through the issues and the debris, the rubble, that was around Darwin at the time through the policies of the previous government. I am very proud to have been involved with that committee, with people like Dr David Meadows. I commend the work of this Clinical Advisory Committee that is being set up. I believe it has a good composition and that they will do a fantastic job.
The guidelines will ensure that only those patients who are prescribed unusually high doses, or are on long-term treatment with these drugs, will come under the notification system, through their doctor, to the Clinical Advisory Committee. Those on palliative care are excluded, and there are very flexible rules that will operate within our hospitals. Generally, the guidelines will provide for these patients to receive prescriptions for two months’ supply of the drugs. That is unlike six months elsewhere in Australia. This is in acknowledgement that the Northern Territory has inherited high levels of use of these drugs and stricter controls are required at this stage.
In addition, provisions related to interstate prescriptions from doctors not registered in the Northern Territory for Schedule 8 drugs have also been tightened. The Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction that would accept such scripts.
These amendments do contain penalties for medical practitioners who wilfully and continually breach the act, particularly in relation to self-prescription and self-medication. I graduated from pharmacy over 35 years ago, and I have worked in both retail and hospital pharmacy. I would like to place on the public record that I have encountered very few doctors who would wilfully and continually breach such guidelines, or self-prescribe or self-administer these drugs. What we are talking about here is a very small minority of doctors. Unfortunately, they do exist and these penalties address that. There is certainly a spectrum that we are talking about here; not what the shadow health minister said: that if someone was to inadvertently breach the guidelines that somehow they would find themselves in a prison cell. That is not really the truth at all of the matter. I am one who believes there needs to be sanctions against the small minority who may wilfully and continually breach the guidelines and the law. This happens elsewhere in Australia, and it is already implicit in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Rightfully, there are also sanctions against pharmacists and other health professionals who might similarly breach the law in this regard. As I have said, as somebody who has been a pharmacist for many years, I accept that; there has to be sanctions. As a professional, I accept that; that is the way it should be. Those who breach the law wilfully and continually should suffer the consequences.
I believe that these guidelines and the operation of the Clinical Advisory Committee will be of great support for doctors working in this difficult area with patients who can also be very difficult. I believe that the amendments, the system and the framework that has been set up will actually provide great professional support for doctors. We know that doctors and pharmacists come under inordinate pressure from these people. As the member for Araluen said, these people get very cunning, they are very manipulative, and it is good to have those guidelines. It is good to have that scrutiny there, so that these people will realise that these tactics are not going to work because there is a lot of oversight in this particular framework.
For the record, picking up on something the member for Araluen said, there have been approximately 260 people on a program since maintenance pharmacotherapy commenced Territory-wide. She was talking about resources and what was happening. Already, 260 people have been on a program.
I also believe that these amendments will assist in reducing illicit opiate drug use in the Northern Territory. Apart from assisting those people who are drug-dependent to change their lives, not to mention support for their families and loved ones, I believe it will have a further beneficial effect in further reducing drug-related crime in the Northern Territory. I have already outlined the success that this government has had in reducing property crime in the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, I would like to quote from Major Brian Watters, who is Chair of the Australian National Council of Drugs, who said a couple of years ago:
Major Watters went on to say:
Major Watters also went on to applaud the introduction of Naltrexone and buprenorphine therapies, as well as support programs and how these steps - and I will quote from him:
Madam Speaker, I commend these amendments to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act to honourable members. After years of deliberate neglect by the previous government, it represents an effective means of dealing with this issue of treatment in our community and reducing illicit drug use, intravenous drug use and reducing related crime in our community, and also addressing the needs of those people who are unfortunately dependent on these substances.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, from time to time I come into this House and I really wish to hear people put arguments which are convincing, well thought out, well considered, and delivered in a reasonable fashion. On this occasion, the member for Johnston actually has put some halfway reasonable arguments in relation to the position he is trying to put. However, he does not have to yell all the time, especially when nobody is interjecting. It is just a little bit exhausting to listen to.
It is also worth noting that the member for Johnston talks about property crime. However, under the management of your government in Central Australia, there is about a 50% more chance you are going to get raped; or if you are a child, there is an increased chance of you getting interfered with according to the Police annual report; or sexually assaulted in a way which is not a rape - almost double the chance of that occurring under your government. So, just rolling out the statistics for political purposes without putting them into any sort of context is the sort of thing that drives hysteria, and it is the necessary style of the minister that is borderline hysterical. I mean, this really is not ‘rocket surgery’ to quote the minister.
I would like to point out a drug problem that we have in the Northern Territory. The minister said that 260 people are on some sort of program for drug use. It is curious, because I flipped through the Police annual report today and I direct members to page 142 of the police report and indeed, policing has improved on drug infringement notices. You will see that in 1998 through 1999 there was 356, which went up; 1999-2000 – 405; 2000-01 – 460; and then in the subsequent three years 440, 423, 491. Mmm. Drug abuse is a serious problem in our community. But on the page before that, on page 141, I would like to point out a couple of other statistics to the minister in relation to another drug. These are people who are taken into protective custody. I will concentrate on the totals for the Northern Territory. 15 995, 11 395, 13 779, 15 739, 16 450 and finally, last year, 19 457 people were taken into custody for being drunk.
I ask the minister, with all of his hysteria and bluster and everything else like that, what is the more serious drug problem in our community? The minister’s response is that drug problems are responsible for all these house break-ins and these sorts of things. I would argue that alcohol is probably a lot more responsible for many of our social ills.
Dr Toyne: That means you do nothing about opiates?
Mr ELFERINK: However, and I pick up on the point from the minister, we should still do something about these sorts of drugs in the community. I have no issue with that, but I think that we have to take some sort of proportion in relation to this. As Val Asche in her report to the government points out, the situation is exactly the same, but what we have is a government which is, through deceit, inclined to generate hysteria surrounding this particular issue. The hysteria they have relied upon is the misquoting of the member for Brennan saying that drug problems are ‘miniscule’ and such things. Well, we still have to be looking at alcohol and things like the Living with Alcohol Program as a result of social controls.
I am just concerned that this central plank to the control of drugs in our community that the government has brought forward has been now sitting on the Notice Paper since last year, as I understand it.
Ms Carter: It was dealt with last year and disappeared, and it has come back on.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, that’s right. I apologise. It came on, was dealt with, disappeared, and came back on recently. Now, why would it do that? There must be problems with it, and that is one of the things that we are here to correct. I am curious to hear from the minister whether it was his muck up that brings these amendments to the House, or whether it was the muck up of the parliamentary draftsmen. That is a curious question. It is a matter of great concern to this government and the muck up either sits on his door step or on the door step of the draftsmen. I would like to know from the minister who is incompetent: him, the previous minister or the parliamentary draftsman? This is the game that the government tried to play yesterday. Now they have to answer this question. I wonder whether they have the courage to answer the question.
The business of putting doctors into gaol for this offence leaves me curious about the nature of the offence. I cannot quite see how it is going to operate but, on the face of it, it looks like it has a regulatory nature. I am slightly concerned that we may be removing the ability for certain defences to be relied upon by enabling the operation of section 26 of the Criminal Code to remove the excuse and justification provisions which would be available to any other defendant other than circumstances of regulatory offences. I would like to hear from the minister whether those defences are available.
Having said that, I urge the member for Johnston that if he is going to argue some of these things, by all means argue them and place the case; he really does not have to yell when no one is interjecting.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, only recently have I relinquished the position of shadow Health minister and picked up Environment and Family and Community Services. However, when I was responsible for Health, I was provided with a briefing on this bill and I am grateful to the minister and his staff for that.
I went away and contemplated the issues in more detail. What sprung out so obviously was the appalling shambles that has occurred since last August with regards to the legislation we passed in this House last August and what was presented last month as a new raft of amendments by the minister. It is extraordinary to compare the documents involved, especially as change after change, countless changes, are going to go through today.
Since we dealt with the first set of amendments last August, this bill has sat on the shelf somewhere and has obviously been reviewed. Someone has realised that they have left out some significant things and that they need to change page after page of the bill. The minister really owes it to this House to explain to us why this has happened and what went wrong. It is an extraordinary number of changes having to be made in a very short period.
A plus for the minister of course is that it has been another opportunity for him on behalf of his government to have a go with regards to being tough on drugs. At the time this bill was presented, the amendments last month, the minister has had a bit of press on it.
The other opportunity that has been afforded by this shambles has been that the member for Johnston has been able to leap to his feet and once again regale us with his stories about Foils at Moil and issues regarding MS Contin. Members need to be aware that Northern Territory statistics in relation to MS Contin are skewed because of the fact in the Northern Territory, MS Contin, which is prescribed within the government’s health system, for example in hospitals, palliative care and the pain clinic, goes into the recording of overall MS Contin use. I am advised that this is an anomaly. In other states, that is not the case. Hospital and government use of a drug like MS Contin is not included. This is one of the reasons why we see the substantial spiking of the use of MS Contin.
It is why, during the member for Johnston’s contribution to this debate, I interjected on a number of occasions, asking him whether the current level of MS Contin use in the Northern Territory, as illustrated in a graph that he has tabled, whether that current usage in the Northern Territory also includes the hospitals, for example, and how it compares to our interstate usage in Australia. My expectation, given the information that I have been told, is that it will still be high, and one of the significant reasons will be because we also include, within the count for the Northern Territory, agencies like hospitals, palliative care and the pain clinic. We cannot compare apples with oranges, is my expectation, from this graph that he has produced. It would be very interesting if the government, somehow, could actually do a breakdown of the statistics which would demonstrate exactly what goes on in the Northern Territory now, and how that compares to interstate.
It was interesting that the minister, when he realised that he was on a bit of rubbery ground there, couched his terms by making the comment that he may not be 150% accurate here. That was an interesting rider that he had on his comments.
The previous minister for Health, the member Nightcliff, when she introduced this bill on 29 May last year, made the comment: ‘This government has no time for illicit drug dealers and manufacturers who profit from the misery of young people and others’. Well, shame on whoever got this so badly wrong. You said then that you had no time, and yet here we are, nearly 18 months later, still mucking around with this bill because of the incompetence of somebody. She then concluded with: ‘This bill is an important and long overdue step towards implementing an effective control system’. ‘Long overdue’. Well, I am telling you, it sure is long overdue with regards to the process of getting this legislation through the House.
Something has gone dramatically wrong. It is an appalling situation to have to come back here, so shortly after significant changes were made last year, to learn that nothing has happened in the interim. The legislation sat on the shelf. It has not been enacted. It has not been ticked off by the Administrator, and we are still wondering what on earth has gone wrong.
The sad aspect of the changes that come in today, and one that I am particularly concerned about, is that general practitioners now can be sent to gaol if they breach aspects of this legislation. I believe that is a gross over-reaction from this government. Regardless of what happens interstate, we do not have to do everything the same here in the Northern Territory as goes on interstate. We are facing a significant crises with the provision of GP services in the Northern Territory, and that comment is borne out by the front page of the paper a couple of weeks ago. We do not have, by a long shot, enough GPs in the Northern Territory to service Territorians. Sure, if the government wants to develop and implement pharmacotherapies for maintenance for drug addicts, then okay, do it. But you must have the services on the ground to be able to implement that strategy, and they are not there. That starts with the provision of general practitioners.
My concern, which I raised last August when we tried to pass these amendments the first time around, was that if we put too many hoops in front of GPs with regards to gaining accreditation to be able to prescribe pharmacotherapies, they are just going to say, ‘It is too hard anyway. I am not going to bother doing it’. Now, a year later, we come out with: ‘By the way, when you take the time to jump through the hoops, if you get anything wrong - and we are not going to tell you exactly what that might be yet because we have not described the guidelines yet - you had better look out, because we are going to pop you in gaol because we are tough on drugs, and we are tough on crime. We are going to get you’.
I have a major problem with this. It is my personal view that GPs in the Northern Territory should be encouraged to do the right thing and should be counselled through any issues. We already have the sanction, for example, that the Chief Health Officer could withdraw the permission for a GP to prescribe these drugs as maintenance pharmacotherapies as the first step. The second step - which is always there - is that a GP can be deregistered by the Medical Board. Hello! There is a serious sanction for anybody who is working as a medical officer. I am sure no medical officer would ever lightly look at the fact that their registration can be withdrawn.
To do this tough on drug things to the point of threatening GPs is way over the top. For the member for Johnston to come in here and wax lyrical this morning with regards to his marvellous relationship in the past with Dr David Meadows, who is currently the President of the AMA in the Northern Territory, he would want to think again about his relationship. I can assure you that the AMA - and Dr Meadows in particular who has spoken publicly on this matter - is less than impressed with the threat to send general practitioners to gaol.
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I heard many comments made over the last few hours about this. I noticed the former Minister of Health, who introduced this legislation some 15 months ago, has been silent. You will recall at that time, she said:
‘Important’ and ‘long overdue’. When it was passed, it was never progressed further for the Administrator’s assent. You have to ask why that was so. If it was urgent, so valuable, so good, why was it not assented to? For the last 15 months they did very little with it, except produce a whole raft of changes, so much so that when you look at it, you think: ‘It does not look like the original bill passed in August of last year’.
Both sides of the House agree that we need to be tough on people who abuse the medical system, who abuse opiates through the legal system of obtaining drugs from medical practitioners, and we should do everything we can to ensure that we put processes in place that will deter dysfunctional medical practitioners from providing prescriptions without due consideration, and to deter patients, or opiate dependents who pose as patients, to obtain supplies through well-meaning general practitioners. That is the critical difference.
I was a general practitioner in my former life and never a week would pass when you would not be confronted by a patient who approached you in a very convincing manner and claimed they needed a supply of one opiate or another. If you are an experienced GP, your warning bells would ring and you would know that sometimes these requests were not genuine. When I was in practice, what I used to do was have the patient sit with me in my office whilst I proceeded to ring the patient’s designated previous medical practitioner who had prescribed his previous supply of medication. Usually, when you put that patient through that pressure, if the patient was not genuine, they would tend to disappear from your practice. However, there are other patients who are in genuine pain. In fact, if you are a narcotic addict when you go through withdrawal you actually suffer pain, so these patients are not telling any lies, when they say, ‘I am in pain. I need some medication’.
This amendment bill has introduced a whole raft of punitive measures and sanctions against well-meaning general practitioners, pharmacists, nurses and like professionals who are trying to do their best to ensure that their patients get the best care they possibly can. This is where I believe the minister has gone wrong.
In discussing all these amendments, I need to also point out that, at the end of the day, it is the minister who has to take responsibility for the botch-up in the drafting of the legislation. As other members have described before, it is a dog’s breakfast. When you look at all the amendments in there, the piece of paper that you hold up that is called a bill looks like a dog’s breakfast, without doubt. Was it the minister who noticed that there was something wrong with the bill that was passed in August last year? Or was it a public servant who saw that something was wrong and it had to be rewritten? At the end of the day, it is the minister who says, yes, I like this bill and I will take it to parliament. I will seek my colleagues’ support and get it passed in parliament. The responsibility lies with the minister, whether it was the biggest stuff-up by a public servant or not is irrelevant. It is still the minister who takes the responsibility.
Let me go through the sections one at a time, and I might raise it again during committee stage. The minister in his second reading speech raised the issue of the quorum: ‘The current provisions for the committee allow for a quorum of three members. This is insufficient for a membership of 11 people’. I agree entirely. Under normal circumstances, if you use Joske’s book on committees, you would see that the standard rule is that you have half of the membership as a quorum. The minister is now proposing the chair plus one-third of the appointed members be a quorum. Now, one-third of 11, as far as I can read, is four, and four plus a chair is five, which is still less than 11, the full membership. So the minister might want to consider that if you want to make a quorum then do it properly rather than making any special provisions.
In the past, medical practitioners were allowed to write prescriptions for any Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs. That has never been a problem, except for drugs like methadone if it was going to be used on a long-term basis. What the minister wants to do now with this bill is say that a medical officer must obtain permission, or authorisation, from the Chief Health Officer before being able to use medication such as buprenorphine or methadone for more than a set number of patients and for a set length of time. These instructions for medical practitioners to follow, as far as I can understand, are supposed to be guidelines.
In the briefing yesterday I raised the question of how you define a guideline. The way I read it, as a doctor, if I get a guideline, I say, well, that is a guideline; I will follow it if I can. If I cannot, well I cannot. There are circumstances that will push me outside those guidelines. However, if you breach those guidelines, according to the bill, there will be sanctions by the government. That is where there is a conflict of messages. If you want to have sanctions, then you should set up regulations that doctors and health professionals can follow. If you use it just as the guideline, then, surely, a guideline is just that.
When it comes down to ministerial control of these guidelines, it is interesting to read what the previous Health minister had to say. She said:
Is that the right case, or is it not? If you are talking about non-ministerial intervention then, why, in this current bill that you are introducing today, does the minister say: ‘The minister currently issues these guidelines and it is proposed that they remain at ministerial level’? There is, indeed, ministerial intervention in one way or another; whether the minister takes advice from the Chief Health Officer or from his committee of professionals it is, at the end of the day, his ultimate decision. If you want to remove it entirely, then take it away completely and leave it with the professionals and have no ministerial intervention.
Patients will always doctor shop, and there is nothing you can do about that - whether it be for narcotics or even just to get the right worker’s compensation cover, worker’s compensation certificate, or just to have second, third and fourth opinions on a particular medical issue. Patients will doctor shop, and patients who are dependent on narcotics will definitely do that. Not only will they doctor shop, they will actually obtain prescriptions from as many doctors as they possibly can. A system is set up that will prevent that where there are early warnings provided to general practitioners.
In the days when I was in full-time practice, the doctors’ surgeries shared information without going into too much detail. At least patients were identified and we all became aware when somebody in the town was going from practice to practice looking for prescriptions. At those times, not only were you concerned about writing prescriptions for them, more often than not, if you were to leave the room even for a few minutes, prescription pads could be stolen from your desk. Fortunately, this never happened to me in my time in practice but, then again, I had a high index of suspicion when somebody walked in requesting narcotic prescriptions.
What I found most difficult about the bill today was the raft of amendments all imposing punitive sanctions against doctors. Let me just go to the bill. There was an issue in section 20 of the principle act, with the amendment that a penalty for somebody who has not hung up or displayed a certificate of authorisation will be fined 20 penalty units or imprisonment for two years and, if the offender is a body corporate, 100 penalty units. That applies in section 25 also. If somebody were to breach a serious regulation or serious legislation, two years imprisonment is justified. However, to forget to hang up a certificate, putting somebody in the clink for two years is really excessive. What are you trying to prove?
Mr Henderson: It is not mandatory sentencing.
Dr LIM: What are you trying to prove? Just because he forgot to hang up his certificate …
Mr Henderson: It is not mandatory sentencing!
Dr LIM: It is not mandatory sentencing, but you are going to be mandatory sentencing general practitioners who write prescriptions - that is what you are doing. This bill says that. A doctor in practice …
Mr Henderson: No we are not! It is the maximum! Wilful or repeated - the maximum.
Dr LIM: The member for Wanguri keeps rattling on, like the empty vessel that he is.
A doctor in practice has to be registered with the Medical Board, number one. He has his professional college association, or diploma, that he also values very highly, and he faces his peers. There are quite a few sanctions there already. In this legislation, if the GP does something wrong, potentially he is up for up to two years imprisonment. The Medical Board, or the Chief Health Officer, or whoever the person may be, might be a very forgiving or understanding person, and would assess the circumstances on an issue-by-issue basis. But you could get a very draconian Chief Health Officer who could say, ‘You have breached the rules – bang you are in’. How are you going to say that one GP would not be unduly, or harshly, dealt with? You have to depend on the goodwill of the Chief Health Officer. That is not on. You cannot allow that.
Apart from that, if a GP was to commit a professional misdemeanour, then he already has the potential of losing his medical registration. That is one sanction. Then he gets 20 penalty units, or imprisonment for two years. It is double jeopardy. Another speaker earlier said the HIC will also have some sanctions. Triple jeopardy. For one simple act of error, and sometimes an error of judgment more than anything else, a person gets hit with three levels of sanction. Nobody else in society gets that. Even a murderer only gets one sanction, not two or three. Why are we going down this path?
The minister says that from now on there must be mandatory notification for Schedule 8 substances. I trust he means only some, not all of them. There are many Schedule 8 drugs that are commonly used, not only for pain but for other indications. I have not read through the whole schedule of drugs that are included in the Schedule 8 substances that will be required to be notified, but obviously there is a mandate that has been required by this bill. For the member for Wanguri to interject and say, ‘mandatory sentencing’, well, there are many mandatory things that we all do in this life, and this is obviously another one that this Martin Labor government wants to introduce.
I support the legislation’s attempt to prevent self-prescription. That is a good move. It has always been a concern of mine that doctors write prescriptions for themselves. I write prescriptions for myself; I wrote one for blood pressure tablets, and I do not think that is any issue. However, I recall in my early days as a general practitioner I joined a GP in a country town. I subsequently discovered that he self-prescribed a number of narcotics for his own pain relief, so much so that he became an addict and got himself in all sorts of difficulties regarding his own treatment, plus the dealings that he had then with the Health Commission and the Medical Registration Board. I recall that at that time I was approached by both the Health Commission and the Medical Registration Board to supervise and counter-sign this very senior general practitioner. At that time I was in my late 20s or early 30s, and this was a 50 year old GP of great experience and reputation, and I was being told to counter-sign every prescription for S8 drugs that he wrote. It was not a pleasant exercise or experience as far as I was concerned. It did not produce very cordial relationships with a GP that I had joined to be an assistant. It all panned out at the end of 12 months with us parting ways in quite a sad manner.
The minister needs to be concerned about not hampering medical practice. That is the important thing. The Chief Health Officer’s briefing to me said that what they are trying to do is to empower GPs to be able to say to patients: ‘No, I can’t give it to you. I have health authorities breathing down my neck and I have to be very careful,’ and that helps to a large degree. However, it is also time that general practitioners stand on their feet and say no to their patients. There are times when you have to say no to your patients. I told the Chief Health Officer yesterday that when I was in practice, I used to have a sign above my chair stuck on the wall where the patients could easily see it when they talked to me. The sign said: ‘Don’t ask me and I won’t have to say no’. That sends a message fairly quickly to the patient and you go from there. Some might see me as unsympathetic, but it used to sort out the wheat from the chaff very quickly.
I know that the AMA in the Northern Territory is not interested in seeing these punitive measures in the legislation. That is not a good thing to do. I asked a question yesterday, but it could not be answered: was it a deliberate act of the person who drafted the legislation or the person who gave instructions to leave those punitive measures out in the first place in August last year, or was it an oversight?
This bill indicates that it was an oversight. That is why they have been added in since then. It is just as likely to have been a deliberate act of the person drafting it who decided that we do not need these punitive measures because there are already enough sanctions against GPs who write S8 prescriptions inappropriately. If that is the case, let’s think about it a bit more. Maybe we should not have introduced all these amendments, which really introduce penalties for what this government thinks are actions that doctors should not take. The AMA, as I said, does not support this. I can assure you that most GPs will not support it. Maybe there was a legitimate reason why they were left out in August last year. Now, as a knee-jerk reaction, there has been a push to add these amendments when the reality is that there is no need for it.
What is more important is for this government to provide adequate training. I note there is some money being set aside to train GPs. The training should not only be provided to GPs who are prepared to be part of a support group for people who require narcotic maintenance; it should be provided to all GPs to teach them about patient awareness, patient recognition and how they can deal with the patients. Some may choose to then write prescriptions; others might choose not to write prescriptions after that. At least give them the skills to handle these patients who often can become violent and disruptive in the medical practice. If you do that, you will make life a lot easier for all GPs concerned and they, in turn, will help the Health Department in preventing abuse of S8 drugs in the Territory.
When the member for Johnston raved about the use of MS Contin in the Territory, he used selective statistics. There is no point trying to argue against a zealot. He thinks he is an intellectual snob. There are reasons why MS Contin was prescribed, and when you have hospital specialists also providing prescriptions on the PBS, obviously, the MS Contin figures are going to be pushed up.
With regard to methadone, and the value of methadone in the maintenance of narcotic dependent people, I did a fairly detailed study into methadone in 1995. I reported on that study in great detail. It is all in Hansard. I can say to the member for Johnston that there are many studies that I could quote that do not support methadone maintenance as a program. There are, in fact, many studies that he can quote that will say that methadone should be used as a short-term withdrawal program and not maintenance. For as many studies as he can use in his academic way, I can also produce the same sort of literature, and where does it get us? Nowhere. Yes, that side of the House has a different perspective of the use of narcotics than we have, and so be it. However, to say that he is right and we are wrong is absolutely ludicrous.
I do not believe there is a right or wrong to this. There are people who are dependent personalities, whether that is through narcotics, or alcohol, or nicotine. No matter what you do, until they are prepared to give up those drugs of dependence, they will keep on doing it. You can give them as much substitute as you like, whether it be nicotine substitutes, or whatever, they will still use it until they are, in their minds, ready to give up. Until they do that, nothing is going to change. You can quote Alex Wodak as much as you like. Alex Wodak has a very seductive argument about putting people on methadone maintenance programs, and I believe he is wrong. I have had long chats with Alex Wodak in past years. He has a practical view. If the government chooses to believe that, then so be it, that is your choice. You are in government now, so do what you have to do.
In terms of this legislation, you have the numbers, do what you have to do, but I believe there is much in there that is wrong. Just proceed very cautiously. If it was as important as you say it is, and you try to tell Territorians it is very important, why has it taken you so long to bring these amendments to this House? It should have been done back in September/October last year, not 12 months later.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I was not going to contribute to the debate on these amendments this afternoon, however I will, and I will try to be relatively short following the member for Greatorex. I wholeheartedly support these amendments because they do very much go to the commitment we gave to the people of the Northern Territory in the lead-up to the last election to crack down on drug-related crime in the Northern Territory. We had a three point plan go to that objective. One was on law enforcement, one was on health, to better work with people who suffered from opiate and narcotic addiction, and one was to improve education for our young people to try to give them the ammunition and the strength to say no when they are under peer group pressure to start experimenting with drugs.
These amendments today go to the health equations. Again, I am still astounded, three years on from the last election, that the policy position from the CLP opposition is still the same as when they were in government. I would have thought that it was an opportunity as well, in opposition, to review their policy in this area and get on board the train of substance and evidence that shows that our doctors – GPs and medical practitioners - should be allowed to practice medicine and to administer and dispense pharmacotherapies that have a proven effect in minimising the trauma for individuals who are addicted to these substances, that are approved by the PBS. For the CLP in opposition to still say that they know best; that after all the evidence, somehow, the political wing of the Country Liberal Party knows better than the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and the people who allocate and approve of those drugs to be available in Australia, is really quite extraordinary.
The member for Greatorex said a fundamental principle is that a doctor should be able to practice medicine …
Mr Dunham: Without worrying about the law.
Mr HENDERSON: Even if you take the issue of worrying about the law, the legal position that the CLP had was that methadone as a maintenance prescription in the Northern Territory was not allowed and was prohibited was directly impacting and denying a medical practitioner to use their best judgment as a medical practitioner to a treatment regime.
They made it illegal. In fact, they made it so illegal they had a public policy – and I still do not know if it is still the policy of the CLP - that ‘We do not have drug addicts in the Northern Territory; we are going to give them a one-way bus ticket south’. It is extraordinary that they have not reviewed that position from opposition. I am no expert; my colleague the member for Johnston gave me a lot of assistance in opposition when I was shadow health minister running this story of researching the science …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: And very much so! I will say that there are very clear links. Now we have a police force that can actually talk about the links between drugs and property crime, as opposed to being gagged and muzzled by the previous government where they were not allowed to ever speak about these issues ...
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is making the assumption that the police are unfettered in their public comment whereas, previously, they had been. I suggest that police still have difficulty in speaking about public matters such as this.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not think there is a point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: The sensitivity of the member for Drysdale - the sensitivity! As police minister, I talk to members of the Drug Squad on a regular basis, and other police officers in the Territory. They were not allowed to talk about these issues. They all knew how important it was to work to eliminate the rampant trade in drugs in the Northern Territory. They worked as hard as they could, but were not allowed to talk about it because, somehow there was this mantra that there were no links, or minuscule links, between the misuse of drugs in the community and property crime.
The issue in regards to methadone maintenance and the line that the member for Greatorex knows better than everybody else, and he has made up his mind that there is no public benefit to having a methadone maintenance regime – well, I can talk from experience. I am not going to go at what level within my family, but within my own family - all of us here, if we do not have family members who have had problems with illicit substances, we certainly have friends, or know of people. However, I have somebody in my family who still has problems and is on methadone maintenance. The fact is that this particular family member is not out there committing crime; their life has stabilised. Yes, they do want to get off and they have not found the internal fortitude to make that their call yet. However, this particular person is slowly getting their life back together; they are out of the gutter. They are no longer committing crime in the community, and the nett benefit to this person in my family, and to the broader community, is much better as a result of them being able to access a methadone maintenance program.
There are 260 people - I believe the figure was given by the Health Minister today - in the Northern Territory who are in that same position where they do not have to commit crime and to either prostitute themselves or steal from their families to feed an addiction as a result of having access to this program. So for the member for Greatorex to come in here and say he knows best, he has had a look at it and just say no, it is as simple as that; belies any evidence of what is actually happening out there in the real world as opposed to whatever planet the member for Greatorex happens to be on any day of the week.
The issue about punitive sanctions in the act and heaven forbid, a doctor forgets to put their practising certificate up on the wall; they are going to be marched off by the Chief Health Officer and thrown in gaol for two years is absolutely ridiculous! Absolutely ridiculous! The penalties in the act I am advised, and I am sure my colleague, the Health minister, will speak in wrapping up, are consistent with the norms this type of legislation across Australia. The AMA is not happy with this in the Northern Territory, but I do not see them mounting a national campaign to see these types of penalties struck out of other legislation around Australia. Probably 99.9% of doctors obviously do the right thing. Unfortunately, there are some who do the wrong thing.
In the Territory over the last few years, we have seen a number of doctors lose their practising certificate as a result of in part - and you know a picture paints a thousand words, Madam Speaker, this graph here tabled by my colleague, the member for Johnston from the Health Insurance Commission, again, this level of over prescribing of Schedule 8 drugs in the Northern Territory is way out of kilter with the other states. There has still never been an adequate explanation from members opposite as to how and why that did happen in the Northern Territory. As my colleague, the member for Johnston, said, as a young population, we just do not have the profile of sickness in our community that would legitimately justify that level of prescribing in the Northern Territory.
The only way those drugs could be prescribed is by medical practitioners. There was a regime in place in the Northern Territory at the time that would not allow pharmacotherapies such as methadone to be prescribed. I still assert that the previous government condoned this level of prescribing in the Northern Territory to the detriment of our community. It was only after the Health Insurance Commission stepped in that we saw those rates go down.
The penalties are consistent with similar legislation across Australia. It is not an issue of double jeopardy. The right to prescribe Schedule 8 drugs is hard-earned, is a very serious responsibility on any medical practitioner who has the rights to prescribe Schedule 8 drugs. In the event that somebody abuses that right wilfully, consistently and flagrantly, and if that is a consistent pattern of behaviour, then I believe that that penalty is justified. It will be up to the courts to determine the degree of sentence. And 99.9% of our doctors in the Northern Territory have absolutely nothing to worry about. If there is anybody out there who is wilfully, and blatantly, and knowingly, over-prescribing and prescribing to the extent that we have seen - these drugs got out there somehow - then these sanctions are consistent with the legislative regime that across Australia. I stand to be corrected by the AMA but I have not seen them run a campaign anywhere else to have these sanctions struck out of legislation.
I firmly support these amendments. We as a government will continue to work at every level to reduce the level of illegal substance abuse in our community. We are not naive enough to say that we will eliminate it at all, but the fight continues. One person in our community addicted to drugs is one too many. The pain, not only for themselves but their families, the grief and the impact on the broader community is too much. I do not think that this should be a political battlefield. I urge the opposition to look at their policy in the lead-up to the next election and go on the side of evidence-based medicine as opposed to cheap politics.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, we continue to revisit the accusation that we had a really bad drugs program when we were in government and that the ALP is enlightened and in tune with society so much that they now have a great drugs program which is tough on drugs. So ours, which was prohibitive of certain types of drugs, was a soft one and Labor’s is a tough one.
This debate defies logic. The Northern Territory did not have a methadone maintenance program under the CLP. The Northern Territory did have some guidelines for dispensing methadone. I have them here - and they have been discussed on many occasions in the past - 12 November 1996; they are in government now, they can dig it out of the files – there were limited circumstances under which methadone could be provided. Why did the then government have this point of view? It was because it did not believe it was an effective treatment option. There are many people out there who wrote books saying it was the best thing that they had ever seen, that the treatment of addicts through methadone maintenance was a wonderful treatment protocol. It is also true that if you looked at the many authors of those books, they actually derived their income from the dispensing of methadone. It was a skewed debate in some circuits.
I was in a fortunate position of being able to go to some methadone maintenance programs in other states, including New South Wales, Western Australia, the prison system in New South Wales, which had very high levels of dispensing methadone to inmates. It was put to me that there is this absolute link because you can show that if a drug addict has to go out and support a $400 week habit, they break and enter. Then you put them on a habit that costs the taxpayer mere dollars, they desist from their criminal activity and you then have all these thousand people who did not wake up to find their houses broken into that the minister was trying to tell us about statistically this morning. What he was trying to say was that illicit activity has ceased, therefore that level of crime has gone down.
That is not a bad argument in a purely statistical sense except that if you go to the jurisdiction in the world with the highest level of methadone dispensing, which is New South Wales, that nexus was not as evident as some of these social scientists would have us believe. It is an incredibly difficult drug to detox from. That is because it has the advantage of having a long half-life, which means that you can take it once a day and sustain your high, but it takes a long time to detox from. I have talked to people who have been withdrawing from opiates and methadone. Most of them will tell you that methadone is a shocking thing to withdraw from.
It depends on what your end point is. If your end point is: let’s move towards having as few people addicted to illicit substances as possible, let’s make sure that the primary option continues to be detox with the eventual aim of abstinence. That is our policy, and it is not such a bad policy when you think about it. Okay, we can stand here and make up laws about all sorts of social policies, like there will be no prostitution. We know that of course there will be. We can say there will be no people who engage in all sorts of illicit and nefarious activity; we know that will continue to take place. We know people will continue to use and abuse substances, licit and illicit.
Our policy was a pretty good one. How do I know that? Because every year, there was an independent group that assessed the policies of governments in Australia. They had a report called Governments, Drugs and Money. Every year, if we did not come first, we came second in every ranking. While it is very easy to misquote the member for Brennan about illicit drugs being minuscule, one should go back and read the entire quote because it is roughly similar to what Dr Val Asche said in her report to this parliament. She said in her report that these are not issues of great significance compared to other problematic drugs. For instance, if we are going to start wading through stacks, what did the Australian Institute of Criminology say? These are pretty aged figures, unfortunately, on Australian alcohol and illicit drugs. Australia, 1988-96, and I apologise for the aged collection, but I do not have the resources that government has. They have done a number of things to look at the impact of illicit drugs, for instance, the drug/crime link. That is something we have been talking about here. Alcohol intoxication – 80%; hmm. Drug intoxication – 14%. Drug withdrawal – 7%. Money to buy drugs – 5.5%. Money to buy alcohol – 2.7%. Drug possession – 0.7%. Other – 4.8%. So grog is still the big issue.
When this government was in power, we looked at our Living with Alcohol program, which was world-first and world-recognised. We knew that the biggest drugs causing problems in the health system, in the corrections system, in the law and order system, through domestic violence, through community disquiet, was alcohol – right at the top. We knew that after that we had problems with kava. We knew we had problems with inhalant substance abuse. We knew we had an emerging problem with cannabis. Opiates, we knew were a problem. Steroids, another recreational drug we knew to be a problem.
However, this government came to power on this whole idea that they had a – I do not know how many points it was, 2, 4, 7 - point program that they had this great intellectual capacity to look at rendering drug addicts a more pliant and crime-conscious group of people by feeding them methadone. I do not think that is right. This morning, the minister used some statistics and said, ‘We can show the link, because here is what is happening with property crime, and here is what is happening with charges’. What he has to show us, and he read a quote of mine this morning, I am going to give him another one he can read: ‘If their programs relating to illicit drug abuse are working, the prisons should have 50% less people’, because the argument was always about the prisons having these people there who were the criminals. We have stopped this connection between property crime and drugs - okay, I will give you that. ABS will even give you that. The Institute of Criminology will give you that. How many people out at Berrimah are there because of drug-related offences? I do not want to use the word ‘miniscule’ because it often gets misquoted, but I think you will find it is not many compared to other drugs.
There is a whole sorry story of the government trying to spin this thing, but they are not doing it well, because we were independently audited and assessed as having the best drugs programs in Australia, either ranked one or two, year after year. I will concede that where we were marked down was in the area of tobacco. I will concede that the government has done good things here, and I will concede that they are overdue, so there is an admission. In the area of tobacco, that terrible, terrible drug, I will concede that we probably should have done more, harder and quicker.
However, when you start talking about these illicit drugs, you should be pretty careful. First, even though there was MS Contin being converted into the illicit stream, as alleged by the good doctor from Johnston …
Mr Stirling: By the truckload!
Mr DUNHAM: By the truckload, by the good doctor from Johnston, there are a couple of points. The first is, please do not be so precious about the feelings …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is referring to the member for Johnston, and it is the member for Johnston, it is not the good doctor from Johnston, Madam Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM: He is definitely not the good doctor for Johnston. That is a good point, a very good point.
Madam SPEAKER: I think what he said is okay. I do not think the member for Johnston would be upset over that.
Mr DUNHAM: No, I think he is right. I agree with you, I do not think he is the good doctor for Johnston, so I thoroughly withdraw.
We were talking about the thin-skinned public servants who have alleged to being mightily offended because people said that some of the laws coming in here needed amendment, and there could be put the allegation they were sloppily drafted. Oh, my! What about the allegation coming from there, that doctors were giving drugs by the truckload to people who are using them illicitly – by the truckload. That is a pretty serious indictment of our medical practitioners here in the Northern Territory
I went on radio to discuss this when I was the Health minister. I discussed a number of things. First, prescribing habits were different here than they were in other places, and that we could at least monitor this because there are a couple of devices through Commonwealth and Territory agencies where you could actually look at the prescribing habits of doctors. There were some initiatives that we could put in place to look at those doctors whose prescribing habits might have been problematic, rather than illegal. We could also look at, maybe, some issues relating to contracts for doctor-shopping and filling of scripts. We did that. We had a 40% reduction with those initiatives.
If you want to talk about, ‘Yes, it was high’ and dig some figures out, dig the next year because, in a very short time, we got a reduction of 40% …
Mr Stirling: It shows you what was going on, doesn’t it?
Mr DUNHAM: It also shows we took some action against a couple of doctors. When you want to run, as our colleague from Johnston does, stories about MS Contin in other states, I suggest you put oral methadone in there. Once you do that, the fact that we were prescribing very little of it and the other states were prescribing big mobs of it, you will see that some of that data is skewed if you do not use all the drugs. If you conveniently leave out one drug such as oral liquid methadone …
Dr Burns: The MJA report shows oral methadone was at an all-time high in the Territory for that period.
Mr DUNHAM: … you might find those figures are problematic, doctor! That is very poor research …
Dr Burns: Oral methadone was highest in the Territory, as well.
Mr DUNHAM: … because you all know most drug addicts …
Dr Burns: Get your facts straight.
Mr DUNHAM: … are poly drug users …
Dr Burns: Get your facts straight.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Johnston.
Mr DUNHAM: How would I make an allegation like that against these poor people who are addicted? Because many places urine test them! If you do an analysis of the samples of urine coming from people attending methadone clinics - and some clinics do not do them because they know what the answer is going to be - you will find that the great preponderance of them - probably over 90% - are poly drug users. This is the problem with his clean argument about ‘They have stopped using this, and they have started using this’. You are dealing with people who are addicted to a highly-attractive substance, who mix in a milieu where it is very difficult for them to desist from their habit because they have been socialised into a group of people who often have a like habit. Often you are talking about, when you withdraw from drugs, losing your friends, a habit that is very seductive and precious to you and, in any event, it is a highly nefarious activity and you would normally be secretive about it. Therefore, be very wary of data.
I thought one of the greatest changes in recent history - and it happened when we were in government, fortunately - was the advent of a couple of drugs called Naltrexone and buprenorphine. We, also, through our Cabinet, made some decisions about how these drugs could be dispensed for the benefit of people addicted to opiates. The minister has not mentioned Naltrexone in the speech …
Dr Burns: Yes, I did.
Mr DUNHAM: You mentioned Naltrexone?
Dr Burns: Yes.
Mr DUNHAM: Good drug?
Dr Burns: It has its uses.
Mr DUNHAM: ‘It has its uses’ - there you are. Naltrexone is a good drug for abstinence; it is a good drug to take people toward desisting from using. I am glad that the member for Johnston is onside because that is our policy. You are going to get back to the old CLP redneck stuff here of trying to dissuade people and encourage them from actually using the stuff in the first place.
I would have thought - and I have said this in the parliament before - that the use of Naltrexone within our present system would be a great idea. I cannot think of a better opportunity, not only for people to withdraw from drugs, but it should be a policy of this government to have total abstinence in our prison system. Naltrexone is not a bad truth serum, either, because it is a nasty drug to have if you are continuing to use.
There are a few things from the past - a few blasts from the past. Yes, there is a problem with MS Contin. I would not be so foolish as to stand in this House and make scurrilous accusations about all the GPs who prescribe drugs. However, I am aware that there was a significant amount finding its way into the illicit stream; that is why we did something about it and we cut it back quickly to 40%. In Estimates, I was able to talk to the Chief Health Officer, and I understand that has been sustained, and that is a good thing.
Notwithstanding that, there is an enormous drug problem that still exists in the Northern Territory and it is still called grog. It is still called alcohol. If you look at the issues coming before the courts, before the prisons, before the hospitals, before the police, before our emergency departments, it is to do with drunkenness. It is to do with the drug that we all know. I am not trivialising opiates, steroids, amphetamines or any other drug of abuse that is out there in the community. What I will say though is that this is a very convenient scapegoat. What you do is you set up a straw man and you call him an addict that is addicted to opiates, you put all your effort into that, a one-shot-in-the-locker policy, and you conveniently forget all the other stuff out there.
This approach by the government is a bit ambiguous. On the one hand they say trust doctors, it is not for politicians to second guess them; they should be out there doing the right thing. And what do we have before us? We have a law of the parliament. I wonder why we are doing that? If they are so trustworthy and if it is an issue of such science and we are able to so implicitly practitioners, why do we even have a law? We have that law because our society demands strictures around certain things and we put strictures around even people as enlightened and scientific as doctors. Having done that, I think our policy would still be to move towards abstinence as the first course.
There was a lot of talk too, in opposition, about the total lack of rehabilitation programs in the Territory, and that came out all the time. It was picked up by various other commentators and they ran it. It is good to see Banyan House still running. It is great to see a program like that that has been running for so long.
It is good to see the people associated with Green Gates in Alice Springs continuing their campaign. I pay tribute to Alison Lillis because there has been an enormous amount of her own time and effort go into trying to do something about rehabilitation in Alice Springs. I pay tribute to Goulnara Sowman in Alice Springs, a lady whom I think is just short of a sainthood. I have never seen people work so hard in this environment as that particular practitioner. There are some great warriors out there trying to do the job.
Our efforts still have to be mindful of where the greatest problem is. We still have to be mindful about changing trends in consumption habits for people. We have to be mindful about, for instance, the fact that methadone was such an important issue for the government when in opposition and the trend showed here that young people were moving towards amphetamines. As a drug replacement therapy the man-made drug methadone is reasonably effective depending how you look at it. As I said it has some downsides. But as a drug replacement therapy for amphetamines it is not that clever because all it is doing is enabling a fill-up when you cannot get amphetamines from a government provided program.
There has been a lot of science in this and there has been a lot of shroud waving, certainly a lot of finger pointing. I am quite happy to stand here and say I am happy to go to the election and talk about our drugs policy. I am quite happy to revisit the history of it. I am quite happy to revisit the fact that there were independent commentators that ranked this jurisdiction as the best in Australia, not only for our drugs policy …
Dr Burns: For alcohol.
Mr DUNHAM: No, you are wrong. You should do more research if you want to call yourself that name.
I would suggest that this is a suit of cards that I would love to play during an election campaign because I am quite happy to argue on the basis of pragmatics and not shroud waving. I am quite happy to argue on the basis of a caring and compassionate approach to this rather than one that is foolish, populous and false. I am happy to argue the science even on matters such as this.
I have a series of documents here that go back to it. I would suggest that given that the member for Johnston is now a member of government, that he calls for some of them. I will give him some clues. He can call for the reduction in MS Contin prescriptions during the time I was the Health minister and you can see that 40% is not unreasonable estimate from my memory. If he calls up the media reports of the day and there was a gentleman named Fred McCue who mostly interviewed me on this and he now works on the fifth floor. I am sure his memory is pretty good, too. He could call up, for instance, what we said about Naltrexone, buprenorphine and the limited methadone dispensing service. He could go as far back as the report that was done at Nhulunbuy on treatment options for opiate-dependant people. It recommended methadone and the government decided not to progress with that report. He could go back to the debates where the member for Barkly, Mrs Hickey, admitted that she did not understand all of this and was going to use her Christmas holidays to go to a few detox clinics and probably did not, such was the level of interest in this matter.
I suggest that the government amend this act any way they see fit. You are in government. Go and do it. I suggest you do it in a way that accords with reporting back to this place, and if you want to report back about fewer and fewer people in the Berrimah prison, or about how the nexus of between illicit drugs and criminal behaviour has gone down, if you want to report back on the basis that the biggest issue on your plate is opiate dependant people, you do so at the risk of ignoring some of the more pressing programs in the alcohol area. You do that: come in here and debate it because I am quite happy to have these debates and the public needs it.
None of us can say we have the perfect answer to this social problem, but I have always been wary of using pharmacotherapies to treat this problem. It is a social problem and has to be treated socially. When I spoke to George O’Neill in Perth, I was quite impressed by the work he is doing. He had a Naltrexone clinic and only took people on if they had an abstaining carer. I have mentioned in this House before that I saw a young person who was there to witness the withdrawal of her mother and her father. I saw young people in there being treated by Naltrexone. I am not going to say it is as perfect as a methadone maintenance program or anything else, but I was mightily attracted to it. I was mightily attracted to the work. As part of his program, he suggested that people took Naltrexone daily in front of their loved one. From a strictly medical point of view, it was not necessary for that to occur for some years, but the reason it occurred, and he pointed it out to his clients, was that it was a gift of love. It was a gift of going to your mother or to whoever had been through all the heartache and trauma that goes with drug abuse and saying: ‘Look! I am still abstinent. I am still drug free’, and you woof down the pill.
That had great prospects for success because it was not based on a chemical problem with a person so give them another chemical. It was based - don’t yawn, whoever that was because this is a serious matter. It might be ho-hum for you and something you treat as a chore in this parliament, but for me, this is an issue of passion. If you want to intrude on matters relating to drug abuse in this society, it has to be treated as a social problem. It is a societal problem and it has to be treated with care, compassion and love, not with other pharmacotherapies.
As I said, do what you want to do with your bill, then come in here quarterly, if you like, and talk about it. I hope it does not keep you awake. For those of us on this side, it is pretty important and we will debate and discuss it as frequently as you want. We will rejoice and applaud in great joy with you if you solve this problem. I do not think you have any intention of solving the problem; this is politics, raw ...
Mr Kiely: Rubbish!
Mr DUNHAM: …and rubbish, that is true. I will pick up the interjection. This is rubbish, largely, because what you had here is a grandstanding parade of policies that say ours are better than yours. It is unfortunate that I have been drawn into that debate and I have had to go back to history and say I do not think ours was so bad.
Let us look at it from a different point of view. Why don’t we look at it from the point of view of the person you are trying to help? Why don’t we try to offer them the best help we can? If you start from there, we might come a long way. I would hope to believe …
Mr Henderson: Two hundred and sixty more people have been helped than under you mob.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. There you go.
I would like to believe that we would have unanimity in this House. If you started from the point of view that many of us know people who have been addicted to drugs and many of us have been close to people who have been addicted to drugs, so it is facile to accuse whole parties of people, hundreds of them, of having a non-caring attitude towards people who are addicted to illicit substances.
There is a way to get through this. Obviously, we have to have strong laws around prescribing and dispensing drugs. No doubt about it; we had them ourselves. I have no doubt that there has to be some latitude for medical practitioners; no doubt about it. I have no doubt that some medical practitioners will step over statutory lines drawn by this parliament, and they must face the sanctions associated with that. It is not an unfettered latitude for them out there; there are certain things that they have to obey.
However, let us look at best practice. Let us look at what we can best do here. Do not bring in books written by some bloke in New South Wales whose entire practice is dispensing methadone; of course he is bigoted towards it. It is one of those things, I believe, where you have to talk to the users, and I have been very fortunate there. I have said in this House that I have talked to people who have recovered from the horrors and rigours that this drug puts families and people through. There are compelling stories you can hear. I was compelled to believe that methadone was not such a good drug when I talked to these people, and they will tell you how difficult it is. I was compelled to believe that there were some great attributes associated with Naltrexone when I talked to some of these people.
I believe what this government has to do is to stop getting the pieces of paper. Go to these places where these things work. Have a look at them, talk to some of the people, talk to their families. It could well be that we invent something here that does not happen in every other state. God knows, we do not have to be an exact replica of what happens elsewhere. We might do it better, and I know that too, because in the past we have done it better, and given the opportunity at the next election, we will do it better again.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the best way to start my summation of the debate we have had is to simply put a framework around the legislation that we have before us. The core proposition of the legislation is to establish a tightly-controlled set of arrangements for the prescription of opiate drugs by medical practitioners within the Northern Territory; one that requires reporting to a central database so that the distribution of these drugs by prescription can be tracked; and also to identify the cases of over-prescription, or at least some pattern that does not look to be in accord with what you would normally expect with the use of these drugs.
Why do we need this? We have heard a fair bit from the opposition about alcohol being such a big problem, so why are we dealing with this. I bring bills into this House on a regular basis, and I cannot see why a government the size and complexity of the Northern Territory government cannot handle at least two problems to the benefit of Territorians. In fact, we handle far more than that. There is absolutely no justification for failing to move on this problem. It is a very clear and identified problem within the Territory population. It is causing harm out there. It is causing difficulties with everything from law enforcement, not only property crime in regard to its association with these sorts of drugs habits, but also cases of aggressive behaviour towards pharmacists and GPs by addicts who have gone looking for what they so desperately require.
Four years ago, the member for Greatorex spoke in a debate on this very subject and said:
It just defies belief that he could stand up in October 2000 when, out the window if he had a care to look around the community, there were 400 000 doses of these drugs going out into the community. That is based on absolute hard evidence of the prescription drugs that were going out of our pharmacies at the time: 205 000 MS Contin 1000 mg; 48 000 Kapanol 100 mg; 157 800 physeptone. I am still getting shades of that in the contributions of the CLP members here today, that ‘Oh, grog is a bigger problem so we should not be worrying about this. There are all these doubts about what action is going to be effective or what action is not going to be effective. We think we have still a great policy’. I tell you what: I have heard the policy of the previous government described as a ‘basket case’ by people who are dealing with addicts on a daily basis in the support services that do exist in the Northern Territory. It really is time for the members opposite to say: ‘Look, we do have a problem here. It is quite appropriate for a government to try to deal with it’.
Who was in the frame? Who was the meat in the sandwich when you had a government that said it was not the problem and they were not going to go in the direction of maintenance programs. ‘We will give them a one-way bus ticket. We will basically ban and exile addicts from the Territory’. I will tell you who is in the frame: it was the pharmacists who were copping aggressive behaviour day in, day out; it was the GPs who had to try to say ‘no’ to a desperate person who came into their surgery to get prescriptions. I really sympathise with those health professionals, given the situation they were put in.
This bill today is not about attacking doctors and pharmacists; it is about taking that very pressure away from them. If the CLP government - or any government at that stage - had moved into removing the over-prescription by enforcement in the absence of a maintenance program, that would have had huge risks for the Northern Territory because, if you cannot get these addictive drugs through prescriptions, where are you going to get them? You are probably going to see a heroin street market come into the Territory; the last thing that we would want up here, against all the drug problems that we know we have out there with cannabis and amphetamines and the like.
It is now the time to be doing this. We now do have pharmacotherapies in place, and a strong coverage of the addicted population in the Territory with those programs. We can now afford to put a strong regulatory regime across the prescription of these drugs in the Northern Territory. That is what today is all about: installing a set or regulatory arrangements which have been developed with the full participation of our doctors and clinicians who have expertise in these areas.
Members opposite have attempted to refocus the debate on: ‘Why are we bringing all these amendments forward today?’ Okay, there are a couple of reasons why that is occurring. The first is that we have had a clinical reference group looking at the regulations and the guidelines that would be needed to turn the legislative framework into a practical set of arrangements out in the community that support and govern the activities of all of the people who are in this chain of supply - whether it is the wholesalers, retailers, prescribing GPs, pharmacists, or anyone else who might come into this. We now have to move to installing guidelines and regulations. That is the first and main reason why there are amendments before you today.
The second is that, in the development of the original amending legislation and its subsequent review as part of the development of the regulations and guidelines, it was discovered that there was the removal of section 81(b), which is a cover-all provision providing for periods of imprisonment widely across the offences in the current legislation that inadvertently left gaps in the application of penalties to the various offences that are enshrined in this legislation. We did not have the intention that those penalties be removed. They are now being reinstated as part of the amendments today.
By far, the greatest weight of amendments that are being talked about in this legislation are to do with the practicalities of making this work on the ground. Making it practical for GPs to operate within the regulatory arrangements in pharmacies, making it practical for the Chief Health Officer and the Clinical Advisory Committee to actually monitor the progress of these arrangements as they get applied to prescribing within the Territory. They deal with those matters as the main focus of the additional refinements that are going forward today.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that is all I am intending to involve myself in the history of this legislation. I did not carry it into the House originally. The minister who did was the member for Nightcliff who foreshadowed during that debate that there would be the need following the work of the Clinical Advisory Committee to bring back further matters to the House to put them into the final legislations. So it was foreshadowed in this House. The work has now been done. There are some very strongly agreed arrangements that are now in the bill before you.
Dealing with the use of guidelines, the crucial thing about the guidelines is to get buy-in from the participating health practitioners. These guidelines are to be developed with and on behalf of the practitioners who will carry the regulated regime, will carry the actual prescribing arrangements. It is very important that the government does not simply develop and apply regulations without that participation by the group. I know the member for Johnston outlined the composition of the Clinical Advisory Committee and it can be seen from the composition of that group that there are some very knowledgeable people on these matters who will be directly involved, in not only the development of guidelines initially but also their carriage through this scheme and refine it if necessary as new circumstances apply.
There are guidelines on supply of non-restricted S8 substances; supply of restricted S8 substances buprenorphine and sublingual tablets and methadone syrup; supply of restricted S8 substances which is the dexamphetamine - I need the member for Johnston to help me with the pronunciation here - and for Ritalin. They cover all aspects of the supply of these substances including the prescribed conditions for routine authorisation; conditions imposed on authorisations requirement for notifications; periods of supply of substances and administrative procedures. The Chief Health Officer and the committee will advise the minister concerned on the guidelines. The purpose of the guidelines is precisely that; it is to guide practitioners as to the appropriate professional conduct under the requirements of this legislation.
However, the sanctions are available for breaches in areas of the guidelines. This is entirely appropriate given that we are dealing with dangerous drugs with a potential for diversion. The way this will work in practice is that the Chief Health Officer can sign off on authorisations in the periods between the meetings of the Clinical Advisory Committee. They will then ratify the Chief Health Officer’s decisions and check that they are in accord with both the guidelines and the act. That gives us a flexible arrangement, far more flexible than the original proposal which was to have the authorisations only directly from the Clinical Advisory Committee. It would not be responsive enough to the day to day demands coming on to this regulatory structure.
I have dealt with penalties. We are quite unashamedly putting a range of penalties across the different offences that arise out of the regulatory provisions. We want to send a signal at this stage that there is absolutely no justification for over-prescribing these drugs to the general community when GPs and pharmacists have the option of referring addicted people to the maintenance programs. There is now an alternative to coughing up the next supply of drugs to an addicted person coming in to a surgery or chemist. That is the reason for retaining the penalties, transporting them in. Most of them are identical to the current provisions in force now, except that the financial penalties are at a higher level as maximums.
The reporting arrangements go back to a central database to be maintained by the department. The Poisons Control Branch will maintain a database based on a new computer program being developed, with the intention that the system will be fully operational in time for the commencement of the legislation. Data is being sent to Health from pharmacies and clinics on an improvement the department is working on to assist GPs with their inquiries about the status of patients. Obviously, if we are going to prevent doctor shopping or over prescribing by individual doctors, it is important that the database be as stringently maintained as possible and available to prescribing doctors to make sure they know whether patients have gone to other sources of supply for these drugs.
The effectiveness of the pharmacotherapies was called into question by the member for Drysdale. If I can quote some of the evidence, we are very satisfied that the pharmacotherapies can make a major contribution to resolving some of these issues. There is evidence that both types of pharmacotherapy, buprenorphine and methadone, improve health and reduce illicit drug use. The longer clients stay in treatment, the lower the use falls. This results in decreased deaths, especially drug overdoses, and fewer infections such as HIV, Hepatitis B and C, abscesses, and endocarditis.
Another considerable benefit is the reduction of crime, which was certainly evidenced by studies done by Alex Wodak, Director of Alcohol and Other Drug Services at St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney. Six studies, included in the Cochrane Review on methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy indicate that methadone is an effective maintenance therapy intervention for treatment of opioid dependence. Compared with other treatments, methadone users are three times more likely to stay in treatment, and three times less likely to use heroin or other opioids. A recent study in Sydney reported that drug selling declined from 40% to 12%, and the percentage of engaging in property crime decreased from 35% to 9% after one year on the program. We certainly hope that we will see that sort of reduction in the pressure coming on prescribing GPs in the Northern Territory rather than drug selling in the streets, which is certainly not the pattern here.
The dropping of section 28(4) was questioned by the member for Araluen. The removal exemplifies our approach to tightening controls whilst minimising the burden on health professionals. The section imposed the condition on pharmacists that for interstate prescriptions for restricted S4s or for any S8 prescription, they are required to check with the original interstate prescriber whether they had in fact prescribed the drug. In the provisions under this bill today, no interstate prescriptions will be allowed. This tightens up control and removes additional work imposed on pharmacists by the current act. It is a perfect example of how this bill balances the protection of the public with that of the professionals who are involved in the distribution of these drugs.
I believe I have dealt with the question of alcohol. It really is a furphy to be saying that alcohol is a really big problem out there so why should we be even looking at these issues. I think we can pat our head and rub our tummy at the same time, and we are doing a lot on alcohol and combating the bad effects of alcohol in our community as evidenced by the programs in every major centre in the Northern Territory and a lot of our remote communities. We will continue that work. That does not mean we have to down tools on this particular matter.
The member for Macdonnell drew attention to the regulatory offences, and strict liability offences in the legislation and the application of section 26 of the Criminal Code. Section 81A of the principal act enumerates the provisions that are considered regulatory offences under this legislation. I understand the member for Macdonnell wants to know if any of the offences carrying prison penalties are offences that apply to medical practitioners. Section 26 of the Criminal Code relates to authorisation. A person cannot claim authorisation for an act that is a regulatory offence. From an examination of the list of regulatory offences with prison penalties that may apply to medical practitioners, section 34(3) of the act applies. Section 34(3) of the act applies to prescriptions issued by medical practitioners, and requires a person not to supply to another person a substance that is required to be supplied only on prescription unless there is a prescription in effect for the supply. Once proven that a person is supplied without a prescription, the penalty of 500 penalty units or imprisonment of six months is available in this bill.
I would point out to members, though, that the penalties in this bill are maximums, as are probably the vast majority of penalties that are enshrined in legislation we deal with in this House. It would be entirely up to a court to decide whether a maximum penalty should apply or some other level of penalty.
The member for Port Darwin had concerns about the basis of figures in the Northern Territory that do or do not count our hospital prescriptions in those figures. I can say, absolutely, we do not count the hospital prescriptions. They are on a completely different recording system. What is in the figures that we have been talking about today are the PBS prescribed amounts and the amounts prescribed in the private sector, but not in our hospitals. The hospitals have their own regulatory regime, and prescriptions there have to be pretty flexibly applied to patients, as you would appreciate, given the types of conditions that may come into a hospital. There needs to be a rapid response on many occasions, but there is very rigorous control over the use of prescribed drugs in the hospital programs.
The member for Greatorex raised a number of matters particularly the penalties for failure to display a certificate. These offences are in the existing legislation; they have not been brought in as a new innovation. Certainly, the existing legislation has the requirement to display certificates for both wholesalers and retailers. Under section 81B, a prison penalty can be applied. Section 81B will not be in the new legislation. Rather, the individual sections will carry their penalty provisions with them. This is a better practice as it has resulted in the opposition taking some notice of existing provisions.
The government does not apologise for the strong regulatory provisions related to the supply chain for poisonous and dangerous drugs. The law penalises breaches as a regulatory offence, but the penalty will be determined within an appropriate range depending on the circumstances of the offence. Community confidence in every aspect to the supply of drugs and poisons is essential.
The member also referred to the quorums that would apply to the Clinical Advisory Committee. I find that a little annoying really, because it is just a matter of reading the bill. However, I will point out that the quorum of the Clinical Advisory Committee is set as the chair plus not less than one-third of appointed members; that is, one plus four - or five members - out of the 11 current members. This is less than half because of: (a) the need for rapid response to some issues and, given the busy-ness of the medical professionals we want to involve on that committee, we want some flexibility there to allow meetings to occur with some regularity; and (b) there are intra- and interstate members and you have to allow for that in how often you can displace people from their other states and the work that they are doing there.
I have covered why we have developed a set of guidelines. Flexible and collaborative with the health professionals that will be applying these regulatory arrangements is a far better way to go to than to have a set of imposed regulations from the government. They can be revised or changed if problems arise in the field. By far, the best people to assess that is the Clinical Advisory Committee and other professionals who may want to interact with that committee to point out where there are problems, or where there are things that are working that may need further strengthening.
That has dealt with the concerns that have been brought up by the various contributors to the debate. I thank all members for their contribution to the second reading debate, and we will move on.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Dr LIM: Minister, under section 20 of the principle act, the amendment is required to insert the penalty units and the imprisonment for two years; why do you feel that the failure to display a certificate requires …
Mr Henderson: He answered that!
Dr LIM: I am asking the minister to explain, not the rattling behind …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: I am asking the minister to explain. I did not ask the rattling …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Member for Greatorex, keep to the question.
Dr LIM: The interjection was against me, and I am trying to make a point.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand that, but …
Dr LIM: I ask the minister to explain why he felt that there needs to be such a huge penalty for failing to display a certificate. I would like an answer.
Ms Carter: Good question.
Dr LIM: Of course, it is a good question.
Mr Henderson: The same penalty that you had! It is the same penalty that was in the legislation that you guys had.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The minister will answer.
Dr LIM: And here is the empty vessel over there ...
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, member for Greatorex! Let us keep it to the point.
Dr LIM: I am trying to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I know. I am trying to help.
Dr LIM: I am being provoked.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister has the floor.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, it was getting exciting while I was away. Section 6 is not a sanction against a doctor. The member is quite incorrect. Section 20 relates to wholesalers. The member has not picked that up in reading the section. These are current provisions in the working act at the moment and we are just simply transporting them into the amended act.
Dr LIM: It does not matter whether it is a doctor, a health professional, a wholesaler, or retailer. I am saying this is a failure to hang up a shingle. Okay? And bang you are going to be hit with a 20 penalty unit sanction or going to clink for two years. If you are a body corporate it is a 100 penalty units. I am asking what is the rationale, and I would like the minister to explain the rationale to me, as to why there is such a significant sanction.
Mr Dunham: He said they were not going to adhere to it in debate!
Dr LIM: Taking on the interjection from the member for Drysdale, if the minister is not going to adhere to, what is the point of having it there?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I can report that our Chief Health Officer says that this is a standard provision around the country. We are dealing with dangerous, and poisonous, and addictive substances. It is very important that the wholesalers who are the start of the chain of distribution have not only been authorised but display the evidence of that authorisation under the relevant act in whichever jurisdiction it is. It is not our idea. It is certainly not a new ‘Let’s get tough on wholesalers’ or anything else. This is standard provisions that are in acts right around the country. It is part of making the regulation of these types of dangerous and addictive substances a serious matter and giving the public confidence in the authorisation and regulation that is in force.
Dr LIM: Again, I do not believe the minister has explained it adequately. I suggest to you that perhaps this clause was deliberately left out in August of last year by the draftsman because it was thought to be an idiotic sanction. You have not hung up the shingle and suddenly you get hit with that. Whether the minister wants to bring it in now as a matter of getting consistency across this legislation, maybe last time it was left out it was because the draftsman recognised it was not necessary. Now it has been brought in. I suggest to you it is a dog’s breakfast. Is it the minister’s doing? Whose doing is it? And maybe we should just leave it out altogether and be done with it.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, we have talked a bit about the different attitudes to policies on controlling these sorts of drugs. If the CLP wants to go and back off on all the penalties in the bill, if you ever get back into power you can take them all out if you like, but the from our point of view we are not even increasing or inventing penalties here. We are simply maintaining the seriousness of it.
These are wholesalers; they are major concerns operating in the distribution chain of what are quite dangerous substances. The community needs to be absolutely assured that there are strong regulations on these. We are not going to have drugs going through Joe’s Fish and Chips shop. This is a serious matter where it is quite appropriate to have a significant penalty.
Dr LIM: I am not trying to be difficult, minister. In handling S8 drugs a wholesaler is not likely to be coming into contract with the public. It is wholesalers supplying to a pharmacy, to a hospital pharmacy, even to some health clinics in the bush or some doctors who have their own dispensary, but it is not likely that a member of the public would walk into a wholesaler and say: ‘Look, your shingle is not up there’. Be a bit more logical and practical. This is an unnecessary sanction.
Dr TOYNE: I do not think there is much point in pursuing this any further. It is clearly a difference in policy intent between your preferred position and the position that we have taken with the advice we have had. I again point out that these acts cover a whole raft of quite dangerous substances, both addictive and highly poisonous. It is our opinion, and that underwrites the policy underpinning this bill, that those significant penalties have to be in the act. That is our opinion. We recognise that you have expressed a different view. I cannot hold out any hope to you at all that we will be looking again at those provisions. We have made our decision on advice, and we are comfortable with that decision.
Dr LIM: I accept the minister’s advice and his position, and be it on the minister’s head. I ask the minister whether he will give me an assurance that all wholesalers will now be informed by letter from him, or through the Chief Health Officer, that this provision is now in the legislation and they need to comply, so that they are fully informed.
Dr TOYNE: The act of registering and getting authorisation to trade in these substances in itself informs the wholesaler or retailer or any of the people in this chain as to what their responsibilities are. There is no need for a separate process as it is embodied in the act of getting registration.
Dr LIM: Are you saying to me, minister, that all current wholesalers have to re-register?
Dr TOYNE: No. It is an existing provision. It has simply been transported from the existing legislation.
Ms CARTER: With regards to clause 6, minister, you have explained that the display of certificates relate to wholesalers and you are looking for consistency across the legislation and you take the issues very seriously, hence the two years gaol. That being the case, can you explain why in section 17 of the principal act with regards to wholesalers having to be registered, there is no gaol sentence whereas there are financial penalties?
Dr TOYNE: We included the additional penalty as a public confidence issue. It is not just a case of being registered; it is a case of being able to demonstrate to the public that you are registered so they can have confidence in the propriety of the company dealing with these substances.
Ms CARTER: Just for the record, I see that there is an inconsistency there. I would have thought that the greater onerous was on a wholesaler to be registered, and that the great penalty, therefore, should apply to the act or the omission of being registered as opposed to whether you have your certificate on the wall.
Dr TOYNE: Again, I can say that this is a current provision in the act. It is working right now. Wholesalers are operating under those provisions. We believe that, certainly, acting unregistered would probably carry both offences because it is hard to understand how someone could display a certificate if they are not registered, so they have actually committed both offences. One offence carries one year, the other one two years.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Dr LIM: In clause 7, which refers to section 25, the same arguments that I posed for section 20 applies. If the minister could explain the rationale.
Dr TOYNE: It just parallels the arrangements for wholesalers. It is required that the retailer be licensed and display their licence, so it is the next step in the distribution train.
Dr LIM: In the same line of questioning that the member for Port Darwin put to you just now, do you see the logic you are coming with, that failure to register incurs a lesser sanction than a failure to hang up the shingle? It does not stand to logic.
Dr TOYNE: I do not see that there is anything illogical with having two offences: that of registration, or that of display of proof of registration. I guess you could take several positions on relatively which offence should be more heavily sanctioned. Some people would argue that if you do not display proof of registration, you are dishonouring your relationship to the public, and this is ultimately about consumer protection. That could be the basis for making that the more severe penalty.
Equally, you could say if you have not registered within the regulatory arrangements that is dishonouring your duties to the government. As long as we have significant penalties for both of those offences, for each of the steps in the distribution train, as far as I am concerned, we are covered. We have the interests of the public covered. We have the interests of the government covered.
Dr LIM: I beg to differ, minister. I would have thought that a failure to register makes a supplier an illegal supplier; he becomes an illegal drug dealer. That is what it is. You become an illegal drug dealer if you fail to register, whereas if you fail to hang up a shingle you are still an illegal wholesaler. The only thing you failed to do was to hang up your shingle.
Dr TOYNE: As per the last section we debated, you have taken a different view. It is your opinion. We have taken the view that is inherent in the legislation side. I do not really see that there is much more to be said.
Dr LIM: Begging the minister’s indulgence – let us move away from the political positions that we both have. If a pharmacist failed to register that he or she is going to supply, as a retailer, Schedule 8 drugs, if he failed to register, legally, this pharmacist will be defined as an illegal drug dealer. That is what it is. A failure to register means you are an illegal drug dealer. Just like if I fail to register as a medical practitioner, I become an illegal medical practitioner or a person who has no registration practising under false pretences. Now, if that is not a more serious crime than failure to hang up a shingle, I do not know how you would then define it. Surely, a more serious crime deserves greater sanction than a less serious crime.
What I see here is that a failure to hang up a shingle includes a greater penalty than a failure to register, which makes you an illegal drug dealer.
Dr TOYNE: I do not see that we can extend this much further. We clearly disagree on it as a matter of policy. We need to move on.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 22, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 23:
Ms CARTER: Minister, this particular clause is the one which sees the insertion of a gaol penalty for up to two years for a general practitioner if he or she does not perform according to the guidelines which are going to be designed and implemented with regard to the prescription and treatment of a drug addict with a maintenance pharmacotherapy. Can you explain to me what has changed since last August that has seen the necessity to insert this particular penalty into the bill?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. I did refer to the genesis of that in my reply speech in the second reading debate. Essentially, a generic provision section 81B was taken out, which had the effect of lifting those penalties out of individual sections of the act, once amended. It was not our intention. We are now reinstating the original intent of our legislative program. That is all there is to it. It is just simply that there was quite a complex transporting of provisions into the first amending bill. Subsequently, there has been further intense scrutiny of the provisions in the original and amending bill by the Clinical Advisory Group. As a result of that scrutiny, we have discovered that that generic clause being taken out had left gaps in the penalties that we are putting back in. Call it what you like, it is just simply something that happened in the development of the legislation.
Dr LIM: I ask the same question. I spoke about it in the second reading and the minister did not respond in his closing debate. When you provide doctors with a set of guidelines, I assume they are guidelines and, therefore, they will perform within those guidelines. However, it appears from your speech and legislation that if they broach any of the guidelines there are sanctions. Are they guidelines or are they regulations? If they are guidelines, how can you impose sanctions? Would you rather have regulations rather than guidelines?
Dr TOYNE: Clause 23 really does get to the heart of the whole regulation when you look at the problem we are trying to deal with. The problem we are trying to deal with is over-prescribing of these types of drugs. Quite clearly, the guidelines are going to give a lot of detail of what is allowable and not allowable, required and not required, when general practitioners deal with these types of prescriptions. The guidelines are being developed. There are drafts in existence; they have been developed by clinicians working from practical experience.
We wanted to build two things into it. One was the flexibility that you get with the use of guidelines rather than regulations or even more stringent provisions that you might put directly in legislation. So, each one is easier to amend than the last. The guidelines give you the most flexibility; legislative provisions give you the least flexibility because you have to bring them back in here and amend them if you want to change them. So we have, within the use of guidelines, flexibility. You have the ability to have maximum input from the practitioners who will be subject to these regulatory provisions out in the field.
The other side of it is that this is the core of the problem solving, if you like. This is the way that we hope to impact on the levels of over-prescribing which continue to this day in the Territory. To do that, you have to have some enforceability. Hence, the inclusion of penalties for breaking the guidelines. So we want guidelines that are practical and owned by the profession but they also have to be enforceable.
Dr LIM: Thank you, minister, for that explanation. I assume, therefore, that those guidelines, once they are in definitive form, will be provided to all general practitioners who are part of this program, or to all general practitioners who are practising in the Northern Territory? If you can answer that first, I have another question following that.
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that the guidelines cover not only the restricted S8s and S4s but also the non-restricted drugs. So it will be necessary for all general practitioners in the Territory to be appraised of the guidelines.
Dr LIM: Can you tell me how many doctors have been recruited into this program to implement your prohibited S8 drugs program?
Dr TOYNE: Are you referring to the pharmacotherapies?
Dr LIM: Yes.
Dr TOYNE: I have information here for you. There are currently 14 accredited doctors who can prescribe these medications; three in Alice Springs, and 11 in Darwin. Private prescribers in Darwin treated 46 people with buprenorphine and 15 with methadone. There are no prescribers in Alice Springs who provide this service from a private practice. Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Central Australia in Alice Springs has treated approximately 25 people with buprenorphine and 12 with methadone. Alcohol and Other Drugs Services in Darwin have treated 48 people with buprenorphine and 62 people with methadone. Alice Springs and Darwin prisons have treated seven inmates, six with methadone and one with buprenorphine.
Dr LIM: I find it curious, minister, that you do not have anybody recruited for Tennant Creek or Katherine, or Nhulunbuy for that matter. I would have thought that those regional centres would have some patients likely to require the services of such trained doctors. What adds to my consternation is that from this report here, tabled today by the minister for police, that the total number of grams of heroin found by the police in the Northern Territory for the last 12 months has been something like 6.3 grams. Is there a lot of heroin flowing into the Territory, or do we have lots of methadone patients and therefore no need for heroin coming into the Territory? What is going on there?
Dr TOYNE: That is in the police annual report I take it? I can give you some information on the movement of addicted people into or out of the Territory, but I can certainly assure you that there has not been a major shift in either the street market here or the total number of addicts in the Territory. I will give you the figures here. There is no evidence for an influx of addicts. No data is available for interstate transfers to NT private prescribers, but they cater for only 20 pharmacotherapy patients in total at any one time. In the last six months, a total of only 12 clients transferred from interstate either through their prescriber or presented without prior transfer arrangements. In the same period, seven clients transferred from the Northern Territory to an interstate prescriber. This is a nett gain of five clients only or 4%.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, the minister has read quite detailed statistics. I wonder whether he would be prepared to table that paper outlining the number of doctors involved in the program, the number of patients involved and the last set of figures he read from his notes. Would you be prepared to do that so it makes it easier on me? If we pull it off Hansard, it will be in prose rather than tabulated form. It would make life a lot easier.
Dr TOYNE: There is only one paragraph I did not read into Hansard so I will read it in now so you have the lot. In addition to the figures I gave you for the prison for Darwin Alcohol and Other Drug, Alice Springs Alcohol and Other Drug, private prescribers, I can tell you that we have had about 260 people on the program since maintenance pharmacotherapies commenced; 215 people received either buprenorphine or methadone on a maintenance basis. The balance is 45 people who underwent a rapid buprenorphine withdrawal.
The additional information I can give you on Hansard is about pharmacists: 13 pharmacies dispensed buprenorphine and methadone, one each in Alice Springs, Katherine and Nhulunbuy, and 10 in Darwin, including the rural area, so you will have all the information tomorrow in Hansard.
Dr LIM: If I can pursue the same line, if you now have one patient in Katherine and Nhulunbuy on buprenorphine, who are the prescribing doctors? Are they located in Darwin or in Nhulunbuy? Where are they?
Dr TOYNE: I certainly cannot tell you the names of doctors, but what I can say is that we no longer allow interstate prescriptions to be acted upon in the Territory. They have to be Northern Territory based doctors, so it will be one of the doctors operating either in the private sector or elsewhere in the Territory.
Dr LIM: Are you suggesting to me that there are patients in Nhulunbuy and Katherine, but there are no doctors trained to provide the service and they need to travel to Darwin or to Alice Springs to seek their services?
Dr TOYNE: It would be up to the individual patients as to how they access the medical care. It might be a DMO going out to a community; it might be them coming into an urban centre to seek assistance. What we are saying is that it all has to be encapsulated within the Territory. It cannot have open sides.
Dr LIM: I do not have any problems with it being encapsulated in the Territory, minister, but I am concerned that you have mentioned at least two patients who live outside Darwin and Alice Springs. Your legislation says that a doctor cannot write more than two months’ supply at a time, which means that these patients have to travel to a regional centre every two months to secure their supplies. If that were not the case and you had DMOs providing prescriptions, are you telling me that you have DMOs who are trained to do this?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. Your interest in spreading access to these pharmacotherapies is welcome. Largely, you are getting at operational issues here about how you maximise or extend the number of doctors who are taking part in referring people into these therapies and prescribing. In theory, you would want to have a coverage that picks up addicted people wherever they are in the Territory. In practice, you would probably find - well the current figures clearly show that the vast majority are in Darwin and Alice Springs.
Dr LIM: As a former medical practitioner, I am interested in patient welfare. I would not impose a hardship on a patient who is already having a hard time suffering drug addiction expecting them travel hundreds of miles by air or whatever to get from Nhulunbuy, say, to Darwin, or Katherine to Darwin to secure their supplies. There needs to be something done to look into this. I am not suggesting you should make it easy for everybody. However, if you have patients in Katherine requiring the services of a doctor on a regular basis – and it is not just giving a prescription for whatever S8 replacement you could give them and leave them to their own devices for the next two months - you have to provide them with adequate follow-up, adequate care, to ensure that whatever you are doing for them is going to help them maintain their so-called drug free state.
Obviously, you have not thought this through properly from what I can gather. If somebody is in Nhulunbuy on their own, you cannot give them two months’ supply and say, ‘You are on your own now. Just before you run out, come back and see me in Darwin and I will give you another script’. If you are hard on drugs and you want to look after your patients, you have to do better than that. After that response, I have another question for you.
Dr TOYNE: I really think we are straying on to more operational issues. It is about how do you extend any program around the Territory? The reality in the Territory, as you well know, is that, for many types of medical care, you might have to go to a particular location in the Territory because we simply cannot provide a uniform service right down to the smallest outstation on the Western Australian border. It is a matter of practicality.
If it is an allowable strategy to bring, say, an end-stage renal failure patient into centre-based care in Alice Springs in certain circumstances, why isn’t it allowable to bring an addicted person in if necessary to get the standard of care that they may need, particularly if they have other medical conditions?
This does not go to the provisions here. What we are talking about here is the regulatory regime on whoever the doctor is, wherever they are, wherever they are seeking to service the needs of a client. The issues that you are raising at the moment are best left for a debate on our health system, on our resourcing, on our training programs, on our priorities of operations. I do not think it belongs in a debate on this bill.
Dr LIM: I beg to differ on this again, minister. Obviously, as a non-medical practitioner, you say that if a renal patient can be transported into a regional centre why cannot you do that with a narcotic addict? Well, therein lays your problem. You do not understand the issue.
You also mentioned that there are some 260 people on the methadone program in Darwin. I just wonder if you can tell me how many of those 260 people have been arrested by police for property crimes, if any.
Dr TOYNE: Again, I do not know what that has to do with the provisions in the bill. We have debated the pros and cons of maintenance programs and their potential relationship to the law. This bill is not about establishing the maintenance programs as such, it is about controlling over-prescribing as an alternative to being in the maintenance programs, if you know what I mean. It has to get rid of one source and method of sourcing the drugs and replace it with a regulated alternative, which are the maintenance programs. In the second reading debate, that was well aired as an issue. I do not see there is much point in bringing it into examining the actual provisions in the bill.
Dr LIM: Minister, I beg to differ …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, I need to get some clarity on how that applies to this clause because we do have to deal with relevance.
Dr LIM: Well, I was going to actually provide the ...
Mr CHAIRMAN: I realise that, but the minister has also asked ...
Dr LIM: ... argument and give you the rationale of why I am asking this question. My rationale is that …
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will let you go with that for the moment.
Dr LIM: Sorry?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will let that go for the moment. We need to stick to the relevance of the clause.
Dr LIM: Sure. Other ministers have brought the issue of methadone into this debate in the second reading, talking about how good it is, how many people it has helped, and how we have removed crime off the streets and you can wake up in the morning and not have to worry about your house being broken into and all that. This bill is all about introducing alternate ...
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, I accept that, but we are in the committee stage. We are dealing with a clause called Contents of Prescriptions. We should be dealing with matters relating to that clause only.
Dr LIM: With the Contents of Prescriptions, doctors are writing prescriptions for methadone. That is what we are talking about. I want to know about these 260 methadone users that doctors are writing prescriptions for. Have they been arrested at any time for any property crimes in Darwin?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will let the minister answer it, but it is not quite relevant to this particular section. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not believe it is relevant. I will let the minister answer it if he wishes.
Dr TOYNE: I am honestly a bit lost on which clause we are talking about. I believe we are on clause 23, aren’t we, which is the Contents of Prescriptions?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Dr TOYNE: Clause 23 deals with the consequences of breaching the guidelines in prescribing these types of drugs as part of the regulatory arrangement. I do not see what it has to do with many of the matters that have been raised at the moment. Let us deal with the clause.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, without wishing to labour this particular point and its relationship to this particular clause, in terms of the information that we require in order to understand the impact of the bill and the costs to the taxpayer in its entirety, could I ask the minister would he supply, prior to the third reading debate, that information? It seems to me that information underpins a lot of the rationale of this whole program of which this bill is a part. If the data is, as the member for Johnston has said, that ‘under this Labor government introducing a methadone maintenance program, 260 persons have accessed that program’, I and the member for Greatorex would like to know: of those 260 people, how many have been charged or convicted with a property offence? Could we get that information before the third reading debate?
Dr TOYNE: This bill deals with the regulatory arrangements for the provision of clinical care; it does not deal with matters of crime. There is a context to the dealing with drugs in our community that does have a flow-on to crime. However, I can say that, when these provisions here were framed by the working group, they were thinking straight down line, single consideration only. That was: ‘How can we get the most practical arrangement for regulating the prescription of these drugs?’ They were not talking about how many of these people we can get off the streets from committing crimes.
They may have thought a bit about the practical realities of a doctor in a surgery with a patient of this type. Addicted people can be quite difficult patients, and they may have considered those sorts of matters. However, they certainly would not have been looking at the criminal records of the patients as a way of shaping those provisions in front of us. It is a very general context around the legislation, but it does not shape this clause. I do not think that it has a particular relevance to passing this clause.
Mr BURKE: I accept it does not shape the clause. However, I can only gather from your reply that when asked for this particular information, you refused to answer. We have had an extensive debate where your colleague, the member for Johnston, in his capacity as a doctor …
Dr Lim: A pharmacist.
Mr BURKE: A pharmacist – claims to base his arguments on science and fact rather than rhetoric. He has run an argument in support of this legislation, that the efforts and strategies of the Labor government, which this bill aids in its impact, have reduced property crime in the Northern Territory by virtue of the people who are now on these treatment programs were not able to access them in the past. If 260 people have accessed the maintenance program, how many of those people have been convicted or charged with a property crime? That is not an unreasonable question to ask. It would seem to me if you refuse to answer that question and I am giving you time - I understand the officers there, who are assisting you, may not have that information - I am simply saying I know that these people are listening …
Dr TOYNE: I can give you a response.
Mr BURKE: … you can get that information before the third reading debate.
Dr TOYNE: It seems that where you are trying to go with this is to say all right, in the middle of a debate on the technical issues in a bill, a piece of legislation, you want to further pursue the idea of the connection between drug use and criminal behaviour. We are pretty interested in that topic as well.
Mr BURKE: You are suggesting that you have not based that on your argument.
Dr TOYNE: Let me finish. You have raised the matter and I will try to answer it for you. There are ways in which you can work out the connection between drug use and criminal acts. In fact, there are any number of studies that have been done, not only elsewhere in the world, but currently in Australia. In fact, the Territory system is taking part in a study of voluntary testing of samples provided by people being brought before the courts on some charge, and that is being done Australia-wide. We should be able to get some reasonable indications of how much crime has that direct connection, at least simultaneously with someone committing an offence, that they have also been using drugs of one description or another.
That is a perfectly valid exercise. It is something that our Office of Crime Prevention has committed into the national process. We will get information, which the OCP will share widely around the Territory. It is not appropriate though to go trawling through 260 addicted people who come for support in a maintenance program, asking them about their criminal record and putting that on the public record.
That is not the way, it is not an ethical way to get the information that you clearly want to get. What I will certainly promise you and the member for Greatorex is that when we do get the results of that study or any other ones that the OCP assess as part of their work on the connection between drugs and crime, we will share it with you.
Dr LIM: I thank you for agreeing to share that information except …
Dr TOYNE: It has nothing to do with this bill.
Dr LIM: Hang on a minute. Whilst it might not have specific reference to …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, if that is the case, then we need to …
Dr LIM: What I am saying is that while debate is raging and quotations liberally put, that this program particularly brings down the property crime, then there has to be some rationale that the minister can support.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I think we have gone through clause 23 fairly well.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I want to go back to the answer you gave to the member for Port Darwin in relation to why it was that there was under this amendment the inclusion of the penalty. Could you repeat your answer? What I am trying to get at is: do I understand that it was missed? It was in one draft but then it was missed when it came before the parliament last time around?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I have answered that question. It is on the record. You can get the Hansard tomorrow. Essentially, I have made it pretty clear that there was a generic, which is section 81B, that when it was taken out in the initial amending act, it left gaps in the application of penalties to the different categories of offence. That was not the intention of government. We have now reimported them into the legislation via the bill before us today. End of story.
Ms CARNEY: Well, it might be the end of the story for you, but I do have another question in relation to it. I take it from your answer then that it is as simple as this: that it was missed when the bill was presented in August last year. It is a simple question. Is there a simple answer?
Dr TOYNE: Is there what?
Ms CARNEY: A simple answer.
Dr TOYNE: I have given the answer. Mr Chairman, I have answered the question three times in the course of this debate. I have nothing more to add.
Ms CARNEY: I asked you, in essence, to repeat the answer that you gave to my colleague, the member for Port Darwin. It was given some time ago. If you are suggesting in any way that it is unreasonable for me to ask you to do that, then you should not. What you have said to me, minister, is that it seems to be the case that you admit that your predecessor brought a bill, proposed legislation, to this parliament where bits were missed. Do I take it that nothing else was missed? Has anything been missed, do you think, in this particular bill?
Dr TOYNE: I have nothing to say in response to that. We have brought the issues that are inherent in completing this legislation before the House today and if it had been missed, I probably would not be here.
Ms CARNEY: One final question in relation to that. Who missed it, do you know? Is that a refusal to answer, minister?
Dr Burns: You are not in a court of law now.
Ms CARNEY: No, for Hansard purposes, the minister refuses to answer …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … that straightforward and innocuous question. Thank you, minister.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Chairman. The member over there is clearly trying to verbal what is going on. He did not refuse to answer. I do not think it is right that she should put …
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: … on the Hansard record …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is no point of order. The question is that clause 23 stand as printed.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I read that there are various levels of penalty units. For the record, can the minister explain to me what one penalty unit is equivalent to? One penalty unit, what does that equate to?
Dr TOYNE: One penalty unit is $110.
Dr LIM: One unit is $110. I draw your attention to clause 24 where you have a penalty under clause 24(b) which refers to section 34(2) and section 34(2A) where you have a penalty of 500 penalty units or imprisonment for six months. At other places you have 20 penalty units or imprisonment for two years. It does not seem consistent. If you multiply 20 by 110, it is like $2000, and then you have 500 penalty units and you get six months imprisonment. It does not relate, does it? One is a financial amount and the length of stay in a prison of two years versus 500 penalty units and a length of stay in prison for six months. Can you explain that?
Dr TOYNE: I can only repeat the comments I made about clause 23, which we have just left. These are really the core of reform in the provisions we are talking about at the moment. We are talking about trying to enforce, through the guidelines, a Code of Practice on people prescribing drugs in the Northern Territory and to provide a very clear message that we expect those guidelines to be adhered to.
This is a very important complementary clause in that it is maintaining a very detailed monitoring and reporting arrangement around those prescribing activities. The two month time period here is quite stringent. In other jurisdictions, the reporting occurs less frequently. Why do we have it as a very stringent provision? Because we have the biggest problem. We have the biggest problem in Australia so we need to have the ability to monitor in a detailed way what is going on out there with prescribing.
In terms of the penalty units, okay, they are tough penalties. We do not resile from that.
Dr LIM: The minister misunderstood my question. I am trying to stick to the technicality of the clause, just like he said about clause 23 earlier. In clause 23, you have 20 penalty units, or imprisonment for two years. In clause 24, you have a penalty of 500 penalty units, or imprisonment for six months. You see how out of kilter it is? Twenty penalty units at $110 per unit is $2200 - $2000 + GST, that is what is sounds like to me - or two years gaol. Then you have 500 penalty units, which works out at $50 000 or six months gaol. It does not add up!
Dr TOYNE: I can report to members that, not only in this bill, but in any bill where you bring forward penalties, whether they are said in penalty units or whether they are said of imprisonment, the Department of Justice has a look at the intended penalties to be put in any of the legislation that is brought in here. They look at the scale of seriousness of the offences, and they make sure that they are consistently applied through our legislation, whether it is in DIPE, Health, Education or wherever.
Dr LIM: Agreed.
Dr TOYNE: That process has been applied to this bill, and these penalties have been signed off. While you may clearly be having some problems with the rationale that led to these particular amounts, it accords consistently with the seriousness that we are applying throughout our legislation.
Dr LIM: No, minister. Twenty penalty units translates to a two year imprisonment in clause 23. So, you commit a crime that is worth 20 penalty units or two years in gaol, but if you commit a crime that is worth 500 penalty units, you can go to gaol for a maximum of six months. Do you see how inconsistent that is? For a crime that is worth $2000, you can go to gaol for two years. A crime that is worth $50 000, you go for six months. Irrespective of whether the Department of Justice did this or not, what you are doing in your piece of legislation right now is illogical. Are we going to come back here in six months time, or twelve months time, with another amendment?
Dr TOYNE: We do not equate penalty units, or the financial penalties with imprisonment. They are two different ways of penalising a particular activity. There is not that kind of linear relationship you are trying to claim there. I will stand on the advice that we have from the Department of Justice on the levels of the penalties respectively through the bill, and I very much doubt we will be back here changing it.
Dr LIM: Minister, for a person who is also the Attorney-General, I think you are very wrong and, honestly, ill-informed.
I stand guided by you, Mr Chairman, on this, but I want to refer clause 24 now to what appears in schedule of fines that is called section 33. Will I wait until we call that?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Dr LIM: It relates, that is all.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Well, try the question and see what the minister says.
Dr LIM: Okay. In the schedule, section 33, if we go to page 18 of this draft that I have, section 65(1) has 500 penalty unit or imprisonment for five years. In your schedule, 500 penalty units translates to five years imprisonment whereas, in the body of your bill in clause 24, you have 500 penalty units or six months. Again you show a lot of inconsistency.
Dr TOYNE: I have said that there is no linear relationship between imprisonment and penalty units. It depends on circumstances of the offender and what the most appropriate penalty is. That is the judgment that the court has to make. Unless there is any new angle that you have in mind, we should move on.
Dr LIM: We will move on after this comment. The linear relationship is demonstrated in the schedule outlined in clause 33. If this bill is not dog’s breakfast, I do not know what is.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 27, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 28:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, clause 28 refers to the storage of Schedule 8 substances and directs as to how that should be done. I was wondering why this particular area does not have a penalty attached to it, when so many other areas like not hanging up your certificate does?
Dr TOYNE: I am informed that you are correct; there were penalties of $200 in the existing act.
Ms Carter: Sorry, what was that?
Dr TOYNE: There are penalties of $200 for each of those offences - $200 in the current act which is operating. This clause repeals section 52 which contains the same two offences, but with a $200 penalty, which are fairly minor penalties. My advice is that these have been lifted out of the legislation and put into regulations. The regulation for that section is that, if the offender is a natural person, 100 penalty units; if the offender is a body corporate, 500 penalty units. It has been lifted into the regulations so it can be more readily changed if circumstances change. Sorry, it took a bit of time to find that for you.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Ms CARTER: Clause 29 deals with the fact that there should be no self-prescription of Schedule 8 drugs or restricted Schedule 4 substances. In this amendment, the penalty of 500 penalty units is inserted which, if you look at the schedule at the back of this bill can equate to five years’ imprisonment. I am not personally suggesting that a medical practitioner should go to prison if they have been injecting, because they may have some problems there but, just for the record, why haven’t you put a gaol term in there given the tough on drugs sort of thing with regard to prescribing drugs?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, it was considered that that person is also an addict and a patient as well as being an offender in their misuse of the regulations. We felt that they probably need rehabilitation more than they need prison.
Dr LIM: Minister, your response is inconsistent because under proposed section 73, ‘No self-administration of schedule 8 or restricted schedule 4 substances’, the penalty is 500 units or imprisonment - if he were to write his own script he will get hit with a fine; if he injects himself, he then goes to gaol for two years. Isn’t that a bit inconsistent?
Dr TOYNE: The difference between those two clauses is that proposed section 73 aligns with the Misuse of Drugs Act so the penalties had to be the same in each act for the same activity which is self-administration of illicit drugs. In that case, we would have either had to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act or just import the penalties and the activity from the other legislation which is what we chose to do.
Dr LIM: Wouldn’t it be more consistent, minister, if you were to just impose a financial penalty for both and not put doctors in gaol? What you are saying is that if they wrote a script for themselves, they will face a fine; if they inject themselves, you are going to put them in gaol.
Dr TOYNE: If you write a script for yourself, you will get a fine. If you self-inject, you have the same penalties as under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I stand before the House today and before the Northern Territory community to talk about our vision for safer communities throughout the Territory. Today, I release Building Safer Communities, a framework for crime prevention and community safety. This framework sets the Martin Labor government’s crime prevention and community safety agenda up to and beyond the next election. Central to this vision is being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. It is a commitment from which we have not deviated. It has been our focus over the past three years, and will continue to be so. This commitment drives the Martin Labor Government’s responses to crime and antisocial behaviour.
Taking a broad view, Building Safer Communities and preventing crime is not the responsibility of any one individual or government agency. Ensuring that all Territorians feel safe and secure, and have a justice system that is responsive, accountable and effective, demands more than just the attention of my own Department of Justice.
It is about building our Police Force, with the creation of a new era in Territory policing being led by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. It is about our $50m investment in child protection, and the reforms being promulgated by the Minister for Family and Community Services. It is about new ideas and new ways of tackling old problems, such as the innovative Community Harmony Project, led by the Minister for Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. It is also about working side by side with the Territory community to create neighbourhoods and communities in which all can live safely. Building on the strengths of local communities to find local solutions is crucial.
The ideas and issues that underpin this framework flow from listening to and working with many individual Territorians, community organisations and businesses. We value their experience, wisdom and input and will continue to work closely with them as we turn this vision into a reality.
Turning to the framework, Building Safer Communities is our commitment to Territorians, a commitment to continue working together to make the Territory a safer and more secure place to live and work. Building Safer Communities is a framework under which we have harnessed the ideas and energies of the community, organisations and government agencies and we will continue to work to achieve our vision. The building blocks of this vision are simple yet fundamental, with six priority areas identified for action:
In my statement today, I will talk about our achievements to date, achievements of which this government is rightly proud. I will outline what this government is doing right now to prevent crime and build safer communities. I will talk about our vision for the future, a future in which all Territorians are and feel safer.
Protecting our children and young people: supporting families and communities to help give kids a good start in life are important for so many reasons, including crime prevention. The government will continue to identify youth at risk and proactively engage with them and their families to provide the support required. Protecting our children from neglect and abuse is an obligation to them, and benefits the whole community.
We know there are factors which underpin safer communities and significantly reduce the chance of children or young people becoming involved in crime: strong and supportive families and communities; good primary health care; active school communities; and participation in sport, cultural and recreational activities. All of these elements have a positive role to play in the lives of our children and young people. There are also less tangible but equally important factors, such as: hope – the belief that our young people have an important role in the social and economic future of the Territory; resilience – the ability to meet and overcome life’s challenges; and autonomy – the notion that you have options, you can make choices and, ultimately, you control your own future.
It is these factors, as well as the quality health care and education this government seeks to provide. We are giving children a good start in life, implementing our commitment to building healthier communities. We have already established and funded new services for young Territorians and their families, such as the Office of Children and Families; new youth services, such as e-Cruz and youth centres in urban and remote areas; and the school-based police program, which has been strengthened under this government.
We have already made a significant investment - $53m - in rebuilding our child protection system, employing more child protection and family support workers. We are continuing these measures through reform to the Community Welfare Act to provide a contemporary legislative framework to support families and to protect children.
We have introduced legislation to protect child witnesses in sexual offence cases. We are acting to protect children and young people by prohibiting the employment of sex offenders in child-related areas. We will continue the Caring for Our Children Reform Agenda for a stronger framework of law and practice to support wellbeing and safety of our children.
In partnership with Youth Services, we will develop a coordinated and resourced approach to working with youth at risk. We will work with Youth Services to build a work force that is skilled and sustainable. When young people do go off the rails, we know early intervention will increase living skills and provide opportunities which are strong deterrents to offending again. Through the Department of Employment, Education and Training, we are helping young people to get back to school, or providing training if school is not suitable. It is well known that access to a quality education system, and participation in sport and recreation, are effective in reducing crime. Through our review of secondary education and the government’s Jobs Plan, we are building a high quality education and training system which caters for the needs and aspirations of all young Territorians. As a great advocate for the positive role of sport in young people’s lives, I am sure that my colleague, the Minister for Sport and Recreation, will talk at great length about the achievements in his portfolio area.
This government will act to build communities which keep our children and young people safe. We will help set young people on the path to positive participation in the social and economic life of the Territory.
Preventing property crime - protecting your home and business: for too long, many Territorians lived in communities where vandalism and break-ins were all too regular. The previous government’s under-funding of the Northern Territory Police Force, as identified in the O’Sullivan report, and a failure to target crime and the causes of crime, saw crime rates rise. Through amendments to Territory legislation, we have sent a clear message - we will not tolerate the invasion of our homes or businesses, nor damage to our property. Through these reforms and changes to the Sentencing Act, we now have laws for the effective prosecution of offenders. We have increased police foot, horse and bike patrols and are focussing them on high risk areas.
Police are targeting break-ins, with special task forces and operations like Genesweep, using DNA technology to identify serial offenders. We will maintain and, where necessary, strengthen the Territory’s DNA laws to preserve their place as Australia’s most effective. We have also recognised the link between illegal drug use and criminal activity. Drug courts are operating in Darwin and Alice Springs, targeting drug offenders and breaking the drugs/crime cycle. Forfeiture legislation allows police to track and seize the proceeds of drug and property crime.
We know that neighbourhoods working together can achieve much to prevent crime and build safer communities. It is to foster this involvement that we have increased funding for Neighbourhood Watch. Because we recognise the importance of local people in developing local crime prevention solutions, we have trained community groups to conduct crime prevention audits in their area.
We will give more attention to planning and urban design, using crime prevention principles to make our buildings and public spaces safer. We have installed security screens on all public housing across the Northern Territory, and are developing safer public transport, with security cameras in 80% of the bus fleet, closed circuit cameras at interchanges, and better lighting at bus shelters.
With my colleague, the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I will be establishing a Northern Territory Motor Vehicles Theft Reduction Committee to further reduce motor vehicle theft. We will build on these achievements in a targeted and systematic way. Over coming months, the government will look at introducing crime prevention principles into the Northern Territory Planning Act to improve the safety and security of buildings and public spaces. The Office of Crime Prevention within my department has already started work on a series of home and personal safety packages.
Where crime does occur, we will ensure that the emotional and financial needs of victims are met. This government established and continues to fund the Victims of Crime NT Clean-up Assistance Scheme which provides practical assistance to victims of crime. Through the NT Police, we have increased communication with victims of crime, so victims have feedback on the investigation of their cases. By trialling alternative methods of giving evidence, like closed circuit television and video conferencing, we have made the court system more supportive of vulnerable witnesses.
Protecting Territorians by preventing violence: significant gains have been made in the fight against property crime, with a reduction of 47% across the Territory. To date, such significant drops have not been made in the area of violent crime. While assaults have dropped by 4% in the 12 months to June 2004, there have been 62 additional reports of sexual assault during the last 12 months. This government understands that the new focus on child protection and the increased numbers of child protection workers are likely to lead to increased numbers of reported crimes. We also consider that even one such incident is unacceptable.
Preventing violent crime, understanding when and where it occurs, tackling the issues that cause or exacerbate violence, is the issue on which I, as Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, intend to focus over the life of this framework. This government’s Domestic and Aboriginal Family Violence Strategies were released in January 2003, with funding increased from $1.08m to $1.48m each year. Under these strategies, we put in place numerous initiatives to tackle the problem on the ground and ensure a swift and appropriate response when violence does happen:
In partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and regional councils, we are also working with offenders in prison and in the community to reduce the incidence of family violence.
This government is also continuing to address community concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour caused by excessive alcohol consumption. We will implement the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework to reduce alcohol-related violence, and overhaul the Liquor Act to create a better framework to regulate the sale and supply of alcohol. With key partners such as the Australian Hoteliers Association, we are investigating the development of alcohol accords in urban areas. I will expand on many other government initiatives to tackle substance abuse later in this statement.
I have spoken on a number of occasions about the work being undertaken by the Sexual Assault Task Force. I will not go over this area again other than to say that I look forward to the culmination of the task force’s work early next year, with the presentation of a whole-of-Territory plan to reduce and prevent sexual assault.
Different strategies are needed to prevent different crimes. The Building Safer Communities framework provides a perfect platform for doing that. Each year, a different priority will be brought in from the framework and highlighted through a community forum coordinated by the Office of Crime Prevention. This year’s priority will be preventing violence.
While we are making some inroads, we do not yet have all the strategies we need to address violent crime in our community. Next month, I look forward to bringing together crime prevention professionals and community partners from across the Territory to discuss not only what the government is doing to combat violent crime, but also what our regional crime prevention councils and communities are doing. Members of the public will also be welcome to attend the forum.
Two-way justice, engaging Aboriginal culture and communities: it is a sad reality that Aboriginal people continue to be involved in the justice systems as both victims and perpetrators of crime in rates far higher than other Territorians. Aboriginal people are over-represented as prisoners; 11 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginal Territorians. The re-offending rate of Aboriginal Territorians is also high, with 40% of Aboriginal people returning to prison within two years of their release. Reducing this over-representation is, and will continue to be, an important aspect of preventing crime in the Northern Territory. Economic development in Aboriginal communities is a key to improved social conditions and to reductions in both victimisation and offending.
Reporting directly to three government ministers, we have established an Indigenous Economic Development Task Force. The role of the task force is not an easy one – to achieve an employment rate equivalent to the high rates of employment enjoyed by other Territorians, an extra 2000 jobs need to be created for indigenous people each year for the next decade. We are not walking away from this commitment. The task force is picking up and running with the proposals that emerged from the 2003 Indigenous Economic Forum. It is looking at ways of increasing employment and developing indigenous business and business opportunities.
With $3.2m over three years, Building Stronger Arts Business is about developing opportunities for economic growth and employment while fostering cultural and artistic development. Initiatives such as this will create opportunities for Aboriginal young people to be trained in key employment areas to grow small businesses and ultimately build safer communities.
Increasing the positive participation of Aboriginal people in the law and justice system is another of our priorities in building safer communities. It is embodied in our approach to one law, but two-way justice. It is one of the reasons behind our commitment to increase the number of local recruits to our police force and the number of Aboriginal community police officers; develop local and culturally appropriate law and justice plans; and give communities input into court and sentencing processes. All these initiatives will play a part in building safer communities for Aboriginal Territorians. So too will the alternative dispute resolution and the recognition of customary law where it is consistent with the Northern Territory Criminal Code and general law. Where cultural ties and frameworks have broken down, we will continue to assist communities to rebuild them.
Elders have a critical role as cultural and spiritual mentors in reinforcing traditional authority and applying traditional values and responsibilities in new settings. The input of Aboriginal people is vital to achieving success and many Aboriginal people in many Aboriginal communities are working to meet the challenges we face. This government wants to work with them.
Tackling substance abuse: the realities of substance abuse and its links to crime cannot be ignored. Rates of alcohol consumption are beyond that of other states and territories and alcohol-related violence is unacceptably high. Illicit substances, particularly cannabis and amphetamines, are major contributors to property crime in our urban centres. Inhalant abuse, particularly petrol sniffing, causes crime and social disruption in our remote communities and urban centres alike. Addressing substance abuse is amongst this government’s highest priorities. We have allocated $10m over five years to tackling inhalant abuse, to preventing sniffing, and to rehabilitation and treatments for those affected by inhalant abuse. Communities across the Territory, both urban and remote, have fought against substance abuse and the harm it causes, year after year. We must build on this community effort to put in place the strategies and services which have been shown to work. Programs and services that will be supported under our plan, including appropriately resourced safe houses in urban centres and out stations in remote areas.
Our Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill will be introduced in the November sittings and includes police powers to seize inhalants such as petrol, glue and paint, where they are being abused; police powers to apprehend people under the influence of volatile substances and take them to a place of safety; and giving courts the capacity to order compulsory treatment programs for substance abusers. Our legislation bans petrol sniffing, but it does not criminalise it. Our approach to substance abuse will not involve a prison sentence. Our legislation authorises intervention and treatment in the interest of safety - not just the safety of the sniffer, but the safety of the family and community members.
Community is at the core of our approach. Under our legislation, communities have direct input into the way in which sniffing will be dealt with, determining who can intervene to take away the petrol and other substances; who can take people to a place of safety; and community by community, where the place of safety is.
Under our government we have increased funding to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program by 40%, covering policy, program and service development. The program aims to reduce harm caused by drugs to individuals, families and communities through prevention, intervention and treatment of the drug-related problems across the Territory. Under our program, we will continue to support and expand the services, making a difference in this area from night patrols and sobering-up shelters to rehabilitation and detoxification programs. We have established a 24-hour drug and alcohol information and counselling service for people affected by substance misuse and their families, as well as providing 24-hour support for health practitioners and other professionals responding to clients with drug and alcohol abuse problems.
Our approach involves working with communities and service providers, not against them. When the Barunga Board of Management and the Barunga community made the brave decision to ban alcohol from this year’s festival, the Minister for Family and Community Services worked with her department to support them. The community, and all who attended the festival, benefited from this support and, as the minister has pointed out, the indigenous art, the sports, the culture and the tourism potential of this festival has been rejuvenated.
Hand in hand with this approach, we will continue to be tough on those who commit crime to support their addiction, and those who manufacture and supply drugs. We have increased numbers in the Police Drug Enforcement Section and are rolling out the Police Remote Community Drug Strategy. These efforts will be bolstered by the introduction of a Drug Detection Dog Unit.
Targeting punishment and preventing re-offending: sentencing is the system to punish people who commit crime. To be effective, sentencing must be consistent. More importantly, it must reflect the seriousness with which Territorians view interference with their safety, wellbeing, privacy and property.
This government has been systematically reviewing sentencing laws, ensuring that they represent community expectations. Penalties for child sex offenders have been significantly increased, with sentences for those who commit crimes against children almost doubling under the government’s reforms. Tough new laws now apply to offenders who commit aggravated property offences such as home and business invasion, property damage, and motor vehicle theft. Minimum non-parole periods have been introduced for sexual assault, armed robbery, serious assault and drug trafficking. Courts are required to have regard to the views of victims during sentencing. We will continue this process of reform, listening to the views of victims and the community when making sentencing laws.
We are implementing the recommendations from the Review of Correctional Services, with an additional $26.5m for correctional services over the next four years. Prison is, and will always be, a place for all serious offenders. We are increasing access to work and training in prison, so that offenders are serving time, not wasting time. We will improve the way we deliver rehabilitation and reintegration services to prisoners and those on Community Service Orders, with offenders accessing programs, education and training targeted at ending their offending behaviour. A key element of our commitment is the introduction of sex offender treatment programs for adult offenders. Development of these programs is under way, with programs in place by mid-2005.
This government’s ongoing prison reform will ensure that it is a place where offenders are both punished and provided with the skills to start a crime-free life once they are released. Prison officers, as well as those working in the community, will play an important role in achieving this goal.
Front line responses, our police force: communities where police are highly visible and respond quickly to reports are safer and feel safer. Safer communities also have high clear-up rates; the better the chance the crime will be detected and offenders punished, the less likely the crime will be committed. This government conducted a review of police resulting in the O’Sullivan Report and, with the injection of $75m, has commenced a new era in Territory policing. Record rates of recruitment have seen police numbers increase across the Territory. We have introduced a comprehensive equipment replacement and upgrade program, including a new $2.3m police aircraft for Central Australia. We have instigated the largest ever maintenance and construction program, with new police stations and posts throughout the Territory.
Northern Territory police continue to serve and protect our community, but do so under new structures and with new ways of working: identifying hot spots and targeting these areas with foot, bike and mounted patrols; targeting criminals who are responsible for repeat offending; recognising crime trends and taking action through task forces and specialist units; and making the police force more accessible to the community by introducing the NT Police Call Centre.
We have recognised the reality of Territory policing, and are working better with our state counterparts, putting in place agreements and laws allowing our police to operate effectively across borders. We have already opened a multi-jurisdictional police station at Kintore …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no quorum. Ring the bells. We now have a quorum.
Dr TOYNE: I thank the member for that, because I needed a breather. To repeat the paragraph I was on: the Northern Territory police continue to serve and protect our community, but do so under new structures and with new ways of working - identifying hotspots and targeting those areas with foot, bike and mounted patrols; targeting criminals who are responsible for repeat offending; recognising crime trends and taking action through task force and specialist units; and making the Police Force more accessible to the community by introducing the NT Police Call Centre.
We have recognised the realities of Territory policing, and are working better with our state counterparts, putting in place agreements and laws allowing our police to operate effectively across borders. We have already opened a multi-jurisdictional police station at Kintore, staffed by police from both the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
Through increased resources to the Northern Territory Police Force, this government will deliver more police, more patrols throughout the Territory and even better levels of service and protection for Territorians.
Partners in crime prevention: building safer communities is not just about police and the justice system. Effective crime prevention identifies resources from across government to stop crime before it starts. Effective crime prevention works through initiatives in health, education, housing, sport and recreation, arts and cultural expression, and employment, and by harnessing the expertise and energy of the community. Coordination of effort starts at the very top. We have established a Ministerial Standing Committee on Crime Prevention, with ministers working together to set the government’s approach to crime prevention. Chief executives of key government agencies attend this forum and meet regularly to ensure that coordination, commitment and drive across government is happening at the highest level.
However, government cannot do it alone. Our focus in crime prevention is about building partnerships against crime. This government values the collective knowledge and experience of Territorians, and believes that people at the local level are the people who really know how to prevent crime. Regional crime prevention councils have been established across the Territory. Each council has a membership drawn from the region, and includes representatives of the general community, the business sector, Aboriginal communities, all levels of government and the non-government sector. The regional councils, with the support from the Office of Crime Prevention, stimulate and sustain community involvement to crime prevention. Through our regional and indigenous crime prevention councils, we have funded the development of a series of local and regional crime prevention plans across the Territory.
With this development phase over, we are now building partnerships across the Territory, Commonwealth and local governments and with the non-government sector to achieve the priorities set out in these community safety plans. Supported by government, these plans will be our first and most important step in putting Building Safer Communities into action on the ground.
Our people, places and systems: our people are vital to our success. Building a better justice system is based on supporting the women and men working in it. This government will support Justice staff and many committed Territorians who volunteer their time to meet the challenges and the unique opportunities of the Territory. This government is committed to being a good employer. Because we want to recruit and retain staff, and give our staff clear and constructive career paths, we are providing more training and professional development opportunities to police, correctional services officers and court staff; diversifying our work force, focussing on local recruitment in major centres and remote localities; and looking at new ways of working, such as creating community justice officers who might perform a range of justice-related functions in our remote communities.
It is also about being innovative and flexible in our use of technology. Our courts have embraced the Internet as a means of communicating and exchanging information, delivering services, and interacting with clients. We have built the Northern Territory’s first electronic court at the Supreme Court in Darwin; expanded and upgraded video-conferencing facilities to complement circuit courts; and are using innovative information technology systems to better manage prisoners, sentences, and program delivery. We are looking at new ways of doing business, exploring the creation of one-stop justice shop centres, which will provide a range of court, correctional, mediation and other justice services, and have already created a Justice Office in Alice Springs.
In conclusion, this government has a vision for safer communities throughout the Northern Territory. It is a vision to turn the Territory into a place where all Territorians are safe and feel safe in their homes, their workplaces and their communities. Over the past three years, we have been delivering on our commitment to build safer communities. We have reviewed our police force and committed $75m to rebuilding it. We have introduced new laws targeting home and business invasion and violent crimes, imposing tougher penalties for those who commit crime. We will continue to invest in the services that make a difference to people’s lives. We will continue to provide services for vulnerable children and young people, and provide support for victims. We will ensure our system delivers justice swiftly and effectively.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for providing us, albeit halfway through his statement, with a copy of the Building Safer Communities document, and cannot resist the temptation of reminding members on the other side that they were going to come into government and not govern by glossy brochure. Well, here is another one! I hope that those working in our justice system and police force do not regard this glossy in the same way as people I know in the Health Department regard the equivalent one there. I have seen a member of the Health Department pick up the Building Better Communities health document and throw it from one side of the room to the other. I do not know what is going to happen to this. The government can spin all it likes out there and some people even fall for it.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I remind members that I listened to the Attorney-General in silence. There is Standing Order 51. All I have been able to hear is the member …
Madam SPEAKER: I am quite sure, member for Araluen, that you have the floor at the moment. Off you go. However, if you are too provocative, then you realise you will get interjections.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask you to rule if the interruption is constant.
However, I digress. They are spinning outside, which is fair enough; that is what Labor does. However, inside, let us see if we can get to the bottom of the spin.
There were some things in this statement that were accurate - very few, of course. Some points in there were actually truthful. Some of this statement had the truth in it. However, what I propose to do is go through the statement page by page, and extract some relevant information …
Mr Ah Kit: That is what lazy people generally do!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I ask you to ask the minister over there to stop interrupting. He has been constant.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Community Development, let the member for Araluen have the floor.
Mr Ah Kit: She is so provocative, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
In the first line or second line of the statement, the minister said he wants to talk about ‘our vision’. We say that it is not a vision, it is spin; it is not reality. The vision Labor has, whilst noble, certainly does not amount to what is actually happening in the Northern Territory community. Interestingly, of course, on the first page, the minister says: ‘Central to this vision is being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. He also has the audacity to refer to antisocial behaviour, something this government has sadly done very little about. I will come back to that later.
The minister said on page 2 that he wants to work ‘… side by side with the Territory community to create neighbourhoods and communities in which all can live safely’. Not in my electorate, the people do not live safely, and not in everyone else’s electorates around the Northern Territory. Noble, but it is not true. You can see the spin starting to come in. Then he said, talking about Territorians:
Well, I am sure you will forgive me if I quote the national and losing Mark Latham, when I say: conga line of suck holes.
I will get back to this statement. The minister refers to our children and the future that they can look forward to. I will come back to that. He refers to his suggestion that they have reduced property crime. I will come back to that. On and on it goes.
He talks on page 4 about ‘… every Territorian enjoying the benefits of our great lifestyle is what our government is working to achieve …’ Well, it has not worked because people are leaving the Northern Territory in droves. Never before, never since Cyclone Tracy, have this many people left the Northern Territory. They are leaving for a number of reasons but one of them is the crime that occurs under Labor in the Northern Territory. Everyone of the 25 members of this House will know that constituents come to them and say, ‘I have had enough, I have had a gutful, I am out of here’. Where does the minister get off, I do not know.
He also says the government is supporting communities to reduce crime to provide safer environments. Well, I say to that tell the women and children of the Northern Territory, in particular those in the Aboriginal communities. Where are the domestic violence figures? Nowhere in this statement has the minister provided any figures and I cannot find any figures other than those published in the Northern Territory domestic violence data collection project 2000-02. This government is very quiet when it comes to domestic violence and I will come back to that as well.
The government comes up with the platitude ‘we are serious about reducing crime and antisocial behaviour’. Garbage! This government repealed the Public Order and Anti-social Conduct Act and has replaced it with nothing. I have said that on a number of occasions. I will keep saying it. What do the punters say to me? In Alice Springs, they are sick and tired of hopscotching over drunks as the punters are going on their way to the banks and the shops and the supermarkets. What has Labor done? They say, ‘We are serious about reducing it’. You may well be serious but if you say you have done something, you should start all over because it is not working. All you need is eyes in your head and ears on the side of your head.
On page 5, the Attorney-General says: ‘No one can do this alone. We all have to work together to make our communities safer …’ This is the same bloke who only months ago asked the criminals of the Northern Territory if they would not mind to stop breaking the law. How very extraordinary. It is unprecedented in Australia for an Attorney-General to do that. This is his definition of working together hand-in-hand to make our community safer.
Let’s dispense with the spin. This government is not about sending people to gaol. This government is not about being tough on crime. Never has been, it never will. It is just not the Labor style. What they are trying to do, and I understand the politics of it, obviously, is pick from the CLP because we were well recognised as being very tough on crime and spin it. Well, it might work in some quarters but it is not going to work in here because this statement just simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
The minister, again, on page 5 says that he wants to talk about the achievements to date, the achievements of which this government is rightly proud. I say again, people are leaving the Northern Territory and law and order is one of the main factors. The minister says that he wants to work with families and says:
I ask how? That is not in the statement. In fact, in many ways, it reminded me of the Child Abuse statement because it was full of platitudes but actually had nothing in the way of substance. I will come to that shortly.
In relation to children at risk, on 16 October 2002, the minister had a bit to say in this Chamber about safe families, a government project. He said that it focussed on an early response to young people who may be at risk, identifying what needs to be done, prioritising and coordinating actions to assist parents and extended family to care for their children. Safe family must help those kids rah, rah, rah, rah. He said that he was encouraged by the unprecedented interagency and community cooperation which has generated the safe families approach.
I would have thought since the Attorney-General came in here two years ago and talked about safe families that in the context of this report he could have at least done us, and therefore Territorians, the courtesy of referring to the safe families project. I would like to know what is happening with it and I note that the Attorney-General has been silent on that. How is the project going? That is an issue that is important to all of us. He goes on and on and then says: ‘We are giving kids a good start in life, implementing our commitment to building healthier communities’. Well, let us go back to the Child Abuse statement and see whether what the minister says is true.
In the other minister’s Child Abuse statement during the last sittings, she said that there were 1554 notifications of child abuse in the Northern Territory in 2002-03 and last year, that is 2003-04, the number of notifications was 1949, and that was an increase of 25% in one year. She went on to say that since the change of government, miraculously, it would seem, on 19 August 2001, the number of notifications for abuse of Aboriginal children has nearly doubled. It has increased by 96%. That is what one minister said.
This minister says: ‘We are giving our kids a good start in life, implementing our commitment to building healthier communities’. What rubbish! How dare he say that in the light of what the other minister said less than two months ago. It is an extraordinary case for him to argue. Like so much of what he does, he does not do it well and he does himself a disservice by trying to peddle this rubbish. It certainly will not work in here and I suggest that it will not work outside.
He talked about the Community Welfare Act and said that he is going to reform that. We note that that still has not been brought before the parliament. He said they have introduced legislation to protect child witnesses in sexual assault cases. We have had that debate this week. We maintain it is flawed legislation, though the intentions are good. He said it protects witnesses in sexual offence cases. Again, the inaccuracy is astonishing. What he did not say is ‘…and other offences’ and that is obvious from the act. It is sexual offences, some other offences such as common assault, but not murder and manslaughter. Slippery with the truth, perhaps, or perhaps it just mirrors his understanding of the bill that we debated earlier this week.
He said: ‘We will continue the Caring for Our Children Reform Agenda for a strong frame work of law and practice to support the wellbeing and safety of our children’. According to one other minister in this government, the wellbeing and safety of children is at risk, to say the least. The other minister seems deliriously happy about the fact that people are reporting child abuse. I do not think that I would skite about that, but in any event, the point is that the more senior health minister seems to be under the misapprehension that things are going really well under Labor for children. Patently, that is not the case.
On page 8 he referred to building a high quality education and training system which caters for the needs and aspirations of all young Territorians. Again, it has similarities to the Child Abuse statement. I ask the question: how? Would it not have been a good idea for him to have elaborated on that in the context of his statement? I would have thought so.
He said on page 9: ‘We will help set young people on the path to positive participation in the social and economic life of the Northern Territory’. Again, I ask: how? I remind him again of the figures that the other minister has told parliament in relation to child abuse.
Also on page 9, he referred to ‘invasion of our homes and businesses’. He said:
Once again, we will scratch the surface and see where it takes us.
I am looking at Issue 8 of the June Crime Statistics, and I remind people what this government did fairly early on in relation to home invasion laws. Again trying to pinch the CLP’s position on law and order, they said they were going to revamp home invasion laws. They revamped them, all right. What this Labor government did, and I am quoting from page 99 of the crime stats:
… and it quotes some sections of legislation …
Madam Speaker will remember that what this government has done is said: ‘We will make home invasion illegal, but only if the damage is greater than $5000’. So if someone nicks your video or your television, that is just bad luck. In addition, on page 94, we have, ‘Current financial year, 1 July 2003/30 June 2004’ and there are the home invasion figures. Now let us remember, of course, that this government says, ‘We have sent a clear message that we will not tolerate invasion of your homes’, well, let us have a look at the figures. This provides details of imprisonment order, home detention order, community order, other orders, so it is convictions, obviously, convictions and sentences: 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004, a total of seven people were convicted for home invasion and six of them went to gaol. That is good. However, on the same page - business invasion - 00000. So the government can say that it is sending a strong message, but we all know that more than six people broke into homes, that there were more than six home invasions in this particular financial year. We also know that there were more than zero invasions of businesses. This is illustrative of the fact that these figures are highly questionable, as is the government’s commentary that always accompanies them. It is just rubbish.
Still on page 9, the government seeks to, I think, claim credit for the DNA technology that, of course, as members recall from the debate, either earlier this week or last week, that is CLP stuff. They did not do us the courtesy of acknowledging that, but then again that is what we have come to expect.
On page 10 in the statement, the minister says, ‘We have installed security screens on all public houses across the Northern Territory, and are developing safer public transport with security cameras in 80% of the bus fleet …’, blah, blah, blah. We talked about this on 18 August and, at that time, I quoted a radio interview when a man called Justin Clough was interviewed. He owns JC Electronic Security. He was asked by a reporter:
This is a bloke who goes around installing security systems. I trust this bloke before I trust any individual member of this government, or the whole lot of them in the one place at the one time. I will put my money on Justin Clough any day of the week.
This ministerial statement says, ‘We have installed all these security screens’, well, yet again, their argument is just completely absurd because, in essence, what they are saying, in fact, it is not so much in essence, they say it wherever they can, ‘There is no crime in the Northern Territory, we have fixed everything’. Labor government - hallelujah, hallelujah! Well, it is patently wrong and dishonest.
On page 11, and this is very dishonest. It would be unparliamentary, Madam Speaker, for me to call the Attorney-General a liar, so I will not. However, on page 11 of his statement, he has the gall to say:
What rubbish! CCTV has been in existence for years - for years. This is CLP stuff. I suppose we should be flattered that the government has picked it up, like so much of what we do, and they have chucked it in a statement. But if that is not a big whopper, I do not know what is.
Then he goes on, what’s he got, we’re up to page 11. Oh yes, he goes on about 27% across the Northern Territory, the crime stats, aren’t they wonderful. I remind members of what the Attorney-General said in this parliament on 26 November 2002, that his: ‘… government will all stand or fall on how the pattern emerges in the future’, in relation to the figures. So it is very sensible to be extremely sceptical about the crime figures, because this is a man who, it has been shown, has no integrity, no honour and he says, basically, ‘At all costs we will ensure that the crime figures, certainly in relation to property crime, go the way we want because we will stand or fall by them’, and Territorians know that.
You ask the average Territorian about those statistics and they do not want to know because they are always so cynical about politicians. In relation to the Australian Labor Party, that is fair enough. They do not believe these figures. People in my electorate do not believe the figures. I do not believe those figures in relation to crime, based on what I am told, what I have seen and what I hear.
However, we can do a review because the government is so selective in what it says. Let us have a look. Let us have a sample of some of them. Where are we? A summary of the March quarter 2004 crime stats – just pluck a couple. In property crime in Darwin there was a 9% increase from the previous quarter. There was a 47% increase in Alice Springs from the previous quarter. There was a 79% increase in house break-ins from the previous quarter. That is just the March one. December 2003 – what do we have here? That is sexual assaults and assaults; I will come back to that. In Palmerston, there was a 14% increase in property offences.
Mr Henderson: You cannot have been a good lawyer, you know. You contradicted your own argument.
Ms CARNEY: These are your figures, you moron! These are your figures. This is …
Mr Henderson: You must have been an appalling lawyer.
Ms CARNEY: You say that these are fantastic. I am going through and saying the spin you blokes put on them just does not stack up. It does not stack up and it will never stack up, because you ignore, quarter after quarter, and you just suit yourselves. You say whenever it pleases you: ‘Oh, this is fantastic. No crime left in the Northern Territory. We have fixed it all up’. On the other hand, if you do want to stand by these figures, let us have a look at what they say, because it does not stack up.
Look at what has happened since you people have been in government. Figures like commercial break-ins in Alice Springs were up on the previous quarter – this is September 2003 – 43% up on the same quarter in the previous year. If you want to throw numbers around, we can do that.
The Australian Labor Party Northern Territory Branch places a great deal of emphasis on these figures and they say we have all these figures and, therefore, we are right. I say two things. One is people do not believe you and in the alternative, if you do stand by these figures as you so obviously do, then do not spin it. If you look at the figures over a period of time, you will clearly see they are not as wonderful as you think they are …
Mr Henderson: The Police Commissioner says that they are down 19%.
Ms CARNEY: Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I am running out of time. I choose to ignore the member for Wanguri because none of his contributions are helpful, and he is such an arrogant git, it would be unwise for me to become involved.
The Attorney-General also talked, at last, about the government’s domestic and Aboriginal family violence strategies. This government, under this Chief Minister, has been next to silent on this and you all …
Mr Ah Kit: She has been great. A better woman than you will ever be.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … stand condemned in relation to it. We all know that your Chief Minister is not good on women’s policy. However, the fact that you have other members in your party who say, I guess, that they would be committed to this sort of stuff, or at least interested in it, for them to stand by, and for so little to happen in this area, is just extraordinary.
I am well aware that this strategy was printed in November 2002. How heartening it is to have a minister of the government actually talking about it. The minister has been given a couple of paragraphs to talk about this, which is why it is so edifying. He said he is working with offenders and he is going to reduce the incidence of family violence. Interestingly, he does not say how.
When we are talking about crime statistics, there are a few things not in them. What is the obvious one? Domestic violence. Why aren’t the rates of domestic violence recorded in the crime statistics? If, less than two months ago, we had the other Health minister - the junior one - come in here and give us very detailed figures, on the incidence of child abuse in the Northern Territory, why do we not have the information on the rates of domestic violence in the Northern Territory? The fact that government does not come in with that information suggests one of two things. One is that is it is not interested in the area of domestic violence. Alternatively, it suggests that the figures are so astronomically high it wants to hide those figures.
I have talked about this domestic violence strategy before. It is written, I guess, to some extent in ‘Labor speak’, and I say that because it says in one part ‘the strategy takes a coordinated multifaceted whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach to intervening, preventing and addressing domestic violence’. No doubt this is guiding the government. But what the government does not do, apparently, is take notice of it. This is a document, which whilst on the one hand I could be critical of it at least it is something from this government in relation to domestic violence. That the Chief Minister, the first women Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, should be so appalling when it comes to knowing anything about domestic violence is extraordinary. I might add that many women in the Northern Territory on her side of politics are similarly appalled.
In any event I look forward to the Attorney-General’s new interest in domestic violence and ask that he provide us with some figures on it in the near future. I know he also talks about sexual assault and he says, ‘We have fixed property crime but there is still a bit of sexual assault around’. I think I said in Estimates Committee hearings and I have said in this Chamber previously, that I want this Attorney-General to start an inquiry based on the inquiry in the South Australian parliament in relation to sexual assault so that we can attack the conviction rates. The minister has been silent on that. I have even given him an extract of the relevant paperwork from the South Australian parliament. He accepted it from me but because he is very rude and arrogant I have not heard anything back from him. I can only assume that even though he purports to show some level of interest in the area of domestic violence, he is not as interested in the area of sexual assault.
Members will recall the media release issued by the Attorney-General on 17 December 2003, which was issued a week or so after some crime figures came out where there was what he described as ‘spiked increases in sexual crimes’. Well, the Attorney-General – no, he would not have thought about it - someone would have suggested to him why don’t you set up a task force. In December 2003, a task force was established and he said in his media release that, ‘… an action plan will happen and that will identify current data and a range of other resources’. It is nearly 12 months and there has been very little, publicly at least, coming from the sexual assault task force and that is very disappointing.
Is it not reasonable for us to ask that the sexual assault task force at least look at the South Australian inquiry. If people are serious about sexual assault then they do need to deal with it on a very serious basis and this government is showing scant regard for it. I remember what amounted to a throw away line by the Attorney-General when the crime figures came out a quarter or two ago and he said that a lot of it was domestic violence in Katherine. If that was not a very ignorant thing to say, I do not know what was. It was also very racist, in my view. However I digress.
He talks about the sad reality of Aboriginal people continuing to be involved in the justice system. He must be joking. It is the highest Aboriginal imprisonment rate the Northern Territory has seen, ever. It is probably 70% or 80%. It shows that crime is being committed left, right and centre. Both gaols, when I last had a look at the figures, were full. Not only is crime being committed left, right and centre; not only are those offenders who do the break-ins to your homes and your business not caught, but so many of them are being caught that there are actually a lot of them in gaol and that is great. But it is indicative, is it not, of the high rate of crime here in the Northern Territory?
Anyway, I am up to about page 17. I am going to run out of time. The minister talks about tackling substance abuse. I await the report which I gather might be tabled tonight. He says petrol sniffing is amongst the government’s highest priorities. I say, ‘Really?’ He talks about $10m being allocated without the committee’s inquiry being tabled in this parliament. The other minister over there, the little one, said she went to Alice Springs, didn’t tell anyone, to spend $10m and, as I understand it, no one quite knows what the $10m is going to be spent on other than something to do with petrol sniffing. So they’re willing to spend, this mob, no doubt because they have extra millions from the GST, which they so vehemently opposed way back when.
I am going to run out of time, Madam Speaker. This mob on the other side really do not like it when they are called to account. They do not like a series of arguments being put to them. I know you would love it if I stood here and said: ‘I agree with everything in that statement. I agree with everything you do because you are such a nice bunch of people’. Well, you are not, and I do not agree with much of what you do. Your spin is outrageous. How you sleep at night, I do not know, and it is my job, I am paid reasonably well to carefully, thoughtfully assess what you people do. For as long as I draw breath I will call you to account.
The minister’s statement is just like the other one in relation to child abuse: full of words, but nothing else, and that is a great shame.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I support the statement of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. In my response, I make two simple points. First, the strategies developed in designing the Building Safer Communities framework are the first rational responses by any government since 1978 to seriously and sensibly deal with the issues of crime prevention and community safety in the Northern Territory. For that alone, we must thank the minister, his parliamentary staff and staff in his portfolio areas. Second, unless we as Territorians are prepared to act now, and for the medium and long term future, in making the Territory a safer place for our children and grandchildren, our legacy to them will be one of despair.
Let us be brutally honest here. The reputation of the Northern Territory is one in which murder and assault rates are higher than any other jurisdiction in the country, and is not enviable. Behind the romantic image of the outback lie the dirty secrets of rampant and multiple substance abuse, violence against women and children, antisocial behaviour and property crime.
This is something that has developed over many years, from the hard-drinking casual violence of the frontier to the contemporary street gang culture of the suburbs. It is not something that has arisen overnight, nor is it something that will disappear overnight.
Clearly, the policies of the past have failed, so what this government has sought to do from the earliest days of our election is to re-cast the ways that we as a society deal with the problems of crime prevention and community safety.
As the minister outlined, we are already reaping the benefits of lower property crime rates. The framework he introduced shows the way forward to achieving much more. As a member of the Ministerial Standing Committee on Crime Prevention, I have a strong personal commitment to making our community safe. Through the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, a range of preventative and intervention programs and activities are currently in place, and I will speak on these later.
Being tough on crime is simply not enough, as demonstrated by the historically high rates of recidivism in our community. A comprehensive approach is required to confront the serious and ongoing crisis in our indigenous communities. We need to challenge bad behaviours, support people and communities to change, provide opportunities for our leaders to rise up and exercise their cultural authority, and to improve the living standards in our indigenous communities.
The framework can be summed up in three strands. First, better and more comprehensive legislation with regard to the Criminal Code as well as associated issues such as the Sentencing Act and Evidence Act, legislative approaches to substance abuse; and enhanced child protection laws.
It should be mentioned that since the advent of this government, the courts have been sentencing offenders at greater rates and for longer periods than under the previous government despite the hysteria whipped up by some people to the contrary. The remarks of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court last week to this effect are worth noting: This government has had faith in its judiciary to do the right thing rather than straight-jacketing them with the ‘lock them up throw away the key’ mindlessness of mandatory sentencing.
Second, the framework reflects smarter and better resourced policing. The shameless way in which the previous government starved the police service of resources throughout the 1990s, while beating off about crime, beggared belief. The massive three year build-up of resources to police undertaken by this government allows our police the time and resources to be smarter and more efficient in their work. We only have to look at the downward trends in crime statistics to see the fruit of this investment.
The third strand is the approach by this government across all agencies to moving forward on social justice issues. The issues are stuck. All research into gaol populations demonstrates that inmates, especially amongst recidivists, are overwhelmingly ill-educated, with chronically low levels of literacy and numeracy. Research equally demonstrates similar links with poor physical and mental health, low levels of employment, and poor living conditions, including homelessness and living in overcrowded accommodation.
All of these problems are exacerbated when these conditions are experienced inter-generationally, when the social conditions that lead to substance abuse, violence, and other forms of criminality and antisocial behaviour are allowed to fester for many years, as has been the case in the Territory over a number of decades. In other words, the vast bulk of Territorians in gaol are there because access to decent education and training opportunities have not been available. Health outcomes are lousy, job opportunities minimal, and social circumstances are at the bottom end of the scale.
It is absolutely no comfort to me that indigenous people continue to be overly represented in the justice system as offenders and perpetrators of crime. It shames me. It should shame all of us as Territorians. Indigenous people are also highly over-represented in the prison system, with indigenous Territorians 11 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-indigenous Territorians. That is why this government has not been prepared to sit on its hands and watch our communities disintegrate, and see them become less safe for our citizens. This is why this government has been so active in turning this legacy around. It is why the minister for Education has been so passionate about ramping up the levels of literacy and numeracy, and introducing secondary education opportunities for the first time in so many of our communities. It is why he is so vehement about the need to expand training and employment opportunities. It is why our Health minister has been so active in increasing the levels of health care available across the whole of our community, especially in remote areas. It is why the Chief Minister and I have been so firm in our resolve to promote regional, economic, social and cultural development.
Poor housing and essential services are undoubtedly amongst the primary underlying causes of ongoing indigenous disadvantage. Demographic trends in remote indigenous communities show that our indigenous population is the fastest growing segment in our community and the most disadvantaged. This government’s Home Territory 2010, which I announced during the last sittings, provides a comprehensive framework for action. This year alone, this government will invest in excess of $200m in housing assistance, with $122m targeted towards remote communities. Through the Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory, we are shifting away from the build and abandon approach to community capacity building, ensuring the life of housing is an integral part of building safer communities.
This government, as a quality landlord, has embarked on the largest refurbishment of public housing since Cyclone Tracy, through Territory Housing. Over the next five years, over $45m will be invested in public housing assets to raise the standard of our dwellings. We recognise that it is important for our tenants to feel safe and secure in their homes. Territory Housing has undertaken a range of practical and sensible programs to do just that. Through the security screening program, over $10m was spent upgrading over 6000 dwellings throughout the Territory. We have improved the physical infrastructures of our properties, including security gates, improved common area lighting, fencing, redirecting traffic around private spaces, and installing safe rooms in certain dwellings. Territory Housing understands the importance of a physical environment in creating a sense of personal safety and security.
Over a number of years, Territory Housing has worked to reduce the concentration of public housing dwellings. All new public housing complexes being built are lower in density than many major private developments, and are designed to include appropriately planned common areas and public space.
In regard to the Community Harmony projects, I take this opportunity to talk about this wonderful initiative of which I am very proud. This project, which is now operating in all regional centres throughout the Territory, demonstrates the effectiveness of working collaboratively across government and across the community on the complex issue of dealing with antisocial behaviour. Through a grassroots approach, we are seeing local solutions to local problems to address issues of safety in their communities. Importantly, initiatives such as the Mala elders and the Yalu women recognise that the role of senior elders from home communities to intervene in culturally appropriate ways and facilitate return to home repatriation strategies with countrymen and women is very important. The objective of the visit by Mala leaders was to encourage itinerants to respect Larrakia and, where possible, to return to home to their families, or to take the necessary steps towards rehabilitation. A similar program operates in Alice Springs and Katherine with the support of traditional owners and key indigenous leaders.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in closing I would like to say that each individual, no matter where they live, has a right to feel safe and secure in their own community and within their own house. Through the Building Safer Communities framework, we are providing a comprehensive framework for action and a road map for the future. I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I also support my colleague, the Justice minister, in his statement Building Safer Communities.
Before I get into my speech on this, I have to respond to some of the amazing contribution from the member for Araluen in this particular debate. Why the member for Araluen fails to recognise any of the significant advances that this government has made in safer communities, a safer Northern Territory, a reduction in crime in the Northern Territory, is absolutely beyond me. The member for Araluen came into this parliament as somebody who won her seat - and good luck to her – and came here with a fair degree of community standing; a professional in her own right as a qualified lawyer. The diatribe that she turned out this evening on the statement has to be heard to be believed. I have to say it was a pretty schizophrenic contribution made by the member for Araluen.
For a lawyer trying to argue the case and secure either a prosecution or getting the defendant off, I do not think she did very well. She tried to argue at the beginning of her statement that this was a government that was soft on crime; soft on the causes of crime; the gaols were being emptied at a rapid rate, nobody was going to the gaol anymore; that we were soft on the causes of crime; and crime was out of control. Then at the end of her statement was saying that the last time that she looked that the gaols were full, they were full of Aboriginal people, fuller than they have ever been. What an amazing contribution. On the one …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … hand the gaols are empty because the government isn’t sending anybody to gaol and then on the other side, they are full of Aboriginal people. The reality is, and it is certainly something that we do not take great pride in, that if you do the crime and you are caught and there is a conviction, people are going to gaol.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: People are going to gaol and the average sentences are longer under this government than the previous government.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: We committed in the last budget, I think, and tenders are about to be awarded for a new $8m low security wing out at Berrimah. The police, with the additional resources, the extra 200 resources we are committing to the police, are out there in stronger numbers having the ability to conduct a much more thorough investigation, charges are sticking and people are going to gaol. Now if they do not commit …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … crime in the first place they won’t go to gaol. For the member for Araluen to say, ‘We’re soft on crime, we’re soft on the causes of crime nobody is going to gaol’, absolutely stands in stark contrast to the facts. This is something that the member for Araluen seems to have a tenuous grasp of.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: She also then spent a fair amount of her contribution basically saying, ‘Nobody trusts, nobody trusts, nobody in the Northern Territory trusts the Justice department’s quarterly crime statistics’.
Ms Carney: No, that is not what I said. Don’t you go verballing me, now, Hendo.
Mr HENDERSON: Nobody trusts them, her constituents don’t trust them, Territorians don’t trust them’.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, will you please pause. Member for Araluen, will you cease interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Nobody trusts these crimes statistics. She quoted my colleague, the Justice minister. I think we all acknowledge that law and order was a key issue in the last election. I remember the polling booths, the scare campaign, the big black banners on every polling booth, ‘Labor will get rid of mandatory sentencing; the world will end as we know it. We will have crime rampant across the Northern Territory if you dare elect a Labor government’. Well, the Labor government did get elected, we did repeal mandatory sentencing but we have committed an extra 200 police to our police force.
What is the point of legislation and trying to be tough on crime, appalling legislation though it was, when you didn’t have any police out there to catch anyone?
So, the member for Araluen …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … was saying, ‘You can’t trust these statistics’ and then flicked them and started talking about the appalling jumps in crime rates and assault rates on a quarter by quarter basis. These were the same statistics that she was earlier saying just could not be trusted. The member for Araluen cannot have it both ways.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Either the statistics are accurate or they are not accurate.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They are either accurate or they are not accurate. The statistics do not come from the Minister for Justice’s office.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They do come from the department. The statistics are all captured in the first instance on the police PROMIS database so unless the police are some part of this great conspiracy to doctor the crime figures in the Northern Territory; that is essentially the allegation that the member’s making. That the source for this data and the publication of this data is through the Police and the Justice department, not the minister’s office, that somehow they are part of this Labor conspiracy to fraudulently present these statistics.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Well they are either accurate or they are not. If they are accurate, well the statistics - and I refer the member for Araluen to the police commissioner’s report. This is not my report; this is the police commissioner’s report to this parliament, to the people of the Northern Territory. It is not my report, this is not a government report.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: It is the police commissioner’s report. So are you asserting he is part of this conspiracy as well? And it is interesting that the new shadow police minister, the member for Brennan, has done nothing but climb into this new commissioner since the day he was appointed to the job.
On the first page of the report, the commissioner’s overview, ‘Offences in the Northern Territory for 2003-04’ shows total reported crime down 17% across the Territory, overall crimes against the person down 4%, overall crimes against property down 19%, homicide and related offences down 48%, and unlawful entries down 23%. Then there is a table in the back that does show in certain categories there have been increases. Those categories are the areas which the police are tackling, particularly assault and sexual assault. This is the second year in a row that there is a downward trend in most of those categories, not all.
Either the statistics are accurate or they are not. I say that they are, not only because they are produced by the police commissioner in his annual report every year, but they are also independently audited. I do not have the name of the auditors in my head at the moment, but they are putting their corporate reputation on the line saying that the statistics are accurate. Those statistics also inform and add to the public debate in the NT about crime prevention. We committed to issuing the statistics on a quarterly basis, and that is what we are doing, which is in stark contrast to the CLP when they were in government when all we saw were the annual statistics in the police report.
In trying to engage the community to develop strategies to reduce crime across the Northern Territory, there is an old adage: if you do not measure it, you cannot manage it. These statistics inform the community and assists it to develop strategies to reduce crime across the Territory. We have a long way to go. The member for Araluen was saying that we said we had eliminated all property crime and now we are going to eliminate all violent crime and sexual assault. We have not said that at all. I do not recall my colleague saying that. Again, it was more ravings from the member for Araluen.
We have made a start, but we have a long way to go. A 47% reduction in property crime in the first three years of this government is a great achievement, not only by the government, but by the community, the crime prevention groups and the police doing a fantastic job across the Territory. Did I hear one accolade from the member for Araluen about what a great job the police are doing? Not one.
Ms Carney: This was not about the police of the Northern Territory. It was about you and your government and crime.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: That is right, but if the police don’t have – picking up on the interjection, if the police have absolutely no role in crime prevention, I do not know which planet the member for Araluen is on.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me! Member for Araluen, wait to be called, please.
Ms CARNEY: I did not think you heard me. The member was going on and on …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, wait to be called. Now, please, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Acting – are you going to sit down, or what?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please resume your seat, and minister. There have been far too many interjections, particularly from the member for Araluen. I ask for complete order for the conclusion of the minister’s remarks. Member for Araluen, what is your point of order?
Ms CARNEY: My point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, is that once again, the minister has purported to attribute comments to me that were not said by me in my speech earlier.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Minister, please continue.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Again, an extraordinary response from the shadow Attorney-General.
We are not saying that we have the problem fixed, that there is going to be no crime ever again in the Northern Territory. This sets a framework for policy across government to continue to work hard to make the Northern Territory a safer place.
The member for Araluen also climbed in with some amazing comments that people are leaving the Territory in droves, I think she said, at unprecedented rates since Cyclone Tracy in 1974. What an amazing statement!
There is something about the opposition at the moment; they are obviously not getting out much or, if they are, I do not know who they are talking to. Talk to any real estate agent in the Northern Territory at the moment and they will say that the property market is at a height they have not seen for many years. They cannot get listings, they have people waiting for properties, and vacancy rates in the rental market are at the lowest they have been for many years. I heard a figure today that the roll for the federal election last weekend was up something like 2300 people across the Northern Territory in the last couple of months. The member for Araluen has some sort of warped understanding that people leave the Territory in droves, in a large part, because of the appalling crime rate and the appalling antisocial impacts.
I was in Central Australia two or three weeks ago talking to people there. Alice Springs is looking absolutely fantastic at the moment. I talked to many people about this, and they all agreed. If you go back five or 10 years and remember what Alice used to be like, the riverbed at the time, the drunks that used to hang out in the mall and what have you, around the place.
Ms Carney: Oh, aren’t they there now?
Mr HENDERSON: I am not saying that they are not there now, but certainly not in the numbers that they were 10 years ago, and a huge credit to the people of Alice Springs, to the Town Council in Alice Springs. The community has a real sense of pride about it at the moment, and so they should have. Yet, we have one of the local members, coming into this parliament again and again, bagging the very town that she lives in, and I think it is absolutely appalling.
Ms Carney: Telling the truth unlike you, member for Wanguri. Telling the truth, that is all it is.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you will withdraw that comment.
Ms Carney: What comment, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You implied that the minister was not telling the truth. You will withdraw.
Ms Carney: Well, I will withdraw it …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, you can sit down now, please.
Ms Carney: … and I ask him to withdraw the fact that he says that I am bagging my town. That is absolute nonsense and he knows it.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Well, I do not know. Saying that people were leaving Alice Springs in droves because of the appalling antisocial problems in the town and the appalling crime rate, well, if that is not bagging your town, I really do not know what is, because it is certainly very far from the truth.
That is not saying there are no problems. Yes, there are problems. There are still very significant problems across the Northern Territory, and this parliament deserves better debate in trying to get across those problems, working constructively, than just vitriol and schizophrenic positions on what are very serious issues for the Northern Territory.
We all know that the biggest single issue facing this community is the abuse of alcohol, and the effect that it has across all areas of society, all areas of offending in the community, and this is a government that, through a very consultative process, has been engaged with talking with the community. There is a framework report out at the moment for consultation. That will come back to Cabinet before the year’s end. However, we, as a community, have to tackle the grog issues.
I certainly do not have a silver bullet. I have not made up my mind on many of those recommendations. I am talking to many people about it. That certainly is one very significant issue that we are going to have to deal with as a government and as a parliament. I would like to think, in this Nirvana of mine, that all 25 of us could agree on some position of a united way forward on the regulation and supply of liquor in the Northern Territory, and also what we need to do via services to reduce the amount of harm in the community. There are going to be some tough decisions to be made, and it is just going to be interesting to see where the opposition is going to be on some of those tough decisions.
This is a good statement here today. I believe that the police - and it does not matter what the member for Araluen thinks - are at the front line of making safe communities.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! On the same basis that you asked me to withdraw a comment before in relation to a suggestion that he was lying, I would ask him to withdraw what he just said on the basis of me making some sort of, according to him, inference in relation to the Northern Territory police, which is patently untrue and he should withdraw it.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think he said that, member for Araluen. Please continue, minister. There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. What I was referring to when I made the comment was the member for Araluen in her half an hour tirade against this report, did not recognise the good work that the police had been doing in the Northern Territory, given that their annual report was tabled in the parliament today.
Ms Carney: I am not debating their annual report, you fool!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Araluen said that this is about crime prevention, it is not about police.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you will withdraw that comment please.
Ms Carney: I withdraw ‘fool’.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Our police do a fantastic job. They are on the front line. I will talk about one area where there has been a significant difference in one community and one region of the Northern Territory. If only we had the financial capacity to replicate that outcome in 60-odd communities around the Territory but, of course, we do not. The decision of this government to build a police station out at Kintore and the effect that it has had – if we are talking about safer communities and crime prevention - the amazing impact that that police presence and that facility has made, not only to the people of Kintore, but surrounding communities. The work that the government has done with the Western Australian government in a cooperative police effort with the fact that we have a serving Western Australian police officer based at that police station, has seen that community turn around - turn around markedly from where it was just 12 months or so ago.
I had the pleasure of being there to open that new facility. I know that the member for Macdonnell was there as well. To have the experience of being embraced by people in the community, thanking the government for the best thing that ever happened to that community was certainly something that was overwhelming.
It rammed home to me that the first responsibility of government is ensuring that we have a society that is based in law and that respects law, and that people are punished if they break the law. Without a law-enforcement presence in communities, then bad people do take hold. I have a couple of statistics: the health clinic, in the preceding few months, on a regular basis was closed. The nurse there, and women from the community, were barricaded in to try to protect women from rampaging and marauding men in the community trying to seek violent retribution against the women in the communities, on a regular basis. Since the police station opened, it has not happened once; the grog runners have been run out of town; the petrol sniffers have been run out of town; and the kids are going to school again because they can sleep at night.
In talking to the headmaster at Kintore school, there had been very real problems in recruiting and keeping teachers in the community, because every time they would go to Alice Springs to have a break from the community, they would come home and their house would be turned over. Well, that would happen one or two times. If it happened a second time: ‘I am off, I am out of here. I cannot take it anymore’. The police do have a significant role to play and the Kintore community is much better off as a result of having that facility there.
I will continue as police minister to work with my colleague, the Justice minister, and all of our colleagues in Cabinet, to work across government to see that the Territory community is a safer place. We have a good start under our belts at the moment, but there is a long way to go. I commend the minister on this statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the minister’s statement on Building Safer Communities. I will give the government one pat on the back; it is trying. Sometimes, with all the criticisms they get, one would be derelict to say you have to give the government credit where it is due. It has tried to change things around with crime in our Northern Territory. Whether it has succeeded is an issue that will be, I imagine, continually debated in this House.
As you know, statistics can be looked at from many different directions depending on how you read a graph or a column, how short a time you look at those statistics, or how long a time you look over those statistics. However, I will say that the government at least is trying.
At least we now have the Northern Territory quarterly crime and justice statistics, which is something we can debate. Here we have at least some facts and figures. Again, they might not be all what the government wants, but at least we have a set of statistics which say whether our communities are becoming safer. Here are the statistics. That is an important part of seeing whether the government’s attempts to make our communities safer are actually working.
I would like to thank the government for increasing the number of police. That is important. It has been a very difficult area especially from the point of view of trying to retain police in the job. At least the retention of police now seems to be levelling out better than it has in years gone by. That at least may mean that we do not have to spend as much money on recruiting new police.
I am certainly very pleased that we have a new police station at Humpty Doo. People sometimes think you do not need a police station at Humpty Doo. We do not have that much crime in the rural area, but police are not there just about crime. Police are there to be part of the community. They are there to, unfortunately, attend car accidents and fires and things like that, but they also mix with the community and are part of the community. I am very pleased that we are getting a police station in the rural area.
The member for Wanguri mentioned that substance abuse, whether it is alcohol or petrol sniffing or cannabis, is a major issue in our society which is underlining much of the crime that we have. The statistics, and I am only talking in rough figures here from the police, shows about 80% of violent crime is associated with alcohol. If we can somehow start to reduce the impact of alcohol surely in the end we will start to reduce the amount of violent crime. That is a big, big issue. It is a big task. If you look at the power of breweries in the Northern Territory or Australia, with the power of the advertising dollar to promote a product which causes us major social problems, we have a big job to tackle that. We also have a society which accepts a lot of it, which turns a blind eye to domestic violence at home, much of which is due to alcohol abuse because it is seen to be the norm, and having a good time, and being drunk seems to be the norm. Many times we are turning a blind eye to the fact that much of that is the cause of violence in our community.
We do have antisocial behaviour whether you like it or not. I was talking to someone today from Katherine, and I recalled that on my last trip to Katherine, we had one of our committee meetings there, I drove to Katherine - I beg your pardon, to Alice Springs because we were having a serious of meetings down the track - on the way I stopped at Woolworths. Driving down the side of Woolworths a group of people approached my vehicle. They had no intention of moving out of the way. As I went past, the old mirror gets wiped out. Obviously I had upset them. They are the sort of things that can make you pretty cranky. That sort of antisocial behaviour I do not believe should be acceptable. It is a very difficult issue, and in places where antisocial behaviour is causing a lot of stress in the community, is causing a downturn in the tourist industry, it is basically behaviour that people, all races of people, would not find acceptable.
I know that my wife who is Aboriginal is ashamed of some of the behaviour she sees of her fellow Aboriginals in our parks. She calls it a ‘shame job’. It is an area that I do not believe we really have tackled well at the moment. We do have the itinerants program but whilst that may have some effect, we will not know whether it has had a real effect for many years. There will always be people who are attracted to the bright lights, especially where there is easy access to alcohol, there is probably easy access to women, and there is an easy lifestyle which is just laying around in parks and places like that.
They are difficult areas but they are areas we must tackle. If we let it go it will only get worse. I accept what the member for Wanguri has said; a lot of this is due to alcohol and that is an issue we have to tackle. We have the alcohol framework, which is a very good start but we have lots of books in front of us these days, it is a matter of making sure those books turn into action and do not just collect dust as so many books do.
A couple of issues that also relate to antisocial behaviour, and the minister touched on one of them, and that is the importance of sport and recreation with our young people. I know that on some of our trips around the Territory as part of the Substance Abuse Committee, there was concern, for instance, that sport and recreation officers, where you had them, and I think you should have them a lot more than we do now, were not operating in the hours they were needed. They were operating from 8 am to 4.30 pm or something. The kids all came out of school at 3 pm and were not doing nothing much at night except for getting into trouble. So, simple things like saying that sport and recreation officers have to be working from 4 pm until 10pm and on weekends will address the problem. We have to make sure that the people we are paying to do jobs to help with sport and recreation, to help our youth, must be working at the right time, otherwise they will be ineffective.
Sport and recreation are not the only reason people are bored. If you do not have employment and are sitting around all day, or even working half a day on CDEP, you start to get bored, which leads to antisocial behaviour. That does not just happen in major centres; it is in the smaller centres, too. After all, you would not see graffiti everywhere and houses smashed up or burnt down if people had something to do. The antisocial issues are something we have to continually work on.
I repeat what I said before: I thank the government for trying. This is no reflection on the previous government. It is just how I see it since I have been in parliament. They are having a go. It may not be perfect and I may not agree with everything they do, but better to be trying than doing nothing at all.
I congratulate the government on the Don Dale improvements. I have yet to go out there, but we have to have correctional infrastructure suitable for the people for which it is designed. Don Dale having a little football oval and an expansion of infrastructure is an improvement. This is an area that really needs attention: how are we going to deal with juveniles all over the Territory? Are we still going to put them in Don Dale and the Berrimah and Alice Springs gaols, or are we going to look at alternatives like we had with Wildman River? I have harped on this before. Wildman River presently has a caretaker, but is basically closed down. We need more Wildman River-type establishments near our regional centres – and I am not saying 100 metres away; I am saying maybe 40 km away, a far enough distance for people not to decide to walk home but close enough for their relatives to know they are safe and they can visit them.
These should be places where the juveniles can learn a trade, even if it is only for a few weeks or months, they can learn some English, learn writing, improve their education, do some gardening, get some self-esteem, dry out. It is not going to be for everyone, but there is a place for more than existing corrections establishments for our juvenile offenders.
I hark back to Bill Fordham who used to run King River Station, which was taken over by the Jawoyn and disappeared. He had a program for young people to learn to be ringers. He now has a program in Arnhem Land, or he did have. I am not sure of the latest. We visited him on Substance Abuse Committee trips. Here is a bloke who has proved it can be done. It has been done in other places. We are talking about doing it, I think, with rounding up camels in Central Australia. The government has been in power for three years, but has it really done anything in that area? They have done lots of other things, but here is an area that has been sadly lacking. We could have given Bill Fordham some money; we could have set up programs for kids on some of the cattle stations under the administration of Correctional Services.
What we have at the moment is not right. We have no other place for juveniles except Don Dale, which can have anyone from rapists to murderers, as long as they are juvenile, to a person who has pinched a car. Pinching a car is bad enough, but it is not as serious a crime as rape and murder or armed robbery. Wildman River was a place where young people who might have done something silly like pinch a car but who had the right attitude could go out there and leave them there. They were doing work at Shady Camp on barrages, they were doing fencing, had a football oval, had a swimming pool and some gym equipment, a classroom and a little social club area. They had to cook all their meals. For sure, they were locked up at night and if they got out, they had an awfully long walk unless they could find a ranger’s vehicle to use to get home.
That was an alternative for young people to try to at least say, ‘Look, this is your last chance. This is what will happen to you. We are giving you, you might say, the five star accommodation, if you do this again you will get the one star accommodation’. If you have been to Alice Springs Gaol, some people have said they live in fine condition down there; five star stuff. It is all concrete and steel, and that is all it is made of, if you call that five star accommodation, I will eat my hat. It is a pretty dismal sort of outlook for anyone who wants to end up in gaol.
I would say to the government it is time you really looked at this issue of alternative imprisonment for youth. I have mentioned it before as possibly an alternative for people who are continually affected by alcohol. They have a court order, and they can perhaps be told they have to stay in these places to dry out. I know there has been discussion; there will be discussion later on about the issue of arresting people who are petrol sniffing.
The reason I have promoted the idea of apprehension without arrest, that is, picking up people under protective custody, is so that a court order based on the family and a judge making decisions could be made that they go to a community like this, they go to a detention centre. They are required to dry out there, they are required to do some work ...
Mr Elferink: It sounds like my habitual drunks legislation.
Mr WOOD: That is right. That is what I am saying. I think we are really missing an opportunity. We can set up these facilities, not only for small time offenders, but for some sort of alcohol rehabilitation for the worst, the ones who go through the revolving door, as we call it, and for petrol sniffers who really need to be just taken off the street for the time being and say, you have to stay there and dry out and learn a bit, get some education, get some skills. For sure, it will have its failures. At the moment, we haven’t anything. And, as I said, you are trying, I accept that, but in this area, I believe we have not even started.
I am hoping that the government will look at that. I have been looking at the Juvenile Justice Board of Management reports. They do not take a long time to read, but there are issues in there. They talk about recidivism, and I think it would be good to see those figures in this book. If we are all about accrual accounting today, where we are seeing inputs, then inputs are arresting and putting you in gaol; outputs, I suppose, is how long you have been in there; and outcomes are you do not come back again, then we need statistics to say that that is happening. We do not need statistics to say there are 100 people here and 100 people did not come back. We need to know each person, not their name, but X, Y and Z, did they come back. And if they did not come back, I would say we are getting some successes.
I believe the statement is a fair statement. As I said, there will be many people argue whether we are winning or the government is winning. And in some areas, when you read your statistics, there is no doubt house break-ins have certainly dropped. But, of course, for the person who has their house broken into, even though the statistics are lower, it still hurts. For the person who loses their car, it still hurts. My wife parked her car inside a house block at Anula, came out and found the back window smashed and her purse gone. The last thing she expected was that to happen. She did not get all her precious belongings back, and it does hurt. You feel like you have been invaded, even for a small thing like getting the back window in the car smashed.
Statistics in some cases are good. Statistics in other cases, like sexual assault, certainly there is a lot of work to do. When we talk about sexual assaults, there is room for a bigger debate on why we are having a lot of sexual assaults. Are there some overriding issues within society that are causing sexual assaults? We are going to talk tomorrow about child pornography. We are one state, or one territory, that quite freely allows people to have pornography. You just go down to the local Video 2000 and it is all there.
If we are talking about sexual assaults, should we, as a government, be looking at whether there are other issues besides alcohol? Have we become desensitised about how we treat women, or how we deal with sex? Have we reached the stage where who cares? When we are dealing with that issue, I wonder whether it is time that government perhaps looked at some of the other influences that may be the cause of that. If we are seeing a rise in sexual assaults, would we perhaps relate that to a rise in the availability of pornography over the last 10 or 15 years? I am not sure how long it has been. I may be totally wrong on that, but it is worth looking at, at least.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, once again, I say good on the government for trying. I believe you can do some things better. Just because crime is going down does not mean you stop, because it still hurts. However, I reckon good on you, but we will still keep an eye on you. I am sure members of the opposition here will still keep an eye on you. Anyway, that keeps you on your toes.
Mr Henderson: He wants to go.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): It is very gracious of the minister, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. If I want to go, I will get the opportunity to speak - like he has any say in whether I speak in this House or not.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, please continue.
Mr ELFERINK: I am here by virtue of the fact I am elected to be here, just like him …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: If he wants to go with this response ...
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Macdonnell please! Be quiet while we listen to the point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Macdonnell, as the new opposition Whip, well knows that we have accommodated within this debate tonight, that the debate is going to be adjourned to come back another day. The opposition was offered an opportunity to nominate who would like to contribute tonight. The fact that we heard nothing back from the opposition does not mean that I am trying to prevent him from speaking. We have an agreement, and anybody …
Mr Elferink: With whom?
Mr HENDERSON: With the opposition.
Mr Elferink: Which individual person …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, you will cease interjecting while I am listening to the minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Nobody is trying to gag the opposition tonight. The member for Macdonnell has every right to speak. However, the intention of the government this evening is to adjourn this debate for bringing back at another time. The member for Macdonnell has a right to speak and we are happy for him to speak this evening.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Macdonnell, you may continue your remarks.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. If the message was supposed to have come through the Whip’s office, it did not reach me. I would be grateful to know from the minister who was advised on my side of the House.
The government has come to us and to Territorians with this policy document – or a ministerial statement - with policy glossy attached. The minister is trying to convince us that, as part of their work here in the Northern Territory, they are having wonderful and great successes in the Northern Territory. In some areas, there are certainly reductions in crime. However, what the minister fails to acknowledge in this statement is that the reduction of property crime is throughout Australia; it is universal. It is not the Northern Territory government that is reducing property crime rates in Sydney and Melbourne. It is not the Northern Territory government which is reducing property crime rates in Adelaide and Perth. The property crime rate may be dropping for any number of reasons. It may be because there is a Labor government in every state in Australia. It may be because there is a federal Liberal government. Who knows? To claim this national trend as their own is a little evasive, to say the least.
The other thing that I wish to raise is that property crime might be on the way down, but - gee whiz - there are other crimes that are on the way up.
I do want to speak tonight on several issues in relation to how disorder on our streets is triggered. One of the things that I recently had to pursue through this House - and I still have no satisfactory answer from the minister or from the government on - is the fact that they seem to have taken an approach in which the street crime in the Northern Territory is almost being ignored. It is this government’s policy which is driving part of the problem. Today, I have become aware of information as a result of the police annual report which confirms the position that I took and the minister refuses to acknowledge.
What I refer to is the use of section 128 as a panacea or a fix-up for what should be dealt with as street offences. It is not an offence to be drunk in public in the Northern Territory and, if a person is walking down the street and they are intoxicated and they are on their way home, they are not doing anything wrong. However, such people rarely come to the attention of police if they are doing nothing wrong.
Yet, I turn to the police annual report on page 141, and I find that 19 457 Territorians, 20 000 basically or 10% of the population, were apprehended for protective custody last year. People who are apprehended for protective custody come to the notice of those people who take them into custody for a reason. Often it is because they are simply flaked out on the side of the road, but also the reason is that they are behaving in a fashion which is less than entirely socially correct. They certainly in those instances, and often in those instances, are people who behave in such a fashion as that they would qualify as people who have committed an offence against, primarily, the Summary Offences Act.
The Summary Offences Act is supposed to govern the good order of our streets on a day to day basis. It is supposed to govern those offences committed by people who swear, fight, expectorate, defecate, urinate, and such things on our streets. It takes not a long walk around some of the back alleys of Darwin before your nostrils are filled by the offensive smells that so many of these people leave behind. It is curious that in the three years of this government, we have seen an increase in the number of people taken into protective custody from 13 779, already a figure which was way too high, to 19 457. This is a substantial increase in public drunkenness.
Recently, I asked the minister to produce the figures for the amount, as the result of a question in the Estimates Committee hearings, of people who had been arrested for committing summary offences. The result was around 700 for the whole of the Northern Territory in that financial year. That works out at less than two people a day being arrested for an offence against the Summary Offences Act. I am to believe that out of the 19 457 people taken into protective custody, that in the order of 18 800 of them were merely flaked out on the side of the road. Take a walk through town tonight and I think that that would be a most unlikely scenario.
What do I gain out of that? I pick up on the words from the member for Nelson where he talks about the increase in crimes of violence, especially crimes of sexual violence. We have increased numbers of drunks on our streets, in spite of a Community Harmony program which is meant to have these people going elsewhere, out of town, out of Alice Springs, out of Darwin, out of Katherine. Yet we see increased numbers on our streets. This is not because these people are being apprehended in their communities; it is because they are being apprehended in Darwin.
A classic example is the 2000-01 statistic which says that 5900 drunks were apprehended in Darwin. By this reporting period, 8908, a substantial increase commensurate with the increase of the overall total. So what you see is not a socially-controlled environment; but rather, you are seeing an increase in the number of drunks being apprehended Territory-wide, and more concerningly, an increase in the number of drunks being apprehended in Darwin. So these Community Harmony programs, and all these agreements that we are being told are working so well, are patently not.
Madam Speaker, if you go back to the Budget Paper No 3, page 163 I think from memory, which deals with performance measures of the police, the police are being guided by this government to police perceptions rather than reality. The perception that that budget paper requires as a performance measure, is that people should feel comfortable in their homes. If you check the Australian Bureau of Statistics on this issue, clearly if you live in the Northern Territory despite an overall drop of crime rates, the fact is that we live in a jurisdiction with the highest number of actual offences in a whole range of property offences.
What is the yardstick by which the police department operates? Is it the actual rate as we have compared with the rest of Australia? No. It is the perception of people. The yardstick they use is the perception of how safe people feel in their homes. This is why we start to see the police media machine, now that this policy has been applied by the government to this system of policing, churning out as much material as it possibly can to try to convince newspapers and television that lots of things are succeeding. We regularly see double-page spreads in newspapers with wonderful stories, many of them legitimate and good, about the great successes being achieved. What we are not seeing, sadly, is the fact that the actual raw numbers and crime rates as reflected by the ABS remain steadfastly the highest in the country.
What are we doing now? We are engaged in the politics of perception. When you try to find out what is actually going on, you have to drill into documents like page 141 of the police annual report to discover that drunkenness in the Territory is rampant and out of control. While we debate all of the problems that MS Contin and opiate drug use brings to this community, it is tiny compared with the number of problems that alcohol brings to our community.
The government is more inclined to try its hardest to change people’s perceptions than change the actualities, and that is a deceptive approach to Territorians by this government. Call a spade a spade. It was the promise that was given by the Attorney-General when he came into this House as the new Minister for Justice that he was not going to mislead Territorians, but, to the contrary, we find that he is.
Second, the Attorney-General has no problem putting Aboriginal people into gaol, something he railed against when he was in opposition. The imprisonment rates of Aboriginal people are now much higher than they were under the previous government despite the so-called scourge that mandatory sentencing represented. Why is that? It is because this government has engaged in its own form of mandatory sentencing, which remains resoundingly uncriticised in the form of their sentencing guidelines.
This Attorney-General, and I am surprised that it never sticks in his throat considering the things that he said prior to coming to government, proudly announced that he locks up lots and lots of villains. He knows that the underlying factor in that is that Aboriginal people are way over-represented and he, as Attorney-General, now has more Aboriginal people in his custody than the CLP ever did.
The business of measuring perceptions is something I am concerned about in terms of enslaving yourself as a bureaucracy to your performance measures. It is partially captured on page 67 of the police annual report where the issue of ACPOs is addressed. ACPOs were originally the trackers. They then became Police Aides and then Aboriginal Community Police Officers. The principle of ACPOs, as it was when it was Police Aides, was to get local people working in local communities to assist police and become part of the police force in doing their job.
The other day I ran into an ACPO, a lovely woman, no problems with her as an individual, but she told me something that surprised me very much. When I was speaking to her, she told me that she was from the Gold Coast. Oh, I thought. Well, that is okay, there is no problem with being in the Territory and being from the Gold Coast. But she had been in the Northern Territory for two months. This is curious because, one of the obvious factors driving the Police Commissioner at the moment is the policy from government that you will employ Aboriginal people. Sadly, it totally overlooks the purpose of the police aide and the ACPO scheme entirely because, as long as the commissioner can report to the minister for police that I have employed an Aboriginal person – tick; I have employed the right number of Aboriginal people – tick, tick, tick, tick, tick; I have achieved the direction given to me by my minister and by my government, and that is to employ Aboriginal people as ACPOs and as constables and the like.
Sadly, what is being lost is that, when I was talking to this particular person, they were in a community, and they were as alien in the community as I was. That person had none of the language and the social and cultural ties to the local community, and the purpose of ACPOs is being lost. It is now becoming the game of perceptions, more important than the results.
I find it extremely frustrating when I go to a place called Docker River, which desperately needs an ACPO. The government is still refusing to give any sort of effective police services out there. I will point out to the minister that on the back of the annual report there is a police car near the Olgas, pausing only briefly to point out to the minister for transport and works the condition of the road the police car is driving on. I also note that that police car is on the way to Docker River, and that police car is the closest police car stationed, actually 50 km from where the Olgas are, further to the east, that police car has still 180 km to go before those two police officers get to Docker River. So the people in Docker River telephone and say to the police officers at Yulara, ‘I have a problem and I need your help urgently’. The police say, ‘Absolutely, we will get into our car, we will head in your direction’ - about 40 km or 50 km of bitumen road to get to the Olgas, turn left, then another 180 km of road, in poor condition, worse than this, to get to Docker River on the Western Australian/Northern Territory border.
This means that the closest available police help to the people of Docker River is about 2 hours away. How urgent does an urgent problem have to be before the people of the Docker River area get proper assistance? Do the people of Docker River need a police presence? Hmm, let me think. One, two homicides that I am aware of, plus, I think, an arson, I am not sure if it is being investigated as an arson or not, or is simply as a criminal damage. This government’s response is to say that they have entered into an agreement with a police station in Western Australia, and the moment it is built, there will be some coverage only about 50 km away. In spite of that, the situation with the legitimacy of cross-bordering policing still has not been resolved by this government, but they have had quite some time to do it and …
Mr Henderson: Western Australian police officer in Kintore!
Mr ELFERINK: … the people at Docker River … Well, that is actually - I will pick up on the interjection. What happens when a Western Australian police officer arrests a person in Western Australia, let us say Kiwirrkurra, where does the prisoner go? Do you know? Silence, because he cannot answer the question. That tells me he does not know the answer.
Mr Henderson: Why would I know!
Mr ELFERINK: The point is that that prisoner cannot go to Kintore legally, and that is the part that concerns me. There is a problem with the legislation in transferring/moving prisoners across state borders - it is called extradition. This government is doing nothing to assess that. What actually has to happen is that that prisoner has to be taken to Newman, nearly 1000 km away. That is a problem for those guys, and this minister needs to attend to it. There is also a further problem for the people of Docker River when this minister waltzes in there and says: ‘Sorry, cannot have the police station. By the way, you are not getting any police aides. See ya later’.
Mr Henderson: Wrong, wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: I will tell you something, this minister has been absolutely derelict in the way that he has approached the people of Docker River. As far as I am concerned, he can come in here and talk about safer communities, and he does not deliver - nor does this government. That is the frustration that the people of Docker River have with this government and these ministers. That is the frustration I have with this government and these ministers. This minister and this government can come in here and say all they like about the terrific job that they are doing. However, the fact is that our communities are not safe because we have drunks in increasing numbers on our streets. If you want to deny it, then deny what is in the police report.
We have increasing numbers of sexual assaults. We have dropping numbers of crimes against property which is consistent with the national trend. This government claims that they are doing a wonderful Mickey Mouse job. This government is not doing a wonderful Mickey Mouse job; this government is riding on the back of a national trend and failing to attend to the safety issues on our streets. Even if the government could say: ‘We have done everything to protect your property. We are doing everything we can to protect your property’, all this government is doing, effectively, is saying: ‘All right, you are safe in your houses, but when you are on the streets, guys, watch out for the drunks, and you are on your own’.
Debate adjourned.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
As you are aware and, as my colleague, the Minister for Sport and Recreation has told us, the Northern Territory Masters Games will be starting in Alice Springs soon. This will be the 10th games to be held, the biennial event having its inception in 1986.
Since that time, Dr Geoff Thompson has undertaken the mighty task of medical director. Geoff has taken time from his extremely busy and successful practice to plan, train and coordinate a team of medical and allied health professionals and volunteers to provide sports medicine at the games. Geoff is also an avid competitor, and he and his wife, Sandy, have brought many medals and accolades home.
He is a man of passion and commitment, and tonight I wish to tell colleagues just a little more about the contribution that Geoff has made to sports in the Territory, and the tremendous difference to sport medicine that he and his partner in the business, physiotherapist, Karen Schneider, have made.
Sports medicine is a specialised medical discipline that is only now coming to enjoy appropriate recognition as a separate one. Geoff’s passion for medicine and his ability, as he says, to see pathways that are not the norm, he attributes to his father, a self-made academic and church minister who ensured that his children were constantly reading and learning. Many of the books of his father’s unique collection are now housed in our Government House and Parliamentary Libraries. Saturday nights for a young Geoff and his family would be spent watching Department of Education film strips on topics as varied as astronomy, history and world affairs.
Geoff’s first taste of his future career was in the books his father brought home for him in lieu of being able to afford to send him to university. Geoff’s determination ensured he made it to college, however, and on a government scholarship he completed his medical training at Adelaide University Medical School, affiliated with the Royal Adelaide and Queen Elizabeth Hospitals. Geoff, from an early period, had a different view to providing care for his patients to those of many of his colleagues; a view that had him thinking about the areas of complementary health, and how a clinic that could offer complete care for his patients would be in the future.
Some years later, a young Karen Schneider was training and working as a physiotherapist in Melbourne, coming to much the same conclusion that the future for quality patient care was to integrate a number of approaches to case management.
Geoff and his wife, Sandy, came to Darwin in the early 1970s with Geoff as a flight surgeon in the RAAF. He resigned his commission with the RAAF to commence private practice as a general practitioner in December 1974, but immediately rejoined in the aftermath of Cyclone Tracy, to be the responsible medical officer overseeing the entire evacuation effort.
Geoff managed to combine his love of medicine with another passion - that of flying - continuing his initial RAAF training to become a commercial pilot. He used his skill and his own private aircraft to service medical clinics in Arnhem Land from 1975 to 1980. Geoff was actually a flying doctor, taking on the role of both Medical Director of the RFDS Western Australian Branch and, indeed, continuing to be an RFDS pilot for some years in the 1980s.
In 1984, Geoff established the first Northern Territory branch of sports medicine in Australia. This volunteer organisation had an agenda to train lay people in sports’ first aid. Geoff is recognised nationally and internationally as a leader in the field of sports medicine and has recently returned from Canada where he presented a data relating to our Alice Springs Masters Games to an international conference of sports medicine practitioners.
By 1986, Geoff was firmly established as a successful general practitioner and looking for yet more challenges. He and Sandy were passionate about their sports and he voluntarily took the challenging position of first medical director of the Alice Springs Masters Games. This was in 1986 and he has continued to service these games with distinction and pride. Through Geoff’s continued participation and vision he can now claim the biggest single database of information relating to Masters Games and athletes in the world. This has been a unique study that will have benefits for treatment regimes worldwide. Geoff has also been the medical director for each Arafura Games since 1991. It is not only that Geoff coordinates the team and work shifts as a practitioner for the duration of games, but in fact in the lead-up to the events Geoff also trains the volunteers.
At the very first games in 1996 there were five volunteers to provide sports medicine advice and treatment. This year there is a team of 70 trained people with up to 55 volunteering to take a week’s leave from their normal jobs to provide sports medicine at the games.
In total, Geoff has trained between 1200 and 1500 sports trainers in Darwin, Katherine, and Alice Springs since 1984. These people from all fields of life, whether umpire, coach, parent, teacher, sportsman, or health professional, have benefited from a unique view of treatment and prevention of injury.
Physiotherapist Karen Schneider has been one of the committed practitioners at the games, her first visit to the Masters being in 1990 and she has not missed one since. Karen came to Darwin in 1985 with her husband and three small children, Murray, Katie, and Anthony, all of whom are now at various Queensland universities. For several years, Karen treated friends from netball under her house free of charge, having not yet established her own practice. One of those young girls she treated was 13 year old Jessica Lam who has now gone on to practice physiotherapy herself and has returned to Darwin to work with Geoff and Karen at Territory Sportsmedicine. Karen has been on the national board of Sports Medicine Australia since 1989.
In that same year, 1989, Geoff and Karen started working together under one roof. In their Wanguri premises they quickly developed a highly successful organisation both still running independent practices but engaging in the joint discussions relating to client care. Over time, the actual physical area of the clinic proved to be too small for their ideas of a true multifaceted clinic. But they are reluctant to move and risk an expansion that would in some way detract from the caring nature of their practice together.
I am pleased to say that in 2003, Geoff and Karen established a new home for their Territory Sportsmedicine clinic in my electorate of Fannie Bay. Karen would say that the move to Parap has been in her dreams since inception of the sports medicine clinic. She wanted her clients to feel comfortable, to have more space for practitioners, and to have a design that would cater for the needs of all who work together. To this extent, she and Geoff actually designed the layout of their new clinic coming together with investors, Sue and Phil McWilliam, to buy the actual building they now operate from.
Territory Sportsmedicine takes a more complete approach to client management and care. Each person who is treated by a doctor or physio recognises that they are in fact under the care of a comprehensive team of practitioners. Each morning a client care conference occurs where a patient’s treatment regime is discussed and considered. Territory Sportsmedicine is now home to two doctors, Geoff Thompson and Greg Harris, five physiotherapists, Karen, Jessica Lamb, Margaret Smith, Andrew Chudley, and Andrew Griffen, and massage and somatic therapist, David Hutchinson. Territory Sportsmedicine is also the vital link for specialist surgeons who fly-in to provide services for our local community. The professional team is ably supported by administration staff, Yvonne Osbourne, Judy Pratt, Janette DeLongue, Amanda Cummings, Kate Dickson, Michelle Walton, and Sandy Thompson.
The plans for Territory Sportsmedicine are to continue to expand their service base. Karen would like to see her team grow to include a podiatrist, nutritionist, and dietician. In this clinic, Karen and Geoff are able to provide training experience to new practitioners and to fulfil their vision of a truly integrated practice with caring professionals working to optimise the health of their patients.
I wish Geoff and Karen all the best with their expanded adventure and thank them for their commitment to our Masters Games.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about the recent Sabah International Expo 2004, which I attended as part of the NT Delegation in September. As the House has already heard, both Asian Relations and Trade Minister, Paul Henderson, and Primary Industry Minister, Kon Vatskalis, also attended the Sabah Expo.
Significantly, the Territory had the only delegation at this extremely well attended Expo which was led by government. I believe this sent a strong message to BIMP-EAGA that the Territory is definitely open for business and keen to engage in commercial, cultural and sporting opportunities with the region.
The Territory delegation was also one of the largest at the event, which attracted delegations from as far away as South Africa and Croatia. En route to Sabah, at the VIP lounge of the Brunei International Airport, I met with representatives of the Crown Prince of Brunei Darussalam, Pehin Ali, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Pehin Yahya, the Permanent Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department. The Prime Minister of Brunei is the Sultan of Brunei. On behalf of the Northern Territory, I presented the Crown Prince with gifts for his wedding. Part of the presentation was 300 kg of freshly farmed Humpty Doo barramundi. I understand it was served to wedding guests steamed in a sweet and sour chilli paste and, by all reports, it went down extremely well. In fact, Australian High Commissioner to Brunei, Christian Bennett, who was a wedding guest, said he did not think there was anyone of the 1000 guests at the wedding banquet who did not know that their fish was a gift from the Northern Territory. Christian also said he thought the steamed barra was the best of the 15 dishes served at this lavish banquet.
The Prince is now also the proud owner of an Aboriginal bark painting from Maningrida which was part of the Territory present for the royal wedding. These gifts were acknowledged by the Sultan with his gratitude passed on to me through his representatives and through the Australian High Commission to Brunei.
On our short stop in Brunei, my delegation and I were guests at a private dinner at the High Commissioner’s residence. Other guests at this dinner included Mr Peter Foster, Managing Director of Royal Brunei Airlines and Mr John Perry, CEO of the Brunei Economic Development Corporation.
The following day began with a very productive meeting between the Chief Minister of Sabah, the Right Honourable Datuk Musa Hj Aman, and I. Discussions focussed on areas of potential interaction for increased trade between Sabah and the Territory. The key areas included increased shipping access with potential direct services between Kota Kinabalu and Darwin. In addition, there was a lengthy discussion on the potential for tourism trade between the two centres. I invited the Chief Minister of Sabah to visit Darwin and was pleased that he was obviously interested in the prospect of visiting the Territory. This will be followed up by the appropriate departments and it is hoped that the Chief Minister will be able to visit in the future.
I then attended the Sabah International Expo Business Conference where I was a special guest. Following a very interesting and thought-provoking presentation by former Philippines President, Fidel Ramos, on the strategic directions for BIMP-EAGA, I gave a presentation on the Northern Territory and its role within BIMP-EAGA. This presentation was very well received by attendees at the conference.
In the afternoon, I had a meeting with Datuk Ewon Ebin, Minister for Industrial Development in Sabah. He had previously led a delegation from Sabah to the NT Expo. This meeting was a courtesy call and gave me an opportunity to thank him for his support of the NT Expo and to discuss trade opportunities, similar to those discussed with the Sabah Chief Minister. Datuk Ebin undertook to have a Sabah delegation return to Darwin for Expo next year, which I am sure everyone will be extremely pleased to hear.
Later in the afternoon my staff and I met with James Fitterling of Dow Chemicals in Malaysia as a follow-up to my recent visit to Thailand. Discussions were held on the potential for petrochemical industries in Darwin and down-stream processing and opportunities that could be derived from the current LNG and offshore gas exploration.
I finished the day by attending the official opening ceremony for the Sabah International Expo 2004, which included cultural performances, lion dancing and a spectacular fireworks display.
The following day, 9 September, I was a guest of honour at the official opening of the Sabah International Expo and spent the morning touring the Expo with the Deputy Chief Minister of Sabah. After being shown around, I then spent time at the Territory stand, which gave me a chance to talk to many of the local business people who had taken the initiative to do business with the region. I am pleased to hear from Asian Relations and Trade Minister, Paul Henderson, that all the business people who went to the Sabah Expo felt they had achieved positive business outcomes from the experience. As the minister pointed out, all the Territory business people who attended the Expo were there with financial assistance from the government’s Trade Support Scheme.
I then completed an official duty as the witness to the signing of an MOU between the Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Chamber of Commerce NT. This was also conducted by John Chadwick, President of MICCI, and Mark Norman, Chairman of the International Business Council, the IBC, of the Territory Chamber of Commerce. At completion of these official duties, I departed Kota Kinabalu to return to Darwin.
I consider this to be an extremely successful and useful trade mission. There are many opportunities to be gained from closer cultural and economic ties with Sabah. I was pleased by the opportunities available through BIMP-EAGA and look forward to continuing to work to better position the Territory economically within our region, and take advantage of the many areas of mutual interest and advantage.
Later this month, between 20 and 22 October, representatives from BIMP-EAGA will be in Darwin for a dialogue on NT trade and investment opportunities. Those discussions will also touch on tourism, cultural and sporting prospects. This will be an historic meeting, because it will be the first BIMP-EAGA Dialogue held in the Territory. We are currently seeking to elevate our status within BIMP-EAGA. I am hopeful that the relationship forged at the recent Sabah International Expo will be of assistance in that dialogue.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Chief Minister in Question Time when the subject was raised of the Martin Labor government being on top of advertising, and she did say that it was wrong, that it should not have been there. I would also like to ask the Chief Minister when we can have the sign at the Katherine Railway Station replaced. We talked about signage at previous sittings, that it represented Labor signage, and it is still exactly the same. It still has not been attended to. I would like to know when that can be rectified.
I mentioned at that same time that we have a vehicle ramp at the railway station which still does not have any trained personnel and is unable to be used to offload vehicles from The Ghan. We are missing a great opportunity in Katherine to offload passenger vehicles, for visitors to be able to do their trips through Kakadu and do the ring route and come back to Katherine and get on that train again. It has been sitting there totally unused without any operators since it was first put there before The Ghan arrived. I would just question as to when that is going to be dealt with. I would hope, in the very near future, that we could have a reply to that.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, nine years after the initial proposal was presented to the Northern Territory government, and after many years of frustration getting the proposal recognised, the Nhulunbuy High School multipurpose hall has finally been officially opened. The project is a collective effort, involving many members of staff, school council, parents, and officers from the Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Three people deserve to be singled out for their role in getting the project off the ground: Shirley Hooper, past principal; John Seem, past chairperson; and current chairperson, Nhulunbuy High, John O’Brien. The school and community have benefited from this project already over the past few months, and we look forward to the hall being used for a wide variety of sporting activities and functions that the facility can now provide.
My congratulations to Lauren Crabb from Nhulunbuy High School who won the Young Territory Author of the Year award recently. Up against many other writers throughout the Territory, Lauren’s story Staring into Shadows contains over 12 000 words, approximately 86 pages, about a girl who moves town, gets picked on by bullies, and goes through a number of experiences along the way. Congratulations also to Damien Chesson, who received the only Highly Commended Seal awarded in the Northern Territory for his book entitled From Dream to Reality. Well done to both of these Year 9 students of Nhulunbuy High.
A visit by the Darwin Symphony Orchestra was enjoyed by about a thousand people under the Nhulunbuy skies. The evening was a great success. With the utilisation of the Nhulunbuy High School oval as the setting, the highlight of the evening was the guest appearance of our local band conductor, Alan Fleming, who has made an enormous contribution to our community through his music. My thanks to Jane Stone and the organising committee for a great evening’s entertainment. Alan was invited to play with the Darwin Symphony Orchestra so we had our own local rep. It was a huge thrill for him and a huge thrill for us, who appreciate his talents. I understand that there will be frequent guest appearances by Alan with DSO over the years ahead, and I wish him well.
The Nhulunbuy Christian School celebrates its fifth birthday on Friday. I want to congratulate the school, the council, the parents on the tremendous success and the standards of education provided to our community. I have had the pleasure of being involved with the school from its inception when I was visited by Darwin and Lily del Aguila who had a vision for a Christian school in Nhulunbuy. The school continues to grow from strength to strength. I am always pleased to be invited to the birthday celebrations and other functions associated with the school.
I was also pleased to officially open the Gawa Christian School at Galiwinku recently. The Yolngu the only community has been very strong in their vision for a Christian facility to be available for their children. Through the Christian Schools Association Northern Territory, the vision has now become a reality, with approximately 25 students attending the facility at Gawa. I congratulate the principal, Marilyn Huddleston, and the school council for their hard work in achieving this great result for the community of Galiwinku and Gawa. My congratulations also to Jack Mechielsen and the staff of Christian Schools Northern Territory. They do a tremendous job.
Yirrkala Homeland School celebrated the completion of a pilot secondary school program at Garrthalala on Tuesday, 23 September. It is the first time any homeland school in the Territory has run a specific secondary program. Seventeen students participated. They were chosen from a potential 45 students based on regular attendance and their recent academic performance. The pilot project focussed on providing external secondary curriculum within the homeland context – something that community members and the school council have emphasised as a major priority for many years.
The key objective for the Yirrkala Homeland School is to allow more secondary-aged students access to appropriate quality secondary education. There was a lot of community support present. Over 200 people from Laynhapuy Homelands attended. I was pleased to be able to be part of the award ceremony, following a three-days school bush visit to other parts of the Territory.
Dhunggala Mununggurr is the very proud leader of Garrthalala, and his wife, Multhara, has been teaching at the school for many years. I commend them both for their encouragement and commitment to education, and the discipline that has been associated with their homeland community for many years. It is always a delight to visit Garrthalala. I appreciate the friendships shared with the ‘Old Man’ and his family.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I again want to raise some issues tonight about antisocial behaviour in public housing. It is one of the frustrations of my electorate that we do not seem to be repairing the damage that has been occurring.
Before I am accused of targeting a certain group of people, we should all face the fact that most of the antisocial behaviour is caused by people from remote communities coming into town. We know that there are many responsible indigenous public housing tenants in Alice Springs. It does not help them to be burdened with itinerant visitors causing a nuisance by upsetting their lives and that of their neighbours. I am not saying that tenants should not have visitors. What I am saying is there should be a limit to what tenants and neighbours have to put up with. I know of many tenants who can no longer take the harassment, noise and humbug, and they have had to leave. There have been cases where the tenants have moved out and the visitors have moved in. This sort of behaviour would not be tolerated in any society - certainly not in my own private home - and not generally accepted.
I do not need to go on about the behaviours that I am talking about, which is usually alcohol-fuelled. However, the minister must realise that he has to take stronger measures than is already happening. There are responsibilities, and this is what worries me. The minister and people in his department seem to think that it is not their responsibility when there are problems. We have a Residential Tenancies Act which states, quite clearly, in section 54, No illegal conduct or nuisance on premises etc:
Then we have the department’s own tenancy agreement which all tenants sign. That has a section on Code of Conduct, or has tenants’ responsibility for the actions of the others called vicarious liability:
It also says:
This is in the tenancy agreement. We have a Residential Tenancies Act. People sign the agreement. However, these agreements are being breached continually and, yet, we are not getting any improvement in the behaviour that is coming out of the public housing in many of the areas in my electorate. It has reached the stage where many people in the electorate are really fed up. The minister promised that he would be putting out a security tender and that we would have security checks regularly at night. At the moment I think in one of the worse flats we have there is one check that arrives usually about 8 pm, whereas it should be there every hour on the hour to make sure that things are under some sort of control.
What I do not understand is when there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement and of the tenancy act, the minister seems to think it is not his responsibility. He says it is a police matter. Clearly, the sort of behaviour and conduct that is occurring breaches the act and the tenancy agreement and the minister has a legislative responsibility. As far as I am concerned it is not being performed.
I can understand the dilemma it has caused. The department does not want to be too heavy handed in evicting tenants, even though it says quite clearly in this residential act that, ‘… landlord may terminate a tenancy by two days notice in writing to the tenant in accordance with section 101 if …’, and it goes on, and another part says ‘… serious breach by the tenant … court may on application of the landlord terminate tenancy and make an order for possession of the premises on or after the date specified in the order being a date not less than seven days after the date of order if satisfied that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement’.
I am not quite sure why the minister and his department do not want to take responsibility and keep on saying it is a matter for the police. I have had many cases where people have contacted Territory Housing only to be told it is not their matter, it is a matter for the police. The minister even recently put out a letter to tenants advising that if they were having problems to ring the police. I realise the police must be alerted in crisis or emergency situations, however the landlord, the Territory government, does have responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the tenancy act. Certainly, in recent months, I put many suggestions to the minister, his staff and his department, some of which have been implemented but unfortunately much more can be done.
We still need to get the message out to communities before people even get into town that there is a certain code of behaviour. I have talked to one of the elders from the Lhere Artepe people and they say they are also concerned at the way people are coming to town and abusing their land. They ask me why do people double dip, why do they get a house out in their communities and one in town as well; and why are these people from places such as Docker River getting houses in town if their community needs them out there? Quite often, I cannot give them any answer. All I know is that it is a real problem.
I want the minister to be more proactive to, as the Lhere Artepe people say, ‘Get the message out’, start spreading the word that they will not accept it. If they do come into town, provide them with a camping ground or provide them with a seniors’ visitors centre or somewhere where they can go rather than camp in people’s houses and cause problems. The trouble is we are not addressing the problem and trying to find a solution to it. We are always putting a bandaid on it. That is certainly not improving the lifestyle of people in public housing or the people in their neighbourhood.
Recently, a fire was lit by a visitor to a public housing unit late on a Friday. The fire service acted accordingly and disconnected the gas and electricity supply to the neighbouring duplex. This unit had been damaged by smoke on the walls, floors and ceilings. In fact, it was uninhabitable. The tenant of that unit was a young girl with a small child. Realising that she could not stay in the unit she called the emergency number at Territory Housing at 8 pm or 9 pm that night. She was told nothing could be done, ring back on Monday. That is a most unsatisfactory response to an emergency such as that. When she did get back on Monday, to give Territory Housing their due, they did find her alternative temporary housing which unfortunately again was next to a unit where there was brawling and drunkenness and so she just did not accept it. And to give Wayne Hoban, the Regional Manager, his due, he has spoken to this young lass and has said there will be compensation for the loss of her furniture and that they will try to find her a place where she and her small child will not be threatened.
The minister must realise that a response like that is completely unacceptable. I hope that he puts in order some strict instructions to whoever operates this emergency number to respond so we do not have a repeat of this.
I have asked the minister if he will attend a public meeting because I have been asked to organise one by a number of tenants in the Larapinta and Braitling areas who are fed up with the behaviour. They want to be able to voice their concerns and propose some measures that they think might have some effect. Unfortunately, the minister at this stage appears to say no, he won’t attend the meeting, which is disappointing. The minister has a responsibility to face these tenants and neighbours and to hear their concerns. I hope he reconsiders that decision because I will go ahead and call it. I have already spoken to the police and they are keen to come along. The Lhere Artepe elders also want to come along, as does the Aboriginal Referral Service. Tangentyere will be invited. We will get as many organisations as we can along to help these residents with the problems they are having. I hope the minister will reconsider so he can see what it is all about.
This minister has also, unfortunately, let us down in respect of one of his promises to assist the Sporting Shooters Association. You may recall in May this year, I said how disappointing it was that the police had closed their ranges after 17 years of shooting in the complex and never having a mishap. The police decided the profiles that went over the ranges were dangerous and they closed many of their ranges. The minister said he would promise to get this done by the Masters Games.
The Masters Games are going to be great. People are already telling me that Alice Springs is abuzz. Some people have turned up for registration. There are 4552 registrants and, of these, 1100 are from Alice Springs and there are 3500 visitors to the Centre.
Unfortunately, the ranges have not been built, as promised. It was 21 April when the police range inspectors raised this issue with the Sporting Shooters Association and they told them that the ranges would be built in time for the Masters Games. Unfortunately, owing to clearances not being received in time from the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, nothing has happened. This dilemma has come about from a decision, after 17 years, that the profiles of the shooting range are dangerous. It is ridiculous.
Many of the shooters who come to Alice Springs do it for enjoyment. Arrangements are trying to be made whereby they will be able to enjoy their sport. Some of the target equipment and shade have not even been put up yet. It has been compounded by the Police Firearms Unit with their shooting competition to be held simultaneously on the Main Rifle Range 1 and their Pistol Silhouette Range 2, which are side by side. Obviously, they have said that they cannot do them side by side. Both ranges have to be cleared by the range officer at the same time before anyone can go down to their targets to patch them, put up new ones or whatever they do. It is proving to be a bit of a dilemma for this club, which has a very good reputation for safety, involvement of many people and making sure they have the right protocols in place.
It is going to be a time of patience; a lot of patience will be needed by the people involved in this. I hope that visitors to the club are not put off by the fact that they are going to have to wait, that the whole scenario has been changed. Solutions such as walkie-talkies are being introduced to see whether they can get a smooth flow and efficient approach so competitors can finish their events on time. Notices have been sent to people who are coming from interstate to explain the situation, and we hope they understand that this is not the fault of the Sporting Shooters Association in Alice Springs. It is the result of what I consider to be a very ridiculous decision to change and not approve the ranges as they have been operating for the last 17 years. I hope the minister concerned will be able to come to Alice Springs, address our public meeting on public housing, and perhaps, while he is down there for the Masters Games, go out to the shooting complex and see the problems that they are experiencing because of that decision.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, Michael Halge started his career with the Northern Territory Public Service on 21 September 1979 as an Administrative Class A2 Records Clerk with the then Housing Commission. In 1980, Michael changed career direction and entered the information technology industry as a trainee computer programmer and, within two years, was promoted to Administrative Class A6 Assistant Computer Programmer. In November 1985, Michael transferred from the Housing Commission to NCOM as a Computer Systems Officer Grade 1. He was promoted soon after to CSO Grade 2 as an Analyst Programmer.
Michael continued to rise through the ranks and, in 1996, was appointed project manager for the ongoing maintenance and development of the Integrated Justice Information System. In February 1998, Michael was appointed to Project Manager, Business Systems with DCAT, and in July 2000, transferred to DCIS as the Manager Data Support/Product Support. Michael remained with the Data Centre Services of DCIS until his recent retirement on 30 September 2004, celebrating 25 years continuous service with the Northern Territory government.
Michael is known to his colleagues as a diligent, trustworthy and respected employee, an officer who is committed to providing quality service and establishing positive relationships between the public and private sector. I understand that Michael plans to stay in the Territory until later this year, and then move to Perth in the New Year to be closer to his family.
On behalf of the Minister for the Department of Corporate and Information Services, Paul Henderson, and I, I would like to thank Michael for the tremendous work he has done in helping build the Territory. It is a great career to be with the public service for 25 years in various jobs and to see that it actually came through information technology. That is great. He will be a sad loss. However, as with many people who have been here for so long, they reach a point in their lives that they do go off to be with other family members interstate. I am sure that Michael will return to his many, many friends he would have made over that time, as we all would after 25 years here.
He will be a sad loss to Wulagi. We will not see him around the Wulagi shops as often as we might have done in the past; he lives just across the road from it. However, I am sure we will see him in the future. Thank you, Michael, for all the work you have done for the Territory, and all those people whom you would have trained and helped in the years of your career, it is much appreciated.
On 29 August, I had the pleasure of representing the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, to officially open the George Brown training rooms at the Darwin City Brass Band training hall in Abala Road, Marrara. There has been a brass band in Darwin since 1895, when citizens and musicians of the town, then known as Palmerston, raised a magnificent sum of 30 to send away to England for instruments and music. Since that time, there has almost always been a Darwin Brass Band. There have been some hiccups in the form of two World Wars and various cyclones, but generally the band survived. Remarkably, even when the band was blown away, it would pop again in another form a few years later.
The present band was formed in November 1981. For some years, it used the Darwin City Council Chambers as its headquarters and practice rooms, courtesy of Darwin Lord Mayors, Cec Black and Alec Fong Lim. Late in 1990, it moved to the Railway Club in Parap. However, one of the band’s first acts as an association in 1982 was to open a special account to be called the building account. Patiently, year by year, the band managed to put away savings in this account, until eventually, in the early 1990s, opportunity knocked. The Northern Territory government granted the band a block of land in Marrara, which is down by the airport – Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you know it - and by then there was enough money in the savings account to design and put up a building.
Coincidently, that event happened at the same time as the wrecking of the old government buildings at the ends of Smith and Mitchell Streets to make way for the new Supreme Court and Parliament House. The band was permitted to salvage what it could from the buildings. They scavenged an amazing variety of fittings, ceilings, plumbing, carpet, you name it, the rest was hard work.
The driving force behind the building project was Steve Morton, a founding member of the band now living in Canberra. Steve’s determination and enthusiasm kept the savings growing for 10 years, and it was Steve who directed the building operations which gave us the great band rooms down there. Having completed the core of its building, the band had to go back to putting away savings in the building fund again until they had enough to complete the next stage of the building plan. This was to build three individual training or practice rooms and a storeroom. The band was then teaching many learners in one room, which was quite hard on the eardrums. Lessons went on everywhere: in the kitchen, out in the backyard. With the new rooms, drum tuition could go on in its own room - a big step forward. Students could practice and have tuition in privacy.
The project to add the new training rooms began in 2001 from grants for $20 000 from the Northern Territory government, matched by $20 000 from the Darwin City Council and $20 000 from the band’s own savings. Further help was given by the Territory government, and the Community Benefit Fund granted the band $5000 to help install airconditioning in the new rooms. I am pleased to say that I was behind and supported that bid for the Community Benefit Fund grant, and lobbied hard for the band, and spoke constantly and reminded the minister about what a good thing this band was for the community. Fortunately, they received that benefit and were able to put the aircon in. The band members have worked hard to complete the new rooms, but particular thanks are due to Dr Ron Roberts for directing and coordinating the whole operation, as well as doing a lot of work himself.
The band has dedicated its training rooms to George Brown, former Lord Mayor of Darwin, and the band’s patron from 1992 to 2002. In his 10 years as Lord Mayor, George gave the band help, support and friendship. Since his sudden passing in January 2002, the members of the band, as everyone in Darwin, have greatly missed him as a friend, and as a politician passionate about the city of Darwin and its future.
I had the pleasure of opening those rooms on behalf of the Chief Minister. There is a beautiful plaque on the wall. Lord Mayor Brown’s widow, Noreen, was in the audience and I asked her to come forward and we opened the building together. I thought that was quite fitting and appropriate. Also present, to show you the esteem and value that the community has for the Darwin City Brass Band, were the Administrator, Hon Ted Egan and Ms Nerys Evans. As I have said, Mrs Noreen Brown was there; and Mr and Mrs Frank Geddes - he opened the Bill Budd percussion room. Bill was another old timer and a well-loved past member of the band. He passed away some time ago now, but they opened the percussion room in his memory. It is great; it has all this memorabilia around the place. Bill Budd was quite a character. Mr Ray Chin, president of Darwin RSL - we all know Mr Chin; Mr Geoff Carter who is Vice-President of Darwin RSL; Mrs Janette Wilson; and Noble Comrade. Noble Comrade is that horse that is a whaler. You see him getting around; he is quite well known around the place these days. He turns up to the Anzac Day parades. It was really good because, for Noble Comrade, they made a .303 rifle bucket which was donated by the RSL. They had Noble Comrade all done out in kit; it was spectacular. Mr Karl Schrimpf from the German Club was also there, as was Mr Norm Yeend, former band master; and Mr Frank Haydock who was a former band master.
On the day, there was a sausage sizzle, a jumping castle, entertainment for the kids, and band performances went on and on during the day. It was simply fabulous. Congratulations to Darwin City Brass Band for their efforts there.
The Darwin City Brass Band is now looking to conduct another concert at Brown’s Mart, where I had the pleasure of attending a similar concert earlier this year and it was a packed house. They are applying to Arts NT for a grant to hold another spectacular big brass sound concert in May 2005. They have asked guest artists, John Kellaway, a trumpet soloist who really works hard with the band, and worked at the camp with them and the juniors. He is very much respected, and he respects the Darwin City Brass Band. He does a lot of work with them and they are quite grateful for everything that he does. He is a lecturer in trumpet at the University of Newcastle.
Andrew Snell, a lecturer in brass, will be present and acting as musical director for the proposed concert. Local vocalists are Sand Williams, whom just about everyone in Darwin knows, and John Allen. I have spoken about John before in this House. I am not too good on my terms for opera, but he was with the Australian Opera in Sydney. He comes very well qualified. He is a teacher at Nightcliff. You can see him at night time; mainly down at the casino. He is hired there. He is part of a group there. He is just tremendous, he belts them out and keeps everyone entertained.
That is the sort of talent that the brass band will have playing with them at the proposed concert on 4 May 2005. The Darwin Brass Band will also be in concert with other brass musicians from the Darwin area such as from the Palmerston Concert Band, the Army Band Darwin and the Charles Darwin University.
The Darwin City Brass Band is comprised of many members of the community from all walks of life. It is a band that I could best describe as egalitarian in its composition and accessibility. The band has a proud history of being invited to play at community events ranging from sombre gatherings such as the Anzac Day march to celebrity events such as Christmas Carols in the city mall. This latter example of its willingness to entertain is exceptional when taking into account this particular performance generally occurs during the peak of the Wet Season.
I also recall a performance during the lighting of the Christmas trees on The Esplanade in Darwin, again in the Wet, when a huge thunder storm suddenly veered toward the gathering. A tropical downpour commenced and still the band kept playing. The audience, as only an audience in Darwin could, sat through the rain and was appreciative of the special treat offered by the band. It was not until the lightening got too close for comfort that the band downed instruments and sought shelter. It was a special moment, one of those spectacular efforts which makes us all proud to be Top Enders.
Another memorable moment I would like to share with the House was the Darwin City Brass Band’s artistic innovation and participation in a funeral march for a well known and respected community member. The deceased was a flamboyant, gay icon in town and he was loved and admired across the community. The Darwin City Brass Band was given the honour of lifting people’s spirits so that they could celebrate this man’s life and not mourn his passing. The band did this with panache.
I am aware that the Darwin City Brass Band receives operational funding from the Darwin City Council and this funding is used expressly for electricity, telephone, building maintenance, instrument repairs and maintenance, music costs, band master honorarium, tutor fees, uniforms, transport to and from public performances, and a range of operational requirements. However, the band is now seeking Arts NT support in the form of a grant to assist them to stage a concert on 4 May 2005 at Brown’s Mart. I am certain that this concert will meet the high community expectations that have been established on the back of the other fine public concerts the band has led in the recent past. As I stated earlier this year, I attended a packed house at Brown’s Mart, where a similar concert to the one for which the grant is sought, that was produced by the Darwin City Brass Band. I am confident that the band has both the financial and artistic expertise to stage the proposed May 2005 concert. I am proud and honoured to be able to stand behind the application for the Arts NT grant and it has my full support.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak this evening about a great evening that I had with my colleague, the member for Casuarina, when we handed over title to the Tracy Village Sports Club which is in my colleague, the member for Casuarina’s electorate, but right on the boundary of my electorate of Wanguri, on Friday 17 September. This has been a dream for Tracy Village for many years, to have title to the land they sit on out there on Tambling Terrace and, on 17 September, after much negotiation and a wait for many years, we were pleased to hand over the title deeds to president Gary Ross in front of a packed house who were there to see the semi-final in the lead up to the AFL grand final between Port Adelaide and my team, St Kilda. As history will show, Port got up and the Saints went down, although the game was there for the Saints to win and Port went on to win the grand final.
It was a fabulous evening. The presentation and the accolades and the excitement of getting title to the land was fantastic to see. I know that Tracy Village has big plans and is now able to access finance with this secured title. They are a very successful club, making good profits that they are returning to the various sporting groups affiliated and associated with Tracy Village. It was a fantastic day on 17 September.
I particularly make mention this evening of president, Gary Ross, and club manager, John Quinlan, all the staff and members and the committee. They are working very hard. They have turned that club around in the last five to six years. It was struggling six-odd years ago, but it has been turned around now. It is a fantastic club. Membership is strong and growing, and with title to the land, they are going to be able to provide a better facility to the people of the northern suburbs and opportunities for kids to participate in the many sports the club sponsors.
I would also like to talk about Dripstone High School, one of the feeder high schools for my electorate of Wanguri. Every year, Dripstone Day has been an event to be marked in the diary and monies raised on the day are raised for cancer research, as has been the case for many years now. For the last few years, they have had a ‘Crop and Colour’ event where they encourage teachers and local celebrities – last year, I think my colleague, the member for Casuarina, again had the very scary experience of having his head shaved and he raised about $9000 for cancer research.
Crop and Colour was again an event this year, and I thank and acknowledge that AFLNT Coaches Mark Motlop from Wanderers, Damien Hale from Saints, Chris Williams from Tahs and Ark Tyrrell from Palmerston all agreed to have their hair cropped or coloured – I am unsure which because I was overseas at the time. A total of $3500 was raised for cancer research. I congratulate the coordinator of the event, Mr Greg Cilento. Greg has coordinated Dripstone Day for many years. He is a great teacher. He rang to ask whether I would have my hair cropped for Dripstone Day. Thankfully, I looked at the diary and saw that I would be overseas, but I can see that I will have another phone call again next year. I do not know whether I am brave enough to do it. To Greg, it was a great event; keep up the good work.
Wanguri Primary School is going from strength to strength in my electorate. They held a great event on Father’s Day. They organised a breakfast for all the fathers and there was a huge turnout. It kicked off at 7 o’clock in the morning with a fully cooked breakfast. There must have been well over 100 dads having Friday morning breakfast with their children before school started. I thank all the teachers at the school who organised this event. Everyone put in. Jenny Robinson, the principal of the school, was very pleased to see so many fathers turn up because it is often hard to get the dads involved in events at the school because most fathers are out working. I think this has started a bit of a tradition at Wanguri. It was very much appreciated and enjoyed by all the dads and all the kids.
On the same day, Wanguri Primary held a Numbers and Bubbles Fair, which saw the school buzzing with energy and excitement. The fair was initiated to promote the maths and science areas of curriculum in a positive way through a variety of novel and exciting experiences. A carnival atmosphere was created, with large, colourful signs, balloons and streamers helping to generate an exciting feel. I attended the fair with my daughter, Isabelle, who has just started preschool at Wanguri. She had a fabulous day. I particularly would like to mention that the fair was a concept created by Sue Heysen, the Library Hub teacher, and organised by ESL teacher, Cheryll Le Conte. Every classroom teacher designed and ran a stall on the day themed around maths and science. The teachers are now looking at a Literacy Fair along the same lines. That will be another event for the calendar. Certainly, Wanguri is making education and learning an exciting activity for the children.
I would like to briefly mention Leanyer Primary School. I know Henry Gray is a member of the North Darwin Rotary Club, which, every year, has Pride of Workmanship Awards. My colleague, the member for Johnston, presented the awards this year. I had the pleasure of doing it for the last two years and I certainly enjoyed those awards. It is great to see people from our local community acknowledged by Rotary for their contribution to the community.
Three Leanyer Primary School teachers, Mrs Natalie Ede, Mrs Melanie Cole and Ms Ana Bernardino were given awards this year, not only for their contribution to the school but to the general community. To those teachers at Leanyer, and to everyone who won awards this year, congratulations and well done. Again, congratulations to the North Darwin Rotary Club for sponsoring that event every year.
I had the pleasure of sitting down recently with a young constituent of mine, a great young Territorian, who came to see me in my electorate office to see if I would help and could sponsor him as being one of the first Territorians to represent the youth of Australia at the United Nations Youth Council. This young fellow’s name is Karan Anand. Karan has been selected to attend The Hague International Model United Nations conference as a member of Australia’s delegation which takes place in The Netherlands in January 2005.
Karan is the first Territorian to attend the United Nations Youth Council; a great honour. He is a fantastic young man who really is committed, not only to the United Nations, but to the work of the United Nations and the aspirations of the United Nations in making the world a better place for everybody who lives in it. Meeting a young person like Karan, who is going to represent Australia in The Netherlands in January 2005, was one of the highlights of the year for me in my electorate.
I was very pleased to be able to sponsor Karan. He had a couple of fundraising nights recently at the Indian restaurant in the Mall. I was pleased to be able to organise a framed print for auction that night of a print of the first train coming into Darwin, a limited edition print, which all of my Cabinet colleagues signed, and we had that framed and auctioned that night. I was very pleased to see that it sold for $600. Other people donated prizes and all up those two evenings, talking to Karan yesterday, helped raised $3500. He is looking to try to raise $5500 to help him attend this conference. He is certainly a young man who is going places.
It is great to see our young people in the Territory, not only being able to cut it at a national level, but to go on and represent Australia internationally at such a prestigious event. It is absolutely fabulous. I certainly look forward to hearing from Karan as to how he went when he gets back in late January next year.
A new business has opened up in Hibiscus Shopping Town, where I have my electorate office. The most recent addition to that particular shopping centre is McKells Real Estate, which also has an office in Palmerston. Gary and Chris have fitted right in to the friendly shopping atmosphere at Hibiscus. It is good to see a new real estate office in the area as it reflects the market which is situated amongst Leanyer and Wanguri. It is great to see house prices rising. Certainly, my constituents are very happy to see their capital assets increase in value. Speaking with Gary and Chris the other day, they are pretty excited about where the Territory is headed at the moment, and how strong the real estate market is. I welcome Gary and Chris to our community at Hibiscus.
Things are moving ahead in the Northern Territory. People are getting ahead in the Northern Territory. It is a pretty exciting place at the moment, and certainly, there are many good things happening in my electorate. I will continue to make note of the great things happening in the Wanguri electorate in adjournments in the weeks to come.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, as patron of the Jingili BMX Club, it gave me great pleasure to be invited to sponsor and award lanyards to all riders in the Northern Territory BMX Association Age Pre-Meet Titles 2004, held on Wednesday 29 September, at the Jingili BMX track.
I witnessed some fantastic riding from these young, and not so young, BMX riders, and watched with interest as competitors as young as those in the Under-5s - Jesse Browne, Quaid Carter and Lauren Drummond - to those 16-year-olds - Carlee Grant, Nicky Sinclair, Kristy Dickens, Talya Johnston, Keith Easterbrook, Ashley Johns, John Johnson and Dwayne Beaumont - competed in their age group. Last came the Over-19-plus men - Christopher Johns from the Satellite City Club, Darren Hicks from the Jingili Club, and Jamie Coxon from Nhulunbuy - and the Open Women and Cruisers - Brooke Ellison and Natasha Dickens of Jingili against Rene Baker of Nhulunbuy and Barbara Wogandt of Satellite City. It is amazing that this sport attracts riders from four to 49 years of age, male and female.
It was great to see them go around the track. The Jingili BMX Club has put a lot of work into their track; it is looking absolutely fantastic. It is a real challenge for all of those riders. It was good to see some of the younger four- and five-year-olds on their little bikes, with their mums and dads helping them up over the humps and around they went. They compete really hard and they really enjoy it. It is a great sport for young and old. It was also great to see riders from all over the Territory. They received a warm welcome and had a great time. All the riders, parents and support teams were made to feel very welcome at the Jingili BMX Club.
One hundred and twenty six riders turned out for the pre-titles which enabled them to familiarise themselves with the track leading up to the age titles, which were held on Friday and Saturday night, 1 and 2 October. These pre-titles also provided a valuable shake down for the officials from all clubs - a great learning experience for all involved. There is a lot of coordination involved in the racing. There is a communication system, marshals all around the track, and marshals getting riders ready to come onto the starting grid. It requires a lot of organisation, split-second timing and there is a lot of pressure. People really enjoy it and I commend the officials from the clubs. They all put in and it went very smoothly.
The titles are held annually around the Territory. It involves seven BMX clubs: the Red Centre Club, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Jabiru, Wanguri, Satellite City at Palmerston, and Jingili in my electorate. As mentioned earlier, this year Jingili BMX Club had the honour of hosting the titles and spent many hours preparing the track for the occasion. I am pleased to be able to present a couple of grants to the club to improve the lighting, the track, and the purchase of a laptop computer with software specially designed for conducting BMX races, thereby saving many hours of time-consuming organisation of races and scoring.
The Age Championships held following the pre-title meeting provided, by all accounts, a fantastic competition for all involved. Unfortunately, I had other commitments, but I sent my best wishes and wished all the competitors in the pre-meet, when I awarded the lanyards, the best on their big nights on Friday an Saturday night. One hundred and thirty six riders turned out: 60 from the Jingili club, 33 from Palmerston Satellite City, 10 from Katherine, one from the Wanguri Club and 20 all the way from Nhulunbuy - a great contingent - and the Red Centre was represented by 12 riders. I thank them for coming all the way up from Alice Springs.
The riding was fast and furious in all divisions and, of course, unbelievable riding in the Under 4, 5, 6 and 7-year-olds sprockets, who are just beautiful to watch. These kids exhibit so much joy in their sport and are very competitive. They are in it totally for the fun, as well. The largest race saw 19 riders compete in the 7 Sprocket race, which included Billy Browne and Simon Sutcliffe from my electorate. In the 9, 11 and 13-year-old boys categories, after qualification events, there were some real cut-throat, dead man finishes, which always produce fantastic races. It always comes down to one final ride - one push of the pedal.
The 9-year-old category pitting 16 riders against one another, was won by Jack Dalton from the Wanguri Club, Jack Henning from Satellite City was second place and Luke Ellison from Jingili was third. The 11-year-old boys was won by Jace Betts from Nhulunbuy with Harrison Roberts from Jingili second, and Carl Wogandt from the Satellite City third. I see that Jeremy Lassemillante, Stephen Shaw, Zac Fidler, Jackson Drew and Benjamin Rogers of the Jingili Club also raced in this category.
In the 12 rider 13-year-old event Hayden Jude from the Red Centre took first followed by Shane Frew and Timothy Grant of Jingili and Matthew Lassemillante in fifth position. In the 19-plus category, while the field was only small, it pitted Australian No 1 Christopher Johns from Satellite City against Australian No 3 Darren Hicks from Jingili. Their ride was shoulder to shoulder, heart stopping stuff. There was push and shove all the way with incredible strategic moves seeing Darren Hicks the eventual winner over the two nights. These young riders are an inspiration to all the riders and aspiring riders in the BMX field.
There were many races during the championships and it is very difficult to mention everyone. These championships could not be run without the parents and friends who get together for their kids. Paul Lassemillante, president of the Jingili BMX Club and his committee, did a fantastic job of preparing the track and organising all that was involved in the running of the event. I know that Helena Lassemillante, a very competent club secretary, spent many hours photocopying and preparing newsletters, agendas, and race guides for the club. Also on hand to ensure the success of the championship was Jackie Dobson, Jason Eecen - despite a couple of broken wrists, and Ray and Sue Fraunefelder, the caretakers who do an incredible job on the grounds as mentioned by the association president as the best in the NT and comparable to any track in the Territory.
Craig Cousins, ex-long term president, was naturally on hand to guide and assist in every facet of the organisation and racing and scoring. His long term commitment to the Jingili BMX and BMX in general was recognised by an award with life membership of Jingili BMX. So congratulations, Craig. Craig has been involved with the Jingili Club for over 10 years, eight as a committee member, six as president. Craig became involved with the club when his two boys took up riding but long after they moved on he continued to lead the club, gaining expertise in grant submissions, enhancing the club year after year. Craig has recently been astounded to have his son, Blake, return to BMX riding after many years. My sincerest congratulations to Craig on the life membership in recognition of his enormous contribution to BMX. I am very much aware of how much time and effort he has put into the club since I first became patron and cannot think of a more worthy recipient of this honour.
Finally, I would like to praise the efforts of Jann Goodworth, who was the first aid officer for the championships. Jann works at the Alawa Preschool and volunteers her time to the BMX club on a weekly basis. Sitting next to Jann all night, I was extremely impressed with her gentle and caring manner with the children and young adults. She immediately engaged them and quickly got their confidence. She was also extremely efficient and thorough in the way in which she treated each and every rider in her care. So to Jann, on behalf of the BMX riders, their parents and the community, thank you for all your efforts. Finally, congratulations to everyone involved in the successful pre-titles and championships event at the Jingili BMX club.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about some comments made by the Attorney-General as reported in the NT News on Tuesday, 5 October. I refer to another letter written by a member of the public. These matters go to the administration of justice as overseen by the Attorney-General in the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General made some comments in relation to the incident in which Mr Stefan Wood was involved and the Attorney-General, quite rightly in my view at least, said that he would look at closing off whatever loop holes existed so that such an incident would not occur again. I do not think I need to go into the details.
However, what was incredibly disturbing was as per the Northern Territory News on 5 October: ‘Dr Toyne also issued a stern warning to Mr Wood’, and on page 2, Dr Toyne is quoted:
I raise this matter in adjournment debate because it could be said that an ill-tempered comment such as that amounts to a threat. It could be said that such an ill-tempered remark from the Territory’s first law officer appears to sanction and indeed encourage police harassment of Stefan Wood. It is certainly threatening. I have not spoken to Mr Wood about this, but I understand that he may be taking the matter further, although I have only heard that third or fourth hand.
The issue at hand is these extraordinary comments of the Attorney-General. I think it is unprecedented in the Territory, and probably in Australia, for an Attorney-General to come up with something like that. It is symptomatic of the Attorney-General’s approach. He is very keen to be quoted in the media and does not always think before he opens his mouth.
This is a very serious matter and sends a terrible message to other people in the Northern Territory, and that is evidenced by one letter - there may have been more, I have not noticed them - but one letter in the NT News dated 7 October. It is written by Mr David Fidler who lives in Leanyer, and I will quote two parts of that letter, as follows:
The author goes on to refer to it as ‘… foolish statement’ and then says:
I heartily agree with David Fidler. These sorts of comments, apart from being bullying, threatening and apparently sanctioning harassment of someone who is presumed innocent until guilty, and I will come back to that, are extraordinary and not the comments of anyone fit to be the Territory’s first law officer.
There is another matter, however. Elsewhere in the article on 5 October, it said that police are still investigating this matter and it goes on to say that they are interviewing people who attended a charity golf event at which Mr Stefan Wood was present on the day. If I understand the situation correctly, Mr Wood is not facing a charge of drinking and driving because there is no evidence; there can be no evidence of that under the existing legislation.
Having outlined the impropriety of the Attorney-General’s comments, I raise the question perhaps for others to answer in due course as to what role, if any, the police minister has had in what might be described as victimisation when the police are still investigating something for which Mr Wood, as I understand it, cannot be charged.
We have two very important things going on here. One is the Attorney-General is, on the face of it, encouraging the police to chase, irritate, and harass a person, a citizen of the Northern Territory; and at the same time, it could be said that the police minister is - I do not know whether he is, but it is certainly a perception out there - encouraging the police to investigate something for which there can be no charge.
These are very serious matters, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, and …
Mr Henderson: I have not even spoken to the police about it.
Ms CARNEY: … I know that there are many people in the Northern Territory who were equally as appalled and shocked really that the Attorney-General was so silly as to make those remarks.
But of course, from this government we are seeing the way they operate. We saw it with Mr Warren Anderson. We saw the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, in essence, say, ‘Oh well, the court was wrong, the court did not know what it was doing. Mr Anderson was guilty after all’. Fortunately, after threat of legal proceedings, and by God, Warren Anderson was going to follow through with it, but at the 11th hour, the Chief Minister obviously was advised to apologise and withdraw her remarks. As I understand it, Mr Anderson has issued proceedings against minister Ah Kit.
However, it does, I believe, show a trend in this government to persecute, to hunt down, and to get, and to get in every way, get stuck into, to humiliate, to just try to crash their way through if people do things that they do not like. This goes to abuse of their positions, potentially, as the Attorney-General and police minister. I do not put it in any higher than that, but there is a perception there that there are more questions to be answered, and I will probably be asking some of those questions in another forum. However, it is appropriate that I do raise those very important questions regarding the administration of justice.
Mr Kiely: Over some glass of chardonnay.
Ms CARNEY: I should also, while I am on my feet, and while I am talking about the Attorney-General, refer to, and I am happy to table it at the end if members would like, a letter I wrote to him on 8 October. Now, the Attorney-General, apart from, or in addition to, trying to harass people, is making a bit of a habit, it seems to me, of simply refusing - we saw it today, we saw it earlier this week - to answer questions in the committee stages of debate. In other words, if it gets too hard for him, he just sits there and shakes his head, which amounts to not answering a question.
The Attorney-General is getting even worse at answering questions. I gave him some questions months ago in relation to the May budget that remain unanswered. The letter I wrote to him on 8 October says as follows:
I have sent a copy of my letter of 8 October, together with the copy of the letter from the minister’s office, which extends to four pages, detailing my letters and the relevant subject matters of them. I have sent this letter to many law firms in the Northern Territory, all around the Northern Territory and, in particular, of course, to those law firms and lawyers who specifically asked me to ask questions about the May budget.
What do we have at the end of this? We have an Attorney-General who makes ill-advised, ill-tempered comments, some would say threats, to an individual in the Northern Territory who is innocent until proven guilty. We have a police minister who, it could be said, is, from the sidelines, encouraging, and I do not put it any higher than that, possibly encouraging …
Dr Burns: What evidence do you have for that? Where does it say that in the paper?
Ms CARNEY: … the police to continue to investigate the matter, because, of course, the buck stops with the ministers in these sorts of matters.
Dr Burns: They do not get involved in operational matters.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: It does not matter what people like the member for Johnston say, but the buck always stops with the minister. We do have people in the Northern Territory …
Mr Elferink: Oh, don’t you?
Dr Burns: No.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: I do not think so.
Dr Burns: Ah, you are a clown.
Mr Elferink: I really do not think so. And you want to be very careful where you threaten this.
Ms CARNEY: … who are very concerned about the Attorney-General …
Dr Burns: I do not have to be careful. I won’t be threatened by you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: You keep saying it.
Dr Burns: And you watch yourself!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Macdonnell and member for Johnston.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, order!
Dr Burns: You move outside and I’ll have you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! We will have no banter across the Chamber please. Member for Araluen, continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I heard what the member for Johnston said, and obviously it is not just the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory who is making threats to citizens of the Northern Territory. The member for Johnston said to the member for Macdonnell: ‘Let us step outside and I will have you’. That is what he said.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That is not what was said.
Dr Burns: That is not true. Say that outside – say it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order?
Dr Burns: Say that outside – say it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KIELY: The point of order is that she is lying. She is lying; that is the point of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No, there is no point of order.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is obviously the bully boy, bovver boy, tactics that Mark Latham was famous for. A bit of pressure, a bit of questioning …
Mr Kiely: Better than the granny girl stuff you come out with. The old granny stuff that you tackle.
Ms CARNEY: Be quiet! I do not think I have heard, in the three-and-a-bit years I have been here, another member make a threat to …
Dr Burns: It is a legal threat!
Ms CARNEY: … from either side of the Chamber: ‘Let us move outside and I will have you’ …
Mr Elferink: Make a promise [inaudible] Go and see the …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms CARNEY: … and I’ll order a Hansard rush, I think …
Dr Burns: I heard it!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not intend to indulge the member for Johnston’s fantasies about thumping the member for Macdonnell …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Once again – once again – she is saying things that are not true.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, withdraw that please. That was not what was said.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: In any event, those two gentlemen can, in their own way, sort it out inside, outside, in a court, or anywhere else they might like to.
It is fascinating that, in the context of adjournment debate in which I raised very serious concerns about the conduct of the Attorney-General and comments he has made, that I note that he has not sought, in the parliament at least, to correct those. Then, of course, I lined it up with a letter to the Attorney-General in which I say that his failure to answer my letters is arrogant and discourteous. I guess it is not surprising that members on the government side would be making threats; it is the way they operate.
In any event, the point of me getting up tonight was to raise what I believe are very serious concerns. I am the shadow Attorney-General; it is certainly appropriate that I do so. I know, having spoken to some in the legal profession – although not many, but certainly a couple of lawyers here in Darwin - that they are equally as concerned. With those comments Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to ask, hypothetically, tonight whether the member for Sanderson has been drinking. I ask that question …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member well knows that he cannot make any allegations or assertions as to the conduct of any member of this place, unless he does so by way of substantive motion.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that is a clear breach, making such allegations. It is …
Mr Elferink: Well, this is …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! I have not …
Mr KIELY: This is a most serious allegation. I am prepared to be breathalysed; I am prepared to be tested …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson, you have just given me a point of order. Give me the time to take in what was said. I will just ask the Clerk for some advice.
Mr KIELY: Withdraw it! Mr Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to be breathalysed right here and now. I am prepared to take a blood test!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! My advice is, under Standing Order 62, you must withdraw that please.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I will withdraw it, but there is a point in this, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr Kiely: There is no …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … and the reason I make this point, is that I just heard that little clown make that same allegation about the member for Araluen over the microphones when she was there …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order …
Ms Carney: You are joking! Did he?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I heard the Treasurer, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: … make the same allegations …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: … about the member for …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, you are warned! What is your point of order, member for Wanguri?
Mr HENDERSON: Again, unbecoming language. He is using words that have been previously ruled as unparliamentary. The reference to my colleague, the member for Sanderson, as ‘that little clown’, I ask him to withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you withdraw that, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: The spurious allegation, under his breath, but close enough to the microphone for me to hear it upstairs, suggesting that the member for Araluen had been drinking chardonnay …
Ms Carney: Was that tonight?
Mr ELFERINK: … was wholly out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms Carney: You little turd!
Mr ELFERINK: The Treasurer …
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen has just called my colleague, the member for Sanderson, ‘a little turd’ and I ask that she withdraw that.
Ms Carney: Yeah, Clare wants you Len, you had better go out.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear that so I cannot ask him to withdraw. Did you say that member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: I never said anything of the sort.
Mr HENDERSON: No, the member for Araluen.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, did you …
Mr Ah Kit: It was said by the member for Araluen. I heard it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, did you make that comment, please.
Ms CARNEY: What comment? Sorry, it has all got lost in the …
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Araluen called my colleague, the member for Sanderson, ‘a little turd’ …
Ms Carney: Ah, that comment.
Mr HENDERSON: … and I ask that she withdraw that.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw that comment.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that is …
Mr Elferink: Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on. Member for Araluen, that is not appropriate language …
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, it isn’t but if he is muttering into the microphone ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will deal with one …
Ms CARNEY: … alleging I have been drinking …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: … that is also very unparliamentary, but I take your point.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, we will deal with each issue as it comes. Member for Macdonnell, let us keep this - if you have a complaint about the actions of the member for Sanderson let us keep this at least civil and put your point clearly and without …
Mr Elferink: I am furious, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well you may be, but we need to at least keep this in the context of where we are.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Drysdale, at the throwaway line of the member for Sanderson the last time around, was pilloried in the media, through the media machine that this mob keep on the fifth floor, and was accused of being drunk in parliament.
I have now heard the member for Sanderson repeat that several times in the past and now there is a specific instance that I can point to, and it is clearly audible over the microphones. The Treasurer made the same suggestion about the member for Daly the other day and I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Standing Orders Committee, the Chairman of which is here, I said let us get a breathalyser machine into the parliament because this sort of stupid, inane, gutless, reckless and filthy allegation will be made repeatedly. And guess what? They refuse because no, it was never going to be necessary.
Now, I hear the member for Sanderson saying, ‘Breathalyse me’. Well, where is the breathalyser, Mr Deputy Speaker? Blood test me. Where is the blood test availability? The member for Drysdale said let us drug test members of parliament when this sort of allegation is made and now government members think that they can throw this allegation over the Chamber every time that it suits them. I am getting sick of the allegations being made and having to see the member for Daly having to call points of order.
So I come in here, and I ask on the record a simple question: ‘Has the member for Sanderson been drinking?’ No allegation. And see, he is on his feet.
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The allegation being made I think is in direct contravention of Standing Order 62 …
Mr Elferink: No allegation, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON: … that no member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against the Assembly or member of the Assembly, nor shall a member attribute directly or by innuendo to another member unbecoming conduct or motives. I believe that it is by innuendo. It is a rhetorical question and I ask that he withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just ask for some Clerk’s advice. Member for Macdonnell, although you are asking a question there is an innuendo in what you were saying and I ask you to withdraw it.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, well this is interesting isn’t it, Mr Deputy Speaker. I withdraw it …
Ms Carney: Hypocrites.
Mr ELFERINK: … and that hypocrisy is monumental.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen has now accused me of being a hypocrite ...
Ms Carney: No, I didn’t.
Mr Elferink: Well, you are.
Mr HENDERSON: … and I ask her to withdraw.
Ms Carney: No, I did not.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think the member for Araluen said that. I think the word hypocrisy was used, but I am not sure it was …
Ms Carney: I said hypocrites.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: … aimed at any particular person. I rule against the point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, isn’t it funny that when the same tactic is used in their direction they are on their feet every 15 seconds screaming how unfair and how outrageous it is that anybody should ask it. Well, guess what? The difference between me and them is that I will do it while I am on my feet so I know I am being recorded by Hansard and asking a simple question. No allegation, but of course there is the innuendo and that is how these guys have been operating, Mr Deputy Speaker, innuendo.
I think it is absolutely outrageous that they think that they can get away with this again and again and again. They try it again and again and again. I am furious at it, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is demeaning to this place and demeaning to not only them but to the whole House. And it is a great joke, ‘We got a great hit on the member for Drysdale for being drunk in parliament or suggesting it, while the Treasurer is in the media saying, ‘Well, he might have been standing too close to the bar’. He is allowed to say that in the media, but if I was to say, ‘Has the member for Sanderson been standing too close to the bar tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker, they jump on their feet.
That is an innuendo. I just breached parliamentary protocol and because they know that what I am saying is correct, for the first time during my adjournment debate tonight, he is not on his feet.
I will tell you something, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is this sort of arrogance that is starting to bite out there in relation to this government. This government thinks it is better than everybody. This government thinks it is better than members opposite – and a smirk on the Leader of Government Business’ face – ho, ho, ho; chuckle, chuckle, chuckle; we’ve got it over them now – is telling, absolutely telling.
Keep going, if the government wants to go through life that they are better than everybody else by running people down and then using coward’s castle in here to run these sorts of smear campaigns, think about it, because the quality of representation that Territorians have is awful.
I am infuriated that this tactic has been used repeatedly. I think that the least the member for Sanderson can do is apologise to the member for Araluen for that outrageous …
Ms Carney: Absolutely. Otherwise I’ll ask if he happens to be a child abuser or something like that.
Mr ELFERINK: … slur while I was sitting upstairs. Now, when the Treasurer …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, did you refer to someone as ‘a child abuser’?
Ms CARNEY: Sorry. Say again?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did you refer to someone as ‘a child abuser’?
Ms Scrymgour: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: No, I didn’t. I just said if he doesn’t – the member for Macdonnell …
Ms Scrymgour: You said the word ‘child abuser’.
Ms CARNEY: Excuse me. The member for Macdonnell suggested that he apologise, and I simply said: ‘Or I might suggest that he is a child abuser or something like that’.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to with you to withdraw that, please.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, the least that the member for Sanderson can do is apologise. The Treasurer, when he made the same spurious suggestion, was made to withdraw by the Speaker in relation to the member for Daly during the debate last week.
I ask the Leader of Government Business: does he really want to go down this path? Where does this take us? How long is it before one member is going to say to another member in this place or outside: ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’? How long is it going to be before one member says …
Ms Carney: It’s already been done.
Ms Carter: It’s already happened.
Mr ELFERINK: … to another member in this place …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: … ‘When did you last have sex with a 13 year-old, or didn’t you?’? That sort of thing. That is where it is going. That is the sort of politics that this House will develop into if we do not learn to show some internal discipline and fortitude and start steering away from this sort of reckless abuse.
If members opposite or any other member in this House thinks that it won’t be a pox on all of our houses, or both our houses at least, they are kidding themselves. I am just frustrated that this parliament is starting to go down that path, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My thoughts are on the record. I urge members to consider it before they launch themselves in that direction.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Economic Development Strategy
Economic Development Strategy
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, when we came to government in 2001, a priority task was to put in place actions that would address the sluggish economy and establish a sound basis for the future. Within three months, we organised and conducted community forums around the Territory to seek input from Territorians. The community consultation culminated in November 2001 with the Economic Development Summit, which was co-chaired by Bob Collins and Neville Walker. The summit provided a unique opportunity for over 200 delegates and observers, representing business, unions, industry, indigenous communities and government across all regions of the Territory, to openly discuss our future.
Immediately after the summit’s conclusion, the government commenced the task of translating the directions that came out of the summit into a comprehensive strategy and action plan, subsequently released in June 2002, titled Building a Better Territory, The Economic Development Strategy for the Northern Territory.
My government has placed great emphasis on improving the business environment by creating the conditions where business and industry can flourish. The benefits of responsible fiscal management have been quickly passed on to business, including reductions to the payroll tax rate, an increased payroll tax threshold, and the future abolition of debits tax.
Additionally, the government’s record capital works program saw the commencement of strategic infrastructure projects essential to attract private sector investment, for example, the $38m Mereenie Loop Road, the $15m Litchfield Road, the bulk minerals facility at the rail port, and the new cruise ship terminal in Darwin – good examples of such infrastructure development. The evidence is now clear of an expanding economy with strong business confidence exhibited across many sectors, with the pastoral industry, mining, tourism and construction all experiencing better conditions. The Territory’s residential property market is demonstrating appreciable capital gains, with sales and profits in the retail sector also showing good results.
To complement the Territory’s growing trade flows and vast potential the international trade strategy, Building Stronger Territory Trade, was launched by my colleague the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development in October 2002. With the input of the International Business Council, this provided a clear plan for the development of Territory international trade.
The release of the manufacturing industry strategy, Making it in the Territory, launched by the same minister in February of this year, was a good example of an initiative to expand our economic base. Building a Better Territory highlighted the need to increase the tourist visitations to the Territory. The Tourism Strategic Plan 2003-07 released by the then Minister for Tourism in December 2002 was developed through extensive research, analysis and consultation and underpinned by the government’s allocation of $27.5m over three years for tourism promotion including destination marketing.
The Jobs Plan NT, Building the NT Workforce, was released in November 2003 by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. It is the Territory’s first comprehensive jobs plan and is underpinned by a $160m investment in training and skills development, ensuring that Territorians are equipped to take the opportunities that are being created. The provision of $7m in incentives to employees over three years to boost apprenticeships and traineeships will see the Territory on target to achieve 7000 commencements over three years.
In working to extend opportunities to regional and remote areas, the Minister for Regional Development released a Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures strategy in May 2003. The government’s Remote Areas Telecommunications strategy and Indigenous Tourism strategy, when added to initiatives like the Indigenous Economic Development Taskforce, will lead to greater wealth distribution and opportunities and jobs among all regions of the Territory.
In Alice Springs, we now have the $27m Desert Knowledge Precinct under way together with the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre - the latter valued at $91m over seven years. These initiatives of my government will expand world attention to Central Australia by focussing on the challenges of living in the desert.
In the area of major projects and the development of new initiatives there is the $1.6bn LNG plant at Wickham Point. Add to that government investment of $13m in the Darwin Business Park provided logistical support for the rail port infrastructure.
The strategy referred to promoting development of a convention centre for Darwin; the government has gone much further. We decided to use the convention centre as a catalyst to stimulate a major new Darwin city waterfront development and revitalise 25 hectares of industrial land. I talked about that yesterday.
Madam Speaker, there has been considerable interest in progress and implementing the Economic Development Strategy and Neville Walker, co-chair of the Economic Development Summit, has written to participants and other interested parties advising of the availability of a highlights summary document, together with a detailed report on the web site.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, all of the summits, strategies, reviews, action plans, and glossy brochures will not cover up what Territorians know. This is an economy that has resulted in two years of zero economic growth. We may point to Access Economics which can forecast the potential of the Northern Territory economy and the capacity of this place to perform, but they have made the same predictions year after year, and this government has failed to capitalise on that potential. Once again, we have Access Economics out there forecasting a great future for the Northern Territory, but the Northern Territory has little confidence in the capacity of this government to realise that potential.
We have had a population in decline and no glossy brochure will cover that fact. We have had a 25% loss of commercial and retail tenancies in our capital city. Which capital city, I ask you, Chief Minister, would have one quarter of commercial and retail tenancies vacant? No glossy brochure will cover that from the mind of Territorians and particularly those who visit our CBD.
There has been no wealth-creating project developed under this government for which they have responsibility. They speak of a reduction in payroll tax, but that was a minimal reduction. In fact, your tax take increased in your last budget. You have the opportunity, with a $500m GST windfall, to significantly reduce payroll tax, as we have committed to do, to relieve the load on Territory businesses so that they can genuinely reduce unemployment by taking on young Territorians into apprenticeships and real trades.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I now table a document that details some highlights in the last three years to inform Territorians on progress made against our strategy and plan, and advise that a full list of the 357 priority actions in the strategy and the progress made against them is now available at www.otd.nt.gov.au.
In conclusion, after three years of hard work, despite what the Opposition Leader says, we see a very different economic climate in the Territory, one that independent analysts consistently rate as ‘good’ or ‘better’ than anywhere else in Australia.
This is a tribute to the vision of those who came together at the Economic Development Summit in 2001. It is also a tribute to the many industry and community representatives and public servants who have fulfilled their roles in turning the priority actions of the strategy into reality. However, there is much more to do and our future prosperity relies on maintaining our diligent work effort in partnership with business, unions and the broader community, a partnership to which my government is committed. Madam Speaker, with pride, I table the document.
School Visits - Update
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, this morning I will update the House on the continuing program of school visits. I like to report to the House two or three times a year on where I have been. Since my last report in May, I have been to 34 schools, some of them more than once, and these schools are located right across the Territory including remote and regional areas.
Millner Primary School is run under the very effective leadership of principal, Ron Argoon. On 3 September, Millner Primary School held a pageant showcasing the multiculturalism of the school and the history of Darwin. It was a fantastic show. It was called My Darwin, My Place. My colleague, the member for Millner, also attended along with some 800 parents and community members who were enormously impressed as these children put on a wonderful performance starting with the interaction with trepang trade, right through significant events in Darwin’s history. It was a most impressive performance. I congratulate the school in total, but particularly Ms Betchay Mondragon, who did an outstanding job as Artistic Director, and Alison Mills, who assisted students in the indigenous songs and dances that they performed. The Chair of the School Council, Esther Eggar, was Stage Manager and she had a crew of 21 volunteers. It was a massive production for a primary school. The volunteers ensured that the event ran smoothly. Congratulations to all involved. I really did enjoy the evening.
Another great Darwin school is Manunda Terrace located in the electorate of my colleague, the member for Karama. I attended the school to present them with a cheque for $10 000 won by the school for their involvement in a major national competition, the World Recycling Games, conducted by Visy Recycling. I congratulate Visy for running this competition and for encouraging the involvement of students. The children learnt how to look after their environment in a practical way. Congratulations to them, their teachers and Dr Terry Quong.
As part of my efforts to visit schools, I have been able to speak with teachers and students at schools in Alice Springs, including Ross Park primary, Irrkerlantye Learning Centre, the Alice Steiner School, and St Philips. They are all impressive schools, albeit catering to significantly different groups and cohorts of students.
In my own region, I had the honour of being present at the opening of the Gawa Christian School. I congratulate everyone involved, particularly Jack Mechielsen and the Christian Schools Association which does a great job in the Territory. I wish Gawa Christian School and its students the very best for the future. It is in a particularly picturesque spot on the top tip of Elcho Island.
I also visited schools in Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Jabiru and Gunbalanya. I make particular mention of the riding and swimming program of Warrego Primary School. It is a small school but it has been boosting learning outcomes through a riding education program and looking after horses conducted by the principal, Mr Colin Baker. It is an outstanding program, and the kids have really benefited from the principal’s input. I was pleased to further assist them with a small grant when I visited there.
I recently returned from quite an extensive trip to schools along the Roper: Mataranka, Jilkminggan, Minyerri, Urapunga and Ngukurr. What struck me with every one of those schools was the tremendous vitality and energy within the schools, and particularly the involvement of the community and parents in the life of the school. I do not want to single one out but I mention Jilkminggan where the women preparing the morning teas and lunches are working towards Certificate 2 and Certificate 3 in Nutrition Education while they do that. They are able to do that program because everyone who has a child or student at the school puts in $20 out of their income into the school. It is self-funded, community-run, and the parents are working towards certificated courses in the preparation of that food. That was tremendous to see. In each of those schools, there was a particular feature where they particularly involved parents and communities.
It is a tremendous privilege, as minister for Education, to be able to visit these schools, and great fun along the way. I learnt a lot about what is happening on the ground and at the chalk face. I will be continuing this program of school visits right through the Territory to keep me in touch with the important issues in the system.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, as the shadow Education minister, I have also been visiting schools across the Territory. I have the great privilege to talk to a lot of parents about their aspirations for their children. Every parent, indigenous or not, aspire to have a better education system for their children. In my discussions with them, they are concerned that the minister has not addressed issues such as the transfer of Year 7 from primary schools to secondary schools in the secondary education report. This minister has been particularly deaf to their concerns.
When you go to Casuarina Secondary College, they talk about a Year 10 which is not coming into the college. The minister, again, turns a deaf ear to them. It is time that he starts to listen a bit more to the communities. He can visit as many schools as he likes, but when he does not listen to the community, it is a pointless exercise. It is more a self-promotion exercise than anything else.
The schools and their communities have endeavoured to work very hard with the very limited resources that they have to provide the best school environment they can possibly produce. I do not know whether the minister has attended the Palmerston campus of the Charles Darwin University, one that is his responsibility. Fifteen apprentices will be missing out for the next six months of their training because there is no instructor for bakery and pastry. These kids are now sitting for their exams this week and, hopefully, in a couple of weeks time they will come back to recommence their last six months of training. If there is an instructor missing, then it is important for this minister to ensure that he provides one so that these apprentices can continue their training.
While the minister might have been visiting schools across the Territory, he must listen to the community. If not, his visits are pretty pointless.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it is a bit raw to take criticism about not listening to the community when we have had an enormous and extensive consultative program with the community around the secondary review and, at this stage, no decisions have been made. So, to be accused of not listening to the community is a bit rich, to say the least.
The shadow minister is simply wrong in relation to the bakery and pastry cooks training at Palmerston. I have a brief in my office, and I will provide him with a copy of it later. I do not know who he has been talking to or listening to, but those students are in their block release now, and it is running as per normal. There is a change of dates, but no-one, no individual trainee apprentice is disadvantaged in this program. He is simply wrong, and I will provide him with a brief later giving him the facts.
Health Department Budget
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, when we came to power in 2001, spending on health was uncontrolled and inadequate. Financial and management controls were poor, leading to a position where, every year, the Health Department blew its budget. This lack of controls and chronic under-funding meant that, often, the hospital ‘sucked up’ resources from other areas of the health system. This government embarked on a thorough review of the health system in a comprehensive restructuring of the department, including the imposition of strict controls on transfer of funds between different areas of the department. We brought the budget under control such that in 2003-04, for the first time in around a decade, there were no significant cost blow-outs in the budget. New funding was provided for new and expanded services, not to meet a lack of budgetary control.
The new structure and financial controls allowed us to set our strategic directions in Building Healthier Communities in February 2004 with 10 priority areas for action. The new systems within the Health and Community Services system mean that we can now allocate resources with confidence to our priorities, knowing that this is where the money will be spent. We have also significantly increased funding for our hospitals. Together, this means that no longer will budget crises in hospitals drain resources from non-acute areas. We have injected considerable resource into the system to improve and upgrade it. We have increased the Health and Community Services budget by a record $1.54m since 2001.
I want to outline the key commitments that we have delivered on. First, we are creating better hospitals. This includes $2.5m for a birthing centre at Royal Darwin Hospital; an allocation of $4.25m for a 12-bed hospice on the Royal Darwin Hospital campus, with individual rooms with ensuite facilities and access to individual private garden areas. Our commitment also includes $1.87m for staffing and operational costs; $6.1m to operate the new wing at RDH, including opening of the new Emergency Department, Critical Care Services, High Dependency Unit, Coronary Care Unit, and short stay ward; $11m over four years to improve the Intensive Care Unit/High Dependency Unit at Alice Springs Hospital, including new equipment, five new ICU/HDU beds, and more specialists and nursing staff; $2m for fire safety and airconditioning upgrade works at Alice Springs Hospital; $150 000 to refurbish the airconditioning in the kitchen at Katherine District Hospital, and $226 000 to purchase new equipment; and $1.5m for the construction of an eight-chair renal unit at Tennant Creek Hospital with ancillary services.
We are also putting more resources into supporting our staff. We have exceeded our commitment to fund 75 new hospital-based nurses in our first term. As of October this year, we have funded 97 positions, of which 76 are filled and 21 are in the process of being recruited. We have allocated over $10m to increase pay levels of nurses; $4.6m to provide an 11% pay rise for medical officers; and $1.6m for a new EBA for Territory dentists. We are also improving access to health services through $2.2m to improve child health services and outcomes with the recruitment of 25 staff based in Darwin, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs; $1.4m to phase out single-nurse posts in remote areas; $900 000 capital for the remote renal services; and $3m for Oral Health Services throughout the Northern Territory.
We are not pretending that this record spending in health will solve all the problems. We are dealing with a great level of need in the community, and with a situation of national and international shortage of key health staff. This means we have a health system that is under pressure, as are all health systems across the world.
Mr Dunham: You said it was a crisis.
Dr TOYNE: This is not a crisis. To continually describe it in these terms is to talk down the commitment and dedication of our staff. It also ignores the achievements of this government in increasing our spending on health to record levels. This government is doing the right thing. We have put the system in order, set the priorities, and committed the funds. This is our commitment to building healthier communities in the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the minister may well have a commitment, but the results speak for themselves. I do not know what planet he is living on when he talks about the achievements of him, his predecessor, or his government. They are an absolute disgrace when it comes to health. There is a list of things I could go into and two minutes is clearly not enough.
First, in relation to staffing details, my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, wrote to the minister in May 2004, as I understand it, asking for exact details and title of each new position which the government said it had created. I understand that no response has been received to that letter. This is the government, as I said yesterday, that closed down the Palmerston 24-hour medical clinic. There are staff shortages …
Mr Dunham: Closed down rehab.
Ms CARNEY: Closed rehab; opened rehab. This is a minister who has presided over a $50m blow-out in his budget. The budget papers speak for themselves. There is a $561m allocation, which blew out to $612m. Then we had the extraordinary situation where the CEO of Health sent an e-mail in about May of this year to his staff, saying: ‘We are on track’. Members will recall that various questions were put in the Estimates Committee hearing, most of which were unanswered.
This government needs all the money it can get, because it continues to pay $2000 a day for specialist anaesthetists from interstate to work at the Alice Springs Hospital. The emergency medicine specialist was squeezed out under this government. There is no permanent anaesthetic staff in Alice Springs; there are bed shortages in Darwin and Alice Springs. Twenty seven people on hospital trolleys in the Northern Territory, I would have thought, is unprecedented. The mess and the minister’s deceit about the closure of the ICU at Alice Springs will dog him. I will continue to chase him on it; that was a disgraceful performance. Ten elective surgery cases a month in Alice Springs are deferred; that is outrageous! At the Wadeye Health Clinic, for instance, not so long ago - in fact a month ago - there was a sign on the door saying: ‘Clinic closed due to nurse shortage,’ so the facts speak for themselves.
There is no hospice; there is no oncology unit; they were election promises, and this fantasy about getting 100 nurses, well, we will get the details of that provided the minister does us the courtesy of providing a reply.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Dr TOYNE (Health): It is good to see the member’s voice has recovered, Madam Speaker. Well, look, quite clearly …
Ms Carney: My voice might come and go but you will always …
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not think members in this House should be reflecting on the health status of other members. It is unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw that comment, minister.
Dr TOYNE: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I hope, member for Drysdale, that you remember that piece of advice that you just gave everybody else.
Mr Dunham: Yes, I will, Madam Speaker.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear that the member does not understand the difference between a blow-out and a planned expansion within the health system. I have detailed today to this House every single item that has contributed to the increased health expenditure. All those items were planned; all those items are adding capacity to our health system. All those items will improve the services available to Territorians.
We have a good record in health. I do not accept the unsubstantiated assertions from over there. I am sure that we are going to have plenty of debates but you had better back up some of your claims.
Spanish Mackerel Gene Tag Project
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I rise to report on the progress of the Spanish Mackerel Gene Tag project, and the important role it will play in the management of fish stocks. In January 2002, the Spanish Mackerel Fishery Management Advisory Committee was tasked with undertaking a review of the Spanish Mackerel Management Plan. This review has now been completed in wide consultation with all the stakeholder groups involved in the fishery. I anticipate that the new plan …
Mrs MILLER: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am having great trouble hearing the minister. If you could speak a bit slower, thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: It sounds like we all have a hearing problem. Minister, big voice.
Mr VATSKALIS: I anticipate that the new plan will be released shortly, with an implementation date early in the new year. The objectives covered by the management plan are:
- to control the taking of Spanish Mackerel from the fishery by commercial fishing licensees,
fishing tour operator licensees, and amateur fishers, whether taken as the principal catch or
incidentally when taking fish from another fishery and whether the fisher releases the fish back
into the water;
the fishery in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development; and
to encourage fishing in the fishery by maintaining the level and quality of the yield from the fishery and
ensuring that indigenous communities, commercial fishing licensees, fishing tour operator licensees and
amateur fishers have adequate access to the fishery.
The key to any fishery management plan is sound research. Long-term catch data provides us with information we need to determine how much fish can be removed from a fishery per annum, without significantly impacting on sustainability. Although conventional tag and release programs have always provided useful information, there have been limitations. Physical tags can be lost and can even cause death to the fish through the process of capture and tagging. The gene tag process involves taking a DNA sample from fish in combination with conventional tagging. The Fisheries Group has developed a tagging pole that applies a standard plastic tag while at the same time also retaining a minute amount of tissue from which the DNA fingerprint of the fish can be determined.
The project involves extensive cooperation between our fishery group, the Queensland Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, and both commercial and recreational fishers. Over the four years of the project, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation is allocating more than $1.2m; in fact, the corporation regards this as one of the flagship projects that it is funding. The Queensland Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has the responsibility for developing the genetic protocols for the project. It has made real advances in identifying suitable matching techniques for Spanish Mackerel. It is expected that these techniques will also be applicable to a wide range of other fisheries.
Thus far, there has been one recorded capture of genetically tagged fish which is, in fact, a world first, and we expect several more as the genetic processing proceeds. The fish, which was first tagged by Mr Ray Colley at Lorna Shoals, was subsequently caught by Mr Carl Skyring while fishing at Loee Shoals. It showed that the fish had only moved a few kilometres in six weeks.
More than 800 Spanish Mackerel have been gene tagged to date with the assistance of recreational and commercial fishers, and a further 7000 fin tip samples have been collected to check for additional matches. Screening for recaptures is now moving full steam ahead and more matches in the database are expected to be revealed in the coming months.
We have an enthusiastic group of keen recreational mackerel fishers who have worked in close cooperation with AFANT, which is managing the distribution of tags and rewards. We have had overwhelming business support, with around $4000 worth of prizes donated for tagging competitions.
Madam Speaker, this is world-leading research being undertaken by the Northern Territory Fisheries Group. I congratulate Dr Rik Buckworth and his team for the job they are doing in helping to protect the sustainability of our fisheries.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. The biggest challenge I am going to have in listening to the reports is getting the minister to speak more slowly. I have great difficulty understanding what he is saying when he speaks very quickly.
I am looking forward to learning a lot more about the fishing industry. Of course, we know that recreational fishing plays an important part in the Northern Territory. I am looking forward to my briefings next week.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her comments and I will make an effort to speak slowly. It will take a while for her to get used to my accent. I understand that after a while, the previous shadow minister did not have too many problems, so you do get used to it. However, I will make an effort to speak slowly.
Once again, I congratulate Dr Rik Buckworth. He has done a fantastic job. He has developed a new sampling technique that is so effective and efficient that other countries like Canada, the United States and European countries are now copying our technique in order to tag and release their fish stock.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
AUSTRALASIA RAILWAY (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 258)
(Serial 258)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the AustraliaAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Amendment Bill is to amend the AustraliaAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act to extend the sunset date under section 14B(5) by 12 months.
The AustraliaAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act recognises access, electricity and water easements in favour of private land-holders adjoining the corridor. In addition, the act requires the Registrar-General to amend the Land Register to recognise those easements. During construction, owing to safety and construction requirements, the location of the access easements was varied. The act provides a mechanism to amend the Land Register to reflect the variations of those easements. The bill extends the availability of this mechanism to amend the Land Register by 12 months to enable the necessary amendments to be completed.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (ABORIGINAL CUSTOMARY LAW) BILL
(Serial 254)
(Serial 254)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that courts are provided with fully tested evidence about relevant customary law issues when they are sentencing an offender. The bill implements one of the government’s commitments made in response to the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee’s Inquiry into Aboriginal Customary Law. The government made a commitment to developing mechanisms to ensure that where customary law is relevant in a case, the courts have access to fully tested evidence about the relevant customary law issues.
This bill provides a formal mechanism for raising issues relating to customary law, or the views of members of an Aboriginal community, when a court is sentencing an offender. It has long been an accepted practice for courts in the Northern Territory to accept and take into account evidence of relevant customary law when passing sentence on an indigenous person. Aspects of customary law and attitudes of members of a particular indigenous community towards an offence or an offender are often material facts that a court must take into account in the sentencing process.
However, the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal indicated in the case of Munungurr that it was not satisfactory for information on community views, or proposed tribal punishment, to be admitted in an informal manner. There is a risk that the material provided informally to the court on important issues would only be from the perspective of the offender or would not contain adequate detail. Rather, the courts should be provided with information directly from people who have appropriate knowledge about a community, its language and customs.
In many cases, indigenous people have directly provided courts with important information about customary law. However, despite the views of the court expressed in Munungurr, it remains common for information regarding customary law to be presented to a court in an informal manner. In addition, information may be presented without notice to the other party so they do not have an opportunity to undertake their own inquiries in relation to the information. In these situations, the court may then only be presented with information about aspects of customary law by one party which supports that party’s position and does not take into account conflicting views within the community on the issue.
The government recognises that some indigenous people are concerned about the way information about customary law is presented in courts, and that the informal presentation of information in the form of submissions from counsel representing an offender may not provide the court with adequate information about what, in many cases, are very complex issues.
Unfortunately, our attention is often drawn to the more controversial or difficult aspects of Aboriginal customary law. However, Aboriginal customary law in the Northern Territory is a significant and positive part of contemporary Aboriginal society and an important source of obligations and rights. Aboriginal customary law, as it is practised in contemporary Aboriginal communities, is the outcome of many historical, social and cultural influences, and is generally specific to a particular community or language group and subject to change over time. Therefore, there may be disagreement within the communities or groups on aspects of customary law and its application to particular circumstances. Research and consultation, particularly with indigenous women, has highlighted that some beliefs and practices presented to courts as embodying customary law do not adequately represent the views of all people of that particular community.
This bill formally recognises that information regarding Aboriginal customary law can make an important contribution when a court is sentencing an Aboriginal person for a criminal offence. While the most common example of this are cases where an offender is liable to receive punishment under customary law in relation to the offence, there are many other instances where information about customary law is relevant to an offender or an offence and needs to be taken into account in the interests of justice.
The bill, if passed, will require a party to criminal proceedings, who seeks to present information regarding aspects of customary law or the views of members of the community, to give notice to the other party and to provide the information by way of oral evidence in court, affidavit or statutory declaration. The amendment does not stipulate what notice should be given as the court will be able to make an assessment about what is a reasonable notice in each particular case. This will, of course, depend on many factors, including the nature of the information that a party wishes to present to the court, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and the facts giving rise to the offence.
The bill recognises that our system of criminal law is an adversarial model that relies on the prosecution and the offender to provide information relevant to the sentence. The bill seeks to provide a fair framework for the presentation of information on customary law that is consistent with the adversarial model.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
GENE TECHNOLOGY (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL
(Serial 249)
(Serial 249)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to fulfil the Territory’s commitments under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Gene Technology to adopt in the Territory a uniform Australian approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms. For that purpose, this bill applies to the Gene Technology Act 2000, and the Gene Technology (Licence Charges) Act 2000 of the Commonwealth as a law of the Territory, and makes provisions to help ensure that the Commonwealth act and the law of the Territory are administered on a uniform basis by the Commonwealth, as if they constituted as single law of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth and all Australian states and territories are signatories to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Gene Technology. The inter-governmental agreement on gene technology recitals state that the Commonwealth, states and territories have agreed on, and I quote:
- … a need for a cooperative national legislative scheme to protect the health and safety of people and
to protect the environment, by identifying risks posed by or as a result of, gene technology and by
managing those risks through regulating certain dealings with genetically modified organisms.
The cooperative national legislative scheme inter alia should, and I quote:
- … provide an efficient and effective regulatory system for the application of gene technologies; operate
in a seamless manner in conjunction with existing Commonwealth and state regulatory schemes relevant
to genetically modified organisms and products derived from such organisms (for example, the schemes that
regulate food, therapeutic goods, agricultural and veterinary chemicals and industrial chemicals); be nationally
consistent, drawing on power conferred by the Commonwealth, state and territory parliaments; be based on a
scientific assessment of risks undertaken by an independent regulator.
I will make a few background comments about gene technology. Biotechnology is a broad term that covers the practical use of biological systems to produce goods and services. It encompasses the transformation of materials by micro-organisms, for example, by fermentation, methods of propagation, such as plant cloning or grafting, and may involve genetic alteration through methods such as selective breeding. Recent advances in biotechnology provide ways of introducing very precise changes to genetic material.
Gene technology involves the modification of organisms by the direct incorporation or deletion of one or more genes to introduce or alter a specific characteristic or characteristics. Organisms so treated are called genetically modified organisms.
Current applications of gene technology worldwide include:
- research: such as basic research in biology and medicine with micro-organisms
and transgenic animals;
altering the timing and duration of flower production, herbicide tolerance, and pest
and disease impact;
therapeutic products such as insulin and vaccines in medicines for the diagnosis and
the treatment of disease;
paper pulp production and biological leaching of minerals; and
substances and clean up industrial sites or environmental accidents.
Some aspects of gene technology cause concern in relation to possible effects in non-target organisms, the health of the community, and the environment. In order to address these concerns, Australian governments have agreed to a consistent national legislative framework that requires scientifically assessing the likelihood and consequences of risks to human health and safety, and to the environment.
Most publicity and community interest has been on genetically modified organisms in agriculture. Data for 2003 shows that 18 countries grew GM crops over a total area of 67.7 million hectares, an increase in area of 15% over 2002. Six principle countries grew some 99% of the total area: the USA by far the largest with 42.8 million hectares, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, China and South Africa. The four commercialised GM crops are soya bean, maize, cotton and carnations. The most sought-after traits for genetically modified crops are herbicide tolerance, and insect resistance.
In Australia under the Gene Technology Act 2000, all field trials and commercial releases of genetically modified organisms - direct intentional releases into the environment - must be licensed by the Gene Technology regulator. So far, licences have only been issued for commercial release of genetically modified cotton, genetically modified canola and genetically modified carnations. Field trials have been licensed for other crops such as pineapples, paw paws, poppy seed and sugar cane.
The current Northern Territory participation in genetically modified organisms is restricted. Cotton trials at or near the Katherine Research Station have been in the order of 16 hectares in 1999, 16 hectares in 2000, 17 hectares in 2001, 45 hectares in 2002 and 70 hectares in 2003. Some 60 hectares are proposed in 2004. These trials are consistent with the government’s decision of October 2003, not to allow commercial cotton growing in the Northern Territory but to allow pre-existing research trials to continue in honouring prior arrangements to do so.
In terms of agricultural crops, some of the possible risks include the potential impact on traditional or organic crops; the possible effect on insect resistant crops or non-target insects such as butterflies; and the potential for transfer of genes from herbicide tolerance from genetically modified crops to related species resulting in herbicide resistant weeds. The order of magnitude of other Territory dealings with genetically modified organisms is as follows: the Menzies School of Health Research has one licence for investigations into Streptococcus, which does not involve intentional release of a genetically modified organism in environment. It also has nine notifications for a notifiable low risk dealing with Streptococcus, scabies and Chlamydia. A notifiable low risk dealing licence is also low risk licence not involving potential release of genetically modified organisms. The CSIRO has two notifiable low risk dealings and one exempt dealing with mangoes; and the Charles Darwin University has seven notifiable low risk dealings with plant phytoplasma.
Madam Speaker, I now return to the legislative framework. The legislative framework intergovernmental agreement and decision making procedures were developed with extensive consultation with all states and territories. The intention of this framework, which was negotiated over a period of two years, was to achieve a safe, transparent, robust, and nationally consistent regulatory arrangement to keep pace with development in this rapidly developing area.
In Australia, dealings with genetically modified organisms are controlled under the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. It provides for a Gene Technology Regulator to oversee and manage the assessment of risks to the health and safety of people and the environment associated with dealings with genetically modified organisms: a risk assessment process that requires the Regulator to seek advice from the states and territories on an application for a licence to authorise the intentional release into the environment of a genetically modified organisms, both on matters relevant to the preparation of the Risk Management Plan, and on that assessment and plan following their preparation:
- a Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee;
a Gene Technology Consultative Committee;
a Gene Technology Ethics Committee; and
a Gene Technology Ministerial Council where the Territory delegate is the
Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries.
The Gene Technology Act 2000 prohibits all dealings with genetically modified organisms unless the dealing is:
- a licensed dealing involving either intentional release of genetically modified organisms
to the environment or not involving intentional release of genetically modified organisms
to the environment;
a notifiable low risk dealing not involving intentional release of genetically modified
organisms to the environment;
exempt dealing - exempt from licensing but not from the Gene Technology Act 2000; or
included on the genetically modified organisms register - a complete list of all approved
dealings with genetically modified organisms and genetically modified products.
The Office of Gene Technology Regulator invites and encourages public involvement in the assessment process for the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. After assessing the risks in consultation with a wide range of expert groups, stakeholders and the public, the Regulator must decide whether any identified risks can be adequately managed before making a decision on applications.
A detailed risk assessment and risk management plan is prepared for every application for the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. A minimum of 30 days is set aside to give members of the public, a wide range of experts and other stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the risk assessment and risk management plan. The total statutory time frame to deciding applications to release in the environment is 170 days. It is 90 days for application for confined dealings in laboratories. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator has developed a proactive strategy for monitoring and compliance in line with the Gene Technology Act 2000.
Most monitoring in respect of each intentional release occurs at ‘high risk’ stages, such as flowering or harvesting times. In some cases, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator will also conduct unannounced spot checks to ensure that licence holders are complying with legislative requirements at all times. Findings from monitoring and compliance activities are reported in the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator quarterly report and annual report to the Commonwealth minister, with the reports available at the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s web site.
In conclusion, I repeat that the bill merely seeks to fulfil the Territory’s commitment under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Gene Technology and to be part of the national legislative framework. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 250)
(Serial 250)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to mirror amended provisions in the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, allowing for a single National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority. This authority is expected to provide a more efficient offshore petroleum safety administration regime. The Northern Territory Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act applies to the coast line of the Northern Territory at the mean low water marks seaward to a three nautical mile limit. This area is referred to as the Territory’s adjacent area. The corresponding Commonwealth act applies to Australian waters outside this.
The offshore petroleum industry is a major contributor to the economy and the domestic gas supplies in Australia. The industry also supports thousands of jobs. Over the past 25 years, the petroleum legislation has evolved. This evolution has assisted in ensuring security of oil and gas supplies and, as part of this, safety has been paramount. Safety is not only for those working in the industry, but also the general public.
Offshore safety is regulated according to whether the facility lies in Commonwealth or state or territory adjacent waters. Operators in several jurisdictions may be subject to two or more regulatory regimes. In 2001, the Commonwealth prepared a report on offshore safety, which found that the current system of petroleum regulation was inadequate, had unclear limitations, overlapping acts and inconsistent application between Commonwealth and jurisdictions. The Commonwealth responded to the report by initiating the creation of a National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority, commonly referred to as NOPSA. NOPSA will regulate occupational health and safety matters on offshore petroleum facilities in both Commonwealth and territory waters. Industry fully supported this because it was subject to different and, at times, overlapping sets of legal documents between Commonwealth and Territory waters. The Commonwealth has already passed legislation to enable the authority to undertake its regulatory activities in Commonwealth waters and to provide the safety authority with the ability to fully recover the cost of its operations through industry fees and levies.
With the Offshore Constitutional Settlement of 1967, the Commonwealth, states and Northern Territory agreed to, as far as practicable, administer the exploration and exploitation of petroleum resources with common principles and practices. This obligation requires the Territory to enact legislation to mirror the legislative changes made by the Commonwealth to enable the safety authority to carry out its occupational health and safety role in the Territory’s adjacent area waters. This will mean that certain Territory laws which currently regulate occupational health and safety matters on offshore facilities will be unapplied and a new Occupational Health and Safety Schedule inserted into the act.
Currently, occupational health and safety is covered by other Territory legislation. The new provisions in this schedule contain similar provisions to those that are currently in force in the Northern Territory. The new occupational health and safety schedule outlines the duties that have to be carried out by various people with responsibilities on an offshore facility, including the operator of the facility and employees or workers. It also extends to the manufacturers and suppliers of plant and substances to be used on the offshore facility to ensure that when properly used it is safe and without risk to the health and safety of the workers.
The occupational health and safety regime will be supported by the safety case approach outlined in the regulations of the act. Safety case approach requires the owner/operator of offshore facilities to provide for high standards of occupational health and safety procedures. The safety case approach is currently used in the offshore petroleum industry in Australia and other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Norway.
The proposed amendment will allow the Northern Territory to apply the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act Regulations to activities in the Territory adjacent area waters. The current Territory regime utilises an older outdated set of directions which are issued to titles holders. Those directions predate the new safety case regime currently adopted by the Commonwealth, other states and some overseas countries. By adopting these regulations, the Territory will be assured of maintaining the highest standards in offshore regulations, ensuring that companies exploring our waters come under the same requirement as well as in other jurisdictions.
The bill provides for the functions of the Safety Authority, which include the promotion of the occupational health and safety of persons on offshore petroleum facilities, and the development and implementation of monitoring and enforcement strategies to ensure compliance with occupational health and safety obligations. The Safety Authority is also able to investigate occupational health and safety incidents, and make reports and recommendations to the Territory and Commonwealth ministers on occupational health and safety matters. The Safety Authority is also empowered to cooperate with other Territory and Commonwealth agencies that may also have functions relating to offshore petroleum operations.
The bill gives the Territory minister the power to require the Safety Authority to prepare reports or give information in relation to the performance of the Safety Authority or in the exercise of its powers in Territory waters. The minister must also cause a review to be undertaken of the operations of the Safety Authority in Territory waters every three years, and a copy of the review report is to be tabled in parliament.
The bill also provides for a Safety Authority Board, which has the functions of giving advice and to make recommendations to the Chief Executive Officer of the Safety Authority, the state/territory and Commonwealth ministers and the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources. Advice may be given on policy or strategic matters relating to occupational health and safety issues on offshore facilities or the performance of the Safety Authority. The Safety Authority will commence operation on 1 January 2005.
I believe the provisions of this bill will benefit the petroleum industry by providing consistent occupational health and safety regulations on offshore facilities by a national Safety Authority that will be staffed by people with a unique mix of technical competence, judgment and skills. I am confident that the new Safety Authority will provide a high degree of confidence in the regulation of safety on offshore facilities, and the protection of the offshore work force.
In conclusion, it is important we act now to amend our legislation to mirror amended provisions in the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, allowing for a single, national offshore petroleum safety authority.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
POISONS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 247)
(Serial 247)
Continued from 26 August 2004.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I do have a few things to say about this bill, if that is all right with government, if they do not mind us on the floor of this parliament actually having some views in relation to legislation that government brings to this parliament. It being parliament, we would have thought, as indeed most other Australians think, that this is the appropriate place for us to raise objections, and to criticise, where appropriate, government legislation. I know that this is a government that does not like criticism in any shape or form, and will do whatever it can to deflect criticism. It is appropriate that I say that the CLP will not be deterred. All of us are paid well for this job and, collectively on this side of the Chamber, we will appropriately criticise legislation when it should be criticised. Members of the government should brace themselves because, exercising our right, we are going to say a few things in relation to this bill.
As we know, it seeks to change the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act yet again. Members who were paying attention – certainly we were on this side - will remember that, in August last year, we debated and passed a number of changes to this act - changes that were meant to address recommendations made by the task force into illicit drugs. Perhaps, at the time, the previous Minister for Health and Community Services oversaw a rush job because here we are again 12 months later overhauling the act again. What appears to have happened since the August 2003 sittings where we passed changes to this legislation is that, as a consequence of those changes, regulations had to be developed.
During the consultation and consideration given to the development of those regulations, it became apparent that the initial changes to the act created a number of problems. I will repeat that: during the consultation and consideration given to the development of those regulations, it became apparent that the initial changes to the act had created a number of problems. Those related particularly to the need to finalise the functioning of the clinical advisory committee, the need to better find the base level of regulatory control for Schedule 8 and restricted Schedule 4 substances, and the need to add substantial financial and gaol penalties to the act. That is what appears to have happened.
There was a lack of thinking through prior to last year’s work which was – well, some would say may have been caused by a pressure from the then minister to get a bill into parliament so that she could make a big fuss in the media and repeat the Labor mantra that they are tough on drugs. I note we have a crime statement before us and we can talk about what the government calls the drug problem in the Northern Territory later on today. Now we have a new minister, and he made it clear to the media during the last sittings that what they were going to do was ‘fix a few things up’. The new Minister for Health launched into the whole thing as though it was all new. Labor tried and succeeded, I believe, to get some more headlines on being tough on drugs. What the media, unfortunately, did not pick up on was the fact that it was all said and done last year. I will repeat that: it was all said and done last year.
Since the first try by the government to change this act with the amendments which government passed in August last year, it has sat on the shelf; the changes had not been enacted. So here we are again! - with an effort which has so far scored the minister a couple of radio interviews and an article in the Northern Territory News and, more importantly, further upset GPs who, again, get the message that by taking on the management of drug addicts they run the risk not only of fines but, now, imprisonment. If you think that this has gone down well, minister, in a certain valued but scarce section of our community, then we say to you: think again, it has not.
This raft of amendments to last year’s set of amendments does cover some housekeeping in relation to the advisory committee. They include things like dealing with issues such as quorums and the chair. The opposition supports those changes. They should have been appropriately brought before the House the first time round, but we see this trend emerging with government.
Another vast set of changes relate to the regulatory control of Schedule 8 and restricted Schedule 4 substances. I have a number of concerns in relation to that, for example, clause 20 relating to the display of a certificate of registration by an agency wholesaling poisons. The change being put forward is that a wholesaler or, for that matter, a retailer, has to be registered or licensed to store, supply or sell a poison. That is fair enough. However, if they are not registered or licensed, they cop a fine. The CLP is concerned that if they do not display their certificate they can be sent to gaol for up to two years. This is a government, of course, that has an aversion to sending people to gaol but they are not adverse to sending people to the clink if they are not registered or licensed. Inconsistencies and double standards abound.
As soon as we pass that, a person can be sent to gaol for not showing a certificate. This is a change brought in with this raft of amendments. We ask the minister why is the gaol sentence attached to the display of the certificate and not the failing to gain registration or licence prior to storing, supplying or selling a poison? Obviously, this matter will be discussed when we go to committee.
Madam Speaker, the member for Wanguri in his usual way is rabbiting on. It is very distracting. I would ask you to direct him to sit quietly.
Then follows a raft of changes, not just inserting penalties but financial and gaol terms to professionals like pharmacists, dentists and nurses, but also the dropping of whole sections such as section 28(4) of the principal act which relates to certain actions pertaining to the dispensing of Schedule 4 or 8 drugs. It begs the question: what has happened since all of this came in, in August? It smacks of incompetence somewhere. I will repeat that: it smacks of incompetence somewhere.
If I go to page 5 of the bill, which deals with section 29 of the act, there is change after change after change. Dare I use the expression but I will: dog’s breakfast is the expression that springs to mind. It does have the appearance that since the previous minister brought in this legislation consultation has occurred, major changes have been agreed to and someone, somewhere noticed that no penalties were in either. Then if we go to Part VA of the principal act there is barely a line that remains unaltered since August last year - page after page of it. This is an extraordinary set of changes to legislation. One has to ask what was the value of what was done last August.
I have now a copy of the current bill with the changes passed last year underlined. As I went through the amendments provided during the last sittings I found that I was crossing out time and time and time again amendments which had been passed last August. I say again, obviously, somewhere there has been a major problem and it smacks of incompetence.
It would be interesting if the minister could enlighten the House as to what really happened. Although, perhaps expecting him to be honest is aiming a bit high, but it would be good if he could explain to us and therefore Territorians what has happened since he took over. Here is hoping that in his reply or in the committee stage the matter will be sorted out.
In amongst the myriad of changes lurks one which has caused concern for prescribers. That is section 33 – Contents of prescription. There is the introduction of gaol penalties for medical practitioners if they do something wrong in relation to providing a script for Schedule 1, 4, 7 or 8 substances: the doctor can be gaoled for up to two years. The opposition believes that this new requirement is heavy handed. We do not support the gaoling of doctors as outlined in this act. Surely, all that needs to be done is that the Chief Health Officer, if there is a concern, simply withdraws the authorisation for a medical officer to be allowed to prescribe certain drugs. Alternatively, if some major breach occurs, then the medical registration board can, as most people know, revoke a doctor’s registration. The opposition believes that the threat of gaol is unnecessary particularly when government should be trying to find general practitioners who are prepared to provide a service to people addicted to drugs. I repeat: the CLP does not support the gaoling of doctors who have been trying to help addicts. It is difficult enough to get doctors to lend their assistance.
It is well recognised that many people who are addicted to drugs develop good skills at duping others in the community. These are people who learn how to tell lies, and tell them well, and experienced doctors know this. We can predict that a significant number of GPs will choose not to gain the necessary training and approval to be able to write scripts for maintenance pharmacotherapies because they know that they have to meet a lot of criteria when dealing with each case. You only have to study section 33 to gain an understanding of that, and if anything goes wrong, they are facing a big fine or, worse, gaol. We ask what happens if the patient gives the wrong name and has more than one doctor prescribing; does that doctor get in to trouble?
Much of what the doctor has to do will be based on the guidelines which, we understand, will eventually be published. We hope that the requirements will not be too onerous because according to section 33(1), a doctor could be fined or gaoled if these guidelines are breached. Here we are with a government which, to put it bluntly, stuffed up its attempt last year to get this right, not providing us or Territory doctors with a copy of the draft guidelines before we passed the legislation, and yet the guidelines are referred to in these amendments. If they are breached, the doctor can be sent to gaol for up to two years and this government apparently sits in the expectation that we will consent to that.
We do not and we will not. It is not just a view that we have collectively formed having regard to the aims of the bill and the contents of it. We have spoken to the right people in the right places, and it is generally not supported.
Today, caring doctors find themselves in a real quandary. They want to help their patients, but there is little help available for them. The government is keen for the Territory to be like all other Australian states and territories, and we see that everywhere, and in this instance it wants to be like everywhere else, hence drug maintenance programs.
In order to have this sort of thing, we need to provide our health practitioners with the same support services provided interstate. Our doctors do not have a fully functional, multi-disciplinary pain clinic to which to refer patients for assessment to see if they really do have pain or if they are addicts. Instead, we have a minimally staffed, minimally functioning pain clinic, where, as I understand it, if a doctor rings even during the week, they get an answering machine due to staff shortages.
In addition to this problem, the Alcohol and Drug Service, which is part of the minister’s Department of Health, is so short staffed that it takes up to five months, we are told, for an addict to be accepted into the program to receive drugs like methadone and buprenorphine. Once they are on the program, the pharmacy at that unit is only open from 10 am to noon, further hampering the scope of the program.
So we have a pain clinic and an alcohol and drug program that cannot cope with the demand and the staff are grossly overworked. When addicts cannot get help, they go back to their GP who, if they have jumped through the hoops and been authorised to deal with these patients, run the risk of making a mistake and finding themselves presumably de-registered, fined and possible in a prison cell.
Whilst speaking about poor resourcing in the much-heralded drugs area, I ask the minister to advise whether the problems with the Poisons Branch’s computer program have been addressed. Members will note that under this amended, amended legislation, doctors have to record details of their scripts and patients with this branch, which feeds information to the Chief Health Officer. We are advised that the IT program used by the Poisons Branch is not up to the task and it is almost impossible for a GP to ring the branch to find out promptly whether a patient is already logged onto the system and seeing another doctor - so much for setting up a system to deal with doctor shopping. It would be interesting to hear if the minister is satisfied with the Poisons Branch’s IT system. Is he, or is he not? If he is not, what is he going to do about it?
In conclusion, and before we get to the committee stage, the minister and his Labor mates go on and on about the Northern Territory having the highest rate in the country of prescriptions for MS Contin, an oral morphine product. What the minister deliberately fails to explain in his creative use of statistics is that, in other parts of Australia when MS Contin is prescribed in hospitals and other state services such as pain clinics and palliative care units, it is not notched up to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as it is here in the Territory. As we know, it is the PBS statistics which are used to illustrate the usage of MS Contin in the Territory, so, here we have all the hospital prescriptions in our statistics but interstate they do not. Hence, we get the large so-called blow-out which is constantly attributed to general practitioners in the Territory by this government. To that we say, shame on the minister and shame on the Chief Minister for sanctioning his actions in painting dedicated, valued general practitioners as criminals, all for a pathetic grab to get some media attention. For those who did not see it, I will quote an extract from the Northern Territory News, dated 29 August 2004, that speaks volumes:
- Doctors who prescribe drugs to addicts could face jail under revised laws proposed by the
Territory government.
The revised laws call for a compulsory contract between a doctor and a patient when prescribing
schedule 8 drugs such as morphine and pethidine.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of these amendments to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Bill. This government is tough on drugs. Prior to the 2001 election, we promised Territorians that our three point plan in this regard would essentially address issues that had been overhanging from the previous government. The essence of these points was to:
- ensure zero tolerance through law enforcement on drug production and distribution;
intravenous drug use in the community; and
and education campaigns directed at our schools.
I believe that our record on law enforcement in relation to illicit drugs is exemplary and speaks for itself, particularly in relation to reducing crime, especially property crime in our community. We have also moved to make life extremely tough for those involved in drug production and distribution through our Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, as well as provisions to declare drug houses, such as the infamous ‘Foils at Moil’.
Before describing the significant beneficial effects of our strategies, I will once again lay on the record the head-in-the-sand attitude of the previous government in not recognising the inextricable link between drugs and crime in the Northern Territory, particularly intravenous drug use. It was very interesting to hear the member for Araluen nitpick, and go around the sort of borders of everything, but she once again demonstrated that she is not prepared to talk about it. She once again demonstrated that there is an ideological objection on the other side to proper treatment and maintenance therapy for those who are unfortunate enough to be dependent on opiates.
Let us look at the link to crime. A study by the Australian Institute of Criminology published on 4 May 2000 stated:
- The results confirm that there is a very strong link between opiate use and property crimes. Of those
detainees whose most serious charge is a property offence, 43% tested positive for opiates.
The link between illicit drugs and criminal offending is very strong for all crimes.
Further, the Institute of Criminology also reported that in several jurisdictions where surveys were recently done, 86% of adult males detained on property offences tested positive to a drug of some type, excluding tobacco and alcohol. This evidence is in stark contrast to the opposition which, whilst in government, were in denial that there was a crime problem directly linked to drug use in the Northern Territory.
Here is an excerpt from an interview given by the then member for Katherine, the then police minister, Mr Mike Reed with Fred McCue on 17 January 2001:
- Fred McCue: It is just that the government seemed in the past to be reluctant to admit that.
He was talking about the link between drug use and property crime:
- Mike Reed: Well, what does happen in the Northern Territory, Fred, is at a lot lesser degree than what happens elsewhere.
- There is drug-related crime in the Northern Territory, there is no doubt about that, but compared to other
jurisdictions it is minuscule.
I have spoken before in this place about cannabis and crime in our northern suburbs. The notorious Foils at Moil is now shut under this government’s drug house legislation, much to the relief of long-suffering residents who had to endure the crime and disruption caused by this premises for countless years under the CLP which did nothing effective to close them down. Residents told me that Foils at Moil had been operating for seven or eight years! They continued to operate until there was a change of government.
Regarding drugs houses, it is pleasing to report that across the entire Northern Territory, two premises have been declared drug houses, whilst a further two have had a third notice served on them with the occupants vacating before the premises were actually declared drug houses. The results arising from the above premises have been 51 arrests, 21 summonses, and 51 summary infringement notices. We have been very active on this issue. In addition, as of 14 September 2004 under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act 2002, there have been 80 restraining orders granted on property, and property valued at $1.716m has been restrained. This is all property and proceeds of crimes mostly related to drugs. This is a government that is very active about it. This is something where the opposition really has a big weakness, and it is no wonder that the shadow minister for health just gleaned around or tried to varnish around this particular issue.
The amendments to the legislation that we are talking about today are about the second aspect of our Tough on Drugs strategy, namely: ‘to provide effective services for treatment and rehabilitation to reduce the amount of intravenous drug use in the community’.
It is a matter of history that the CLP, whether in government or in opposition, has had a major ideological problem with pharmacotherapy or drug treatment for those who are dependent on opiates such as morphine. The shadow minister for health demonstrated that today by dismissing the effectiveness of methadone maintenance and maintenance therapies. In government, they did not introduce these therapies, and they were particularly opposed to methadone maintenance therapy, as I believe they remain. However, to set the record straight, because I know people are going to play with it, they did have a methadone detoxification program which is entirely different from a maintenance program and quite less effective. Let us get our terminology right here; let us not start to twist the truth. When it comes down to it, they were opposed to methadone maintenance.
When this government came to office in 2001, Darwin in particular was awash with morphine illegally diverted from prescriptions, especially for MS Contin. Let us just look at it. These are figures derived from Health Insurance Commission data. You can see all the little ones here. In 1998 to 2003, you can see all the other states here - and this is on a per capita or per 10 000 populace. There is the Northern Territory there. Look at it! It is – oh - five times the national average. Do we have enough five times the incidence of cancer in the Northern Territory? Or the need for palliative prescriptions? I don’t think so, Madam Speaker. Do we have an older population in the Northern Territory which would require such medication? I don’t think so, Madam Speaker. What we have here is the previous government allowing this to continue. Previously in this House I have documented that my calculations based on what should be the use for the Northern Territory, shows that in those years upward of $10m per annum was probably diverted of this prescription morphine.
The cost to the taxpayer, and let’s be clear about this because this was all occurring under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, at its peak was somewhere between $500 000 to $750 000 per annum. The opposition when in government was saying, ‘We are not going to have the taxpayer paying for drugs to treat people on opiates’. The taxpayer was already paying to the tune of $500 000 to $750 000 a year through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That is the record, and the record also is that the Health Insurance Commission intervened late in the term of the former CLP government and it did have an effect on the prescribing patterns. Here is a graph. I have MS Contin in this orange/red colour and methadone 10 mg oral down the bottom here. Yes, there was a decrease from between 1999–2000 in the number of scripts. There was a decrease but it was not due to the previous government.
Mr Dunham: Yes, it was.
Dr BURNS: No, it was not. It was the Health Insurance Commission coming up here and saying that the prescription of drugs for the purposes of addiction is not allowed. They were the ones who had to come in and set the ground rules. It was not the previous government. However, you can see a continued fall since we came into government in the use of these drugs. There is a way to go and this is what these amendments are all about.
Madam Speaker, during that period many local doctors were in an untenable position because there was no methadone maintenance program and other pharmacotherapy such as buprenorphine.
Ms CARTER: Point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask if the minister could table that last graph that he has been showing?
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think he should table all of them.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister can table the graphs; he does not need to seek permission.
Dr BURNS: I am pleased to do it, Madam Speaker. They are all based on Health Insurance Commission figures. For the member for Macdonnell, when I first raised this issue, when I first came to this parliament, he was in disbelief until I showed him the figures, the table that I had on the Health Insurance Commission and I took him through my calculations. He has never rebutted it. That was three years ago. Those calculations might not be 150% accurate but my calculations are based on the use of these drugs elsewhere in Australia, extrapolating that that year should be at least equal in the Northern Territory and then the excess has to be morphine that has been diverted either for sale or for self use. It is as simple as that. It is not rocket surgery.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the resistance of the CLP can be readily seen from the following quote from the member for Port Darwin, then the shadow health minister, during the debate on illicit drug use in the Territory on the 25 February 2003. I quote from the member for Port Darwin. She said:
- It is true that the previous government did not introduce … pharmacotherapies where users can choose
to access a government-funded source of drugs for as long as they wanted. The reason why we on this side
did not provide this service in the Territory was our continuing belief that the provision of such a service
can undermine the opportunity for users to successfully cease taking drugs completely.
That is the position of the member for Port Darwin. I will cite some scientific evidence to rebut what the member for Port Darwin said. It is clear that, basically, the opposition has an ideological problem with methadone maintenance programs. Once again, they tried to say: ‘Well, the taxpayer is not going to pay for it’. Under them, the taxpayer was forking our $500 000 to $750 000 a year through the PBS for this excess morphine that found its way onto our streets.
Whilst not based on the research evidence, this opinion of the member for Port Darwin is comparatively mature when compared to the patronising and quite simplistic attitude of the member for Blain, the current Opposition Leader, who would lecture hopelessly opiate-dependent people like an old style school master to his pupils caught smoking cigarettes behind the shed. They were his words, ‘behind the shed’.
I quote from Hansard on 17 October 2002:
- It would simply be a matter of saying: ‘Stop doing it. That is it. Cold turkey. It was easy to get into this.
I want you to understand how serious this problem is, you are going to have to get out of this …
In contrast, this government has taken an evidence based approach. One of the most comprehensive and authoritive reviews on this topic is by Ward, Mattick and Hall, the editors, entitled Methadone Maintenance Treatment and Other Opioid Replacement Therapies published by Harwood Academic publishers in 1998. In this book, they have highlighted the findings of one of the few randomised control studies in this area. The randomised control study found that after two years, 70% of patients who had undergone methadone maintenance were no longer regularly using opiates or other drugs and were either employed or undertaking further education. They then point to the contrast:
- By contrast, only 0.5% of patients undertaking drug-free treatment ceased drug use, 70% continued to abuse
opiates, 11% were in prison and another 11% have died.
There are the stark facts; a random control study, the benefits of methadone maintenance as opposed to the drug free, cold turkey treatment of the Leader of the Opposition.
Furthermore, a recent study in Sydney reported that the percentage engaging in property crime decreased from 35% to 9% after one year on the program.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Dr BURNS: That is the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, member for Drysdale. You can have your own little ideas; you have your ideology. I am interested in the science and results.
It is interesting to look back on what negative comments opposition members have made about the strategies this government implemented to reduce crime based on the nexus between drug use and crime. How wrong they were! For example, the member for Drysdale said on 25 February 2003:
- If you want to progress that argument – and we are happy for you to do it; and happy that the Attorney-General
has said it is a big factor; he said it was over 50% or something - therefore his drug amelioration strategies will
be crime amelioration strategies. The nexus that he has created for himself is a nexus that is around his neck
because he is going to have to demonstrate these wonderful solutions …
Mr Dunham: Yes, there’s science for you! There’s some science!
Dr BURNS: Yes. We can demonstrate them. The member for Drysdale should note that recently published ABS recorded crime statistics for the Northern Territory, which are based on Northern Territory Police statistics that in relation …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you will have your chance.
Dr BURNS: Listen to this, member for Drysdale, it is in relation to the number of recorded victims of unlawful entry with intent involving property theft. These figures clearly show …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I will table this as well, Madam Speaker. This comes from their web site, and the figures clearly show that there has been a 37% decrease between 2001 and 2003 in these property offences. Based on advice from the Attorney-General, Northern Territory Quarterly Crime Statistics indicate there is likely to be a 47% drop in property crime between 2001 and 2004. So there we have it!
The member for Drysdale gave his opinion in 2003. The Attorney-General said, ‘Well, you are standing here saying it is going to be 50%; we are going to hold you to that’. Implicit in that, he was saying they do not believe it. Well, start believing, member for Drysdale: it is true. It is all about our strategies that I mentioned before, a raft of strategies addressing the issue of drug use in the Northern Territory, something that you never really effectively did in government, and that graph which has been circulated clearly shows that.
This is also why this government commissioned the Taskforce on Illicit Drugs in the Northern Territory, which finalised its report in May 2002 …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Dr BURNS: ... and we continue to act on a …
Mr Dunham: What did they say?
Dr BURNS: … number of recommendations to tighten up the control of prescription drugs, namely, firstly, that a mandatory notification or permit system be introduced in the Northern Territory …
Mr Dunham: We did that.
Dr BURNS: … for patient authorisation of prescribed …
Mr Dunham: Drugs shopping.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 51, the member for Drysdale is continually interrupting me. He is trying to disrupt what I have to say and I call a point of order on him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, we have put up with your interjections long enough today. Cease. You are on a warning, member for Drysdale. You are being too obstructive.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Secondly, that an up-to-date prescription monitoring system be established and, thirdly, that a panel be established to oversee policy and guidelines, deal with difficult patient issues, and audit practice in relation to the monitoring of Schedule 8 prescribing.
In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General and Minister for Health has already explained in detail why these further amendments to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act are required, and I do not propose to cover in detail all of these points. Suffice it to say that these amendments flow from detailed discussions with leading clinical experts, and they aim to strengthen the functions of the S8 and Restricted S4 Substances Clinical Advisory Committee.
This committee has a pivotal role in assisting the Chief Health Officer to set the guidelines for practitioners for prescription of S8 pharmacotherapies such as buprenorphine and methadone. It also advises the Chief Health Officer on a number of issues. These amendments provide a comprehensive but flexible framework to control the supply of S8s in particular, without impeding the clinical work of doctors and specialists and those patients receiving palliative care or other necessary drug therapies. The amendments cover all S8 drugs, but special requirements have been included to cover the prescription and supply of restricted S8s used in the treatment of drug dependence, such as methadone and buprenorphine, as well as other substances such as Ritalin and amphetamines.
The Clinical Advisory Committee is pivotal to this act, and it is worthwhile looking at the composition of that committee. There will be a pain specialist from each of Royal Darwin and Royal Adelaide Hospitals; there will be a public health specialist from the department’s Alcohol and Other Drugs program with pharmacotherapy experience. There will also be the President of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Medical Association, as well as a private medical practitioner and pharmacist with experience in pharmacotherapies. There will be two medical specialists from Alice Springs with public health and pharmacotherapy experience; the Chief Poisons Inspector, and another poisons inspector from the department, plus a health professional from the Department of Health and Community Services’ Alcohol and Other Drugs program with pharmacotherapy experience. Senior police may be invited to attend this committee, where appropriate, and they also have a vital role.
I have a long standing interest in this particular issue, as I have put on the record before. Many years ago, I was involved, through the AMA, with what was known as the S8 Committee. That was a committee trying to work through the issues and the debris, the rubble, that was around Darwin at the time through the policies of the previous government. I am very proud to have been involved with that committee, with people like Dr David Meadows. I commend the work of this Clinical Advisory Committee that is being set up. I believe it has a good composition and that they will do a fantastic job.
The guidelines will ensure that only those patients who are prescribed unusually high doses, or are on long-term treatment with these drugs, will come under the notification system, through their doctor, to the Clinical Advisory Committee. Those on palliative care are excluded, and there are very flexible rules that will operate within our hospitals. Generally, the guidelines will provide for these patients to receive prescriptions for two months’ supply of the drugs. That is unlike six months elsewhere in Australia. This is in acknowledgement that the Northern Territory has inherited high levels of use of these drugs and stricter controls are required at this stage.
In addition, provisions related to interstate prescriptions from doctors not registered in the Northern Territory for Schedule 8 drugs have also been tightened. The Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction that would accept such scripts.
These amendments do contain penalties for medical practitioners who wilfully and continually breach the act, particularly in relation to self-prescription and self-medication. I graduated from pharmacy over 35 years ago, and I have worked in both retail and hospital pharmacy. I would like to place on the public record that I have encountered very few doctors who would wilfully and continually breach such guidelines, or self-prescribe or self-administer these drugs. What we are talking about here is a very small minority of doctors. Unfortunately, they do exist and these penalties address that. There is certainly a spectrum that we are talking about here; not what the shadow health minister said: that if someone was to inadvertently breach the guidelines that somehow they would find themselves in a prison cell. That is not really the truth at all of the matter. I am one who believes there needs to be sanctions against the small minority who may wilfully and continually breach the guidelines and the law. This happens elsewhere in Australia, and it is already implicit in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Rightfully, there are also sanctions against pharmacists and other health professionals who might similarly breach the law in this regard. As I have said, as somebody who has been a pharmacist for many years, I accept that; there has to be sanctions. As a professional, I accept that; that is the way it should be. Those who breach the law wilfully and continually should suffer the consequences.
I believe that these guidelines and the operation of the Clinical Advisory Committee will be of great support for doctors working in this difficult area with patients who can also be very difficult. I believe that the amendments, the system and the framework that has been set up will actually provide great professional support for doctors. We know that doctors and pharmacists come under inordinate pressure from these people. As the member for Araluen said, these people get very cunning, they are very manipulative, and it is good to have those guidelines. It is good to have that scrutiny there, so that these people will realise that these tactics are not going to work because there is a lot of oversight in this particular framework.
For the record, picking up on something the member for Araluen said, there have been approximately 260 people on a program since maintenance pharmacotherapy commenced Territory-wide. She was talking about resources and what was happening. Already, 260 people have been on a program.
I also believe that these amendments will assist in reducing illicit opiate drug use in the Northern Territory. Apart from assisting those people who are drug-dependent to change their lives, not to mention support for their families and loved ones, I believe it will have a further beneficial effect in further reducing drug-related crime in the Northern Territory. I have already outlined the success that this government has had in reducing property crime in the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, I would like to quote from Major Brian Watters, who is Chair of the Australian National Council of Drugs, who said a couple of years ago:
- The Australian National Council of Drugs has been working closely with the Northern Territory government
since it came to office last year, and is very pleased to see the introduction of a range of programs to reduce
and treat drug abuse.
Major Watters went on to say:
- For too long, the Northern Territory has been in a form of denial over the level of illicit drug use that occurs
and this has meant than many communities in the Northern Territory have been struggling to effectively deal
with drug issues without adequate resources or options in place.
Major Watters also went on to applaud the introduction of Naltrexone and buprenorphine therapies, as well as support programs and how these steps - and I will quote from him:
- … will start to bring the Northern Territory into line with the rest of the country.
Madam Speaker, I commend these amendments to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act to honourable members. After years of deliberate neglect by the previous government, it represents an effective means of dealing with this issue of treatment in our community and reducing illicit drug use, intravenous drug use and reducing related crime in our community, and also addressing the needs of those people who are unfortunately dependent on these substances.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, from time to time I come into this House and I really wish to hear people put arguments which are convincing, well thought out, well considered, and delivered in a reasonable fashion. On this occasion, the member for Johnston actually has put some halfway reasonable arguments in relation to the position he is trying to put. However, he does not have to yell all the time, especially when nobody is interjecting. It is just a little bit exhausting to listen to.
It is also worth noting that the member for Johnston talks about property crime. However, under the management of your government in Central Australia, there is about a 50% more chance you are going to get raped; or if you are a child, there is an increased chance of you getting interfered with according to the Police annual report; or sexually assaulted in a way which is not a rape - almost double the chance of that occurring under your government. So, just rolling out the statistics for political purposes without putting them into any sort of context is the sort of thing that drives hysteria, and it is the necessary style of the minister that is borderline hysterical. I mean, this really is not ‘rocket surgery’ to quote the minister.
I would like to point out a drug problem that we have in the Northern Territory. The minister said that 260 people are on some sort of program for drug use. It is curious, because I flipped through the Police annual report today and I direct members to page 142 of the police report and indeed, policing has improved on drug infringement notices. You will see that in 1998 through 1999 there was 356, which went up; 1999-2000 – 405; 2000-01 – 460; and then in the subsequent three years 440, 423, 491. Mmm. Drug abuse is a serious problem in our community. But on the page before that, on page 141, I would like to point out a couple of other statistics to the minister in relation to another drug. These are people who are taken into protective custody. I will concentrate on the totals for the Northern Territory. 15 995, 11 395, 13 779, 15 739, 16 450 and finally, last year, 19 457 people were taken into custody for being drunk.
I ask the minister, with all of his hysteria and bluster and everything else like that, what is the more serious drug problem in our community? The minister’s response is that drug problems are responsible for all these house break-ins and these sorts of things. I would argue that alcohol is probably a lot more responsible for many of our social ills.
Dr Toyne: That means you do nothing about opiates?
Mr ELFERINK: However, and I pick up on the point from the minister, we should still do something about these sorts of drugs in the community. I have no issue with that, but I think that we have to take some sort of proportion in relation to this. As Val Asche in her report to the government points out, the situation is exactly the same, but what we have is a government which is, through deceit, inclined to generate hysteria surrounding this particular issue. The hysteria they have relied upon is the misquoting of the member for Brennan saying that drug problems are ‘miniscule’ and such things. Well, we still have to be looking at alcohol and things like the Living with Alcohol Program as a result of social controls.
I am just concerned that this central plank to the control of drugs in our community that the government has brought forward has been now sitting on the Notice Paper since last year, as I understand it.
Ms Carter: It was dealt with last year and disappeared, and it has come back on.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, that’s right. I apologise. It came on, was dealt with, disappeared, and came back on recently. Now, why would it do that? There must be problems with it, and that is one of the things that we are here to correct. I am curious to hear from the minister whether it was his muck up that brings these amendments to the House, or whether it was the muck up of the parliamentary draftsmen. That is a curious question. It is a matter of great concern to this government and the muck up either sits on his door step or on the door step of the draftsmen. I would like to know from the minister who is incompetent: him, the previous minister or the parliamentary draftsman? This is the game that the government tried to play yesterday. Now they have to answer this question. I wonder whether they have the courage to answer the question.
The business of putting doctors into gaol for this offence leaves me curious about the nature of the offence. I cannot quite see how it is going to operate but, on the face of it, it looks like it has a regulatory nature. I am slightly concerned that we may be removing the ability for certain defences to be relied upon by enabling the operation of section 26 of the Criminal Code to remove the excuse and justification provisions which would be available to any other defendant other than circumstances of regulatory offences. I would like to hear from the minister whether those defences are available.
Having said that, I urge the member for Johnston that if he is going to argue some of these things, by all means argue them and place the case; he really does not have to yell when no one is interjecting.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, only recently have I relinquished the position of shadow Health minister and picked up Environment and Family and Community Services. However, when I was responsible for Health, I was provided with a briefing on this bill and I am grateful to the minister and his staff for that.
I went away and contemplated the issues in more detail. What sprung out so obviously was the appalling shambles that has occurred since last August with regards to the legislation we passed in this House last August and what was presented last month as a new raft of amendments by the minister. It is extraordinary to compare the documents involved, especially as change after change, countless changes, are going to go through today.
Since we dealt with the first set of amendments last August, this bill has sat on the shelf somewhere and has obviously been reviewed. Someone has realised that they have left out some significant things and that they need to change page after page of the bill. The minister really owes it to this House to explain to us why this has happened and what went wrong. It is an extraordinary number of changes having to be made in a very short period.
A plus for the minister of course is that it has been another opportunity for him on behalf of his government to have a go with regards to being tough on drugs. At the time this bill was presented, the amendments last month, the minister has had a bit of press on it.
The other opportunity that has been afforded by this shambles has been that the member for Johnston has been able to leap to his feet and once again regale us with his stories about Foils at Moil and issues regarding MS Contin. Members need to be aware that Northern Territory statistics in relation to MS Contin are skewed because of the fact in the Northern Territory, MS Contin, which is prescribed within the government’s health system, for example in hospitals, palliative care and the pain clinic, goes into the recording of overall MS Contin use. I am advised that this is an anomaly. In other states, that is not the case. Hospital and government use of a drug like MS Contin is not included. This is one of the reasons why we see the substantial spiking of the use of MS Contin.
It is why, during the member for Johnston’s contribution to this debate, I interjected on a number of occasions, asking him whether the current level of MS Contin use in the Northern Territory, as illustrated in a graph that he has tabled, whether that current usage in the Northern Territory also includes the hospitals, for example, and how it compares to our interstate usage in Australia. My expectation, given the information that I have been told, is that it will still be high, and one of the significant reasons will be because we also include, within the count for the Northern Territory, agencies like hospitals, palliative care and the pain clinic. We cannot compare apples with oranges, is my expectation, from this graph that he has produced. It would be very interesting if the government, somehow, could actually do a breakdown of the statistics which would demonstrate exactly what goes on in the Northern Territory now, and how that compares to interstate.
It was interesting that the minister, when he realised that he was on a bit of rubbery ground there, couched his terms by making the comment that he may not be 150% accurate here. That was an interesting rider that he had on his comments.
The previous minister for Health, the member Nightcliff, when she introduced this bill on 29 May last year, made the comment: ‘This government has no time for illicit drug dealers and manufacturers who profit from the misery of young people and others’. Well, shame on whoever got this so badly wrong. You said then that you had no time, and yet here we are, nearly 18 months later, still mucking around with this bill because of the incompetence of somebody. She then concluded with: ‘This bill is an important and long overdue step towards implementing an effective control system’. ‘Long overdue’. Well, I am telling you, it sure is long overdue with regards to the process of getting this legislation through the House.
Something has gone dramatically wrong. It is an appalling situation to have to come back here, so shortly after significant changes were made last year, to learn that nothing has happened in the interim. The legislation sat on the shelf. It has not been enacted. It has not been ticked off by the Administrator, and we are still wondering what on earth has gone wrong.
The sad aspect of the changes that come in today, and one that I am particularly concerned about, is that general practitioners now can be sent to gaol if they breach aspects of this legislation. I believe that is a gross over-reaction from this government. Regardless of what happens interstate, we do not have to do everything the same here in the Northern Territory as goes on interstate. We are facing a significant crises with the provision of GP services in the Northern Territory, and that comment is borne out by the front page of the paper a couple of weeks ago. We do not have, by a long shot, enough GPs in the Northern Territory to service Territorians. Sure, if the government wants to develop and implement pharmacotherapies for maintenance for drug addicts, then okay, do it. But you must have the services on the ground to be able to implement that strategy, and they are not there. That starts with the provision of general practitioners.
My concern, which I raised last August when we tried to pass these amendments the first time around, was that if we put too many hoops in front of GPs with regards to gaining accreditation to be able to prescribe pharmacotherapies, they are just going to say, ‘It is too hard anyway. I am not going to bother doing it’. Now, a year later, we come out with: ‘By the way, when you take the time to jump through the hoops, if you get anything wrong - and we are not going to tell you exactly what that might be yet because we have not described the guidelines yet - you had better look out, because we are going to pop you in gaol because we are tough on drugs, and we are tough on crime. We are going to get you’.
I have a major problem with this. It is my personal view that GPs in the Northern Territory should be encouraged to do the right thing and should be counselled through any issues. We already have the sanction, for example, that the Chief Health Officer could withdraw the permission for a GP to prescribe these drugs as maintenance pharmacotherapies as the first step. The second step - which is always there - is that a GP can be deregistered by the Medical Board. Hello! There is a serious sanction for anybody who is working as a medical officer. I am sure no medical officer would ever lightly look at the fact that their registration can be withdrawn.
To do this tough on drug things to the point of threatening GPs is way over the top. For the member for Johnston to come in here and wax lyrical this morning with regards to his marvellous relationship in the past with Dr David Meadows, who is currently the President of the AMA in the Northern Territory, he would want to think again about his relationship. I can assure you that the AMA - and Dr Meadows in particular who has spoken publicly on this matter - is less than impressed with the threat to send general practitioners to gaol.
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
POISONS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 247)
(Serial 247)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I heard many comments made over the last few hours about this. I noticed the former Minister of Health, who introduced this legislation some 15 months ago, has been silent. You will recall at that time, she said:
- This bill is an important and long overdue step towards implementing an effective control system for the supply
and use of Schedule 8 substances in the Territory.
‘Important’ and ‘long overdue’. When it was passed, it was never progressed further for the Administrator’s assent. You have to ask why that was so. If it was urgent, so valuable, so good, why was it not assented to? For the last 15 months they did very little with it, except produce a whole raft of changes, so much so that when you look at it, you think: ‘It does not look like the original bill passed in August of last year’.
Both sides of the House agree that we need to be tough on people who abuse the medical system, who abuse opiates through the legal system of obtaining drugs from medical practitioners, and we should do everything we can to ensure that we put processes in place that will deter dysfunctional medical practitioners from providing prescriptions without due consideration, and to deter patients, or opiate dependents who pose as patients, to obtain supplies through well-meaning general practitioners. That is the critical difference.
I was a general practitioner in my former life and never a week would pass when you would not be confronted by a patient who approached you in a very convincing manner and claimed they needed a supply of one opiate or another. If you are an experienced GP, your warning bells would ring and you would know that sometimes these requests were not genuine. When I was in practice, what I used to do was have the patient sit with me in my office whilst I proceeded to ring the patient’s designated previous medical practitioner who had prescribed his previous supply of medication. Usually, when you put that patient through that pressure, if the patient was not genuine, they would tend to disappear from your practice. However, there are other patients who are in genuine pain. In fact, if you are a narcotic addict when you go through withdrawal you actually suffer pain, so these patients are not telling any lies, when they say, ‘I am in pain. I need some medication’.
This amendment bill has introduced a whole raft of punitive measures and sanctions against well-meaning general practitioners, pharmacists, nurses and like professionals who are trying to do their best to ensure that their patients get the best care they possibly can. This is where I believe the minister has gone wrong.
In discussing all these amendments, I need to also point out that, at the end of the day, it is the minister who has to take responsibility for the botch-up in the drafting of the legislation. As other members have described before, it is a dog’s breakfast. When you look at all the amendments in there, the piece of paper that you hold up that is called a bill looks like a dog’s breakfast, without doubt. Was it the minister who noticed that there was something wrong with the bill that was passed in August last year? Or was it a public servant who saw that something was wrong and it had to be rewritten? At the end of the day, it is the minister who says, yes, I like this bill and I will take it to parliament. I will seek my colleagues’ support and get it passed in parliament. The responsibility lies with the minister, whether it was the biggest stuff-up by a public servant or not is irrelevant. It is still the minister who takes the responsibility.
Let me go through the sections one at a time, and I might raise it again during committee stage. The minister in his second reading speech raised the issue of the quorum: ‘The current provisions for the committee allow for a quorum of three members. This is insufficient for a membership of 11 people’. I agree entirely. Under normal circumstances, if you use Joske’s book on committees, you would see that the standard rule is that you have half of the membership as a quorum. The minister is now proposing the chair plus one-third of the appointed members be a quorum. Now, one-third of 11, as far as I can read, is four, and four plus a chair is five, which is still less than 11, the full membership. So the minister might want to consider that if you want to make a quorum then do it properly rather than making any special provisions.
In the past, medical practitioners were allowed to write prescriptions for any Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs. That has never been a problem, except for drugs like methadone if it was going to be used on a long-term basis. What the minister wants to do now with this bill is say that a medical officer must obtain permission, or authorisation, from the Chief Health Officer before being able to use medication such as buprenorphine or methadone for more than a set number of patients and for a set length of time. These instructions for medical practitioners to follow, as far as I can understand, are supposed to be guidelines.
In the briefing yesterday I raised the question of how you define a guideline. The way I read it, as a doctor, if I get a guideline, I say, well, that is a guideline; I will follow it if I can. If I cannot, well I cannot. There are circumstances that will push me outside those guidelines. However, if you breach those guidelines, according to the bill, there will be sanctions by the government. That is where there is a conflict of messages. If you want to have sanctions, then you should set up regulations that doctors and health professionals can follow. If you use it just as the guideline, then, surely, a guideline is just that.
When it comes down to ministerial control of these guidelines, it is interesting to read what the previous Health minister had to say. She said:
- What we have introduced into Northern Territory is what happens in other parts of Australia and the world;
that is, a doctor - not a politician, not a minister for health - decides what sort of treatment a person should
receive.
Is that the right case, or is it not? If you are talking about non-ministerial intervention then, why, in this current bill that you are introducing today, does the minister say: ‘The minister currently issues these guidelines and it is proposed that they remain at ministerial level’? There is, indeed, ministerial intervention in one way or another; whether the minister takes advice from the Chief Health Officer or from his committee of professionals it is, at the end of the day, his ultimate decision. If you want to remove it entirely, then take it away completely and leave it with the professionals and have no ministerial intervention.
Patients will always doctor shop, and there is nothing you can do about that - whether it be for narcotics or even just to get the right worker’s compensation cover, worker’s compensation certificate, or just to have second, third and fourth opinions on a particular medical issue. Patients will doctor shop, and patients who are dependent on narcotics will definitely do that. Not only will they doctor shop, they will actually obtain prescriptions from as many doctors as they possibly can. A system is set up that will prevent that where there are early warnings provided to general practitioners.
In the days when I was in full-time practice, the doctors’ surgeries shared information without going into too much detail. At least patients were identified and we all became aware when somebody in the town was going from practice to practice looking for prescriptions. At those times, not only were you concerned about writing prescriptions for them, more often than not, if you were to leave the room even for a few minutes, prescription pads could be stolen from your desk. Fortunately, this never happened to me in my time in practice but, then again, I had a high index of suspicion when somebody walked in requesting narcotic prescriptions.
What I found most difficult about the bill today was the raft of amendments all imposing punitive sanctions against doctors. Let me just go to the bill. There was an issue in section 20 of the principle act, with the amendment that a penalty for somebody who has not hung up or displayed a certificate of authorisation will be fined 20 penalty units or imprisonment for two years and, if the offender is a body corporate, 100 penalty units. That applies in section 25 also. If somebody were to breach a serious regulation or serious legislation, two years imprisonment is justified. However, to forget to hang up a certificate, putting somebody in the clink for two years is really excessive. What are you trying to prove?
Mr Henderson: It is not mandatory sentencing.
Dr LIM: What are you trying to prove? Just because he forgot to hang up his certificate …
Mr Henderson: It is not mandatory sentencing!
Dr LIM: It is not mandatory sentencing, but you are going to be mandatory sentencing general practitioners who write prescriptions - that is what you are doing. This bill says that. A doctor in practice …
Mr Henderson: No we are not! It is the maximum! Wilful or repeated - the maximum.
Dr LIM: The member for Wanguri keeps rattling on, like the empty vessel that he is.
A doctor in practice has to be registered with the Medical Board, number one. He has his professional college association, or diploma, that he also values very highly, and he faces his peers. There are quite a few sanctions there already. In this legislation, if the GP does something wrong, potentially he is up for up to two years imprisonment. The Medical Board, or the Chief Health Officer, or whoever the person may be, might be a very forgiving or understanding person, and would assess the circumstances on an issue-by-issue basis. But you could get a very draconian Chief Health Officer who could say, ‘You have breached the rules – bang you are in’. How are you going to say that one GP would not be unduly, or harshly, dealt with? You have to depend on the goodwill of the Chief Health Officer. That is not on. You cannot allow that.
Apart from that, if a GP was to commit a professional misdemeanour, then he already has the potential of losing his medical registration. That is one sanction. Then he gets 20 penalty units, or imprisonment for two years. It is double jeopardy. Another speaker earlier said the HIC will also have some sanctions. Triple jeopardy. For one simple act of error, and sometimes an error of judgment more than anything else, a person gets hit with three levels of sanction. Nobody else in society gets that. Even a murderer only gets one sanction, not two or three. Why are we going down this path?
The minister says that from now on there must be mandatory notification for Schedule 8 substances. I trust he means only some, not all of them. There are many Schedule 8 drugs that are commonly used, not only for pain but for other indications. I have not read through the whole schedule of drugs that are included in the Schedule 8 substances that will be required to be notified, but obviously there is a mandate that has been required by this bill. For the member for Wanguri to interject and say, ‘mandatory sentencing’, well, there are many mandatory things that we all do in this life, and this is obviously another one that this Martin Labor government wants to introduce.
I support the legislation’s attempt to prevent self-prescription. That is a good move. It has always been a concern of mine that doctors write prescriptions for themselves. I write prescriptions for myself; I wrote one for blood pressure tablets, and I do not think that is any issue. However, I recall in my early days as a general practitioner I joined a GP in a country town. I subsequently discovered that he self-prescribed a number of narcotics for his own pain relief, so much so that he became an addict and got himself in all sorts of difficulties regarding his own treatment, plus the dealings that he had then with the Health Commission and the Medical Registration Board. I recall that at that time I was approached by both the Health Commission and the Medical Registration Board to supervise and counter-sign this very senior general practitioner. At that time I was in my late 20s or early 30s, and this was a 50 year old GP of great experience and reputation, and I was being told to counter-sign every prescription for S8 drugs that he wrote. It was not a pleasant exercise or experience as far as I was concerned. It did not produce very cordial relationships with a GP that I had joined to be an assistant. It all panned out at the end of 12 months with us parting ways in quite a sad manner.
The minister needs to be concerned about not hampering medical practice. That is the important thing. The Chief Health Officer’s briefing to me said that what they are trying to do is to empower GPs to be able to say to patients: ‘No, I can’t give it to you. I have health authorities breathing down my neck and I have to be very careful,’ and that helps to a large degree. However, it is also time that general practitioners stand on their feet and say no to their patients. There are times when you have to say no to your patients. I told the Chief Health Officer yesterday that when I was in practice, I used to have a sign above my chair stuck on the wall where the patients could easily see it when they talked to me. The sign said: ‘Don’t ask me and I won’t have to say no’. That sends a message fairly quickly to the patient and you go from there. Some might see me as unsympathetic, but it used to sort out the wheat from the chaff very quickly.
I know that the AMA in the Northern Territory is not interested in seeing these punitive measures in the legislation. That is not a good thing to do. I asked a question yesterday, but it could not be answered: was it a deliberate act of the person who drafted the legislation or the person who gave instructions to leave those punitive measures out in the first place in August last year, or was it an oversight?
This bill indicates that it was an oversight. That is why they have been added in since then. It is just as likely to have been a deliberate act of the person drafting it who decided that we do not need these punitive measures because there are already enough sanctions against GPs who write S8 prescriptions inappropriately. If that is the case, let’s think about it a bit more. Maybe we should not have introduced all these amendments, which really introduce penalties for what this government thinks are actions that doctors should not take. The AMA, as I said, does not support this. I can assure you that most GPs will not support it. Maybe there was a legitimate reason why they were left out in August last year. Now, as a knee-jerk reaction, there has been a push to add these amendments when the reality is that there is no need for it.
What is more important is for this government to provide adequate training. I note there is some money being set aside to train GPs. The training should not only be provided to GPs who are prepared to be part of a support group for people who require narcotic maintenance; it should be provided to all GPs to teach them about patient awareness, patient recognition and how they can deal with the patients. Some may choose to then write prescriptions; others might choose not to write prescriptions after that. At least give them the skills to handle these patients who often can become violent and disruptive in the medical practice. If you do that, you will make life a lot easier for all GPs concerned and they, in turn, will help the Health Department in preventing abuse of S8 drugs in the Territory.
When the member for Johnston raved about the use of MS Contin in the Territory, he used selective statistics. There is no point trying to argue against a zealot. He thinks he is an intellectual snob. There are reasons why MS Contin was prescribed, and when you have hospital specialists also providing prescriptions on the PBS, obviously, the MS Contin figures are going to be pushed up.
With regard to methadone, and the value of methadone in the maintenance of narcotic dependent people, I did a fairly detailed study into methadone in 1995. I reported on that study in great detail. It is all in Hansard. I can say to the member for Johnston that there are many studies that I could quote that do not support methadone maintenance as a program. There are, in fact, many studies that he can quote that will say that methadone should be used as a short-term withdrawal program and not maintenance. For as many studies as he can use in his academic way, I can also produce the same sort of literature, and where does it get us? Nowhere. Yes, that side of the House has a different perspective of the use of narcotics than we have, and so be it. However, to say that he is right and we are wrong is absolutely ludicrous.
I do not believe there is a right or wrong to this. There are people who are dependent personalities, whether that is through narcotics, or alcohol, or nicotine. No matter what you do, until they are prepared to give up those drugs of dependence, they will keep on doing it. You can give them as much substitute as you like, whether it be nicotine substitutes, or whatever, they will still use it until they are, in their minds, ready to give up. Until they do that, nothing is going to change. You can quote Alex Wodak as much as you like. Alex Wodak has a very seductive argument about putting people on methadone maintenance programs, and I believe he is wrong. I have had long chats with Alex Wodak in past years. He has a practical view. If the government chooses to believe that, then so be it, that is your choice. You are in government now, so do what you have to do.
In terms of this legislation, you have the numbers, do what you have to do, but I believe there is much in there that is wrong. Just proceed very cautiously. If it was as important as you say it is, and you try to tell Territorians it is very important, why has it taken you so long to bring these amendments to this House? It should have been done back in September/October last year, not 12 months later.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I was not going to contribute to the debate on these amendments this afternoon, however I will, and I will try to be relatively short following the member for Greatorex. I wholeheartedly support these amendments because they do very much go to the commitment we gave to the people of the Northern Territory in the lead-up to the last election to crack down on drug-related crime in the Northern Territory. We had a three point plan go to that objective. One was on law enforcement, one was on health, to better work with people who suffered from opiate and narcotic addiction, and one was to improve education for our young people to try to give them the ammunition and the strength to say no when they are under peer group pressure to start experimenting with drugs.
These amendments today go to the health equations. Again, I am still astounded, three years on from the last election, that the policy position from the CLP opposition is still the same as when they were in government. I would have thought that it was an opportunity as well, in opposition, to review their policy in this area and get on board the train of substance and evidence that shows that our doctors – GPs and medical practitioners - should be allowed to practice medicine and to administer and dispense pharmacotherapies that have a proven effect in minimising the trauma for individuals who are addicted to these substances, that are approved by the PBS. For the CLP in opposition to still say that they know best; that after all the evidence, somehow, the political wing of the Country Liberal Party knows better than the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and the people who allocate and approve of those drugs to be available in Australia, is really quite extraordinary.
The member for Greatorex said a fundamental principle is that a doctor should be able to practice medicine …
Mr Dunham: Without worrying about the law.
Mr HENDERSON: Even if you take the issue of worrying about the law, the legal position that the CLP had was that methadone as a maintenance prescription in the Northern Territory was not allowed and was prohibited was directly impacting and denying a medical practitioner to use their best judgment as a medical practitioner to a treatment regime.
They made it illegal. In fact, they made it so illegal they had a public policy – and I still do not know if it is still the policy of the CLP - that ‘We do not have drug addicts in the Northern Territory; we are going to give them a one-way bus ticket south’. It is extraordinary that they have not reviewed that position from opposition. I am no expert; my colleague the member for Johnston gave me a lot of assistance in opposition when I was shadow health minister running this story of researching the science …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: And very much so! I will say that there are very clear links. Now we have a police force that can actually talk about the links between drugs and property crime, as opposed to being gagged and muzzled by the previous government where they were not allowed to ever speak about these issues ...
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is making the assumption that the police are unfettered in their public comment whereas, previously, they had been. I suggest that police still have difficulty in speaking about public matters such as this.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not think there is a point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: The sensitivity of the member for Drysdale - the sensitivity! As police minister, I talk to members of the Drug Squad on a regular basis, and other police officers in the Territory. They were not allowed to talk about these issues. They all knew how important it was to work to eliminate the rampant trade in drugs in the Northern Territory. They worked as hard as they could, but were not allowed to talk about it because, somehow there was this mantra that there were no links, or minuscule links, between the misuse of drugs in the community and property crime.
The issue in regards to methadone maintenance and the line that the member for Greatorex knows better than everybody else, and he has made up his mind that there is no public benefit to having a methadone maintenance regime – well, I can talk from experience. I am not going to go at what level within my family, but within my own family - all of us here, if we do not have family members who have had problems with illicit substances, we certainly have friends, or know of people. However, I have somebody in my family who still has problems and is on methadone maintenance. The fact is that this particular family member is not out there committing crime; their life has stabilised. Yes, they do want to get off and they have not found the internal fortitude to make that their call yet. However, this particular person is slowly getting their life back together; they are out of the gutter. They are no longer committing crime in the community, and the nett benefit to this person in my family, and to the broader community, is much better as a result of them being able to access a methadone maintenance program.
There are 260 people - I believe the figure was given by the Health Minister today - in the Northern Territory who are in that same position where they do not have to commit crime and to either prostitute themselves or steal from their families to feed an addiction as a result of having access to this program. So for the member for Greatorex to come in here and say he knows best, he has had a look at it and just say no, it is as simple as that; belies any evidence of what is actually happening out there in the real world as opposed to whatever planet the member for Greatorex happens to be on any day of the week.
The issue about punitive sanctions in the act and heaven forbid, a doctor forgets to put their practising certificate up on the wall; they are going to be marched off by the Chief Health Officer and thrown in gaol for two years is absolutely ridiculous! Absolutely ridiculous! The penalties in the act I am advised, and I am sure my colleague, the Health minister, will speak in wrapping up, are consistent with the norms this type of legislation across Australia. The AMA is not happy with this in the Northern Territory, but I do not see them mounting a national campaign to see these types of penalties struck out of other legislation around Australia. Probably 99.9% of doctors obviously do the right thing. Unfortunately, there are some who do the wrong thing.
In the Territory over the last few years, we have seen a number of doctors lose their practising certificate as a result of in part - and you know a picture paints a thousand words, Madam Speaker, this graph here tabled by my colleague, the member for Johnston from the Health Insurance Commission, again, this level of over prescribing of Schedule 8 drugs in the Northern Territory is way out of kilter with the other states. There has still never been an adequate explanation from members opposite as to how and why that did happen in the Northern Territory. As my colleague, the member for Johnston, said, as a young population, we just do not have the profile of sickness in our community that would legitimately justify that level of prescribing in the Northern Territory.
The only way those drugs could be prescribed is by medical practitioners. There was a regime in place in the Northern Territory at the time that would not allow pharmacotherapies such as methadone to be prescribed. I still assert that the previous government condoned this level of prescribing in the Northern Territory to the detriment of our community. It was only after the Health Insurance Commission stepped in that we saw those rates go down.
The penalties are consistent with similar legislation across Australia. It is not an issue of double jeopardy. The right to prescribe Schedule 8 drugs is hard-earned, is a very serious responsibility on any medical practitioner who has the rights to prescribe Schedule 8 drugs. In the event that somebody abuses that right wilfully, consistently and flagrantly, and if that is a consistent pattern of behaviour, then I believe that that penalty is justified. It will be up to the courts to determine the degree of sentence. And 99.9% of our doctors in the Northern Territory have absolutely nothing to worry about. If there is anybody out there who is wilfully, and blatantly, and knowingly, over-prescribing and prescribing to the extent that we have seen - these drugs got out there somehow - then these sanctions are consistent with the legislative regime that across Australia. I stand to be corrected by the AMA but I have not seen them run a campaign anywhere else to have these sanctions struck out of legislation.
I firmly support these amendments. We as a government will continue to work at every level to reduce the level of illegal substance abuse in our community. We are not naive enough to say that we will eliminate it at all, but the fight continues. One person in our community addicted to drugs is one too many. The pain, not only for themselves but their families, the grief and the impact on the broader community is too much. I do not think that this should be a political battlefield. I urge the opposition to look at their policy in the lead-up to the next election and go on the side of evidence-based medicine as opposed to cheap politics.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, we continue to revisit the accusation that we had a really bad drugs program when we were in government and that the ALP is enlightened and in tune with society so much that they now have a great drugs program which is tough on drugs. So ours, which was prohibitive of certain types of drugs, was a soft one and Labor’s is a tough one.
This debate defies logic. The Northern Territory did not have a methadone maintenance program under the CLP. The Northern Territory did have some guidelines for dispensing methadone. I have them here - and they have been discussed on many occasions in the past - 12 November 1996; they are in government now, they can dig it out of the files – there were limited circumstances under which methadone could be provided. Why did the then government have this point of view? It was because it did not believe it was an effective treatment option. There are many people out there who wrote books saying it was the best thing that they had ever seen, that the treatment of addicts through methadone maintenance was a wonderful treatment protocol. It is also true that if you looked at the many authors of those books, they actually derived their income from the dispensing of methadone. It was a skewed debate in some circuits.
I was in a fortunate position of being able to go to some methadone maintenance programs in other states, including New South Wales, Western Australia, the prison system in New South Wales, which had very high levels of dispensing methadone to inmates. It was put to me that there is this absolute link because you can show that if a drug addict has to go out and support a $400 week habit, they break and enter. Then you put them on a habit that costs the taxpayer mere dollars, they desist from their criminal activity and you then have all these thousand people who did not wake up to find their houses broken into that the minister was trying to tell us about statistically this morning. What he was trying to say was that illicit activity has ceased, therefore that level of crime has gone down.
That is not a bad argument in a purely statistical sense except that if you go to the jurisdiction in the world with the highest level of methadone dispensing, which is New South Wales, that nexus was not as evident as some of these social scientists would have us believe. It is an incredibly difficult drug to detox from. That is because it has the advantage of having a long half-life, which means that you can take it once a day and sustain your high, but it takes a long time to detox from. I have talked to people who have been withdrawing from opiates and methadone. Most of them will tell you that methadone is a shocking thing to withdraw from.
It depends on what your end point is. If your end point is: let’s move towards having as few people addicted to illicit substances as possible, let’s make sure that the primary option continues to be detox with the eventual aim of abstinence. That is our policy, and it is not such a bad policy when you think about it. Okay, we can stand here and make up laws about all sorts of social policies, like there will be no prostitution. We know that of course there will be. We can say there will be no people who engage in all sorts of illicit and nefarious activity; we know that will continue to take place. We know people will continue to use and abuse substances, licit and illicit.
Our policy was a pretty good one. How do I know that? Because every year, there was an independent group that assessed the policies of governments in Australia. They had a report called Governments, Drugs and Money. Every year, if we did not come first, we came second in every ranking. While it is very easy to misquote the member for Brennan about illicit drugs being minuscule, one should go back and read the entire quote because it is roughly similar to what Dr Val Asche said in her report to this parliament. She said in her report that these are not issues of great significance compared to other problematic drugs. For instance, if we are going to start wading through stacks, what did the Australian Institute of Criminology say? These are pretty aged figures, unfortunately, on Australian alcohol and illicit drugs. Australia, 1988-96, and I apologise for the aged collection, but I do not have the resources that government has. They have done a number of things to look at the impact of illicit drugs, for instance, the drug/crime link. That is something we have been talking about here. Alcohol intoxication – 80%; hmm. Drug intoxication – 14%. Drug withdrawal – 7%. Money to buy drugs – 5.5%. Money to buy alcohol – 2.7%. Drug possession – 0.7%. Other – 4.8%. So grog is still the big issue.
When this government was in power, we looked at our Living with Alcohol program, which was world-first and world-recognised. We knew that the biggest drugs causing problems in the health system, in the corrections system, in the law and order system, through domestic violence, through community disquiet, was alcohol – right at the top. We knew that after that we had problems with kava. We knew we had problems with inhalant substance abuse. We knew we had an emerging problem with cannabis. Opiates, we knew were a problem. Steroids, another recreational drug we knew to be a problem.
However, this government came to power on this whole idea that they had a – I do not know how many points it was, 2, 4, 7 - point program that they had this great intellectual capacity to look at rendering drug addicts a more pliant and crime-conscious group of people by feeding them methadone. I do not think that is right. This morning, the minister used some statistics and said, ‘We can show the link, because here is what is happening with property crime, and here is what is happening with charges’. What he has to show us, and he read a quote of mine this morning, I am going to give him another one he can read: ‘If their programs relating to illicit drug abuse are working, the prisons should have 50% less people’, because the argument was always about the prisons having these people there who were the criminals. We have stopped this connection between property crime and drugs - okay, I will give you that. ABS will even give you that. The Institute of Criminology will give you that. How many people out at Berrimah are there because of drug-related offences? I do not want to use the word ‘miniscule’ because it often gets misquoted, but I think you will find it is not many compared to other drugs.
There is a whole sorry story of the government trying to spin this thing, but they are not doing it well, because we were independently audited and assessed as having the best drugs programs in Australia, either ranked one or two, year after year. I will concede that where we were marked down was in the area of tobacco. I will concede that the government has done good things here, and I will concede that they are overdue, so there is an admission. In the area of tobacco, that terrible, terrible drug, I will concede that we probably should have done more, harder and quicker.
However, when you start talking about these illicit drugs, you should be pretty careful. First, even though there was MS Contin being converted into the illicit stream, as alleged by the good doctor from Johnston …
Mr Stirling: By the truckload!
Mr DUNHAM: By the truckload, by the good doctor from Johnston, there are a couple of points. The first is, please do not be so precious about the feelings …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is referring to the member for Johnston, and it is the member for Johnston, it is not the good doctor from Johnston, Madam Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM: He is definitely not the good doctor for Johnston. That is a good point, a very good point.
Madam SPEAKER: I think what he said is okay. I do not think the member for Johnston would be upset over that.
Mr DUNHAM: No, I think he is right. I agree with you, I do not think he is the good doctor for Johnston, so I thoroughly withdraw.
We were talking about the thin-skinned public servants who have alleged to being mightily offended because people said that some of the laws coming in here needed amendment, and there could be put the allegation they were sloppily drafted. Oh, my! What about the allegation coming from there, that doctors were giving drugs by the truckload to people who are using them illicitly – by the truckload. That is a pretty serious indictment of our medical practitioners here in the Northern Territory
I went on radio to discuss this when I was the Health minister. I discussed a number of things. First, prescribing habits were different here than they were in other places, and that we could at least monitor this because there are a couple of devices through Commonwealth and Territory agencies where you could actually look at the prescribing habits of doctors. There were some initiatives that we could put in place to look at those doctors whose prescribing habits might have been problematic, rather than illegal. We could also look at, maybe, some issues relating to contracts for doctor-shopping and filling of scripts. We did that. We had a 40% reduction with those initiatives.
If you want to talk about, ‘Yes, it was high’ and dig some figures out, dig the next year because, in a very short time, we got a reduction of 40% …
Mr Stirling: It shows you what was going on, doesn’t it?
Mr DUNHAM: It also shows we took some action against a couple of doctors. When you want to run, as our colleague from Johnston does, stories about MS Contin in other states, I suggest you put oral methadone in there. Once you do that, the fact that we were prescribing very little of it and the other states were prescribing big mobs of it, you will see that some of that data is skewed if you do not use all the drugs. If you conveniently leave out one drug such as oral liquid methadone …
Dr Burns: The MJA report shows oral methadone was at an all-time high in the Territory for that period.
Mr DUNHAM: … you might find those figures are problematic, doctor! That is very poor research …
Dr Burns: Oral methadone was highest in the Territory, as well.
Mr DUNHAM: … because you all know most drug addicts …
Dr Burns: Get your facts straight.
Mr DUNHAM: … are poly drug users …
Dr Burns: Get your facts straight.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Johnston.
Mr DUNHAM: How would I make an allegation like that against these poor people who are addicted? Because many places urine test them! If you do an analysis of the samples of urine coming from people attending methadone clinics - and some clinics do not do them because they know what the answer is going to be - you will find that the great preponderance of them - probably over 90% - are poly drug users. This is the problem with his clean argument about ‘They have stopped using this, and they have started using this’. You are dealing with people who are addicted to a highly-attractive substance, who mix in a milieu where it is very difficult for them to desist from their habit because they have been socialised into a group of people who often have a like habit. Often you are talking about, when you withdraw from drugs, losing your friends, a habit that is very seductive and precious to you and, in any event, it is a highly nefarious activity and you would normally be secretive about it. Therefore, be very wary of data.
I thought one of the greatest changes in recent history - and it happened when we were in government, fortunately - was the advent of a couple of drugs called Naltrexone and buprenorphine. We, also, through our Cabinet, made some decisions about how these drugs could be dispensed for the benefit of people addicted to opiates. The minister has not mentioned Naltrexone in the speech …
Dr Burns: Yes, I did.
Mr DUNHAM: You mentioned Naltrexone?
Dr Burns: Yes.
Mr DUNHAM: Good drug?
Dr Burns: It has its uses.
Mr DUNHAM: ‘It has its uses’ - there you are. Naltrexone is a good drug for abstinence; it is a good drug to take people toward desisting from using. I am glad that the member for Johnston is onside because that is our policy. You are going to get back to the old CLP redneck stuff here of trying to dissuade people and encourage them from actually using the stuff in the first place.
I would have thought - and I have said this in the parliament before - that the use of Naltrexone within our present system would be a great idea. I cannot think of a better opportunity, not only for people to withdraw from drugs, but it should be a policy of this government to have total abstinence in our prison system. Naltrexone is not a bad truth serum, either, because it is a nasty drug to have if you are continuing to use.
There are a few things from the past - a few blasts from the past. Yes, there is a problem with MS Contin. I would not be so foolish as to stand in this House and make scurrilous accusations about all the GPs who prescribe drugs. However, I am aware that there was a significant amount finding its way into the illicit stream; that is why we did something about it and we cut it back quickly to 40%. In Estimates, I was able to talk to the Chief Health Officer, and I understand that has been sustained, and that is a good thing.
Notwithstanding that, there is an enormous drug problem that still exists in the Northern Territory and it is still called grog. It is still called alcohol. If you look at the issues coming before the courts, before the prisons, before the hospitals, before the police, before our emergency departments, it is to do with drunkenness. It is to do with the drug that we all know. I am not trivialising opiates, steroids, amphetamines or any other drug of abuse that is out there in the community. What I will say though is that this is a very convenient scapegoat. What you do is you set up a straw man and you call him an addict that is addicted to opiates, you put all your effort into that, a one-shot-in-the-locker policy, and you conveniently forget all the other stuff out there.
This approach by the government is a bit ambiguous. On the one hand they say trust doctors, it is not for politicians to second guess them; they should be out there doing the right thing. And what do we have before us? We have a law of the parliament. I wonder why we are doing that? If they are so trustworthy and if it is an issue of such science and we are able to so implicitly practitioners, why do we even have a law? We have that law because our society demands strictures around certain things and we put strictures around even people as enlightened and scientific as doctors. Having done that, I think our policy would still be to move towards abstinence as the first course.
There was a lot of talk too, in opposition, about the total lack of rehabilitation programs in the Territory, and that came out all the time. It was picked up by various other commentators and they ran it. It is good to see Banyan House still running. It is great to see a program like that that has been running for so long.
It is good to see the people associated with Green Gates in Alice Springs continuing their campaign. I pay tribute to Alison Lillis because there has been an enormous amount of her own time and effort go into trying to do something about rehabilitation in Alice Springs. I pay tribute to Goulnara Sowman in Alice Springs, a lady whom I think is just short of a sainthood. I have never seen people work so hard in this environment as that particular practitioner. There are some great warriors out there trying to do the job.
Our efforts still have to be mindful of where the greatest problem is. We still have to be mindful about changing trends in consumption habits for people. We have to be mindful about, for instance, the fact that methadone was such an important issue for the government when in opposition and the trend showed here that young people were moving towards amphetamines. As a drug replacement therapy the man-made drug methadone is reasonably effective depending how you look at it. As I said it has some downsides. But as a drug replacement therapy for amphetamines it is not that clever because all it is doing is enabling a fill-up when you cannot get amphetamines from a government provided program.
There has been a lot of science in this and there has been a lot of shroud waving, certainly a lot of finger pointing. I am quite happy to stand here and say I am happy to go to the election and talk about our drugs policy. I am quite happy to revisit the history of it. I am quite happy to revisit the fact that there were independent commentators that ranked this jurisdiction as the best in Australia, not only for our drugs policy …
Dr Burns: For alcohol.
Mr DUNHAM: No, you are wrong. You should do more research if you want to call yourself that name.
I would suggest that this is a suit of cards that I would love to play during an election campaign because I am quite happy to argue on the basis of pragmatics and not shroud waving. I am quite happy to argue on the basis of a caring and compassionate approach to this rather than one that is foolish, populous and false. I am happy to argue the science even on matters such as this.
I have a series of documents here that go back to it. I would suggest that given that the member for Johnston is now a member of government, that he calls for some of them. I will give him some clues. He can call for the reduction in MS Contin prescriptions during the time I was the Health minister and you can see that 40% is not unreasonable estimate from my memory. If he calls up the media reports of the day and there was a gentleman named Fred McCue who mostly interviewed me on this and he now works on the fifth floor. I am sure his memory is pretty good, too. He could call up, for instance, what we said about Naltrexone, buprenorphine and the limited methadone dispensing service. He could go as far back as the report that was done at Nhulunbuy on treatment options for opiate-dependant people. It recommended methadone and the government decided not to progress with that report. He could go back to the debates where the member for Barkly, Mrs Hickey, admitted that she did not understand all of this and was going to use her Christmas holidays to go to a few detox clinics and probably did not, such was the level of interest in this matter.
I suggest that the government amend this act any way they see fit. You are in government. Go and do it. I suggest you do it in a way that accords with reporting back to this place, and if you want to report back about fewer and fewer people in the Berrimah prison, or about how the nexus of between illicit drugs and criminal behaviour has gone down, if you want to report back on the basis that the biggest issue on your plate is opiate dependant people, you do so at the risk of ignoring some of the more pressing programs in the alcohol area. You do that: come in here and debate it because I am quite happy to have these debates and the public needs it.
None of us can say we have the perfect answer to this social problem, but I have always been wary of using pharmacotherapies to treat this problem. It is a social problem and has to be treated socially. When I spoke to George O’Neill in Perth, I was quite impressed by the work he is doing. He had a Naltrexone clinic and only took people on if they had an abstaining carer. I have mentioned in this House before that I saw a young person who was there to witness the withdrawal of her mother and her father. I saw young people in there being treated by Naltrexone. I am not going to say it is as perfect as a methadone maintenance program or anything else, but I was mightily attracted to it. I was mightily attracted to the work. As part of his program, he suggested that people took Naltrexone daily in front of their loved one. From a strictly medical point of view, it was not necessary for that to occur for some years, but the reason it occurred, and he pointed it out to his clients, was that it was a gift of love. It was a gift of going to your mother or to whoever had been through all the heartache and trauma that goes with drug abuse and saying: ‘Look! I am still abstinent. I am still drug free’, and you woof down the pill.
That had great prospects for success because it was not based on a chemical problem with a person so give them another chemical. It was based - don’t yawn, whoever that was because this is a serious matter. It might be ho-hum for you and something you treat as a chore in this parliament, but for me, this is an issue of passion. If you want to intrude on matters relating to drug abuse in this society, it has to be treated as a social problem. It is a societal problem and it has to be treated with care, compassion and love, not with other pharmacotherapies.
As I said, do what you want to do with your bill, then come in here quarterly, if you like, and talk about it. I hope it does not keep you awake. For those of us on this side, it is pretty important and we will debate and discuss it as frequently as you want. We will rejoice and applaud in great joy with you if you solve this problem. I do not think you have any intention of solving the problem; this is politics, raw ...
Mr Kiely: Rubbish!
Mr DUNHAM: …and rubbish, that is true. I will pick up the interjection. This is rubbish, largely, because what you had here is a grandstanding parade of policies that say ours are better than yours. It is unfortunate that I have been drawn into that debate and I have had to go back to history and say I do not think ours was so bad.
Let us look at it from a different point of view. Why don’t we look at it from the point of view of the person you are trying to help? Why don’t we try to offer them the best help we can? If you start from there, we might come a long way. I would hope to believe …
Mr Henderson: Two hundred and sixty more people have been helped than under you mob.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. There you go.
I would like to believe that we would have unanimity in this House. If you started from the point of view that many of us know people who have been addicted to drugs and many of us have been close to people who have been addicted to drugs, so it is facile to accuse whole parties of people, hundreds of them, of having a non-caring attitude towards people who are addicted to illicit substances.
There is a way to get through this. Obviously, we have to have strong laws around prescribing and dispensing drugs. No doubt about it; we had them ourselves. I have no doubt that there has to be some latitude for medical practitioners; no doubt about it. I have no doubt that some medical practitioners will step over statutory lines drawn by this parliament, and they must face the sanctions associated with that. It is not an unfettered latitude for them out there; there are certain things that they have to obey.
However, let us look at best practice. Let us look at what we can best do here. Do not bring in books written by some bloke in New South Wales whose entire practice is dispensing methadone; of course he is bigoted towards it. It is one of those things, I believe, where you have to talk to the users, and I have been very fortunate there. I have said in this House that I have talked to people who have recovered from the horrors and rigours that this drug puts families and people through. There are compelling stories you can hear. I was compelled to believe that methadone was not such a good drug when I talked to these people, and they will tell you how difficult it is. I was compelled to believe that there were some great attributes associated with Naltrexone when I talked to some of these people.
I believe what this government has to do is to stop getting the pieces of paper. Go to these places where these things work. Have a look at them, talk to some of the people, talk to their families. It could well be that we invent something here that does not happen in every other state. God knows, we do not have to be an exact replica of what happens elsewhere. We might do it better, and I know that too, because in the past we have done it better, and given the opportunity at the next election, we will do it better again.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the best way to start my summation of the debate we have had is to simply put a framework around the legislation that we have before us. The core proposition of the legislation is to establish a tightly-controlled set of arrangements for the prescription of opiate drugs by medical practitioners within the Northern Territory; one that requires reporting to a central database so that the distribution of these drugs by prescription can be tracked; and also to identify the cases of over-prescription, or at least some pattern that does not look to be in accord with what you would normally expect with the use of these drugs.
Why do we need this? We have heard a fair bit from the opposition about alcohol being such a big problem, so why are we dealing with this. I bring bills into this House on a regular basis, and I cannot see why a government the size and complexity of the Northern Territory government cannot handle at least two problems to the benefit of Territorians. In fact, we handle far more than that. There is absolutely no justification for failing to move on this problem. It is a very clear and identified problem within the Territory population. It is causing harm out there. It is causing difficulties with everything from law enforcement, not only property crime in regard to its association with these sorts of drugs habits, but also cases of aggressive behaviour towards pharmacists and GPs by addicts who have gone looking for what they so desperately require.
Four years ago, the member for Greatorex spoke in a debate on this very subject and said:
- Ultimately, remember that we do not use as much morphine sulphate as the member for Wanguri tries to make
out. It is just not the case. We need to take ourselves away from a single blip in the graph. Look at it on an
average across the Territory as compared to the whole of Australia and the reality is there is not a huge abuse
of the drug.
It just defies belief that he could stand up in October 2000 when, out the window if he had a care to look around the community, there were 400 000 doses of these drugs going out into the community. That is based on absolute hard evidence of the prescription drugs that were going out of our pharmacies at the time: 205 000 MS Contin 1000 mg; 48 000 Kapanol 100 mg; 157 800 physeptone. I am still getting shades of that in the contributions of the CLP members here today, that ‘Oh, grog is a bigger problem so we should not be worrying about this. There are all these doubts about what action is going to be effective or what action is not going to be effective. We think we have still a great policy’. I tell you what: I have heard the policy of the previous government described as a ‘basket case’ by people who are dealing with addicts on a daily basis in the support services that do exist in the Northern Territory. It really is time for the members opposite to say: ‘Look, we do have a problem here. It is quite appropriate for a government to try to deal with it’.
Who was in the frame? Who was the meat in the sandwich when you had a government that said it was not the problem and they were not going to go in the direction of maintenance programs. ‘We will give them a one-way bus ticket. We will basically ban and exile addicts from the Territory’. I will tell you who is in the frame: it was the pharmacists who were copping aggressive behaviour day in, day out; it was the GPs who had to try to say ‘no’ to a desperate person who came into their surgery to get prescriptions. I really sympathise with those health professionals, given the situation they were put in.
This bill today is not about attacking doctors and pharmacists; it is about taking that very pressure away from them. If the CLP government - or any government at that stage - had moved into removing the over-prescription by enforcement in the absence of a maintenance program, that would have had huge risks for the Northern Territory because, if you cannot get these addictive drugs through prescriptions, where are you going to get them? You are probably going to see a heroin street market come into the Territory; the last thing that we would want up here, against all the drug problems that we know we have out there with cannabis and amphetamines and the like.
It is now the time to be doing this. We now do have pharmacotherapies in place, and a strong coverage of the addicted population in the Territory with those programs. We can now afford to put a strong regulatory regime across the prescription of these drugs in the Northern Territory. That is what today is all about: installing a set or regulatory arrangements which have been developed with the full participation of our doctors and clinicians who have expertise in these areas.
Members opposite have attempted to refocus the debate on: ‘Why are we bringing all these amendments forward today?’ Okay, there are a couple of reasons why that is occurring. The first is that we have had a clinical reference group looking at the regulations and the guidelines that would be needed to turn the legislative framework into a practical set of arrangements out in the community that support and govern the activities of all of the people who are in this chain of supply - whether it is the wholesalers, retailers, prescribing GPs, pharmacists, or anyone else who might come into this. We now have to move to installing guidelines and regulations. That is the first and main reason why there are amendments before you today.
The second is that, in the development of the original amending legislation and its subsequent review as part of the development of the regulations and guidelines, it was discovered that there was the removal of section 81(b), which is a cover-all provision providing for periods of imprisonment widely across the offences in the current legislation that inadvertently left gaps in the application of penalties to the various offences that are enshrined in this legislation. We did not have the intention that those penalties be removed. They are now being reinstated as part of the amendments today.
By far, the greatest weight of amendments that are being talked about in this legislation are to do with the practicalities of making this work on the ground. Making it practical for GPs to operate within the regulatory arrangements in pharmacies, making it practical for the Chief Health Officer and the Clinical Advisory Committee to actually monitor the progress of these arrangements as they get applied to prescribing within the Territory. They deal with those matters as the main focus of the additional refinements that are going forward today.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that is all I am intending to involve myself in the history of this legislation. I did not carry it into the House originally. The minister who did was the member for Nightcliff who foreshadowed during that debate that there would be the need following the work of the Clinical Advisory Committee to bring back further matters to the House to put them into the final legislations. So it was foreshadowed in this House. The work has now been done. There are some very strongly agreed arrangements that are now in the bill before you.
Dealing with the use of guidelines, the crucial thing about the guidelines is to get buy-in from the participating health practitioners. These guidelines are to be developed with and on behalf of the practitioners who will carry the regulated regime, will carry the actual prescribing arrangements. It is very important that the government does not simply develop and apply regulations without that participation by the group. I know the member for Johnston outlined the composition of the Clinical Advisory Committee and it can be seen from the composition of that group that there are some very knowledgeable people on these matters who will be directly involved, in not only the development of guidelines initially but also their carriage through this scheme and refine it if necessary as new circumstances apply.
There are guidelines on supply of non-restricted S8 substances; supply of restricted S8 substances buprenorphine and sublingual tablets and methadone syrup; supply of restricted S8 substances which is the dexamphetamine - I need the member for Johnston to help me with the pronunciation here - and for Ritalin. They cover all aspects of the supply of these substances including the prescribed conditions for routine authorisation; conditions imposed on authorisations requirement for notifications; periods of supply of substances and administrative procedures. The Chief Health Officer and the committee will advise the minister concerned on the guidelines. The purpose of the guidelines is precisely that; it is to guide practitioners as to the appropriate professional conduct under the requirements of this legislation.
However, the sanctions are available for breaches in areas of the guidelines. This is entirely appropriate given that we are dealing with dangerous drugs with a potential for diversion. The way this will work in practice is that the Chief Health Officer can sign off on authorisations in the periods between the meetings of the Clinical Advisory Committee. They will then ratify the Chief Health Officer’s decisions and check that they are in accord with both the guidelines and the act. That gives us a flexible arrangement, far more flexible than the original proposal which was to have the authorisations only directly from the Clinical Advisory Committee. It would not be responsive enough to the day to day demands coming on to this regulatory structure.
I have dealt with penalties. We are quite unashamedly putting a range of penalties across the different offences that arise out of the regulatory provisions. We want to send a signal at this stage that there is absolutely no justification for over-prescribing these drugs to the general community when GPs and pharmacists have the option of referring addicted people to the maintenance programs. There is now an alternative to coughing up the next supply of drugs to an addicted person coming in to a surgery or chemist. That is the reason for retaining the penalties, transporting them in. Most of them are identical to the current provisions in force now, except that the financial penalties are at a higher level as maximums.
The reporting arrangements go back to a central database to be maintained by the department. The Poisons Control Branch will maintain a database based on a new computer program being developed, with the intention that the system will be fully operational in time for the commencement of the legislation. Data is being sent to Health from pharmacies and clinics on an improvement the department is working on to assist GPs with their inquiries about the status of patients. Obviously, if we are going to prevent doctor shopping or over prescribing by individual doctors, it is important that the database be as stringently maintained as possible and available to prescribing doctors to make sure they know whether patients have gone to other sources of supply for these drugs.
The effectiveness of the pharmacotherapies was called into question by the member for Drysdale. If I can quote some of the evidence, we are very satisfied that the pharmacotherapies can make a major contribution to resolving some of these issues. There is evidence that both types of pharmacotherapy, buprenorphine and methadone, improve health and reduce illicit drug use. The longer clients stay in treatment, the lower the use falls. This results in decreased deaths, especially drug overdoses, and fewer infections such as HIV, Hepatitis B and C, abscesses, and endocarditis.
Another considerable benefit is the reduction of crime, which was certainly evidenced by studies done by Alex Wodak, Director of Alcohol and Other Drug Services at St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney. Six studies, included in the Cochrane Review on methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy indicate that methadone is an effective maintenance therapy intervention for treatment of opioid dependence. Compared with other treatments, methadone users are three times more likely to stay in treatment, and three times less likely to use heroin or other opioids. A recent study in Sydney reported that drug selling declined from 40% to 12%, and the percentage of engaging in property crime decreased from 35% to 9% after one year on the program. We certainly hope that we will see that sort of reduction in the pressure coming on prescribing GPs in the Northern Territory rather than drug selling in the streets, which is certainly not the pattern here.
The dropping of section 28(4) was questioned by the member for Araluen. The removal exemplifies our approach to tightening controls whilst minimising the burden on health professionals. The section imposed the condition on pharmacists that for interstate prescriptions for restricted S4s or for any S8 prescription, they are required to check with the original interstate prescriber whether they had in fact prescribed the drug. In the provisions under this bill today, no interstate prescriptions will be allowed. This tightens up control and removes additional work imposed on pharmacists by the current act. It is a perfect example of how this bill balances the protection of the public with that of the professionals who are involved in the distribution of these drugs.
I believe I have dealt with the question of alcohol. It really is a furphy to be saying that alcohol is a really big problem out there so why should we be even looking at these issues. I think we can pat our head and rub our tummy at the same time, and we are doing a lot on alcohol and combating the bad effects of alcohol in our community as evidenced by the programs in every major centre in the Northern Territory and a lot of our remote communities. We will continue that work. That does not mean we have to down tools on this particular matter.
The member for Macdonnell drew attention to the regulatory offences, and strict liability offences in the legislation and the application of section 26 of the Criminal Code. Section 81A of the principal act enumerates the provisions that are considered regulatory offences under this legislation. I understand the member for Macdonnell wants to know if any of the offences carrying prison penalties are offences that apply to medical practitioners. Section 26 of the Criminal Code relates to authorisation. A person cannot claim authorisation for an act that is a regulatory offence. From an examination of the list of regulatory offences with prison penalties that may apply to medical practitioners, section 34(3) of the act applies. Section 34(3) of the act applies to prescriptions issued by medical practitioners, and requires a person not to supply to another person a substance that is required to be supplied only on prescription unless there is a prescription in effect for the supply. Once proven that a person is supplied without a prescription, the penalty of 500 penalty units or imprisonment of six months is available in this bill.
I would point out to members, though, that the penalties in this bill are maximums, as are probably the vast majority of penalties that are enshrined in legislation we deal with in this House. It would be entirely up to a court to decide whether a maximum penalty should apply or some other level of penalty.
The member for Port Darwin had concerns about the basis of figures in the Northern Territory that do or do not count our hospital prescriptions in those figures. I can say, absolutely, we do not count the hospital prescriptions. They are on a completely different recording system. What is in the figures that we have been talking about today are the PBS prescribed amounts and the amounts prescribed in the private sector, but not in our hospitals. The hospitals have their own regulatory regime, and prescriptions there have to be pretty flexibly applied to patients, as you would appreciate, given the types of conditions that may come into a hospital. There needs to be a rapid response on many occasions, but there is very rigorous control over the use of prescribed drugs in the hospital programs.
The member for Greatorex raised a number of matters particularly the penalties for failure to display a certificate. These offences are in the existing legislation; they have not been brought in as a new innovation. Certainly, the existing legislation has the requirement to display certificates for both wholesalers and retailers. Under section 81B, a prison penalty can be applied. Section 81B will not be in the new legislation. Rather, the individual sections will carry their penalty provisions with them. This is a better practice as it has resulted in the opposition taking some notice of existing provisions.
The government does not apologise for the strong regulatory provisions related to the supply chain for poisonous and dangerous drugs. The law penalises breaches as a regulatory offence, but the penalty will be determined within an appropriate range depending on the circumstances of the offence. Community confidence in every aspect to the supply of drugs and poisons is essential.
The member also referred to the quorums that would apply to the Clinical Advisory Committee. I find that a little annoying really, because it is just a matter of reading the bill. However, I will point out that the quorum of the Clinical Advisory Committee is set as the chair plus not less than one-third of appointed members; that is, one plus four - or five members - out of the 11 current members. This is less than half because of: (a) the need for rapid response to some issues and, given the busy-ness of the medical professionals we want to involve on that committee, we want some flexibility there to allow meetings to occur with some regularity; and (b) there are intra- and interstate members and you have to allow for that in how often you can displace people from their other states and the work that they are doing there.
I have covered why we have developed a set of guidelines. Flexible and collaborative with the health professionals that will be applying these regulatory arrangements is a far better way to go to than to have a set of imposed regulations from the government. They can be revised or changed if problems arise in the field. By far, the best people to assess that is the Clinical Advisory Committee and other professionals who may want to interact with that committee to point out where there are problems, or where there are things that are working that may need further strengthening.
That has dealt with the concerns that have been brought up by the various contributors to the debate. I thank all members for their contribution to the second reading debate, and we will move on.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Dr LIM: Minister, under section 20 of the principle act, the amendment is required to insert the penalty units and the imprisonment for two years; why do you feel that the failure to display a certificate requires …
Mr Henderson: He answered that!
Dr LIM: I am asking the minister to explain, not the rattling behind …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: I am asking the minister to explain. I did not ask the rattling …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Member for Greatorex, keep to the question.
Dr LIM: The interjection was against me, and I am trying to make a point.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand that, but …
Dr LIM: I ask the minister to explain why he felt that there needs to be such a huge penalty for failing to display a certificate. I would like an answer.
Ms Carter: Good question.
Dr LIM: Of course, it is a good question.
Mr Henderson: The same penalty that you had! It is the same penalty that was in the legislation that you guys had.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The minister will answer.
Dr LIM: And here is the empty vessel over there ...
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, member for Greatorex! Let us keep it to the point.
Dr LIM: I am trying to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I know. I am trying to help.
Dr LIM: I am being provoked.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister has the floor.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, it was getting exciting while I was away. Section 6 is not a sanction against a doctor. The member is quite incorrect. Section 20 relates to wholesalers. The member has not picked that up in reading the section. These are current provisions in the working act at the moment and we are just simply transporting them into the amended act.
Dr LIM: It does not matter whether it is a doctor, a health professional, a wholesaler, or retailer. I am saying this is a failure to hang up a shingle. Okay? And bang you are going to be hit with a 20 penalty unit sanction or going to clink for two years. If you are a body corporate it is a 100 penalty units. I am asking what is the rationale, and I would like the minister to explain the rationale to me, as to why there is such a significant sanction.
Mr Dunham: He said they were not going to adhere to it in debate!
Dr LIM: Taking on the interjection from the member for Drysdale, if the minister is not going to adhere to, what is the point of having it there?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I can report that our Chief Health Officer says that this is a standard provision around the country. We are dealing with dangerous, and poisonous, and addictive substances. It is very important that the wholesalers who are the start of the chain of distribution have not only been authorised but display the evidence of that authorisation under the relevant act in whichever jurisdiction it is. It is not our idea. It is certainly not a new ‘Let’s get tough on wholesalers’ or anything else. This is standard provisions that are in acts right around the country. It is part of making the regulation of these types of dangerous and addictive substances a serious matter and giving the public confidence in the authorisation and regulation that is in force.
Dr LIM: Again, I do not believe the minister has explained it adequately. I suggest to you that perhaps this clause was deliberately left out in August of last year by the draftsman because it was thought to be an idiotic sanction. You have not hung up the shingle and suddenly you get hit with that. Whether the minister wants to bring it in now as a matter of getting consistency across this legislation, maybe last time it was left out it was because the draftsman recognised it was not necessary. Now it has been brought in. I suggest to you it is a dog’s breakfast. Is it the minister’s doing? Whose doing is it? And maybe we should just leave it out altogether and be done with it.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, we have talked a bit about the different attitudes to policies on controlling these sorts of drugs. If the CLP wants to go and back off on all the penalties in the bill, if you ever get back into power you can take them all out if you like, but the from our point of view we are not even increasing or inventing penalties here. We are simply maintaining the seriousness of it.
These are wholesalers; they are major concerns operating in the distribution chain of what are quite dangerous substances. The community needs to be absolutely assured that there are strong regulations on these. We are not going to have drugs going through Joe’s Fish and Chips shop. This is a serious matter where it is quite appropriate to have a significant penalty.
Dr LIM: I am not trying to be difficult, minister. In handling S8 drugs a wholesaler is not likely to be coming into contract with the public. It is wholesalers supplying to a pharmacy, to a hospital pharmacy, even to some health clinics in the bush or some doctors who have their own dispensary, but it is not likely that a member of the public would walk into a wholesaler and say: ‘Look, your shingle is not up there’. Be a bit more logical and practical. This is an unnecessary sanction.
Dr TOYNE: I do not think there is much point in pursuing this any further. It is clearly a difference in policy intent between your preferred position and the position that we have taken with the advice we have had. I again point out that these acts cover a whole raft of quite dangerous substances, both addictive and highly poisonous. It is our opinion, and that underwrites the policy underpinning this bill, that those significant penalties have to be in the act. That is our opinion. We recognise that you have expressed a different view. I cannot hold out any hope to you at all that we will be looking again at those provisions. We have made our decision on advice, and we are comfortable with that decision.
Dr LIM: I accept the minister’s advice and his position, and be it on the minister’s head. I ask the minister whether he will give me an assurance that all wholesalers will now be informed by letter from him, or through the Chief Health Officer, that this provision is now in the legislation and they need to comply, so that they are fully informed.
Dr TOYNE: The act of registering and getting authorisation to trade in these substances in itself informs the wholesaler or retailer or any of the people in this chain as to what their responsibilities are. There is no need for a separate process as it is embodied in the act of getting registration.
Dr LIM: Are you saying to me, minister, that all current wholesalers have to re-register?
Dr TOYNE: No. It is an existing provision. It has simply been transported from the existing legislation.
Ms CARTER: With regards to clause 6, minister, you have explained that the display of certificates relate to wholesalers and you are looking for consistency across the legislation and you take the issues very seriously, hence the two years gaol. That being the case, can you explain why in section 17 of the principal act with regards to wholesalers having to be registered, there is no gaol sentence whereas there are financial penalties?
Dr TOYNE: We included the additional penalty as a public confidence issue. It is not just a case of being registered; it is a case of being able to demonstrate to the public that you are registered so they can have confidence in the propriety of the company dealing with these substances.
Ms CARTER: Just for the record, I see that there is an inconsistency there. I would have thought that the greater onerous was on a wholesaler to be registered, and that the great penalty, therefore, should apply to the act or the omission of being registered as opposed to whether you have your certificate on the wall.
Dr TOYNE: Again, I can say that this is a current provision in the act. It is working right now. Wholesalers are operating under those provisions. We believe that, certainly, acting unregistered would probably carry both offences because it is hard to understand how someone could display a certificate if they are not registered, so they have actually committed both offences. One offence carries one year, the other one two years.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Dr LIM: In clause 7, which refers to section 25, the same arguments that I posed for section 20 applies. If the minister could explain the rationale.
Dr TOYNE: It just parallels the arrangements for wholesalers. It is required that the retailer be licensed and display their licence, so it is the next step in the distribution train.
Dr LIM: In the same line of questioning that the member for Port Darwin put to you just now, do you see the logic you are coming with, that failure to register incurs a lesser sanction than a failure to hang up the shingle? It does not stand to logic.
Dr TOYNE: I do not see that there is anything illogical with having two offences: that of registration, or that of display of proof of registration. I guess you could take several positions on relatively which offence should be more heavily sanctioned. Some people would argue that if you do not display proof of registration, you are dishonouring your relationship to the public, and this is ultimately about consumer protection. That could be the basis for making that the more severe penalty.
Equally, you could say if you have not registered within the regulatory arrangements that is dishonouring your duties to the government. As long as we have significant penalties for both of those offences, for each of the steps in the distribution train, as far as I am concerned, we are covered. We have the interests of the public covered. We have the interests of the government covered.
Dr LIM: I beg to differ, minister. I would have thought that a failure to register makes a supplier an illegal supplier; he becomes an illegal drug dealer. That is what it is. You become an illegal drug dealer if you fail to register, whereas if you fail to hang up a shingle you are still an illegal wholesaler. The only thing you failed to do was to hang up your shingle.
Dr TOYNE: As per the last section we debated, you have taken a different view. It is your opinion. We have taken the view that is inherent in the legislation side. I do not really see that there is much more to be said.
Dr LIM: Begging the minister’s indulgence – let us move away from the political positions that we both have. If a pharmacist failed to register that he or she is going to supply, as a retailer, Schedule 8 drugs, if he failed to register, legally, this pharmacist will be defined as an illegal drug dealer. That is what it is. A failure to register means you are an illegal drug dealer. Just like if I fail to register as a medical practitioner, I become an illegal medical practitioner or a person who has no registration practising under false pretences. Now, if that is not a more serious crime than failure to hang up a shingle, I do not know how you would then define it. Surely, a more serious crime deserves greater sanction than a less serious crime.
What I see here is that a failure to hang up a shingle includes a greater penalty than a failure to register, which makes you an illegal drug dealer.
Dr TOYNE: I do not see that we can extend this much further. We clearly disagree on it as a matter of policy. We need to move on.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 22, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 23:
Ms CARTER: Minister, this particular clause is the one which sees the insertion of a gaol penalty for up to two years for a general practitioner if he or she does not perform according to the guidelines which are going to be designed and implemented with regard to the prescription and treatment of a drug addict with a maintenance pharmacotherapy. Can you explain to me what has changed since last August that has seen the necessity to insert this particular penalty into the bill?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. I did refer to the genesis of that in my reply speech in the second reading debate. Essentially, a generic provision section 81B was taken out, which had the effect of lifting those penalties out of individual sections of the act, once amended. It was not our intention. We are now reinstating the original intent of our legislative program. That is all there is to it. It is just simply that there was quite a complex transporting of provisions into the first amending bill. Subsequently, there has been further intense scrutiny of the provisions in the original and amending bill by the Clinical Advisory Group. As a result of that scrutiny, we have discovered that that generic clause being taken out had left gaps in the penalties that we are putting back in. Call it what you like, it is just simply something that happened in the development of the legislation.
Dr LIM: I ask the same question. I spoke about it in the second reading and the minister did not respond in his closing debate. When you provide doctors with a set of guidelines, I assume they are guidelines and, therefore, they will perform within those guidelines. However, it appears from your speech and legislation that if they broach any of the guidelines there are sanctions. Are they guidelines or are they regulations? If they are guidelines, how can you impose sanctions? Would you rather have regulations rather than guidelines?
Dr TOYNE: Clause 23 really does get to the heart of the whole regulation when you look at the problem we are trying to deal with. The problem we are trying to deal with is over-prescribing of these types of drugs. Quite clearly, the guidelines are going to give a lot of detail of what is allowable and not allowable, required and not required, when general practitioners deal with these types of prescriptions. The guidelines are being developed. There are drafts in existence; they have been developed by clinicians working from practical experience.
We wanted to build two things into it. One was the flexibility that you get with the use of guidelines rather than regulations or even more stringent provisions that you might put directly in legislation. So, each one is easier to amend than the last. The guidelines give you the most flexibility; legislative provisions give you the least flexibility because you have to bring them back in here and amend them if you want to change them. So we have, within the use of guidelines, flexibility. You have the ability to have maximum input from the practitioners who will be subject to these regulatory provisions out in the field.
The other side of it is that this is the core of the problem solving, if you like. This is the way that we hope to impact on the levels of over-prescribing which continue to this day in the Territory. To do that, you have to have some enforceability. Hence, the inclusion of penalties for breaking the guidelines. So we want guidelines that are practical and owned by the profession but they also have to be enforceable.
Dr LIM: Thank you, minister, for that explanation. I assume, therefore, that those guidelines, once they are in definitive form, will be provided to all general practitioners who are part of this program, or to all general practitioners who are practising in the Northern Territory? If you can answer that first, I have another question following that.
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that the guidelines cover not only the restricted S8s and S4s but also the non-restricted drugs. So it will be necessary for all general practitioners in the Territory to be appraised of the guidelines.
Dr LIM: Can you tell me how many doctors have been recruited into this program to implement your prohibited S8 drugs program?
Dr TOYNE: Are you referring to the pharmacotherapies?
Dr LIM: Yes.
Dr TOYNE: I have information here for you. There are currently 14 accredited doctors who can prescribe these medications; three in Alice Springs, and 11 in Darwin. Private prescribers in Darwin treated 46 people with buprenorphine and 15 with methadone. There are no prescribers in Alice Springs who provide this service from a private practice. Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Central Australia in Alice Springs has treated approximately 25 people with buprenorphine and 12 with methadone. Alcohol and Other Drugs Services in Darwin have treated 48 people with buprenorphine and 62 people with methadone. Alice Springs and Darwin prisons have treated seven inmates, six with methadone and one with buprenorphine.
Dr LIM: I find it curious, minister, that you do not have anybody recruited for Tennant Creek or Katherine, or Nhulunbuy for that matter. I would have thought that those regional centres would have some patients likely to require the services of such trained doctors. What adds to my consternation is that from this report here, tabled today by the minister for police, that the total number of grams of heroin found by the police in the Northern Territory for the last 12 months has been something like 6.3 grams. Is there a lot of heroin flowing into the Territory, or do we have lots of methadone patients and therefore no need for heroin coming into the Territory? What is going on there?
Dr TOYNE: That is in the police annual report I take it? I can give you some information on the movement of addicted people into or out of the Territory, but I can certainly assure you that there has not been a major shift in either the street market here or the total number of addicts in the Territory. I will give you the figures here. There is no evidence for an influx of addicts. No data is available for interstate transfers to NT private prescribers, but they cater for only 20 pharmacotherapy patients in total at any one time. In the last six months, a total of only 12 clients transferred from interstate either through their prescriber or presented without prior transfer arrangements. In the same period, seven clients transferred from the Northern Territory to an interstate prescriber. This is a nett gain of five clients only or 4%.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, the minister has read quite detailed statistics. I wonder whether he would be prepared to table that paper outlining the number of doctors involved in the program, the number of patients involved and the last set of figures he read from his notes. Would you be prepared to do that so it makes it easier on me? If we pull it off Hansard, it will be in prose rather than tabulated form. It would make life a lot easier.
Dr TOYNE: There is only one paragraph I did not read into Hansard so I will read it in now so you have the lot. In addition to the figures I gave you for the prison for Darwin Alcohol and Other Drug, Alice Springs Alcohol and Other Drug, private prescribers, I can tell you that we have had about 260 people on the program since maintenance pharmacotherapies commenced; 215 people received either buprenorphine or methadone on a maintenance basis. The balance is 45 people who underwent a rapid buprenorphine withdrawal.
The additional information I can give you on Hansard is about pharmacists: 13 pharmacies dispensed buprenorphine and methadone, one each in Alice Springs, Katherine and Nhulunbuy, and 10 in Darwin, including the rural area, so you will have all the information tomorrow in Hansard.
Dr LIM: If I can pursue the same line, if you now have one patient in Katherine and Nhulunbuy on buprenorphine, who are the prescribing doctors? Are they located in Darwin or in Nhulunbuy? Where are they?
Dr TOYNE: I certainly cannot tell you the names of doctors, but what I can say is that we no longer allow interstate prescriptions to be acted upon in the Territory. They have to be Northern Territory based doctors, so it will be one of the doctors operating either in the private sector or elsewhere in the Territory.
Dr LIM: Are you suggesting to me that there are patients in Nhulunbuy and Katherine, but there are no doctors trained to provide the service and they need to travel to Darwin or to Alice Springs to seek their services?
Dr TOYNE: It would be up to the individual patients as to how they access the medical care. It might be a DMO going out to a community; it might be them coming into an urban centre to seek assistance. What we are saying is that it all has to be encapsulated within the Territory. It cannot have open sides.
Dr LIM: I do not have any problems with it being encapsulated in the Territory, minister, but I am concerned that you have mentioned at least two patients who live outside Darwin and Alice Springs. Your legislation says that a doctor cannot write more than two months’ supply at a time, which means that these patients have to travel to a regional centre every two months to secure their supplies. If that were not the case and you had DMOs providing prescriptions, are you telling me that you have DMOs who are trained to do this?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. Your interest in spreading access to these pharmacotherapies is welcome. Largely, you are getting at operational issues here about how you maximise or extend the number of doctors who are taking part in referring people into these therapies and prescribing. In theory, you would want to have a coverage that picks up addicted people wherever they are in the Territory. In practice, you would probably find - well the current figures clearly show that the vast majority are in Darwin and Alice Springs.
Dr LIM: As a former medical practitioner, I am interested in patient welfare. I would not impose a hardship on a patient who is already having a hard time suffering drug addiction expecting them travel hundreds of miles by air or whatever to get from Nhulunbuy, say, to Darwin, or Katherine to Darwin to secure their supplies. There needs to be something done to look into this. I am not suggesting you should make it easy for everybody. However, if you have patients in Katherine requiring the services of a doctor on a regular basis – and it is not just giving a prescription for whatever S8 replacement you could give them and leave them to their own devices for the next two months - you have to provide them with adequate follow-up, adequate care, to ensure that whatever you are doing for them is going to help them maintain their so-called drug free state.
Obviously, you have not thought this through properly from what I can gather. If somebody is in Nhulunbuy on their own, you cannot give them two months’ supply and say, ‘You are on your own now. Just before you run out, come back and see me in Darwin and I will give you another script’. If you are hard on drugs and you want to look after your patients, you have to do better than that. After that response, I have another question for you.
Dr TOYNE: I really think we are straying on to more operational issues. It is about how do you extend any program around the Territory? The reality in the Territory, as you well know, is that, for many types of medical care, you might have to go to a particular location in the Territory because we simply cannot provide a uniform service right down to the smallest outstation on the Western Australian border. It is a matter of practicality.
If it is an allowable strategy to bring, say, an end-stage renal failure patient into centre-based care in Alice Springs in certain circumstances, why isn’t it allowable to bring an addicted person in if necessary to get the standard of care that they may need, particularly if they have other medical conditions?
This does not go to the provisions here. What we are talking about here is the regulatory regime on whoever the doctor is, wherever they are, wherever they are seeking to service the needs of a client. The issues that you are raising at the moment are best left for a debate on our health system, on our resourcing, on our training programs, on our priorities of operations. I do not think it belongs in a debate on this bill.
Dr LIM: I beg to differ on this again, minister. Obviously, as a non-medical practitioner, you say that if a renal patient can be transported into a regional centre why cannot you do that with a narcotic addict? Well, therein lays your problem. You do not understand the issue.
You also mentioned that there are some 260 people on the methadone program in Darwin. I just wonder if you can tell me how many of those 260 people have been arrested by police for property crimes, if any.
Dr TOYNE: Again, I do not know what that has to do with the provisions in the bill. We have debated the pros and cons of maintenance programs and their potential relationship to the law. This bill is not about establishing the maintenance programs as such, it is about controlling over-prescribing as an alternative to being in the maintenance programs, if you know what I mean. It has to get rid of one source and method of sourcing the drugs and replace it with a regulated alternative, which are the maintenance programs. In the second reading debate, that was well aired as an issue. I do not see there is much point in bringing it into examining the actual provisions in the bill.
Dr LIM: Minister, I beg to differ …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, I need to get some clarity on how that applies to this clause because we do have to deal with relevance.
Dr LIM: Well, I was going to actually provide the ...
Mr CHAIRMAN: I realise that, but the minister has also asked ...
Dr LIM: ... argument and give you the rationale of why I am asking this question. My rationale is that …
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will let you go with that for the moment.
Dr LIM: Sorry?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will let that go for the moment. We need to stick to the relevance of the clause.
Dr LIM: Sure. Other ministers have brought the issue of methadone into this debate in the second reading, talking about how good it is, how many people it has helped, and how we have removed crime off the streets and you can wake up in the morning and not have to worry about your house being broken into and all that. This bill is all about introducing alternate ...
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, I accept that, but we are in the committee stage. We are dealing with a clause called Contents of Prescriptions. We should be dealing with matters relating to that clause only.
Dr LIM: With the Contents of Prescriptions, doctors are writing prescriptions for methadone. That is what we are talking about. I want to know about these 260 methadone users that doctors are writing prescriptions for. Have they been arrested at any time for any property crimes in Darwin?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will let the minister answer it, but it is not quite relevant to this particular section. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not believe it is relevant. I will let the minister answer it if he wishes.
Dr TOYNE: I am honestly a bit lost on which clause we are talking about. I believe we are on clause 23, aren’t we, which is the Contents of Prescriptions?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Dr TOYNE: Clause 23 deals with the consequences of breaching the guidelines in prescribing these types of drugs as part of the regulatory arrangement. I do not see what it has to do with many of the matters that have been raised at the moment. Let us deal with the clause.
Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, without wishing to labour this particular point and its relationship to this particular clause, in terms of the information that we require in order to understand the impact of the bill and the costs to the taxpayer in its entirety, could I ask the minister would he supply, prior to the third reading debate, that information? It seems to me that information underpins a lot of the rationale of this whole program of which this bill is a part. If the data is, as the member for Johnston has said, that ‘under this Labor government introducing a methadone maintenance program, 260 persons have accessed that program’, I and the member for Greatorex would like to know: of those 260 people, how many have been charged or convicted with a property offence? Could we get that information before the third reading debate?
Dr TOYNE: This bill deals with the regulatory arrangements for the provision of clinical care; it does not deal with matters of crime. There is a context to the dealing with drugs in our community that does have a flow-on to crime. However, I can say that, when these provisions here were framed by the working group, they were thinking straight down line, single consideration only. That was: ‘How can we get the most practical arrangement for regulating the prescription of these drugs?’ They were not talking about how many of these people we can get off the streets from committing crimes.
They may have thought a bit about the practical realities of a doctor in a surgery with a patient of this type. Addicted people can be quite difficult patients, and they may have considered those sorts of matters. However, they certainly would not have been looking at the criminal records of the patients as a way of shaping those provisions in front of us. It is a very general context around the legislation, but it does not shape this clause. I do not think that it has a particular relevance to passing this clause.
Mr BURKE: I accept it does not shape the clause. However, I can only gather from your reply that when asked for this particular information, you refused to answer. We have had an extensive debate where your colleague, the member for Johnston, in his capacity as a doctor …
Dr Lim: A pharmacist.
Mr BURKE: A pharmacist – claims to base his arguments on science and fact rather than rhetoric. He has run an argument in support of this legislation, that the efforts and strategies of the Labor government, which this bill aids in its impact, have reduced property crime in the Northern Territory by virtue of the people who are now on these treatment programs were not able to access them in the past. If 260 people have accessed the maintenance program, how many of those people have been convicted or charged with a property crime? That is not an unreasonable question to ask. It would seem to me if you refuse to answer that question and I am giving you time - I understand the officers there, who are assisting you, may not have that information - I am simply saying I know that these people are listening …
Dr TOYNE: I can give you a response.
Mr BURKE: … you can get that information before the third reading debate.
Dr TOYNE: It seems that where you are trying to go with this is to say all right, in the middle of a debate on the technical issues in a bill, a piece of legislation, you want to further pursue the idea of the connection between drug use and criminal behaviour. We are pretty interested in that topic as well.
Mr BURKE: You are suggesting that you have not based that on your argument.
Dr TOYNE: Let me finish. You have raised the matter and I will try to answer it for you. There are ways in which you can work out the connection between drug use and criminal acts. In fact, there are any number of studies that have been done, not only elsewhere in the world, but currently in Australia. In fact, the Territory system is taking part in a study of voluntary testing of samples provided by people being brought before the courts on some charge, and that is being done Australia-wide. We should be able to get some reasonable indications of how much crime has that direct connection, at least simultaneously with someone committing an offence, that they have also been using drugs of one description or another.
That is a perfectly valid exercise. It is something that our Office of Crime Prevention has committed into the national process. We will get information, which the OCP will share widely around the Territory. It is not appropriate though to go trawling through 260 addicted people who come for support in a maintenance program, asking them about their criminal record and putting that on the public record.
That is not the way, it is not an ethical way to get the information that you clearly want to get. What I will certainly promise you and the member for Greatorex is that when we do get the results of that study or any other ones that the OCP assess as part of their work on the connection between drugs and crime, we will share it with you.
Dr LIM: I thank you for agreeing to share that information except …
Dr TOYNE: It has nothing to do with this bill.
Dr LIM: Hang on a minute. Whilst it might not have specific reference to …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, if that is the case, then we need to …
Dr LIM: What I am saying is that while debate is raging and quotations liberally put, that this program particularly brings down the property crime, then there has to be some rationale that the minister can support.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I think we have gone through clause 23 fairly well.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I want to go back to the answer you gave to the member for Port Darwin in relation to why it was that there was under this amendment the inclusion of the penalty. Could you repeat your answer? What I am trying to get at is: do I understand that it was missed? It was in one draft but then it was missed when it came before the parliament last time around?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I have answered that question. It is on the record. You can get the Hansard tomorrow. Essentially, I have made it pretty clear that there was a generic, which is section 81B, that when it was taken out in the initial amending act, it left gaps in the application of penalties to the different categories of offence. That was not the intention of government. We have now reimported them into the legislation via the bill before us today. End of story.
Ms CARNEY: Well, it might be the end of the story for you, but I do have another question in relation to it. I take it from your answer then that it is as simple as this: that it was missed when the bill was presented in August last year. It is a simple question. Is there a simple answer?
Dr TOYNE: Is there what?
Ms CARNEY: A simple answer.
Dr TOYNE: I have given the answer. Mr Chairman, I have answered the question three times in the course of this debate. I have nothing more to add.
Ms CARNEY: I asked you, in essence, to repeat the answer that you gave to my colleague, the member for Port Darwin. It was given some time ago. If you are suggesting in any way that it is unreasonable for me to ask you to do that, then you should not. What you have said to me, minister, is that it seems to be the case that you admit that your predecessor brought a bill, proposed legislation, to this parliament where bits were missed. Do I take it that nothing else was missed? Has anything been missed, do you think, in this particular bill?
Dr TOYNE: I have nothing to say in response to that. We have brought the issues that are inherent in completing this legislation before the House today and if it had been missed, I probably would not be here.
Ms CARNEY: One final question in relation to that. Who missed it, do you know? Is that a refusal to answer, minister?
Dr Burns: You are not in a court of law now.
Ms CARNEY: No, for Hansard purposes, the minister refuses to answer …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … that straightforward and innocuous question. Thank you, minister.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Chairman. The member over there is clearly trying to verbal what is going on. He did not refuse to answer. I do not think it is right that she should put …
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: … on the Hansard record …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is no point of order. The question is that clause 23 stand as printed.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I read that there are various levels of penalty units. For the record, can the minister explain to me what one penalty unit is equivalent to? One penalty unit, what does that equate to?
Dr TOYNE: One penalty unit is $110.
Dr LIM: One unit is $110. I draw your attention to clause 24 where you have a penalty under clause 24(b) which refers to section 34(2) and section 34(2A) where you have a penalty of 500 penalty units or imprisonment for six months. At other places you have 20 penalty units or imprisonment for two years. It does not seem consistent. If you multiply 20 by 110, it is like $2000, and then you have 500 penalty units and you get six months imprisonment. It does not relate, does it? One is a financial amount and the length of stay in a prison of two years versus 500 penalty units and a length of stay in prison for six months. Can you explain that?
Dr TOYNE: I can only repeat the comments I made about clause 23, which we have just left. These are really the core of reform in the provisions we are talking about at the moment. We are talking about trying to enforce, through the guidelines, a Code of Practice on people prescribing drugs in the Northern Territory and to provide a very clear message that we expect those guidelines to be adhered to.
This is a very important complementary clause in that it is maintaining a very detailed monitoring and reporting arrangement around those prescribing activities. The two month time period here is quite stringent. In other jurisdictions, the reporting occurs less frequently. Why do we have it as a very stringent provision? Because we have the biggest problem. We have the biggest problem in Australia so we need to have the ability to monitor in a detailed way what is going on out there with prescribing.
In terms of the penalty units, okay, they are tough penalties. We do not resile from that.
Dr LIM: The minister misunderstood my question. I am trying to stick to the technicality of the clause, just like he said about clause 23 earlier. In clause 23, you have 20 penalty units, or imprisonment for two years. In clause 24, you have a penalty of 500 penalty units, or imprisonment for six months. You see how out of kilter it is? Twenty penalty units at $110 per unit is $2200 - $2000 + GST, that is what is sounds like to me - or two years gaol. Then you have 500 penalty units, which works out at $50 000 or six months gaol. It does not add up!
Dr TOYNE: I can report to members that, not only in this bill, but in any bill where you bring forward penalties, whether they are said in penalty units or whether they are said of imprisonment, the Department of Justice has a look at the intended penalties to be put in any of the legislation that is brought in here. They look at the scale of seriousness of the offences, and they make sure that they are consistently applied through our legislation, whether it is in DIPE, Health, Education or wherever.
Dr LIM: Agreed.
Dr TOYNE: That process has been applied to this bill, and these penalties have been signed off. While you may clearly be having some problems with the rationale that led to these particular amounts, it accords consistently with the seriousness that we are applying throughout our legislation.
Dr LIM: No, minister. Twenty penalty units translates to a two year imprisonment in clause 23. So, you commit a crime that is worth 20 penalty units or two years in gaol, but if you commit a crime that is worth 500 penalty units, you can go to gaol for a maximum of six months. Do you see how inconsistent that is? For a crime that is worth $2000, you can go to gaol for two years. A crime that is worth $50 000, you go for six months. Irrespective of whether the Department of Justice did this or not, what you are doing in your piece of legislation right now is illogical. Are we going to come back here in six months time, or twelve months time, with another amendment?
Dr TOYNE: We do not equate penalty units, or the financial penalties with imprisonment. They are two different ways of penalising a particular activity. There is not that kind of linear relationship you are trying to claim there. I will stand on the advice that we have from the Department of Justice on the levels of the penalties respectively through the bill, and I very much doubt we will be back here changing it.
Dr LIM: Minister, for a person who is also the Attorney-General, I think you are very wrong and, honestly, ill-informed.
I stand guided by you, Mr Chairman, on this, but I want to refer clause 24 now to what appears in schedule of fines that is called section 33. Will I wait until we call that?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Dr LIM: It relates, that is all.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Well, try the question and see what the minister says.
Dr LIM: Okay. In the schedule, section 33, if we go to page 18 of this draft that I have, section 65(1) has 500 penalty unit or imprisonment for five years. In your schedule, 500 penalty units translates to five years imprisonment whereas, in the body of your bill in clause 24, you have 500 penalty units or six months. Again you show a lot of inconsistency.
Dr TOYNE: I have said that there is no linear relationship between imprisonment and penalty units. It depends on circumstances of the offender and what the most appropriate penalty is. That is the judgment that the court has to make. Unless there is any new angle that you have in mind, we should move on.
Dr LIM: We will move on after this comment. The linear relationship is demonstrated in the schedule outlined in clause 33. If this bill is not dog’s breakfast, I do not know what is.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 27, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 28:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, clause 28 refers to the storage of Schedule 8 substances and directs as to how that should be done. I was wondering why this particular area does not have a penalty attached to it, when so many other areas like not hanging up your certificate does?
Dr TOYNE: I am informed that you are correct; there were penalties of $200 in the existing act.
Ms Carter: Sorry, what was that?
Dr TOYNE: There are penalties of $200 for each of those offences - $200 in the current act which is operating. This clause repeals section 52 which contains the same two offences, but with a $200 penalty, which are fairly minor penalties. My advice is that these have been lifted out of the legislation and put into regulations. The regulation for that section is that, if the offender is a natural person, 100 penalty units; if the offender is a body corporate, 500 penalty units. It has been lifted into the regulations so it can be more readily changed if circumstances change. Sorry, it took a bit of time to find that for you.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Ms CARTER: Clause 29 deals with the fact that there should be no self-prescription of Schedule 8 drugs or restricted Schedule 4 substances. In this amendment, the penalty of 500 penalty units is inserted which, if you look at the schedule at the back of this bill can equate to five years’ imprisonment. I am not personally suggesting that a medical practitioner should go to prison if they have been injecting, because they may have some problems there but, just for the record, why haven’t you put a gaol term in there given the tough on drugs sort of thing with regard to prescribing drugs?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, it was considered that that person is also an addict and a patient as well as being an offender in their misuse of the regulations. We felt that they probably need rehabilitation more than they need prison.
Dr LIM: Minister, your response is inconsistent because under proposed section 73, ‘No self-administration of schedule 8 or restricted schedule 4 substances’, the penalty is 500 units or imprisonment - if he were to write his own script he will get hit with a fine; if he injects himself, he then goes to gaol for two years. Isn’t that a bit inconsistent?
Dr TOYNE: The difference between those two clauses is that proposed section 73 aligns with the Misuse of Drugs Act so the penalties had to be the same in each act for the same activity which is self-administration of illicit drugs. In that case, we would have either had to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act or just import the penalties and the activity from the other legislation which is what we chose to do.
Dr LIM: Wouldn’t it be more consistent, minister, if you were to just impose a financial penalty for both and not put doctors in gaol? What you are saying is that if they wrote a script for themselves, they will face a fine; if they inject themselves, you are going to put them in gaol.
Dr TOYNE: If you write a script for yourself, you will get a fine. If you self-inject, you have the same penalties as under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Building Safer Communities
Building Safer Communities
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I stand before the House today and before the Northern Territory community to talk about our vision for safer communities throughout the Territory. Today, I release Building Safer Communities, a framework for crime prevention and community safety. This framework sets the Martin Labor government’s crime prevention and community safety agenda up to and beyond the next election. Central to this vision is being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. It is a commitment from which we have not deviated. It has been our focus over the past three years, and will continue to be so. This commitment drives the Martin Labor Government’s responses to crime and antisocial behaviour.
Taking a broad view, Building Safer Communities and preventing crime is not the responsibility of any one individual or government agency. Ensuring that all Territorians feel safe and secure, and have a justice system that is responsive, accountable and effective, demands more than just the attention of my own Department of Justice.
It is about building our Police Force, with the creation of a new era in Territory policing being led by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. It is about our $50m investment in child protection, and the reforms being promulgated by the Minister for Family and Community Services. It is about new ideas and new ways of tackling old problems, such as the innovative Community Harmony Project, led by the Minister for Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs. It is also about working side by side with the Territory community to create neighbourhoods and communities in which all can live safely. Building on the strengths of local communities to find local solutions is crucial.
The ideas and issues that underpin this framework flow from listening to and working with many individual Territorians, community organisations and businesses. We value their experience, wisdom and input and will continue to work closely with them as we turn this vision into a reality.
Turning to the framework, Building Safer Communities is our commitment to Territorians, a commitment to continue working together to make the Territory a safer and more secure place to live and work. Building Safer Communities is a framework under which we have harnessed the ideas and energies of the community, organisations and government agencies and we will continue to work to achieve our vision. The building blocks of this vision are simple yet fundamental, with six priority areas identified for action:
- children and young people: this government is serious about protecting young people and
keeping them away from crime. Our children need a future they can look forward to;
property crime by 47% across the Territory. Sustaining these falls is everyone’s business;
great lifestyle is what our government is working to achieve;
is the key to building safer communities for all Territorians. The government is supporting
communities to reduce crime and provide safer environments;
anti-social behaviour; and
need and offenders the skills and opportunity to stop offending.
- front line responses from our police force: this government is investing in the services that make
a real difference to people’s lives;
the fight against crime. No one can do this alone. We all have to work together to make our communities
safer; and
in which the public has confidence.
In my statement today, I will talk about our achievements to date, achievements of which this government is rightly proud. I will outline what this government is doing right now to prevent crime and build safer communities. I will talk about our vision for the future, a future in which all Territorians are and feel safer.
Protecting our children and young people: supporting families and communities to help give kids a good start in life are important for so many reasons, including crime prevention. The government will continue to identify youth at risk and proactively engage with them and their families to provide the support required. Protecting our children from neglect and abuse is an obligation to them, and benefits the whole community.
We know there are factors which underpin safer communities and significantly reduce the chance of children or young people becoming involved in crime: strong and supportive families and communities; good primary health care; active school communities; and participation in sport, cultural and recreational activities. All of these elements have a positive role to play in the lives of our children and young people. There are also less tangible but equally important factors, such as: hope – the belief that our young people have an important role in the social and economic future of the Territory; resilience – the ability to meet and overcome life’s challenges; and autonomy – the notion that you have options, you can make choices and, ultimately, you control your own future.
It is these factors, as well as the quality health care and education this government seeks to provide. We are giving children a good start in life, implementing our commitment to building healthier communities. We have already established and funded new services for young Territorians and their families, such as the Office of Children and Families; new youth services, such as e-Cruz and youth centres in urban and remote areas; and the school-based police program, which has been strengthened under this government.
We have already made a significant investment - $53m - in rebuilding our child protection system, employing more child protection and family support workers. We are continuing these measures through reform to the Community Welfare Act to provide a contemporary legislative framework to support families and to protect children.
We have introduced legislation to protect child witnesses in sexual offence cases. We are acting to protect children and young people by prohibiting the employment of sex offenders in child-related areas. We will continue the Caring for Our Children Reform Agenda for a stronger framework of law and practice to support wellbeing and safety of our children.
In partnership with Youth Services, we will develop a coordinated and resourced approach to working with youth at risk. We will work with Youth Services to build a work force that is skilled and sustainable. When young people do go off the rails, we know early intervention will increase living skills and provide opportunities which are strong deterrents to offending again. Through the Department of Employment, Education and Training, we are helping young people to get back to school, or providing training if school is not suitable. It is well known that access to a quality education system, and participation in sport and recreation, are effective in reducing crime. Through our review of secondary education and the government’s Jobs Plan, we are building a high quality education and training system which caters for the needs and aspirations of all young Territorians. As a great advocate for the positive role of sport in young people’s lives, I am sure that my colleague, the Minister for Sport and Recreation, will talk at great length about the achievements in his portfolio area.
This government will act to build communities which keep our children and young people safe. We will help set young people on the path to positive participation in the social and economic life of the Territory.
Preventing property crime - protecting your home and business: for too long, many Territorians lived in communities where vandalism and break-ins were all too regular. The previous government’s under-funding of the Northern Territory Police Force, as identified in the O’Sullivan report, and a failure to target crime and the causes of crime, saw crime rates rise. Through amendments to Territory legislation, we have sent a clear message - we will not tolerate the invasion of our homes or businesses, nor damage to our property. Through these reforms and changes to the Sentencing Act, we now have laws for the effective prosecution of offenders. We have increased police foot, horse and bike patrols and are focussing them on high risk areas.
Police are targeting break-ins, with special task forces and operations like Genesweep, using DNA technology to identify serial offenders. We will maintain and, where necessary, strengthen the Territory’s DNA laws to preserve their place as Australia’s most effective. We have also recognised the link between illegal drug use and criminal activity. Drug courts are operating in Darwin and Alice Springs, targeting drug offenders and breaking the drugs/crime cycle. Forfeiture legislation allows police to track and seize the proceeds of drug and property crime.
We know that neighbourhoods working together can achieve much to prevent crime and build safer communities. It is to foster this involvement that we have increased funding for Neighbourhood Watch. Because we recognise the importance of local people in developing local crime prevention solutions, we have trained community groups to conduct crime prevention audits in their area.
We will give more attention to planning and urban design, using crime prevention principles to make our buildings and public spaces safer. We have installed security screens on all public housing across the Northern Territory, and are developing safer public transport, with security cameras in 80% of the bus fleet, closed circuit cameras at interchanges, and better lighting at bus shelters.
With my colleague, the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I will be establishing a Northern Territory Motor Vehicles Theft Reduction Committee to further reduce motor vehicle theft. We will build on these achievements in a targeted and systematic way. Over coming months, the government will look at introducing crime prevention principles into the Northern Territory Planning Act to improve the safety and security of buildings and public spaces. The Office of Crime Prevention within my department has already started work on a series of home and personal safety packages.
Where crime does occur, we will ensure that the emotional and financial needs of victims are met. This government established and continues to fund the Victims of Crime NT Clean-up Assistance Scheme which provides practical assistance to victims of crime. Through the NT Police, we have increased communication with victims of crime, so victims have feedback on the investigation of their cases. By trialling alternative methods of giving evidence, like closed circuit television and video conferencing, we have made the court system more supportive of vulnerable witnesses.
Protecting Territorians by preventing violence: significant gains have been made in the fight against property crime, with a reduction of 47% across the Territory. To date, such significant drops have not been made in the area of violent crime. While assaults have dropped by 4% in the 12 months to June 2004, there have been 62 additional reports of sexual assault during the last 12 months. This government understands that the new focus on child protection and the increased numbers of child protection workers are likely to lead to increased numbers of reported crimes. We also consider that even one such incident is unacceptable.
Preventing violent crime, understanding when and where it occurs, tackling the issues that cause or exacerbate violence, is the issue on which I, as Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, intend to focus over the life of this framework. This government’s Domestic and Aboriginal Family Violence Strategies were released in January 2003, with funding increased from $1.08m to $1.48m each year. Under these strategies, we put in place numerous initiatives to tackle the problem on the ground and ensure a swift and appropriate response when violence does happen:
- the Strong Family, Strong Community, Strong Future project, working with families in
Nguiu, Pirlangimpi, Milikapiti, Ngukurr, Barunga/Manyalluk, Wugularr (Beswick);
screening programs in our hospitals and health centres; and
coordination and prevention through regional and community justice plans.
In partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and regional councils, we are also working with offenders in prison and in the community to reduce the incidence of family violence.
This government is also continuing to address community concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour caused by excessive alcohol consumption. We will implement the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework to reduce alcohol-related violence, and overhaul the Liquor Act to create a better framework to regulate the sale and supply of alcohol. With key partners such as the Australian Hoteliers Association, we are investigating the development of alcohol accords in urban areas. I will expand on many other government initiatives to tackle substance abuse later in this statement.
I have spoken on a number of occasions about the work being undertaken by the Sexual Assault Task Force. I will not go over this area again other than to say that I look forward to the culmination of the task force’s work early next year, with the presentation of a whole-of-Territory plan to reduce and prevent sexual assault.
Different strategies are needed to prevent different crimes. The Building Safer Communities framework provides a perfect platform for doing that. Each year, a different priority will be brought in from the framework and highlighted through a community forum coordinated by the Office of Crime Prevention. This year’s priority will be preventing violence.
While we are making some inroads, we do not yet have all the strategies we need to address violent crime in our community. Next month, I look forward to bringing together crime prevention professionals and community partners from across the Territory to discuss not only what the government is doing to combat violent crime, but also what our regional crime prevention councils and communities are doing. Members of the public will also be welcome to attend the forum.
Two-way justice, engaging Aboriginal culture and communities: it is a sad reality that Aboriginal people continue to be involved in the justice systems as both victims and perpetrators of crime in rates far higher than other Territorians. Aboriginal people are over-represented as prisoners; 11 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginal Territorians. The re-offending rate of Aboriginal Territorians is also high, with 40% of Aboriginal people returning to prison within two years of their release. Reducing this over-representation is, and will continue to be, an important aspect of preventing crime in the Northern Territory. Economic development in Aboriginal communities is a key to improved social conditions and to reductions in both victimisation and offending.
Reporting directly to three government ministers, we have established an Indigenous Economic Development Task Force. The role of the task force is not an easy one – to achieve an employment rate equivalent to the high rates of employment enjoyed by other Territorians, an extra 2000 jobs need to be created for indigenous people each year for the next decade. We are not walking away from this commitment. The task force is picking up and running with the proposals that emerged from the 2003 Indigenous Economic Forum. It is looking at ways of increasing employment and developing indigenous business and business opportunities.
With $3.2m over three years, Building Stronger Arts Business is about developing opportunities for economic growth and employment while fostering cultural and artistic development. Initiatives such as this will create opportunities for Aboriginal young people to be trained in key employment areas to grow small businesses and ultimately build safer communities.
Increasing the positive participation of Aboriginal people in the law and justice system is another of our priorities in building safer communities. It is embodied in our approach to one law, but two-way justice. It is one of the reasons behind our commitment to increase the number of local recruits to our police force and the number of Aboriginal community police officers; develop local and culturally appropriate law and justice plans; and give communities input into court and sentencing processes. All these initiatives will play a part in building safer communities for Aboriginal Territorians. So too will the alternative dispute resolution and the recognition of customary law where it is consistent with the Northern Territory Criminal Code and general law. Where cultural ties and frameworks have broken down, we will continue to assist communities to rebuild them.
Elders have a critical role as cultural and spiritual mentors in reinforcing traditional authority and applying traditional values and responsibilities in new settings. The input of Aboriginal people is vital to achieving success and many Aboriginal people in many Aboriginal communities are working to meet the challenges we face. This government wants to work with them.
Tackling substance abuse: the realities of substance abuse and its links to crime cannot be ignored. Rates of alcohol consumption are beyond that of other states and territories and alcohol-related violence is unacceptably high. Illicit substances, particularly cannabis and amphetamines, are major contributors to property crime in our urban centres. Inhalant abuse, particularly petrol sniffing, causes crime and social disruption in our remote communities and urban centres alike. Addressing substance abuse is amongst this government’s highest priorities. We have allocated $10m over five years to tackling inhalant abuse, to preventing sniffing, and to rehabilitation and treatments for those affected by inhalant abuse. Communities across the Territory, both urban and remote, have fought against substance abuse and the harm it causes, year after year. We must build on this community effort to put in place the strategies and services which have been shown to work. Programs and services that will be supported under our plan, including appropriately resourced safe houses in urban centres and out stations in remote areas.
Our Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill will be introduced in the November sittings and includes police powers to seize inhalants such as petrol, glue and paint, where they are being abused; police powers to apprehend people under the influence of volatile substances and take them to a place of safety; and giving courts the capacity to order compulsory treatment programs for substance abusers. Our legislation bans petrol sniffing, but it does not criminalise it. Our approach to substance abuse will not involve a prison sentence. Our legislation authorises intervention and treatment in the interest of safety - not just the safety of the sniffer, but the safety of the family and community members.
Community is at the core of our approach. Under our legislation, communities have direct input into the way in which sniffing will be dealt with, determining who can intervene to take away the petrol and other substances; who can take people to a place of safety; and community by community, where the place of safety is.
Under our government we have increased funding to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program by 40%, covering policy, program and service development. The program aims to reduce harm caused by drugs to individuals, families and communities through prevention, intervention and treatment of the drug-related problems across the Territory. Under our program, we will continue to support and expand the services, making a difference in this area from night patrols and sobering-up shelters to rehabilitation and detoxification programs. We have established a 24-hour drug and alcohol information and counselling service for people affected by substance misuse and their families, as well as providing 24-hour support for health practitioners and other professionals responding to clients with drug and alcohol abuse problems.
Our approach involves working with communities and service providers, not against them. When the Barunga Board of Management and the Barunga community made the brave decision to ban alcohol from this year’s festival, the Minister for Family and Community Services worked with her department to support them. The community, and all who attended the festival, benefited from this support and, as the minister has pointed out, the indigenous art, the sports, the culture and the tourism potential of this festival has been rejuvenated.
Hand in hand with this approach, we will continue to be tough on those who commit crime to support their addiction, and those who manufacture and supply drugs. We have increased numbers in the Police Drug Enforcement Section and are rolling out the Police Remote Community Drug Strategy. These efforts will be bolstered by the introduction of a Drug Detection Dog Unit.
Targeting punishment and preventing re-offending: sentencing is the system to punish people who commit crime. To be effective, sentencing must be consistent. More importantly, it must reflect the seriousness with which Territorians view interference with their safety, wellbeing, privacy and property.
This government has been systematically reviewing sentencing laws, ensuring that they represent community expectations. Penalties for child sex offenders have been significantly increased, with sentences for those who commit crimes against children almost doubling under the government’s reforms. Tough new laws now apply to offenders who commit aggravated property offences such as home and business invasion, property damage, and motor vehicle theft. Minimum non-parole periods have been introduced for sexual assault, armed robbery, serious assault and drug trafficking. Courts are required to have regard to the views of victims during sentencing. We will continue this process of reform, listening to the views of victims and the community when making sentencing laws.
We are implementing the recommendations from the Review of Correctional Services, with an additional $26.5m for correctional services over the next four years. Prison is, and will always be, a place for all serious offenders. We are increasing access to work and training in prison, so that offenders are serving time, not wasting time. We will improve the way we deliver rehabilitation and reintegration services to prisoners and those on Community Service Orders, with offenders accessing programs, education and training targeted at ending their offending behaviour. A key element of our commitment is the introduction of sex offender treatment programs for adult offenders. Development of these programs is under way, with programs in place by mid-2005.
This government’s ongoing prison reform will ensure that it is a place where offenders are both punished and provided with the skills to start a crime-free life once they are released. Prison officers, as well as those working in the community, will play an important role in achieving this goal.
Front line responses, our police force: communities where police are highly visible and respond quickly to reports are safer and feel safer. Safer communities also have high clear-up rates; the better the chance the crime will be detected and offenders punished, the less likely the crime will be committed. This government conducted a review of police resulting in the O’Sullivan Report and, with the injection of $75m, has commenced a new era in Territory policing. Record rates of recruitment have seen police numbers increase across the Territory. We have introduced a comprehensive equipment replacement and upgrade program, including a new $2.3m police aircraft for Central Australia. We have instigated the largest ever maintenance and construction program, with new police stations and posts throughout the Territory.
Northern Territory police continue to serve and protect our community, but do so under new structures and with new ways of working: identifying hot spots and targeting these areas with foot, bike and mounted patrols; targeting criminals who are responsible for repeat offending; recognising crime trends and taking action through task forces and specialist units; and making the police force more accessible to the community by introducing the NT Police Call Centre.
We have recognised the reality of Territory policing, and are working better with our state counterparts, putting in place agreements and laws allowing our police to operate effectively across borders. We have already opened a multi-jurisdictional police station at Kintore …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no quorum. Ring the bells. We now have a quorum.
Dr TOYNE: I thank the member for that, because I needed a breather. To repeat the paragraph I was on: the Northern Territory police continue to serve and protect our community, but do so under new structures and with new ways of working - identifying hotspots and targeting those areas with foot, bike and mounted patrols; targeting criminals who are responsible for repeat offending; recognising crime trends and taking action through task force and specialist units; and making the Police Force more accessible to the community by introducing the NT Police Call Centre.
We have recognised the realities of Territory policing, and are working better with our state counterparts, putting in place agreements and laws allowing our police to operate effectively across borders. We have already opened a multi-jurisdictional police station at Kintore, staffed by police from both the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
Through increased resources to the Northern Territory Police Force, this government will deliver more police, more patrols throughout the Territory and even better levels of service and protection for Territorians.
Partners in crime prevention: building safer communities is not just about police and the justice system. Effective crime prevention identifies resources from across government to stop crime before it starts. Effective crime prevention works through initiatives in health, education, housing, sport and recreation, arts and cultural expression, and employment, and by harnessing the expertise and energy of the community. Coordination of effort starts at the very top. We have established a Ministerial Standing Committee on Crime Prevention, with ministers working together to set the government’s approach to crime prevention. Chief executives of key government agencies attend this forum and meet regularly to ensure that coordination, commitment and drive across government is happening at the highest level.
However, government cannot do it alone. Our focus in crime prevention is about building partnerships against crime. This government values the collective knowledge and experience of Territorians, and believes that people at the local level are the people who really know how to prevent crime. Regional crime prevention councils have been established across the Territory. Each council has a membership drawn from the region, and includes representatives of the general community, the business sector, Aboriginal communities, all levels of government and the non-government sector. The regional councils, with the support from the Office of Crime Prevention, stimulate and sustain community involvement to crime prevention. Through our regional and indigenous crime prevention councils, we have funded the development of a series of local and regional crime prevention plans across the Territory.
With this development phase over, we are now building partnerships across the Territory, Commonwealth and local governments and with the non-government sector to achieve the priorities set out in these community safety plans. Supported by government, these plans will be our first and most important step in putting Building Safer Communities into action on the ground.
Our people, places and systems: our people are vital to our success. Building a better justice system is based on supporting the women and men working in it. This government will support Justice staff and many committed Territorians who volunteer their time to meet the challenges and the unique opportunities of the Territory. This government is committed to being a good employer. Because we want to recruit and retain staff, and give our staff clear and constructive career paths, we are providing more training and professional development opportunities to police, correctional services officers and court staff; diversifying our work force, focussing on local recruitment in major centres and remote localities; and looking at new ways of working, such as creating community justice officers who might perform a range of justice-related functions in our remote communities.
It is also about being innovative and flexible in our use of technology. Our courts have embraced the Internet as a means of communicating and exchanging information, delivering services, and interacting with clients. We have built the Northern Territory’s first electronic court at the Supreme Court in Darwin; expanded and upgraded video-conferencing facilities to complement circuit courts; and are using innovative information technology systems to better manage prisoners, sentences, and program delivery. We are looking at new ways of doing business, exploring the creation of one-stop justice shop centres, which will provide a range of court, correctional, mediation and other justice services, and have already created a Justice Office in Alice Springs.
In conclusion, this government has a vision for safer communities throughout the Northern Territory. It is a vision to turn the Territory into a place where all Territorians are safe and feel safe in their homes, their workplaces and their communities. Over the past three years, we have been delivering on our commitment to build safer communities. We have reviewed our police force and committed $75m to rebuilding it. We have introduced new laws targeting home and business invasion and violent crimes, imposing tougher penalties for those who commit crime. We will continue to invest in the services that make a difference to people’s lives. We will continue to provide services for vulnerable children and young people, and provide support for victims. We will ensure our system delivers justice swiftly and effectively.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for providing us, albeit halfway through his statement, with a copy of the Building Safer Communities document, and cannot resist the temptation of reminding members on the other side that they were going to come into government and not govern by glossy brochure. Well, here is another one! I hope that those working in our justice system and police force do not regard this glossy in the same way as people I know in the Health Department regard the equivalent one there. I have seen a member of the Health Department pick up the Building Better Communities health document and throw it from one side of the room to the other. I do not know what is going to happen to this. The government can spin all it likes out there and some people even fall for it.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I remind members that I listened to the Attorney-General in silence. There is Standing Order 51. All I have been able to hear is the member …
Madam SPEAKER: I am quite sure, member for Araluen, that you have the floor at the moment. Off you go. However, if you are too provocative, then you realise you will get interjections.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask you to rule if the interruption is constant.
However, I digress. They are spinning outside, which is fair enough; that is what Labor does. However, inside, let us see if we can get to the bottom of the spin.
There were some things in this statement that were accurate - very few, of course. Some points in there were actually truthful. Some of this statement had the truth in it. However, what I propose to do is go through the statement page by page, and extract some relevant information …
Mr Ah Kit: That is what lazy people generally do!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I ask you to ask the minister over there to stop interrupting. He has been constant.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Community Development, let the member for Araluen have the floor.
Mr Ah Kit: She is so provocative, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
In the first line or second line of the statement, the minister said he wants to talk about ‘our vision’. We say that it is not a vision, it is spin; it is not reality. The vision Labor has, whilst noble, certainly does not amount to what is actually happening in the Northern Territory community. Interestingly, of course, on the first page, the minister says: ‘Central to this vision is being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. He also has the audacity to refer to antisocial behaviour, something this government has sadly done very little about. I will come back to that later.
The minister said on page 2 that he wants to work ‘… side by side with the Territory community to create neighbourhoods and communities in which all can live safely’. Not in my electorate, the people do not live safely, and not in everyone else’s electorates around the Northern Territory. Noble, but it is not true. You can see the spin starting to come in. Then he said, talking about Territorians:
- We value their experience, wisdom and input and will continue to work closely with them as we turn this
vision into a reality.
Well, I am sure you will forgive me if I quote the national and losing Mark Latham, when I say: conga line of suck holes.
I will get back to this statement. The minister refers to our children and the future that they can look forward to. I will come back to that. He refers to his suggestion that they have reduced property crime. I will come back to that. On and on it goes.
He talks on page 4 about ‘… every Territorian enjoying the benefits of our great lifestyle is what our government is working to achieve …’ Well, it has not worked because people are leaving the Northern Territory in droves. Never before, never since Cyclone Tracy, have this many people left the Northern Territory. They are leaving for a number of reasons but one of them is the crime that occurs under Labor in the Northern Territory. Everyone of the 25 members of this House will know that constituents come to them and say, ‘I have had enough, I have had a gutful, I am out of here’. Where does the minister get off, I do not know.
He also says the government is supporting communities to reduce crime to provide safer environments. Well, I say to that tell the women and children of the Northern Territory, in particular those in the Aboriginal communities. Where are the domestic violence figures? Nowhere in this statement has the minister provided any figures and I cannot find any figures other than those published in the Northern Territory domestic violence data collection project 2000-02. This government is very quiet when it comes to domestic violence and I will come back to that as well.
The government comes up with the platitude ‘we are serious about reducing crime and antisocial behaviour’. Garbage! This government repealed the Public Order and Anti-social Conduct Act and has replaced it with nothing. I have said that on a number of occasions. I will keep saying it. What do the punters say to me? In Alice Springs, they are sick and tired of hopscotching over drunks as the punters are going on their way to the banks and the shops and the supermarkets. What has Labor done? They say, ‘We are serious about reducing it’. You may well be serious but if you say you have done something, you should start all over because it is not working. All you need is eyes in your head and ears on the side of your head.
On page 5, the Attorney-General says: ‘No one can do this alone. We all have to work together to make our communities safer …’ This is the same bloke who only months ago asked the criminals of the Northern Territory if they would not mind to stop breaking the law. How very extraordinary. It is unprecedented in Australia for an Attorney-General to do that. This is his definition of working together hand-in-hand to make our community safer.
Let’s dispense with the spin. This government is not about sending people to gaol. This government is not about being tough on crime. Never has been, it never will. It is just not the Labor style. What they are trying to do, and I understand the politics of it, obviously, is pick from the CLP because we were well recognised as being very tough on crime and spin it. Well, it might work in some quarters but it is not going to work in here because this statement just simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
The minister, again, on page 5 says that he wants to talk about the achievements to date, the achievements of which this government is rightly proud. I say again, people are leaving the Northern Territory and law and order is one of the main factors. The minister says that he wants to work with families and says:
- The government will continue to identify youth at risk and proactively engage with them and their
families to provide the support required.
I ask how? That is not in the statement. In fact, in many ways, it reminded me of the Child Abuse statement because it was full of platitudes but actually had nothing in the way of substance. I will come to that shortly.
In relation to children at risk, on 16 October 2002, the minister had a bit to say in this Chamber about safe families, a government project. He said that it focussed on an early response to young people who may be at risk, identifying what needs to be done, prioritising and coordinating actions to assist parents and extended family to care for their children. Safe family must help those kids rah, rah, rah, rah. He said that he was encouraged by the unprecedented interagency and community cooperation which has generated the safe families approach.
I would have thought since the Attorney-General came in here two years ago and talked about safe families that in the context of this report he could have at least done us, and therefore Territorians, the courtesy of referring to the safe families project. I would like to know what is happening with it and I note that the Attorney-General has been silent on that. How is the project going? That is an issue that is important to all of us. He goes on and on and then says: ‘We are giving kids a good start in life, implementing our commitment to building healthier communities’. Well, let us go back to the Child Abuse statement and see whether what the minister says is true.
In the other minister’s Child Abuse statement during the last sittings, she said that there were 1554 notifications of child abuse in the Northern Territory in 2002-03 and last year, that is 2003-04, the number of notifications was 1949, and that was an increase of 25% in one year. She went on to say that since the change of government, miraculously, it would seem, on 19 August 2001, the number of notifications for abuse of Aboriginal children has nearly doubled. It has increased by 96%. That is what one minister said.
This minister says: ‘We are giving our kids a good start in life, implementing our commitment to building healthier communities’. What rubbish! How dare he say that in the light of what the other minister said less than two months ago. It is an extraordinary case for him to argue. Like so much of what he does, he does not do it well and he does himself a disservice by trying to peddle this rubbish. It certainly will not work in here and I suggest that it will not work outside.
He talked about the Community Welfare Act and said that he is going to reform that. We note that that still has not been brought before the parliament. He said they have introduced legislation to protect child witnesses in sexual assault cases. We have had that debate this week. We maintain it is flawed legislation, though the intentions are good. He said it protects witnesses in sexual offence cases. Again, the inaccuracy is astonishing. What he did not say is ‘…and other offences’ and that is obvious from the act. It is sexual offences, some other offences such as common assault, but not murder and manslaughter. Slippery with the truth, perhaps, or perhaps it just mirrors his understanding of the bill that we debated earlier this week.
He said: ‘We will continue the Caring for Our Children Reform Agenda for a strong frame work of law and practice to support the wellbeing and safety of our children’. According to one other minister in this government, the wellbeing and safety of children is at risk, to say the least. The other minister seems deliriously happy about the fact that people are reporting child abuse. I do not think that I would skite about that, but in any event, the point is that the more senior health minister seems to be under the misapprehension that things are going really well under Labor for children. Patently, that is not the case.
On page 8 he referred to building a high quality education and training system which caters for the needs and aspirations of all young Territorians. Again, it has similarities to the Child Abuse statement. I ask the question: how? Would it not have been a good idea for him to have elaborated on that in the context of his statement? I would have thought so.
He said on page 9: ‘We will help set young people on the path to positive participation in the social and economic life of the Northern Territory’. Again, I ask: how? I remind him again of the figures that the other minister has told parliament in relation to child abuse.
Also on page 9, he referred to ‘invasion of our homes and businesses’. He said:
- Through amendments to Territory legislation we have sent the clear message we will not tolerate the
invasion of our homes or businesses, nor damage to our property.
Once again, we will scratch the surface and see where it takes us.
I am looking at Issue 8 of the June Crime Statistics, and I remind people what this government did fairly early on in relation to home invasion laws. Again trying to pinch the CLP’s position on law and order, they said they were going to revamp home invasion laws. They revamped them, all right. What this Labor government did, and I am quoting from page 99 of the crime stats:
- Home invasion is an unlawful entry of a dwelling and causing serious damage and includes
offences against …
… and it quotes some sections of legislation …
- … and where the offence is of serious nature or damage caused is greater than $5000.
Madam Speaker will remember that what this government has done is said: ‘We will make home invasion illegal, but only if the damage is greater than $5000’. So if someone nicks your video or your television, that is just bad luck. In addition, on page 94, we have, ‘Current financial year, 1 July 2003/30 June 2004’ and there are the home invasion figures. Now let us remember, of course, that this government says, ‘We have sent a clear message that we will not tolerate invasion of your homes’, well, let us have a look at the figures. This provides details of imprisonment order, home detention order, community order, other orders, so it is convictions, obviously, convictions and sentences: 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004, a total of seven people were convicted for home invasion and six of them went to gaol. That is good. However, on the same page - business invasion - 00000. So the government can say that it is sending a strong message, but we all know that more than six people broke into homes, that there were more than six home invasions in this particular financial year. We also know that there were more than zero invasions of businesses. This is illustrative of the fact that these figures are highly questionable, as is the government’s commentary that always accompanies them. It is just rubbish.
Still on page 9, the government seeks to, I think, claim credit for the DNA technology that, of course, as members recall from the debate, either earlier this week or last week, that is CLP stuff. They did not do us the courtesy of acknowledging that, but then again that is what we have come to expect.
On page 10 in the statement, the minister says, ‘We have installed security screens on all public houses across the Northern Territory, and are developing safer public transport with security cameras in 80% of the bus fleet …’, blah, blah, blah. We talked about this on 18 August and, at that time, I quoted a radio interview when a man called Justin Clough was interviewed. He owns JC Electronic Security. He was asked by a reporter:
- What about the level of, you know, break-in and that sort of thing, crimes in the Territory, I guess
Darwin especially, is that sort of static? Is it lower? Has it gone up? Have you sort of, you know,
noticed any changes in the last 12 months?
- Clough: ‘Yes, there is more. There is definitely getting more work out there for me’.
This is a bloke who goes around installing security systems. I trust this bloke before I trust any individual member of this government, or the whole lot of them in the one place at the one time. I will put my money on Justin Clough any day of the week.
This ministerial statement says, ‘We have installed all these security screens’, well, yet again, their argument is just completely absurd because, in essence, what they are saying, in fact, it is not so much in essence, they say it wherever they can, ‘There is no crime in the Northern Territory, we have fixed everything’. Labor government - hallelujah, hallelujah! Well, it is patently wrong and dishonest.
On page 11, and this is very dishonest. It would be unparliamentary, Madam Speaker, for me to call the Attorney-General a liar, so I will not. However, on page 11 of his statement, he has the gall to say:
- By trialling alternative methods of giving evidence, like closed-circuit television and video-conferencing,
we have made the court system more supportive of vulnerable witnesses.
What rubbish! CCTV has been in existence for years - for years. This is CLP stuff. I suppose we should be flattered that the government has picked it up, like so much of what we do, and they have chucked it in a statement. But if that is not a big whopper, I do not know what is.
Then he goes on, what’s he got, we’re up to page 11. Oh yes, he goes on about 27% across the Northern Territory, the crime stats, aren’t they wonderful. I remind members of what the Attorney-General said in this parliament on 26 November 2002, that his: ‘… government will all stand or fall on how the pattern emerges in the future’, in relation to the figures. So it is very sensible to be extremely sceptical about the crime figures, because this is a man who, it has been shown, has no integrity, no honour and he says, basically, ‘At all costs we will ensure that the crime figures, certainly in relation to property crime, go the way we want because we will stand or fall by them’, and Territorians know that.
You ask the average Territorian about those statistics and they do not want to know because they are always so cynical about politicians. In relation to the Australian Labor Party, that is fair enough. They do not believe these figures. People in my electorate do not believe the figures. I do not believe those figures in relation to crime, based on what I am told, what I have seen and what I hear.
However, we can do a review because the government is so selective in what it says. Let us have a look. Let us have a sample of some of them. Where are we? A summary of the March quarter 2004 crime stats – just pluck a couple. In property crime in Darwin there was a 9% increase from the previous quarter. There was a 47% increase in Alice Springs from the previous quarter. There was a 79% increase in house break-ins from the previous quarter. That is just the March one. December 2003 – what do we have here? That is sexual assaults and assaults; I will come back to that. In Palmerston, there was a 14% increase in property offences.
Mr Henderson: You cannot have been a good lawyer, you know. You contradicted your own argument.
Ms CARNEY: These are your figures, you moron! These are your figures. This is …
Mr Henderson: You must have been an appalling lawyer.
Ms CARNEY: You say that these are fantastic. I am going through and saying the spin you blokes put on them just does not stack up. It does not stack up and it will never stack up, because you ignore, quarter after quarter, and you just suit yourselves. You say whenever it pleases you: ‘Oh, this is fantastic. No crime left in the Northern Territory. We have fixed it all up’. On the other hand, if you do want to stand by these figures, let us have a look at what they say, because it does not stack up.
Look at what has happened since you people have been in government. Figures like commercial break-ins in Alice Springs were up on the previous quarter – this is September 2003 – 43% up on the same quarter in the previous year. If you want to throw numbers around, we can do that.
The Australian Labor Party Northern Territory Branch places a great deal of emphasis on these figures and they say we have all these figures and, therefore, we are right. I say two things. One is people do not believe you and in the alternative, if you do stand by these figures as you so obviously do, then do not spin it. If you look at the figures over a period of time, you will clearly see they are not as wonderful as you think they are …
Mr Henderson: The Police Commissioner says that they are down 19%.
Ms CARNEY: Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I am running out of time. I choose to ignore the member for Wanguri because none of his contributions are helpful, and he is such an arrogant git, it would be unwise for me to become involved.
The Attorney-General also talked, at last, about the government’s domestic and Aboriginal family violence strategies. This government, under this Chief Minister, has been next to silent on this and you all …
Mr Ah Kit: She has been great. A better woman than you will ever be.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … stand condemned in relation to it. We all know that your Chief Minister is not good on women’s policy. However, the fact that you have other members in your party who say, I guess, that they would be committed to this sort of stuff, or at least interested in it, for them to stand by, and for so little to happen in this area, is just extraordinary.
I am well aware that this strategy was printed in November 2002. How heartening it is to have a minister of the government actually talking about it. The minister has been given a couple of paragraphs to talk about this, which is why it is so edifying. He said he is working with offenders and he is going to reduce the incidence of family violence. Interestingly, he does not say how.
When we are talking about crime statistics, there are a few things not in them. What is the obvious one? Domestic violence. Why aren’t the rates of domestic violence recorded in the crime statistics? If, less than two months ago, we had the other Health minister - the junior one - come in here and give us very detailed figures, on the incidence of child abuse in the Northern Territory, why do we not have the information on the rates of domestic violence in the Northern Territory? The fact that government does not come in with that information suggests one of two things. One is that is it is not interested in the area of domestic violence. Alternatively, it suggests that the figures are so astronomically high it wants to hide those figures.
I have talked about this domestic violence strategy before. It is written, I guess, to some extent in ‘Labor speak’, and I say that because it says in one part ‘the strategy takes a coordinated multifaceted whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach to intervening, preventing and addressing domestic violence’. No doubt this is guiding the government. But what the government does not do, apparently, is take notice of it. This is a document, which whilst on the one hand I could be critical of it at least it is something from this government in relation to domestic violence. That the Chief Minister, the first women Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, should be so appalling when it comes to knowing anything about domestic violence is extraordinary. I might add that many women in the Northern Territory on her side of politics are similarly appalled.
In any event I look forward to the Attorney-General’s new interest in domestic violence and ask that he provide us with some figures on it in the near future. I know he also talks about sexual assault and he says, ‘We have fixed property crime but there is still a bit of sexual assault around’. I think I said in Estimates Committee hearings and I have said in this Chamber previously, that I want this Attorney-General to start an inquiry based on the inquiry in the South Australian parliament in relation to sexual assault so that we can attack the conviction rates. The minister has been silent on that. I have even given him an extract of the relevant paperwork from the South Australian parliament. He accepted it from me but because he is very rude and arrogant I have not heard anything back from him. I can only assume that even though he purports to show some level of interest in the area of domestic violence, he is not as interested in the area of sexual assault.
Members will recall the media release issued by the Attorney-General on 17 December 2003, which was issued a week or so after some crime figures came out where there was what he described as ‘spiked increases in sexual crimes’. Well, the Attorney-General – no, he would not have thought about it - someone would have suggested to him why don’t you set up a task force. In December 2003, a task force was established and he said in his media release that, ‘… an action plan will happen and that will identify current data and a range of other resources’. It is nearly 12 months and there has been very little, publicly at least, coming from the sexual assault task force and that is very disappointing.
Is it not reasonable for us to ask that the sexual assault task force at least look at the South Australian inquiry. If people are serious about sexual assault then they do need to deal with it on a very serious basis and this government is showing scant regard for it. I remember what amounted to a throw away line by the Attorney-General when the crime figures came out a quarter or two ago and he said that a lot of it was domestic violence in Katherine. If that was not a very ignorant thing to say, I do not know what was. It was also very racist, in my view. However I digress.
He talks about the sad reality of Aboriginal people continuing to be involved in the justice system. He must be joking. It is the highest Aboriginal imprisonment rate the Northern Territory has seen, ever. It is probably 70% or 80%. It shows that crime is being committed left, right and centre. Both gaols, when I last had a look at the figures, were full. Not only is crime being committed left, right and centre; not only are those offenders who do the break-ins to your homes and your business not caught, but so many of them are being caught that there are actually a lot of them in gaol and that is great. But it is indicative, is it not, of the high rate of crime here in the Northern Territory?
Anyway, I am up to about page 17. I am going to run out of time. The minister talks about tackling substance abuse. I await the report which I gather might be tabled tonight. He says petrol sniffing is amongst the government’s highest priorities. I say, ‘Really?’ He talks about $10m being allocated without the committee’s inquiry being tabled in this parliament. The other minister over there, the little one, said she went to Alice Springs, didn’t tell anyone, to spend $10m and, as I understand it, no one quite knows what the $10m is going to be spent on other than something to do with petrol sniffing. So they’re willing to spend, this mob, no doubt because they have extra millions from the GST, which they so vehemently opposed way back when.
I am going to run out of time, Madam Speaker. This mob on the other side really do not like it when they are called to account. They do not like a series of arguments being put to them. I know you would love it if I stood here and said: ‘I agree with everything in that statement. I agree with everything you do because you are such a nice bunch of people’. Well, you are not, and I do not agree with much of what you do. Your spin is outrageous. How you sleep at night, I do not know, and it is my job, I am paid reasonably well to carefully, thoughtfully assess what you people do. For as long as I draw breath I will call you to account.
The minister’s statement is just like the other one in relation to child abuse: full of words, but nothing else, and that is a great shame.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I support the statement of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. In my response, I make two simple points. First, the strategies developed in designing the Building Safer Communities framework are the first rational responses by any government since 1978 to seriously and sensibly deal with the issues of crime prevention and community safety in the Northern Territory. For that alone, we must thank the minister, his parliamentary staff and staff in his portfolio areas. Second, unless we as Territorians are prepared to act now, and for the medium and long term future, in making the Territory a safer place for our children and grandchildren, our legacy to them will be one of despair.
Let us be brutally honest here. The reputation of the Northern Territory is one in which murder and assault rates are higher than any other jurisdiction in the country, and is not enviable. Behind the romantic image of the outback lie the dirty secrets of rampant and multiple substance abuse, violence against women and children, antisocial behaviour and property crime.
This is something that has developed over many years, from the hard-drinking casual violence of the frontier to the contemporary street gang culture of the suburbs. It is not something that has arisen overnight, nor is it something that will disappear overnight.
Clearly, the policies of the past have failed, so what this government has sought to do from the earliest days of our election is to re-cast the ways that we as a society deal with the problems of crime prevention and community safety.
As the minister outlined, we are already reaping the benefits of lower property crime rates. The framework he introduced shows the way forward to achieving much more. As a member of the Ministerial Standing Committee on Crime Prevention, I have a strong personal commitment to making our community safe. Through the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, a range of preventative and intervention programs and activities are currently in place, and I will speak on these later.
Being tough on crime is simply not enough, as demonstrated by the historically high rates of recidivism in our community. A comprehensive approach is required to confront the serious and ongoing crisis in our indigenous communities. We need to challenge bad behaviours, support people and communities to change, provide opportunities for our leaders to rise up and exercise their cultural authority, and to improve the living standards in our indigenous communities.
The framework can be summed up in three strands. First, better and more comprehensive legislation with regard to the Criminal Code as well as associated issues such as the Sentencing Act and Evidence Act, legislative approaches to substance abuse; and enhanced child protection laws.
It should be mentioned that since the advent of this government, the courts have been sentencing offenders at greater rates and for longer periods than under the previous government despite the hysteria whipped up by some people to the contrary. The remarks of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court last week to this effect are worth noting: This government has had faith in its judiciary to do the right thing rather than straight-jacketing them with the ‘lock them up throw away the key’ mindlessness of mandatory sentencing.
Second, the framework reflects smarter and better resourced policing. The shameless way in which the previous government starved the police service of resources throughout the 1990s, while beating off about crime, beggared belief. The massive three year build-up of resources to police undertaken by this government allows our police the time and resources to be smarter and more efficient in their work. We only have to look at the downward trends in crime statistics to see the fruit of this investment.
The third strand is the approach by this government across all agencies to moving forward on social justice issues. The issues are stuck. All research into gaol populations demonstrates that inmates, especially amongst recidivists, are overwhelmingly ill-educated, with chronically low levels of literacy and numeracy. Research equally demonstrates similar links with poor physical and mental health, low levels of employment, and poor living conditions, including homelessness and living in overcrowded accommodation.
All of these problems are exacerbated when these conditions are experienced inter-generationally, when the social conditions that lead to substance abuse, violence, and other forms of criminality and antisocial behaviour are allowed to fester for many years, as has been the case in the Territory over a number of decades. In other words, the vast bulk of Territorians in gaol are there because access to decent education and training opportunities have not been available. Health outcomes are lousy, job opportunities minimal, and social circumstances are at the bottom end of the scale.
It is absolutely no comfort to me that indigenous people continue to be overly represented in the justice system as offenders and perpetrators of crime. It shames me. It should shame all of us as Territorians. Indigenous people are also highly over-represented in the prison system, with indigenous Territorians 11 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-indigenous Territorians. That is why this government has not been prepared to sit on its hands and watch our communities disintegrate, and see them become less safe for our citizens. This is why this government has been so active in turning this legacy around. It is why the minister for Education has been so passionate about ramping up the levels of literacy and numeracy, and introducing secondary education opportunities for the first time in so many of our communities. It is why he is so vehement about the need to expand training and employment opportunities. It is why our Health minister has been so active in increasing the levels of health care available across the whole of our community, especially in remote areas. It is why the Chief Minister and I have been so firm in our resolve to promote regional, economic, social and cultural development.
Poor housing and essential services are undoubtedly amongst the primary underlying causes of ongoing indigenous disadvantage. Demographic trends in remote indigenous communities show that our indigenous population is the fastest growing segment in our community and the most disadvantaged. This government’s Home Territory 2010, which I announced during the last sittings, provides a comprehensive framework for action. This year alone, this government will invest in excess of $200m in housing assistance, with $122m targeted towards remote communities. Through the Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory, we are shifting away from the build and abandon approach to community capacity building, ensuring the life of housing is an integral part of building safer communities.
This government, as a quality landlord, has embarked on the largest refurbishment of public housing since Cyclone Tracy, through Territory Housing. Over the next five years, over $45m will be invested in public housing assets to raise the standard of our dwellings. We recognise that it is important for our tenants to feel safe and secure in their homes. Territory Housing has undertaken a range of practical and sensible programs to do just that. Through the security screening program, over $10m was spent upgrading over 6000 dwellings throughout the Territory. We have improved the physical infrastructures of our properties, including security gates, improved common area lighting, fencing, redirecting traffic around private spaces, and installing safe rooms in certain dwellings. Territory Housing understands the importance of a physical environment in creating a sense of personal safety and security.
Over a number of years, Territory Housing has worked to reduce the concentration of public housing dwellings. All new public housing complexes being built are lower in density than many major private developments, and are designed to include appropriately planned common areas and public space.
In regard to the Community Harmony projects, I take this opportunity to talk about this wonderful initiative of which I am very proud. This project, which is now operating in all regional centres throughout the Territory, demonstrates the effectiveness of working collaboratively across government and across the community on the complex issue of dealing with antisocial behaviour. Through a grassroots approach, we are seeing local solutions to local problems to address issues of safety in their communities. Importantly, initiatives such as the Mala elders and the Yalu women recognise that the role of senior elders from home communities to intervene in culturally appropriate ways and facilitate return to home repatriation strategies with countrymen and women is very important. The objective of the visit by Mala leaders was to encourage itinerants to respect Larrakia and, where possible, to return to home to their families, or to take the necessary steps towards rehabilitation. A similar program operates in Alice Springs and Katherine with the support of traditional owners and key indigenous leaders.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in closing I would like to say that each individual, no matter where they live, has a right to feel safe and secure in their own community and within their own house. Through the Building Safer Communities framework, we are providing a comprehensive framework for action and a road map for the future. I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I also support my colleague, the Justice minister, in his statement Building Safer Communities.
Before I get into my speech on this, I have to respond to some of the amazing contribution from the member for Araluen in this particular debate. Why the member for Araluen fails to recognise any of the significant advances that this government has made in safer communities, a safer Northern Territory, a reduction in crime in the Northern Territory, is absolutely beyond me. The member for Araluen came into this parliament as somebody who won her seat - and good luck to her – and came here with a fair degree of community standing; a professional in her own right as a qualified lawyer. The diatribe that she turned out this evening on the statement has to be heard to be believed. I have to say it was a pretty schizophrenic contribution made by the member for Araluen.
For a lawyer trying to argue the case and secure either a prosecution or getting the defendant off, I do not think she did very well. She tried to argue at the beginning of her statement that this was a government that was soft on crime; soft on the causes of crime; the gaols were being emptied at a rapid rate, nobody was going to the gaol anymore; that we were soft on the causes of crime; and crime was out of control. Then at the end of her statement was saying that the last time that she looked that the gaols were full, they were full of Aboriginal people, fuller than they have ever been. What an amazing contribution. On the one …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … hand the gaols are empty because the government isn’t sending anybody to gaol and then on the other side, they are full of Aboriginal people. The reality is, and it is certainly something that we do not take great pride in, that if you do the crime and you are caught and there is a conviction, people are going to gaol.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: People are going to gaol and the average sentences are longer under this government than the previous government.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: We committed in the last budget, I think, and tenders are about to be awarded for a new $8m low security wing out at Berrimah. The police, with the additional resources, the extra 200 resources we are committing to the police, are out there in stronger numbers having the ability to conduct a much more thorough investigation, charges are sticking and people are going to gaol. Now if they do not commit …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … crime in the first place they won’t go to gaol. For the member for Araluen to say, ‘We’re soft on crime, we’re soft on the causes of crime nobody is going to gaol’, absolutely stands in stark contrast to the facts. This is something that the member for Araluen seems to have a tenuous grasp of.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: She also then spent a fair amount of her contribution basically saying, ‘Nobody trusts, nobody trusts, nobody in the Northern Territory trusts the Justice department’s quarterly crime statistics’.
Ms Carney: No, that is not what I said. Don’t you go verballing me, now, Hendo.
Mr HENDERSON: Nobody trusts them, her constituents don’t trust them, Territorians don’t trust them’.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, will you please pause. Member for Araluen, will you cease interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Nobody trusts these crimes statistics. She quoted my colleague, the Justice minister. I think we all acknowledge that law and order was a key issue in the last election. I remember the polling booths, the scare campaign, the big black banners on every polling booth, ‘Labor will get rid of mandatory sentencing; the world will end as we know it. We will have crime rampant across the Northern Territory if you dare elect a Labor government’. Well, the Labor government did get elected, we did repeal mandatory sentencing but we have committed an extra 200 police to our police force.
What is the point of legislation and trying to be tough on crime, appalling legislation though it was, when you didn’t have any police out there to catch anyone?
So, the member for Araluen …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … was saying, ‘You can’t trust these statistics’ and then flicked them and started talking about the appalling jumps in crime rates and assault rates on a quarter by quarter basis. These were the same statistics that she was earlier saying just could not be trusted. The member for Araluen cannot have it both ways.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Either the statistics are accurate or they are not accurate.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They are either accurate or they are not accurate. The statistics do not come from the Minister for Justice’s office.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They do come from the department. The statistics are all captured in the first instance on the police PROMIS database so unless the police are some part of this great conspiracy to doctor the crime figures in the Northern Territory; that is essentially the allegation that the member’s making. That the source for this data and the publication of this data is through the Police and the Justice department, not the minister’s office, that somehow they are part of this Labor conspiracy to fraudulently present these statistics.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Well they are either accurate or they are not. If they are accurate, well the statistics - and I refer the member for Araluen to the police commissioner’s report. This is not my report; this is the police commissioner’s report to this parliament, to the people of the Northern Territory. It is not my report, this is not a government report.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: It is the police commissioner’s report. So are you asserting he is part of this conspiracy as well? And it is interesting that the new shadow police minister, the member for Brennan, has done nothing but climb into this new commissioner since the day he was appointed to the job.
On the first page of the report, the commissioner’s overview, ‘Offences in the Northern Territory for 2003-04’ shows total reported crime down 17% across the Territory, overall crimes against the person down 4%, overall crimes against property down 19%, homicide and related offences down 48%, and unlawful entries down 23%. Then there is a table in the back that does show in certain categories there have been increases. Those categories are the areas which the police are tackling, particularly assault and sexual assault. This is the second year in a row that there is a downward trend in most of those categories, not all.
Either the statistics are accurate or they are not. I say that they are, not only because they are produced by the police commissioner in his annual report every year, but they are also independently audited. I do not have the name of the auditors in my head at the moment, but they are putting their corporate reputation on the line saying that the statistics are accurate. Those statistics also inform and add to the public debate in the NT about crime prevention. We committed to issuing the statistics on a quarterly basis, and that is what we are doing, which is in stark contrast to the CLP when they were in government when all we saw were the annual statistics in the police report.
In trying to engage the community to develop strategies to reduce crime across the Northern Territory, there is an old adage: if you do not measure it, you cannot manage it. These statistics inform the community and assists it to develop strategies to reduce crime across the Territory. We have a long way to go. The member for Araluen was saying that we said we had eliminated all property crime and now we are going to eliminate all violent crime and sexual assault. We have not said that at all. I do not recall my colleague saying that. Again, it was more ravings from the member for Araluen.
We have made a start, but we have a long way to go. A 47% reduction in property crime in the first three years of this government is a great achievement, not only by the government, but by the community, the crime prevention groups and the police doing a fantastic job across the Territory. Did I hear one accolade from the member for Araluen about what a great job the police are doing? Not one.
Ms Carney: This was not about the police of the Northern Territory. It was about you and your government and crime.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: That is right, but if the police don’t have – picking up on the interjection, if the police have absolutely no role in crime prevention, I do not know which planet the member for Araluen is on.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me! Member for Araluen, wait to be called, please.
Ms CARNEY: I did not think you heard me. The member was going on and on …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, wait to be called. Now, please, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Acting – are you going to sit down, or what?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please resume your seat, and minister. There have been far too many interjections, particularly from the member for Araluen. I ask for complete order for the conclusion of the minister’s remarks. Member for Araluen, what is your point of order?
Ms CARNEY: My point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, is that once again, the minister has purported to attribute comments to me that were not said by me in my speech earlier.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Minister, please continue.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Again, an extraordinary response from the shadow Attorney-General.
We are not saying that we have the problem fixed, that there is going to be no crime ever again in the Northern Territory. This sets a framework for policy across government to continue to work hard to make the Northern Territory a safer place.
The member for Araluen also climbed in with some amazing comments that people are leaving the Territory in droves, I think she said, at unprecedented rates since Cyclone Tracy in 1974. What an amazing statement!
There is something about the opposition at the moment; they are obviously not getting out much or, if they are, I do not know who they are talking to. Talk to any real estate agent in the Northern Territory at the moment and they will say that the property market is at a height they have not seen for many years. They cannot get listings, they have people waiting for properties, and vacancy rates in the rental market are at the lowest they have been for many years. I heard a figure today that the roll for the federal election last weekend was up something like 2300 people across the Northern Territory in the last couple of months. The member for Araluen has some sort of warped understanding that people leave the Territory in droves, in a large part, because of the appalling crime rate and the appalling antisocial impacts.
I was in Central Australia two or three weeks ago talking to people there. Alice Springs is looking absolutely fantastic at the moment. I talked to many people about this, and they all agreed. If you go back five or 10 years and remember what Alice used to be like, the riverbed at the time, the drunks that used to hang out in the mall and what have you, around the place.
Ms Carney: Oh, aren’t they there now?
Mr HENDERSON: I am not saying that they are not there now, but certainly not in the numbers that they were 10 years ago, and a huge credit to the people of Alice Springs, to the Town Council in Alice Springs. The community has a real sense of pride about it at the moment, and so they should have. Yet, we have one of the local members, coming into this parliament again and again, bagging the very town that she lives in, and I think it is absolutely appalling.
Ms Carney: Telling the truth unlike you, member for Wanguri. Telling the truth, that is all it is.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you will withdraw that comment.
Ms Carney: What comment, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You implied that the minister was not telling the truth. You will withdraw.
Ms Carney: Well, I will withdraw it …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, you can sit down now, please.
Ms Carney: … and I ask him to withdraw the fact that he says that I am bagging my town. That is absolute nonsense and he knows it.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Well, I do not know. Saying that people were leaving Alice Springs in droves because of the appalling antisocial problems in the town and the appalling crime rate, well, if that is not bagging your town, I really do not know what is, because it is certainly very far from the truth.
That is not saying there are no problems. Yes, there are problems. There are still very significant problems across the Northern Territory, and this parliament deserves better debate in trying to get across those problems, working constructively, than just vitriol and schizophrenic positions on what are very serious issues for the Northern Territory.
We all know that the biggest single issue facing this community is the abuse of alcohol, and the effect that it has across all areas of society, all areas of offending in the community, and this is a government that, through a very consultative process, has been engaged with talking with the community. There is a framework report out at the moment for consultation. That will come back to Cabinet before the year’s end. However, we, as a community, have to tackle the grog issues.
I certainly do not have a silver bullet. I have not made up my mind on many of those recommendations. I am talking to many people about it. That certainly is one very significant issue that we are going to have to deal with as a government and as a parliament. I would like to think, in this Nirvana of mine, that all 25 of us could agree on some position of a united way forward on the regulation and supply of liquor in the Northern Territory, and also what we need to do via services to reduce the amount of harm in the community. There are going to be some tough decisions to be made, and it is just going to be interesting to see where the opposition is going to be on some of those tough decisions.
This is a good statement here today. I believe that the police - and it does not matter what the member for Araluen thinks - are at the front line of making safe communities.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! On the same basis that you asked me to withdraw a comment before in relation to a suggestion that he was lying, I would ask him to withdraw what he just said on the basis of me making some sort of, according to him, inference in relation to the Northern Territory police, which is patently untrue and he should withdraw it.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think he said that, member for Araluen. Please continue, minister. There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. What I was referring to when I made the comment was the member for Araluen in her half an hour tirade against this report, did not recognise the good work that the police had been doing in the Northern Territory, given that their annual report was tabled in the parliament today.
Ms Carney: I am not debating their annual report, you fool!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Araluen said that this is about crime prevention, it is not about police.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you will withdraw that comment please.
Ms Carney: I withdraw ‘fool’.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Our police do a fantastic job. They are on the front line. I will talk about one area where there has been a significant difference in one community and one region of the Northern Territory. If only we had the financial capacity to replicate that outcome in 60-odd communities around the Territory but, of course, we do not. The decision of this government to build a police station out at Kintore and the effect that it has had – if we are talking about safer communities and crime prevention - the amazing impact that that police presence and that facility has made, not only to the people of Kintore, but surrounding communities. The work that the government has done with the Western Australian government in a cooperative police effort with the fact that we have a serving Western Australian police officer based at that police station, has seen that community turn around - turn around markedly from where it was just 12 months or so ago.
I had the pleasure of being there to open that new facility. I know that the member for Macdonnell was there as well. To have the experience of being embraced by people in the community, thanking the government for the best thing that ever happened to that community was certainly something that was overwhelming.
It rammed home to me that the first responsibility of government is ensuring that we have a society that is based in law and that respects law, and that people are punished if they break the law. Without a law-enforcement presence in communities, then bad people do take hold. I have a couple of statistics: the health clinic, in the preceding few months, on a regular basis was closed. The nurse there, and women from the community, were barricaded in to try to protect women from rampaging and marauding men in the community trying to seek violent retribution against the women in the communities, on a regular basis. Since the police station opened, it has not happened once; the grog runners have been run out of town; the petrol sniffers have been run out of town; and the kids are going to school again because they can sleep at night.
In talking to the headmaster at Kintore school, there had been very real problems in recruiting and keeping teachers in the community, because every time they would go to Alice Springs to have a break from the community, they would come home and their house would be turned over. Well, that would happen one or two times. If it happened a second time: ‘I am off, I am out of here. I cannot take it anymore’. The police do have a significant role to play and the Kintore community is much better off as a result of having that facility there.
I will continue as police minister to work with my colleague, the Justice minister, and all of our colleagues in Cabinet, to work across government to see that the Territory community is a safer place. We have a good start under our belts at the moment, but there is a long way to go. I commend the minister on this statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the minister’s statement on Building Safer Communities. I will give the government one pat on the back; it is trying. Sometimes, with all the criticisms they get, one would be derelict to say you have to give the government credit where it is due. It has tried to change things around with crime in our Northern Territory. Whether it has succeeded is an issue that will be, I imagine, continually debated in this House.
As you know, statistics can be looked at from many different directions depending on how you read a graph or a column, how short a time you look at those statistics, or how long a time you look over those statistics. However, I will say that the government at least is trying.
At least we now have the Northern Territory quarterly crime and justice statistics, which is something we can debate. Here we have at least some facts and figures. Again, they might not be all what the government wants, but at least we have a set of statistics which say whether our communities are becoming safer. Here are the statistics. That is an important part of seeing whether the government’s attempts to make our communities safer are actually working.
I would like to thank the government for increasing the number of police. That is important. It has been a very difficult area especially from the point of view of trying to retain police in the job. At least the retention of police now seems to be levelling out better than it has in years gone by. That at least may mean that we do not have to spend as much money on recruiting new police.
I am certainly very pleased that we have a new police station at Humpty Doo. People sometimes think you do not need a police station at Humpty Doo. We do not have that much crime in the rural area, but police are not there just about crime. Police are there to be part of the community. They are there to, unfortunately, attend car accidents and fires and things like that, but they also mix with the community and are part of the community. I am very pleased that we are getting a police station in the rural area.
The member for Wanguri mentioned that substance abuse, whether it is alcohol or petrol sniffing or cannabis, is a major issue in our society which is underlining much of the crime that we have. The statistics, and I am only talking in rough figures here from the police, shows about 80% of violent crime is associated with alcohol. If we can somehow start to reduce the impact of alcohol surely in the end we will start to reduce the amount of violent crime. That is a big, big issue. It is a big task. If you look at the power of breweries in the Northern Territory or Australia, with the power of the advertising dollar to promote a product which causes us major social problems, we have a big job to tackle that. We also have a society which accepts a lot of it, which turns a blind eye to domestic violence at home, much of which is due to alcohol abuse because it is seen to be the norm, and having a good time, and being drunk seems to be the norm. Many times we are turning a blind eye to the fact that much of that is the cause of violence in our community.
We do have antisocial behaviour whether you like it or not. I was talking to someone today from Katherine, and I recalled that on my last trip to Katherine, we had one of our committee meetings there, I drove to Katherine - I beg your pardon, to Alice Springs because we were having a serious of meetings down the track - on the way I stopped at Woolworths. Driving down the side of Woolworths a group of people approached my vehicle. They had no intention of moving out of the way. As I went past, the old mirror gets wiped out. Obviously I had upset them. They are the sort of things that can make you pretty cranky. That sort of antisocial behaviour I do not believe should be acceptable. It is a very difficult issue, and in places where antisocial behaviour is causing a lot of stress in the community, is causing a downturn in the tourist industry, it is basically behaviour that people, all races of people, would not find acceptable.
I know that my wife who is Aboriginal is ashamed of some of the behaviour she sees of her fellow Aboriginals in our parks. She calls it a ‘shame job’. It is an area that I do not believe we really have tackled well at the moment. We do have the itinerants program but whilst that may have some effect, we will not know whether it has had a real effect for many years. There will always be people who are attracted to the bright lights, especially where there is easy access to alcohol, there is probably easy access to women, and there is an easy lifestyle which is just laying around in parks and places like that.
They are difficult areas but they are areas we must tackle. If we let it go it will only get worse. I accept what the member for Wanguri has said; a lot of this is due to alcohol and that is an issue we have to tackle. We have the alcohol framework, which is a very good start but we have lots of books in front of us these days, it is a matter of making sure those books turn into action and do not just collect dust as so many books do.
A couple of issues that also relate to antisocial behaviour, and the minister touched on one of them, and that is the importance of sport and recreation with our young people. I know that on some of our trips around the Territory as part of the Substance Abuse Committee, there was concern, for instance, that sport and recreation officers, where you had them, and I think you should have them a lot more than we do now, were not operating in the hours they were needed. They were operating from 8 am to 4.30 pm or something. The kids all came out of school at 3 pm and were not doing nothing much at night except for getting into trouble. So, simple things like saying that sport and recreation officers have to be working from 4 pm until 10pm and on weekends will address the problem. We have to make sure that the people we are paying to do jobs to help with sport and recreation, to help our youth, must be working at the right time, otherwise they will be ineffective.
Sport and recreation are not the only reason people are bored. If you do not have employment and are sitting around all day, or even working half a day on CDEP, you start to get bored, which leads to antisocial behaviour. That does not just happen in major centres; it is in the smaller centres, too. After all, you would not see graffiti everywhere and houses smashed up or burnt down if people had something to do. The antisocial issues are something we have to continually work on.
I repeat what I said before: I thank the government for trying. This is no reflection on the previous government. It is just how I see it since I have been in parliament. They are having a go. It may not be perfect and I may not agree with everything they do, but better to be trying than doing nothing at all.
I congratulate the government on the Don Dale improvements. I have yet to go out there, but we have to have correctional infrastructure suitable for the people for which it is designed. Don Dale having a little football oval and an expansion of infrastructure is an improvement. This is an area that really needs attention: how are we going to deal with juveniles all over the Territory? Are we still going to put them in Don Dale and the Berrimah and Alice Springs gaols, or are we going to look at alternatives like we had with Wildman River? I have harped on this before. Wildman River presently has a caretaker, but is basically closed down. We need more Wildman River-type establishments near our regional centres – and I am not saying 100 metres away; I am saying maybe 40 km away, a far enough distance for people not to decide to walk home but close enough for their relatives to know they are safe and they can visit them.
These should be places where the juveniles can learn a trade, even if it is only for a few weeks or months, they can learn some English, learn writing, improve their education, do some gardening, get some self-esteem, dry out. It is not going to be for everyone, but there is a place for more than existing corrections establishments for our juvenile offenders.
I hark back to Bill Fordham who used to run King River Station, which was taken over by the Jawoyn and disappeared. He had a program for young people to learn to be ringers. He now has a program in Arnhem Land, or he did have. I am not sure of the latest. We visited him on Substance Abuse Committee trips. Here is a bloke who has proved it can be done. It has been done in other places. We are talking about doing it, I think, with rounding up camels in Central Australia. The government has been in power for three years, but has it really done anything in that area? They have done lots of other things, but here is an area that has been sadly lacking. We could have given Bill Fordham some money; we could have set up programs for kids on some of the cattle stations under the administration of Correctional Services.
What we have at the moment is not right. We have no other place for juveniles except Don Dale, which can have anyone from rapists to murderers, as long as they are juvenile, to a person who has pinched a car. Pinching a car is bad enough, but it is not as serious a crime as rape and murder or armed robbery. Wildman River was a place where young people who might have done something silly like pinch a car but who had the right attitude could go out there and leave them there. They were doing work at Shady Camp on barrages, they were doing fencing, had a football oval, had a swimming pool and some gym equipment, a classroom and a little social club area. They had to cook all their meals. For sure, they were locked up at night and if they got out, they had an awfully long walk unless they could find a ranger’s vehicle to use to get home.
That was an alternative for young people to try to at least say, ‘Look, this is your last chance. This is what will happen to you. We are giving you, you might say, the five star accommodation, if you do this again you will get the one star accommodation’. If you have been to Alice Springs Gaol, some people have said they live in fine condition down there; five star stuff. It is all concrete and steel, and that is all it is made of, if you call that five star accommodation, I will eat my hat. It is a pretty dismal sort of outlook for anyone who wants to end up in gaol.
I would say to the government it is time you really looked at this issue of alternative imprisonment for youth. I have mentioned it before as possibly an alternative for people who are continually affected by alcohol. They have a court order, and they can perhaps be told they have to stay in these places to dry out. I know there has been discussion; there will be discussion later on about the issue of arresting people who are petrol sniffing.
The reason I have promoted the idea of apprehension without arrest, that is, picking up people under protective custody, is so that a court order based on the family and a judge making decisions could be made that they go to a community like this, they go to a detention centre. They are required to dry out there, they are required to do some work ...
Mr Elferink: It sounds like my habitual drunks legislation.
Mr WOOD: That is right. That is what I am saying. I think we are really missing an opportunity. We can set up these facilities, not only for small time offenders, but for some sort of alcohol rehabilitation for the worst, the ones who go through the revolving door, as we call it, and for petrol sniffers who really need to be just taken off the street for the time being and say, you have to stay there and dry out and learn a bit, get some education, get some skills. For sure, it will have its failures. At the moment, we haven’t anything. And, as I said, you are trying, I accept that, but in this area, I believe we have not even started.
I am hoping that the government will look at that. I have been looking at the Juvenile Justice Board of Management reports. They do not take a long time to read, but there are issues in there. They talk about recidivism, and I think it would be good to see those figures in this book. If we are all about accrual accounting today, where we are seeing inputs, then inputs are arresting and putting you in gaol; outputs, I suppose, is how long you have been in there; and outcomes are you do not come back again, then we need statistics to say that that is happening. We do not need statistics to say there are 100 people here and 100 people did not come back. We need to know each person, not their name, but X, Y and Z, did they come back. And if they did not come back, I would say we are getting some successes.
I believe the statement is a fair statement. As I said, there will be many people argue whether we are winning or the government is winning. And in some areas, when you read your statistics, there is no doubt house break-ins have certainly dropped. But, of course, for the person who has their house broken into, even though the statistics are lower, it still hurts. For the person who loses their car, it still hurts. My wife parked her car inside a house block at Anula, came out and found the back window smashed and her purse gone. The last thing she expected was that to happen. She did not get all her precious belongings back, and it does hurt. You feel like you have been invaded, even for a small thing like getting the back window in the car smashed.
Statistics in some cases are good. Statistics in other cases, like sexual assault, certainly there is a lot of work to do. When we talk about sexual assaults, there is room for a bigger debate on why we are having a lot of sexual assaults. Are there some overriding issues within society that are causing sexual assaults? We are going to talk tomorrow about child pornography. We are one state, or one territory, that quite freely allows people to have pornography. You just go down to the local Video 2000 and it is all there.
If we are talking about sexual assaults, should we, as a government, be looking at whether there are other issues besides alcohol? Have we become desensitised about how we treat women, or how we deal with sex? Have we reached the stage where who cares? When we are dealing with that issue, I wonder whether it is time that government perhaps looked at some of the other influences that may be the cause of that. If we are seeing a rise in sexual assaults, would we perhaps relate that to a rise in the availability of pornography over the last 10 or 15 years? I am not sure how long it has been. I may be totally wrong on that, but it is worth looking at, at least.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, once again, I say good on the government for trying. I believe you can do some things better. Just because crime is going down does not mean you stop, because it still hurts. However, I reckon good on you, but we will still keep an eye on you. I am sure members of the opposition here will still keep an eye on you. Anyway, that keeps you on your toes.
Mr Henderson: He wants to go.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): It is very gracious of the minister, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. If I want to go, I will get the opportunity to speak - like he has any say in whether I speak in this House or not.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, please continue.
Mr ELFERINK: I am here by virtue of the fact I am elected to be here, just like him …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: If he wants to go with this response ...
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Macdonnell please! Be quiet while we listen to the point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Macdonnell, as the new opposition Whip, well knows that we have accommodated within this debate tonight, that the debate is going to be adjourned to come back another day. The opposition was offered an opportunity to nominate who would like to contribute tonight. The fact that we heard nothing back from the opposition does not mean that I am trying to prevent him from speaking. We have an agreement, and anybody …
Mr Elferink: With whom?
Mr HENDERSON: With the opposition.
Mr Elferink: Which individual person …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, you will cease interjecting while I am listening to the minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Nobody is trying to gag the opposition tonight. The member for Macdonnell has every right to speak. However, the intention of the government this evening is to adjourn this debate for bringing back at another time. The member for Macdonnell has a right to speak and we are happy for him to speak this evening.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Macdonnell, you may continue your remarks.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. If the message was supposed to have come through the Whip’s office, it did not reach me. I would be grateful to know from the minister who was advised on my side of the House.
The government has come to us and to Territorians with this policy document – or a ministerial statement - with policy glossy attached. The minister is trying to convince us that, as part of their work here in the Northern Territory, they are having wonderful and great successes in the Northern Territory. In some areas, there are certainly reductions in crime. However, what the minister fails to acknowledge in this statement is that the reduction of property crime is throughout Australia; it is universal. It is not the Northern Territory government that is reducing property crime rates in Sydney and Melbourne. It is not the Northern Territory government which is reducing property crime rates in Adelaide and Perth. The property crime rate may be dropping for any number of reasons. It may be because there is a Labor government in every state in Australia. It may be because there is a federal Liberal government. Who knows? To claim this national trend as their own is a little evasive, to say the least.
The other thing that I wish to raise is that property crime might be on the way down, but - gee whiz - there are other crimes that are on the way up.
I do want to speak tonight on several issues in relation to how disorder on our streets is triggered. One of the things that I recently had to pursue through this House - and I still have no satisfactory answer from the minister or from the government on - is the fact that they seem to have taken an approach in which the street crime in the Northern Territory is almost being ignored. It is this government’s policy which is driving part of the problem. Today, I have become aware of information as a result of the police annual report which confirms the position that I took and the minister refuses to acknowledge.
What I refer to is the use of section 128 as a panacea or a fix-up for what should be dealt with as street offences. It is not an offence to be drunk in public in the Northern Territory and, if a person is walking down the street and they are intoxicated and they are on their way home, they are not doing anything wrong. However, such people rarely come to the attention of police if they are doing nothing wrong.
Yet, I turn to the police annual report on page 141, and I find that 19 457 Territorians, 20 000 basically or 10% of the population, were apprehended for protective custody last year. People who are apprehended for protective custody come to the notice of those people who take them into custody for a reason. Often it is because they are simply flaked out on the side of the road, but also the reason is that they are behaving in a fashion which is less than entirely socially correct. They certainly in those instances, and often in those instances, are people who behave in such a fashion as that they would qualify as people who have committed an offence against, primarily, the Summary Offences Act.
The Summary Offences Act is supposed to govern the good order of our streets on a day to day basis. It is supposed to govern those offences committed by people who swear, fight, expectorate, defecate, urinate, and such things on our streets. It takes not a long walk around some of the back alleys of Darwin before your nostrils are filled by the offensive smells that so many of these people leave behind. It is curious that in the three years of this government, we have seen an increase in the number of people taken into protective custody from 13 779, already a figure which was way too high, to 19 457. This is a substantial increase in public drunkenness.
Recently, I asked the minister to produce the figures for the amount, as the result of a question in the Estimates Committee hearings, of people who had been arrested for committing summary offences. The result was around 700 for the whole of the Northern Territory in that financial year. That works out at less than two people a day being arrested for an offence against the Summary Offences Act. I am to believe that out of the 19 457 people taken into protective custody, that in the order of 18 800 of them were merely flaked out on the side of the road. Take a walk through town tonight and I think that that would be a most unlikely scenario.
What do I gain out of that? I pick up on the words from the member for Nelson where he talks about the increase in crimes of violence, especially crimes of sexual violence. We have increased numbers of drunks on our streets, in spite of a Community Harmony program which is meant to have these people going elsewhere, out of town, out of Alice Springs, out of Darwin, out of Katherine. Yet we see increased numbers on our streets. This is not because these people are being apprehended in their communities; it is because they are being apprehended in Darwin.
A classic example is the 2000-01 statistic which says that 5900 drunks were apprehended in Darwin. By this reporting period, 8908, a substantial increase commensurate with the increase of the overall total. So what you see is not a socially-controlled environment; but rather, you are seeing an increase in the number of drunks being apprehended Territory-wide, and more concerningly, an increase in the number of drunks being apprehended in Darwin. So these Community Harmony programs, and all these agreements that we are being told are working so well, are patently not.
Madam Speaker, if you go back to the Budget Paper No 3, page 163 I think from memory, which deals with performance measures of the police, the police are being guided by this government to police perceptions rather than reality. The perception that that budget paper requires as a performance measure, is that people should feel comfortable in their homes. If you check the Australian Bureau of Statistics on this issue, clearly if you live in the Northern Territory despite an overall drop of crime rates, the fact is that we live in a jurisdiction with the highest number of actual offences in a whole range of property offences.
What is the yardstick by which the police department operates? Is it the actual rate as we have compared with the rest of Australia? No. It is the perception of people. The yardstick they use is the perception of how safe people feel in their homes. This is why we start to see the police media machine, now that this policy has been applied by the government to this system of policing, churning out as much material as it possibly can to try to convince newspapers and television that lots of things are succeeding. We regularly see double-page spreads in newspapers with wonderful stories, many of them legitimate and good, about the great successes being achieved. What we are not seeing, sadly, is the fact that the actual raw numbers and crime rates as reflected by the ABS remain steadfastly the highest in the country.
What are we doing now? We are engaged in the politics of perception. When you try to find out what is actually going on, you have to drill into documents like page 141 of the police annual report to discover that drunkenness in the Territory is rampant and out of control. While we debate all of the problems that MS Contin and opiate drug use brings to this community, it is tiny compared with the number of problems that alcohol brings to our community.
The government is more inclined to try its hardest to change people’s perceptions than change the actualities, and that is a deceptive approach to Territorians by this government. Call a spade a spade. It was the promise that was given by the Attorney-General when he came into this House as the new Minister for Justice that he was not going to mislead Territorians, but, to the contrary, we find that he is.
Second, the Attorney-General has no problem putting Aboriginal people into gaol, something he railed against when he was in opposition. The imprisonment rates of Aboriginal people are now much higher than they were under the previous government despite the so-called scourge that mandatory sentencing represented. Why is that? It is because this government has engaged in its own form of mandatory sentencing, which remains resoundingly uncriticised in the form of their sentencing guidelines.
This Attorney-General, and I am surprised that it never sticks in his throat considering the things that he said prior to coming to government, proudly announced that he locks up lots and lots of villains. He knows that the underlying factor in that is that Aboriginal people are way over-represented and he, as Attorney-General, now has more Aboriginal people in his custody than the CLP ever did.
The business of measuring perceptions is something I am concerned about in terms of enslaving yourself as a bureaucracy to your performance measures. It is partially captured on page 67 of the police annual report where the issue of ACPOs is addressed. ACPOs were originally the trackers. They then became Police Aides and then Aboriginal Community Police Officers. The principle of ACPOs, as it was when it was Police Aides, was to get local people working in local communities to assist police and become part of the police force in doing their job.
The other day I ran into an ACPO, a lovely woman, no problems with her as an individual, but she told me something that surprised me very much. When I was speaking to her, she told me that she was from the Gold Coast. Oh, I thought. Well, that is okay, there is no problem with being in the Territory and being from the Gold Coast. But she had been in the Northern Territory for two months. This is curious because, one of the obvious factors driving the Police Commissioner at the moment is the policy from government that you will employ Aboriginal people. Sadly, it totally overlooks the purpose of the police aide and the ACPO scheme entirely because, as long as the commissioner can report to the minister for police that I have employed an Aboriginal person – tick; I have employed the right number of Aboriginal people – tick, tick, tick, tick, tick; I have achieved the direction given to me by my minister and by my government, and that is to employ Aboriginal people as ACPOs and as constables and the like.
Sadly, what is being lost is that, when I was talking to this particular person, they were in a community, and they were as alien in the community as I was. That person had none of the language and the social and cultural ties to the local community, and the purpose of ACPOs is being lost. It is now becoming the game of perceptions, more important than the results.
I find it extremely frustrating when I go to a place called Docker River, which desperately needs an ACPO. The government is still refusing to give any sort of effective police services out there. I will point out to the minister that on the back of the annual report there is a police car near the Olgas, pausing only briefly to point out to the minister for transport and works the condition of the road the police car is driving on. I also note that that police car is on the way to Docker River, and that police car is the closest police car stationed, actually 50 km from where the Olgas are, further to the east, that police car has still 180 km to go before those two police officers get to Docker River. So the people in Docker River telephone and say to the police officers at Yulara, ‘I have a problem and I need your help urgently’. The police say, ‘Absolutely, we will get into our car, we will head in your direction’ - about 40 km or 50 km of bitumen road to get to the Olgas, turn left, then another 180 km of road, in poor condition, worse than this, to get to Docker River on the Western Australian/Northern Territory border.
This means that the closest available police help to the people of Docker River is about 2 hours away. How urgent does an urgent problem have to be before the people of the Docker River area get proper assistance? Do the people of Docker River need a police presence? Hmm, let me think. One, two homicides that I am aware of, plus, I think, an arson, I am not sure if it is being investigated as an arson or not, or is simply as a criminal damage. This government’s response is to say that they have entered into an agreement with a police station in Western Australia, and the moment it is built, there will be some coverage only about 50 km away. In spite of that, the situation with the legitimacy of cross-bordering policing still has not been resolved by this government, but they have had quite some time to do it and …
Mr Henderson: Western Australian police officer in Kintore!
Mr ELFERINK: … the people at Docker River … Well, that is actually - I will pick up on the interjection. What happens when a Western Australian police officer arrests a person in Western Australia, let us say Kiwirrkurra, where does the prisoner go? Do you know? Silence, because he cannot answer the question. That tells me he does not know the answer.
Mr Henderson: Why would I know!
Mr ELFERINK: The point is that that prisoner cannot go to Kintore legally, and that is the part that concerns me. There is a problem with the legislation in transferring/moving prisoners across state borders - it is called extradition. This government is doing nothing to assess that. What actually has to happen is that that prisoner has to be taken to Newman, nearly 1000 km away. That is a problem for those guys, and this minister needs to attend to it. There is also a further problem for the people of Docker River when this minister waltzes in there and says: ‘Sorry, cannot have the police station. By the way, you are not getting any police aides. See ya later’.
Mr Henderson: Wrong, wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: I will tell you something, this minister has been absolutely derelict in the way that he has approached the people of Docker River. As far as I am concerned, he can come in here and talk about safer communities, and he does not deliver - nor does this government. That is the frustration that the people of Docker River have with this government and these ministers. That is the frustration I have with this government and these ministers. This minister and this government can come in here and say all they like about the terrific job that they are doing. However, the fact is that our communities are not safe because we have drunks in increasing numbers on our streets. If you want to deny it, then deny what is in the police report.
We have increasing numbers of sexual assaults. We have dropping numbers of crimes against property which is consistent with the national trend. This government claims that they are doing a wonderful Mickey Mouse job. This government is not doing a wonderful Mickey Mouse job; this government is riding on the back of a national trend and failing to attend to the safety issues on our streets. Even if the government could say: ‘We have done everything to protect your property. We are doing everything we can to protect your property’, all this government is doing, effectively, is saying: ‘All right, you are safe in your houses, but when you are on the streets, guys, watch out for the drunks, and you are on your own’.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
As you are aware and, as my colleague, the Minister for Sport and Recreation has told us, the Northern Territory Masters Games will be starting in Alice Springs soon. This will be the 10th games to be held, the biennial event having its inception in 1986.
Since that time, Dr Geoff Thompson has undertaken the mighty task of medical director. Geoff has taken time from his extremely busy and successful practice to plan, train and coordinate a team of medical and allied health professionals and volunteers to provide sports medicine at the games. Geoff is also an avid competitor, and he and his wife, Sandy, have brought many medals and accolades home.
He is a man of passion and commitment, and tonight I wish to tell colleagues just a little more about the contribution that Geoff has made to sports in the Territory, and the tremendous difference to sport medicine that he and his partner in the business, physiotherapist, Karen Schneider, have made.
Sports medicine is a specialised medical discipline that is only now coming to enjoy appropriate recognition as a separate one. Geoff’s passion for medicine and his ability, as he says, to see pathways that are not the norm, he attributes to his father, a self-made academic and church minister who ensured that his children were constantly reading and learning. Many of the books of his father’s unique collection are now housed in our Government House and Parliamentary Libraries. Saturday nights for a young Geoff and his family would be spent watching Department of Education film strips on topics as varied as astronomy, history and world affairs.
Geoff’s first taste of his future career was in the books his father brought home for him in lieu of being able to afford to send him to university. Geoff’s determination ensured he made it to college, however, and on a government scholarship he completed his medical training at Adelaide University Medical School, affiliated with the Royal Adelaide and Queen Elizabeth Hospitals. Geoff, from an early period, had a different view to providing care for his patients to those of many of his colleagues; a view that had him thinking about the areas of complementary health, and how a clinic that could offer complete care for his patients would be in the future.
Some years later, a young Karen Schneider was training and working as a physiotherapist in Melbourne, coming to much the same conclusion that the future for quality patient care was to integrate a number of approaches to case management.
Geoff and his wife, Sandy, came to Darwin in the early 1970s with Geoff as a flight surgeon in the RAAF. He resigned his commission with the RAAF to commence private practice as a general practitioner in December 1974, but immediately rejoined in the aftermath of Cyclone Tracy, to be the responsible medical officer overseeing the entire evacuation effort.
Geoff managed to combine his love of medicine with another passion - that of flying - continuing his initial RAAF training to become a commercial pilot. He used his skill and his own private aircraft to service medical clinics in Arnhem Land from 1975 to 1980. Geoff was actually a flying doctor, taking on the role of both Medical Director of the RFDS Western Australian Branch and, indeed, continuing to be an RFDS pilot for some years in the 1980s.
In 1984, Geoff established the first Northern Territory branch of sports medicine in Australia. This volunteer organisation had an agenda to train lay people in sports’ first aid. Geoff is recognised nationally and internationally as a leader in the field of sports medicine and has recently returned from Canada where he presented a data relating to our Alice Springs Masters Games to an international conference of sports medicine practitioners.
By 1986, Geoff was firmly established as a successful general practitioner and looking for yet more challenges. He and Sandy were passionate about their sports and he voluntarily took the challenging position of first medical director of the Alice Springs Masters Games. This was in 1986 and he has continued to service these games with distinction and pride. Through Geoff’s continued participation and vision he can now claim the biggest single database of information relating to Masters Games and athletes in the world. This has been a unique study that will have benefits for treatment regimes worldwide. Geoff has also been the medical director for each Arafura Games since 1991. It is not only that Geoff coordinates the team and work shifts as a practitioner for the duration of games, but in fact in the lead-up to the events Geoff also trains the volunteers.
At the very first games in 1996 there were five volunteers to provide sports medicine advice and treatment. This year there is a team of 70 trained people with up to 55 volunteering to take a week’s leave from their normal jobs to provide sports medicine at the games.
In total, Geoff has trained between 1200 and 1500 sports trainers in Darwin, Katherine, and Alice Springs since 1984. These people from all fields of life, whether umpire, coach, parent, teacher, sportsman, or health professional, have benefited from a unique view of treatment and prevention of injury.
Physiotherapist Karen Schneider has been one of the committed practitioners at the games, her first visit to the Masters being in 1990 and she has not missed one since. Karen came to Darwin in 1985 with her husband and three small children, Murray, Katie, and Anthony, all of whom are now at various Queensland universities. For several years, Karen treated friends from netball under her house free of charge, having not yet established her own practice. One of those young girls she treated was 13 year old Jessica Lam who has now gone on to practice physiotherapy herself and has returned to Darwin to work with Geoff and Karen at Territory Sportsmedicine. Karen has been on the national board of Sports Medicine Australia since 1989.
In that same year, 1989, Geoff and Karen started working together under one roof. In their Wanguri premises they quickly developed a highly successful organisation both still running independent practices but engaging in the joint discussions relating to client care. Over time, the actual physical area of the clinic proved to be too small for their ideas of a true multifaceted clinic. But they are reluctant to move and risk an expansion that would in some way detract from the caring nature of their practice together.
I am pleased to say that in 2003, Geoff and Karen established a new home for their Territory Sportsmedicine clinic in my electorate of Fannie Bay. Karen would say that the move to Parap has been in her dreams since inception of the sports medicine clinic. She wanted her clients to feel comfortable, to have more space for practitioners, and to have a design that would cater for the needs of all who work together. To this extent, she and Geoff actually designed the layout of their new clinic coming together with investors, Sue and Phil McWilliam, to buy the actual building they now operate from.
Territory Sportsmedicine takes a more complete approach to client management and care. Each person who is treated by a doctor or physio recognises that they are in fact under the care of a comprehensive team of practitioners. Each morning a client care conference occurs where a patient’s treatment regime is discussed and considered. Territory Sportsmedicine is now home to two doctors, Geoff Thompson and Greg Harris, five physiotherapists, Karen, Jessica Lamb, Margaret Smith, Andrew Chudley, and Andrew Griffen, and massage and somatic therapist, David Hutchinson. Territory Sportsmedicine is also the vital link for specialist surgeons who fly-in to provide services for our local community. The professional team is ably supported by administration staff, Yvonne Osbourne, Judy Pratt, Janette DeLongue, Amanda Cummings, Kate Dickson, Michelle Walton, and Sandy Thompson.
The plans for Territory Sportsmedicine are to continue to expand their service base. Karen would like to see her team grow to include a podiatrist, nutritionist, and dietician. In this clinic, Karen and Geoff are able to provide training experience to new practitioners and to fulfil their vision of a truly integrated practice with caring professionals working to optimise the health of their patients.
I wish Geoff and Karen all the best with their expanded adventure and thank them for their commitment to our Masters Games.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about the recent Sabah International Expo 2004, which I attended as part of the NT Delegation in September. As the House has already heard, both Asian Relations and Trade Minister, Paul Henderson, and Primary Industry Minister, Kon Vatskalis, also attended the Sabah Expo.
Significantly, the Territory had the only delegation at this extremely well attended Expo which was led by government. I believe this sent a strong message to BIMP-EAGA that the Territory is definitely open for business and keen to engage in commercial, cultural and sporting opportunities with the region.
The Territory delegation was also one of the largest at the event, which attracted delegations from as far away as South Africa and Croatia. En route to Sabah, at the VIP lounge of the Brunei International Airport, I met with representatives of the Crown Prince of Brunei Darussalam, Pehin Ali, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Pehin Yahya, the Permanent Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department. The Prime Minister of Brunei is the Sultan of Brunei. On behalf of the Northern Territory, I presented the Crown Prince with gifts for his wedding. Part of the presentation was 300 kg of freshly farmed Humpty Doo barramundi. I understand it was served to wedding guests steamed in a sweet and sour chilli paste and, by all reports, it went down extremely well. In fact, Australian High Commissioner to Brunei, Christian Bennett, who was a wedding guest, said he did not think there was anyone of the 1000 guests at the wedding banquet who did not know that their fish was a gift from the Northern Territory. Christian also said he thought the steamed barra was the best of the 15 dishes served at this lavish banquet.
The Prince is now also the proud owner of an Aboriginal bark painting from Maningrida which was part of the Territory present for the royal wedding. These gifts were acknowledged by the Sultan with his gratitude passed on to me through his representatives and through the Australian High Commission to Brunei.
On our short stop in Brunei, my delegation and I were guests at a private dinner at the High Commissioner’s residence. Other guests at this dinner included Mr Peter Foster, Managing Director of Royal Brunei Airlines and Mr John Perry, CEO of the Brunei Economic Development Corporation.
The following day began with a very productive meeting between the Chief Minister of Sabah, the Right Honourable Datuk Musa Hj Aman, and I. Discussions focussed on areas of potential interaction for increased trade between Sabah and the Territory. The key areas included increased shipping access with potential direct services between Kota Kinabalu and Darwin. In addition, there was a lengthy discussion on the potential for tourism trade between the two centres. I invited the Chief Minister of Sabah to visit Darwin and was pleased that he was obviously interested in the prospect of visiting the Territory. This will be followed up by the appropriate departments and it is hoped that the Chief Minister will be able to visit in the future.
I then attended the Sabah International Expo Business Conference where I was a special guest. Following a very interesting and thought-provoking presentation by former Philippines President, Fidel Ramos, on the strategic directions for BIMP-EAGA, I gave a presentation on the Northern Territory and its role within BIMP-EAGA. This presentation was very well received by attendees at the conference.
In the afternoon, I had a meeting with Datuk Ewon Ebin, Minister for Industrial Development in Sabah. He had previously led a delegation from Sabah to the NT Expo. This meeting was a courtesy call and gave me an opportunity to thank him for his support of the NT Expo and to discuss trade opportunities, similar to those discussed with the Sabah Chief Minister. Datuk Ebin undertook to have a Sabah delegation return to Darwin for Expo next year, which I am sure everyone will be extremely pleased to hear.
Later in the afternoon my staff and I met with James Fitterling of Dow Chemicals in Malaysia as a follow-up to my recent visit to Thailand. Discussions were held on the potential for petrochemical industries in Darwin and down-stream processing and opportunities that could be derived from the current LNG and offshore gas exploration.
I finished the day by attending the official opening ceremony for the Sabah International Expo 2004, which included cultural performances, lion dancing and a spectacular fireworks display.
The following day, 9 September, I was a guest of honour at the official opening of the Sabah International Expo and spent the morning touring the Expo with the Deputy Chief Minister of Sabah. After being shown around, I then spent time at the Territory stand, which gave me a chance to talk to many of the local business people who had taken the initiative to do business with the region. I am pleased to hear from Asian Relations and Trade Minister, Paul Henderson, that all the business people who went to the Sabah Expo felt they had achieved positive business outcomes from the experience. As the minister pointed out, all the Territory business people who attended the Expo were there with financial assistance from the government’s Trade Support Scheme.
I then completed an official duty as the witness to the signing of an MOU between the Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Chamber of Commerce NT. This was also conducted by John Chadwick, President of MICCI, and Mark Norman, Chairman of the International Business Council, the IBC, of the Territory Chamber of Commerce. At completion of these official duties, I departed Kota Kinabalu to return to Darwin.
I consider this to be an extremely successful and useful trade mission. There are many opportunities to be gained from closer cultural and economic ties with Sabah. I was pleased by the opportunities available through BIMP-EAGA and look forward to continuing to work to better position the Territory economically within our region, and take advantage of the many areas of mutual interest and advantage.
Later this month, between 20 and 22 October, representatives from BIMP-EAGA will be in Darwin for a dialogue on NT trade and investment opportunities. Those discussions will also touch on tourism, cultural and sporting prospects. This will be an historic meeting, because it will be the first BIMP-EAGA Dialogue held in the Territory. We are currently seeking to elevate our status within BIMP-EAGA. I am hopeful that the relationship forged at the recent Sabah International Expo will be of assistance in that dialogue.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Chief Minister in Question Time when the subject was raised of the Martin Labor government being on top of advertising, and she did say that it was wrong, that it should not have been there. I would also like to ask the Chief Minister when we can have the sign at the Katherine Railway Station replaced. We talked about signage at previous sittings, that it represented Labor signage, and it is still exactly the same. It still has not been attended to. I would like to know when that can be rectified.
I mentioned at that same time that we have a vehicle ramp at the railway station which still does not have any trained personnel and is unable to be used to offload vehicles from The Ghan. We are missing a great opportunity in Katherine to offload passenger vehicles, for visitors to be able to do their trips through Kakadu and do the ring route and come back to Katherine and get on that train again. It has been sitting there totally unused without any operators since it was first put there before The Ghan arrived. I would just question as to when that is going to be dealt with. I would hope, in the very near future, that we could have a reply to that.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, nine years after the initial proposal was presented to the Northern Territory government, and after many years of frustration getting the proposal recognised, the Nhulunbuy High School multipurpose hall has finally been officially opened. The project is a collective effort, involving many members of staff, school council, parents, and officers from the Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Three people deserve to be singled out for their role in getting the project off the ground: Shirley Hooper, past principal; John Seem, past chairperson; and current chairperson, Nhulunbuy High, John O’Brien. The school and community have benefited from this project already over the past few months, and we look forward to the hall being used for a wide variety of sporting activities and functions that the facility can now provide.
My congratulations to Lauren Crabb from Nhulunbuy High School who won the Young Territory Author of the Year award recently. Up against many other writers throughout the Territory, Lauren’s story Staring into Shadows contains over 12 000 words, approximately 86 pages, about a girl who moves town, gets picked on by bullies, and goes through a number of experiences along the way. Congratulations also to Damien Chesson, who received the only Highly Commended Seal awarded in the Northern Territory for his book entitled From Dream to Reality. Well done to both of these Year 9 students of Nhulunbuy High.
A visit by the Darwin Symphony Orchestra was enjoyed by about a thousand people under the Nhulunbuy skies. The evening was a great success. With the utilisation of the Nhulunbuy High School oval as the setting, the highlight of the evening was the guest appearance of our local band conductor, Alan Fleming, who has made an enormous contribution to our community through his music. My thanks to Jane Stone and the organising committee for a great evening’s entertainment. Alan was invited to play with the Darwin Symphony Orchestra so we had our own local rep. It was a huge thrill for him and a huge thrill for us, who appreciate his talents. I understand that there will be frequent guest appearances by Alan with DSO over the years ahead, and I wish him well.
The Nhulunbuy Christian School celebrates its fifth birthday on Friday. I want to congratulate the school, the council, the parents on the tremendous success and the standards of education provided to our community. I have had the pleasure of being involved with the school from its inception when I was visited by Darwin and Lily del Aguila who had a vision for a Christian school in Nhulunbuy. The school continues to grow from strength to strength. I am always pleased to be invited to the birthday celebrations and other functions associated with the school.
I was also pleased to officially open the Gawa Christian School at Galiwinku recently. The Yolngu the only community has been very strong in their vision for a Christian facility to be available for their children. Through the Christian Schools Association Northern Territory, the vision has now become a reality, with approximately 25 students attending the facility at Gawa. I congratulate the principal, Marilyn Huddleston, and the school council for their hard work in achieving this great result for the community of Galiwinku and Gawa. My congratulations also to Jack Mechielsen and the staff of Christian Schools Northern Territory. They do a tremendous job.
Yirrkala Homeland School celebrated the completion of a pilot secondary school program at Garrthalala on Tuesday, 23 September. It is the first time any homeland school in the Territory has run a specific secondary program. Seventeen students participated. They were chosen from a potential 45 students based on regular attendance and their recent academic performance. The pilot project focussed on providing external secondary curriculum within the homeland context – something that community members and the school council have emphasised as a major priority for many years.
The key objective for the Yirrkala Homeland School is to allow more secondary-aged students access to appropriate quality secondary education. There was a lot of community support present. Over 200 people from Laynhapuy Homelands attended. I was pleased to be able to be part of the award ceremony, following a three-days school bush visit to other parts of the Territory.
Dhunggala Mununggurr is the very proud leader of Garrthalala, and his wife, Multhara, has been teaching at the school for many years. I commend them both for their encouragement and commitment to education, and the discipline that has been associated with their homeland community for many years. It is always a delight to visit Garrthalala. I appreciate the friendships shared with the ‘Old Man’ and his family.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I again want to raise some issues tonight about antisocial behaviour in public housing. It is one of the frustrations of my electorate that we do not seem to be repairing the damage that has been occurring.
Before I am accused of targeting a certain group of people, we should all face the fact that most of the antisocial behaviour is caused by people from remote communities coming into town. We know that there are many responsible indigenous public housing tenants in Alice Springs. It does not help them to be burdened with itinerant visitors causing a nuisance by upsetting their lives and that of their neighbours. I am not saying that tenants should not have visitors. What I am saying is there should be a limit to what tenants and neighbours have to put up with. I know of many tenants who can no longer take the harassment, noise and humbug, and they have had to leave. There have been cases where the tenants have moved out and the visitors have moved in. This sort of behaviour would not be tolerated in any society - certainly not in my own private home - and not generally accepted.
I do not need to go on about the behaviours that I am talking about, which is usually alcohol-fuelled. However, the minister must realise that he has to take stronger measures than is already happening. There are responsibilities, and this is what worries me. The minister and people in his department seem to think that it is not their responsibility when there are problems. We have a Residential Tenancies Act which states, quite clearly, in section 54, No illegal conduct or nuisance on premises etc:
- It is a term of a tenancy agreement that a tenant must not –
(c) cause or permit ongoing or repeated interference with the reasonable peace or privacy of another
person in the other person's use of premises or land in the immediate vicinity of the premises to
which the agreement relates.
Then we have the department’s own tenancy agreement which all tenants sign. That has a section on Code of Conduct, or has tenants’ responsibility for the actions of the others called vicarious liability:
- If the person who, while on a tenant’s premises with the consent of the tenant, performs or omits to
performs an act that would have been in breach of the lease, the tenant is responsible under the lease
for the act or omission.
It also says:
- During the lease the tenant must treat neighbours in a reasonable and courteous manner and not create
a nuisance, whether by a loud noise, offensive behaviour, bad language, drunken behaviour, physical
violence or trespass onto any other property.
This is in the tenancy agreement. We have a Residential Tenancies Act. People sign the agreement. However, these agreements are being breached continually and, yet, we are not getting any improvement in the behaviour that is coming out of the public housing in many of the areas in my electorate. It has reached the stage where many people in the electorate are really fed up. The minister promised that he would be putting out a security tender and that we would have security checks regularly at night. At the moment I think in one of the worse flats we have there is one check that arrives usually about 8 pm, whereas it should be there every hour on the hour to make sure that things are under some sort of control.
What I do not understand is when there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement and of the tenancy act, the minister seems to think it is not his responsibility. He says it is a police matter. Clearly, the sort of behaviour and conduct that is occurring breaches the act and the tenancy agreement and the minister has a legislative responsibility. As far as I am concerned it is not being performed.
I can understand the dilemma it has caused. The department does not want to be too heavy handed in evicting tenants, even though it says quite clearly in this residential act that, ‘… landlord may terminate a tenancy by two days notice in writing to the tenant in accordance with section 101 if …’, and it goes on, and another part says ‘… serious breach by the tenant … court may on application of the landlord terminate tenancy and make an order for possession of the premises on or after the date specified in the order being a date not less than seven days after the date of order if satisfied that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement’.
I am not quite sure why the minister and his department do not want to take responsibility and keep on saying it is a matter for the police. I have had many cases where people have contacted Territory Housing only to be told it is not their matter, it is a matter for the police. The minister even recently put out a letter to tenants advising that if they were having problems to ring the police. I realise the police must be alerted in crisis or emergency situations, however the landlord, the Territory government, does have responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the tenancy act. Certainly, in recent months, I put many suggestions to the minister, his staff and his department, some of which have been implemented but unfortunately much more can be done.
We still need to get the message out to communities before people even get into town that there is a certain code of behaviour. I have talked to one of the elders from the Lhere Artepe people and they say they are also concerned at the way people are coming to town and abusing their land. They ask me why do people double dip, why do they get a house out in their communities and one in town as well; and why are these people from places such as Docker River getting houses in town if their community needs them out there? Quite often, I cannot give them any answer. All I know is that it is a real problem.
I want the minister to be more proactive to, as the Lhere Artepe people say, ‘Get the message out’, start spreading the word that they will not accept it. If they do come into town, provide them with a camping ground or provide them with a seniors’ visitors centre or somewhere where they can go rather than camp in people’s houses and cause problems. The trouble is we are not addressing the problem and trying to find a solution to it. We are always putting a bandaid on it. That is certainly not improving the lifestyle of people in public housing or the people in their neighbourhood.
Recently, a fire was lit by a visitor to a public housing unit late on a Friday. The fire service acted accordingly and disconnected the gas and electricity supply to the neighbouring duplex. This unit had been damaged by smoke on the walls, floors and ceilings. In fact, it was uninhabitable. The tenant of that unit was a young girl with a small child. Realising that she could not stay in the unit she called the emergency number at Territory Housing at 8 pm or 9 pm that night. She was told nothing could be done, ring back on Monday. That is a most unsatisfactory response to an emergency such as that. When she did get back on Monday, to give Territory Housing their due, they did find her alternative temporary housing which unfortunately again was next to a unit where there was brawling and drunkenness and so she just did not accept it. And to give Wayne Hoban, the Regional Manager, his due, he has spoken to this young lass and has said there will be compensation for the loss of her furniture and that they will try to find her a place where she and her small child will not be threatened.
The minister must realise that a response like that is completely unacceptable. I hope that he puts in order some strict instructions to whoever operates this emergency number to respond so we do not have a repeat of this.
I have asked the minister if he will attend a public meeting because I have been asked to organise one by a number of tenants in the Larapinta and Braitling areas who are fed up with the behaviour. They want to be able to voice their concerns and propose some measures that they think might have some effect. Unfortunately, the minister at this stage appears to say no, he won’t attend the meeting, which is disappointing. The minister has a responsibility to face these tenants and neighbours and to hear their concerns. I hope he reconsiders that decision because I will go ahead and call it. I have already spoken to the police and they are keen to come along. The Lhere Artepe elders also want to come along, as does the Aboriginal Referral Service. Tangentyere will be invited. We will get as many organisations as we can along to help these residents with the problems they are having. I hope the minister will reconsider so he can see what it is all about.
This minister has also, unfortunately, let us down in respect of one of his promises to assist the Sporting Shooters Association. You may recall in May this year, I said how disappointing it was that the police had closed their ranges after 17 years of shooting in the complex and never having a mishap. The police decided the profiles that went over the ranges were dangerous and they closed many of their ranges. The minister said he would promise to get this done by the Masters Games.
The Masters Games are going to be great. People are already telling me that Alice Springs is abuzz. Some people have turned up for registration. There are 4552 registrants and, of these, 1100 are from Alice Springs and there are 3500 visitors to the Centre.
Unfortunately, the ranges have not been built, as promised. It was 21 April when the police range inspectors raised this issue with the Sporting Shooters Association and they told them that the ranges would be built in time for the Masters Games. Unfortunately, owing to clearances not being received in time from the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, nothing has happened. This dilemma has come about from a decision, after 17 years, that the profiles of the shooting range are dangerous. It is ridiculous.
Many of the shooters who come to Alice Springs do it for enjoyment. Arrangements are trying to be made whereby they will be able to enjoy their sport. Some of the target equipment and shade have not even been put up yet. It has been compounded by the Police Firearms Unit with their shooting competition to be held simultaneously on the Main Rifle Range 1 and their Pistol Silhouette Range 2, which are side by side. Obviously, they have said that they cannot do them side by side. Both ranges have to be cleared by the range officer at the same time before anyone can go down to their targets to patch them, put up new ones or whatever they do. It is proving to be a bit of a dilemma for this club, which has a very good reputation for safety, involvement of many people and making sure they have the right protocols in place.
It is going to be a time of patience; a lot of patience will be needed by the people involved in this. I hope that visitors to the club are not put off by the fact that they are going to have to wait, that the whole scenario has been changed. Solutions such as walkie-talkies are being introduced to see whether they can get a smooth flow and efficient approach so competitors can finish their events on time. Notices have been sent to people who are coming from interstate to explain the situation, and we hope they understand that this is not the fault of the Sporting Shooters Association in Alice Springs. It is the result of what I consider to be a very ridiculous decision to change and not approve the ranges as they have been operating for the last 17 years. I hope the minister concerned will be able to come to Alice Springs, address our public meeting on public housing, and perhaps, while he is down there for the Masters Games, go out to the shooting complex and see the problems that they are experiencing because of that decision.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, Michael Halge started his career with the Northern Territory Public Service on 21 September 1979 as an Administrative Class A2 Records Clerk with the then Housing Commission. In 1980, Michael changed career direction and entered the information technology industry as a trainee computer programmer and, within two years, was promoted to Administrative Class A6 Assistant Computer Programmer. In November 1985, Michael transferred from the Housing Commission to NCOM as a Computer Systems Officer Grade 1. He was promoted soon after to CSO Grade 2 as an Analyst Programmer.
Michael continued to rise through the ranks and, in 1996, was appointed project manager for the ongoing maintenance and development of the Integrated Justice Information System. In February 1998, Michael was appointed to Project Manager, Business Systems with DCAT, and in July 2000, transferred to DCIS as the Manager Data Support/Product Support. Michael remained with the Data Centre Services of DCIS until his recent retirement on 30 September 2004, celebrating 25 years continuous service with the Northern Territory government.
Michael is known to his colleagues as a diligent, trustworthy and respected employee, an officer who is committed to providing quality service and establishing positive relationships between the public and private sector. I understand that Michael plans to stay in the Territory until later this year, and then move to Perth in the New Year to be closer to his family.
On behalf of the Minister for the Department of Corporate and Information Services, Paul Henderson, and I, I would like to thank Michael for the tremendous work he has done in helping build the Territory. It is a great career to be with the public service for 25 years in various jobs and to see that it actually came through information technology. That is great. He will be a sad loss. However, as with many people who have been here for so long, they reach a point in their lives that they do go off to be with other family members interstate. I am sure that Michael will return to his many, many friends he would have made over that time, as we all would after 25 years here.
He will be a sad loss to Wulagi. We will not see him around the Wulagi shops as often as we might have done in the past; he lives just across the road from it. However, I am sure we will see him in the future. Thank you, Michael, for all the work you have done for the Territory, and all those people whom you would have trained and helped in the years of your career, it is much appreciated.
On 29 August, I had the pleasure of representing the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, to officially open the George Brown training rooms at the Darwin City Brass Band training hall in Abala Road, Marrara. There has been a brass band in Darwin since 1895, when citizens and musicians of the town, then known as Palmerston, raised a magnificent sum of 30 to send away to England for instruments and music. Since that time, there has almost always been a Darwin Brass Band. There have been some hiccups in the form of two World Wars and various cyclones, but generally the band survived. Remarkably, even when the band was blown away, it would pop again in another form a few years later.
The present band was formed in November 1981. For some years, it used the Darwin City Council Chambers as its headquarters and practice rooms, courtesy of Darwin Lord Mayors, Cec Black and Alec Fong Lim. Late in 1990, it moved to the Railway Club in Parap. However, one of the band’s first acts as an association in 1982 was to open a special account to be called the building account. Patiently, year by year, the band managed to put away savings in this account, until eventually, in the early 1990s, opportunity knocked. The Northern Territory government granted the band a block of land in Marrara, which is down by the airport – Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you know it - and by then there was enough money in the savings account to design and put up a building.
Coincidently, that event happened at the same time as the wrecking of the old government buildings at the ends of Smith and Mitchell Streets to make way for the new Supreme Court and Parliament House. The band was permitted to salvage what it could from the buildings. They scavenged an amazing variety of fittings, ceilings, plumbing, carpet, you name it, the rest was hard work.
The driving force behind the building project was Steve Morton, a founding member of the band now living in Canberra. Steve’s determination and enthusiasm kept the savings growing for 10 years, and it was Steve who directed the building operations which gave us the great band rooms down there. Having completed the core of its building, the band had to go back to putting away savings in the building fund again until they had enough to complete the next stage of the building plan. This was to build three individual training or practice rooms and a storeroom. The band was then teaching many learners in one room, which was quite hard on the eardrums. Lessons went on everywhere: in the kitchen, out in the backyard. With the new rooms, drum tuition could go on in its own room - a big step forward. Students could practice and have tuition in privacy.
The project to add the new training rooms began in 2001 from grants for $20 000 from the Northern Territory government, matched by $20 000 from the Darwin City Council and $20 000 from the band’s own savings. Further help was given by the Territory government, and the Community Benefit Fund granted the band $5000 to help install airconditioning in the new rooms. I am pleased to say that I was behind and supported that bid for the Community Benefit Fund grant, and lobbied hard for the band, and spoke constantly and reminded the minister about what a good thing this band was for the community. Fortunately, they received that benefit and were able to put the aircon in. The band members have worked hard to complete the new rooms, but particular thanks are due to Dr Ron Roberts for directing and coordinating the whole operation, as well as doing a lot of work himself.
The band has dedicated its training rooms to George Brown, former Lord Mayor of Darwin, and the band’s patron from 1992 to 2002. In his 10 years as Lord Mayor, George gave the band help, support and friendship. Since his sudden passing in January 2002, the members of the band, as everyone in Darwin, have greatly missed him as a friend, and as a politician passionate about the city of Darwin and its future.
I had the pleasure of opening those rooms on behalf of the Chief Minister. There is a beautiful plaque on the wall. Lord Mayor Brown’s widow, Noreen, was in the audience and I asked her to come forward and we opened the building together. I thought that was quite fitting and appropriate. Also present, to show you the esteem and value that the community has for the Darwin City Brass Band, were the Administrator, Hon Ted Egan and Ms Nerys Evans. As I have said, Mrs Noreen Brown was there; and Mr and Mrs Frank Geddes - he opened the Bill Budd percussion room. Bill was another old timer and a well-loved past member of the band. He passed away some time ago now, but they opened the percussion room in his memory. It is great; it has all this memorabilia around the place. Bill Budd was quite a character. Mr Ray Chin, president of Darwin RSL - we all know Mr Chin; Mr Geoff Carter who is Vice-President of Darwin RSL; Mrs Janette Wilson; and Noble Comrade. Noble Comrade is that horse that is a whaler. You see him getting around; he is quite well known around the place these days. He turns up to the Anzac Day parades. It was really good because, for Noble Comrade, they made a .303 rifle bucket which was donated by the RSL. They had Noble Comrade all done out in kit; it was spectacular. Mr Karl Schrimpf from the German Club was also there, as was Mr Norm Yeend, former band master; and Mr Frank Haydock who was a former band master.
On the day, there was a sausage sizzle, a jumping castle, entertainment for the kids, and band performances went on and on during the day. It was simply fabulous. Congratulations to Darwin City Brass Band for their efforts there.
The Darwin City Brass Band is now looking to conduct another concert at Brown’s Mart, where I had the pleasure of attending a similar concert earlier this year and it was a packed house. They are applying to Arts NT for a grant to hold another spectacular big brass sound concert in May 2005. They have asked guest artists, John Kellaway, a trumpet soloist who really works hard with the band, and worked at the camp with them and the juniors. He is very much respected, and he respects the Darwin City Brass Band. He does a lot of work with them and they are quite grateful for everything that he does. He is a lecturer in trumpet at the University of Newcastle.
Andrew Snell, a lecturer in brass, will be present and acting as musical director for the proposed concert. Local vocalists are Sand Williams, whom just about everyone in Darwin knows, and John Allen. I have spoken about John before in this House. I am not too good on my terms for opera, but he was with the Australian Opera in Sydney. He comes very well qualified. He is a teacher at Nightcliff. You can see him at night time; mainly down at the casino. He is hired there. He is part of a group there. He is just tremendous, he belts them out and keeps everyone entertained.
That is the sort of talent that the brass band will have playing with them at the proposed concert on 4 May 2005. The Darwin Brass Band will also be in concert with other brass musicians from the Darwin area such as from the Palmerston Concert Band, the Army Band Darwin and the Charles Darwin University.
The Darwin City Brass Band is comprised of many members of the community from all walks of life. It is a band that I could best describe as egalitarian in its composition and accessibility. The band has a proud history of being invited to play at community events ranging from sombre gatherings such as the Anzac Day march to celebrity events such as Christmas Carols in the city mall. This latter example of its willingness to entertain is exceptional when taking into account this particular performance generally occurs during the peak of the Wet Season.
I also recall a performance during the lighting of the Christmas trees on The Esplanade in Darwin, again in the Wet, when a huge thunder storm suddenly veered toward the gathering. A tropical downpour commenced and still the band kept playing. The audience, as only an audience in Darwin could, sat through the rain and was appreciative of the special treat offered by the band. It was not until the lightening got too close for comfort that the band downed instruments and sought shelter. It was a special moment, one of those spectacular efforts which makes us all proud to be Top Enders.
Another memorable moment I would like to share with the House was the Darwin City Brass Band’s artistic innovation and participation in a funeral march for a well known and respected community member. The deceased was a flamboyant, gay icon in town and he was loved and admired across the community. The Darwin City Brass Band was given the honour of lifting people’s spirits so that they could celebrate this man’s life and not mourn his passing. The band did this with panache.
I am aware that the Darwin City Brass Band receives operational funding from the Darwin City Council and this funding is used expressly for electricity, telephone, building maintenance, instrument repairs and maintenance, music costs, band master honorarium, tutor fees, uniforms, transport to and from public performances, and a range of operational requirements. However, the band is now seeking Arts NT support in the form of a grant to assist them to stage a concert on 4 May 2005 at Brown’s Mart. I am certain that this concert will meet the high community expectations that have been established on the back of the other fine public concerts the band has led in the recent past. As I stated earlier this year, I attended a packed house at Brown’s Mart, where a similar concert to the one for which the grant is sought, that was produced by the Darwin City Brass Band. I am confident that the band has both the financial and artistic expertise to stage the proposed May 2005 concert. I am proud and honoured to be able to stand behind the application for the Arts NT grant and it has my full support.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak this evening about a great evening that I had with my colleague, the member for Casuarina, when we handed over title to the Tracy Village Sports Club which is in my colleague, the member for Casuarina’s electorate, but right on the boundary of my electorate of Wanguri, on Friday 17 September. This has been a dream for Tracy Village for many years, to have title to the land they sit on out there on Tambling Terrace and, on 17 September, after much negotiation and a wait for many years, we were pleased to hand over the title deeds to president Gary Ross in front of a packed house who were there to see the semi-final in the lead up to the AFL grand final between Port Adelaide and my team, St Kilda. As history will show, Port got up and the Saints went down, although the game was there for the Saints to win and Port went on to win the grand final.
It was a fabulous evening. The presentation and the accolades and the excitement of getting title to the land was fantastic to see. I know that Tracy Village has big plans and is now able to access finance with this secured title. They are a very successful club, making good profits that they are returning to the various sporting groups affiliated and associated with Tracy Village. It was a fantastic day on 17 September.
I particularly make mention this evening of president, Gary Ross, and club manager, John Quinlan, all the staff and members and the committee. They are working very hard. They have turned that club around in the last five to six years. It was struggling six-odd years ago, but it has been turned around now. It is a fantastic club. Membership is strong and growing, and with title to the land, they are going to be able to provide a better facility to the people of the northern suburbs and opportunities for kids to participate in the many sports the club sponsors.
I would also like to talk about Dripstone High School, one of the feeder high schools for my electorate of Wanguri. Every year, Dripstone Day has been an event to be marked in the diary and monies raised on the day are raised for cancer research, as has been the case for many years now. For the last few years, they have had a ‘Crop and Colour’ event where they encourage teachers and local celebrities – last year, I think my colleague, the member for Casuarina, again had the very scary experience of having his head shaved and he raised about $9000 for cancer research.
Crop and Colour was again an event this year, and I thank and acknowledge that AFLNT Coaches Mark Motlop from Wanderers, Damien Hale from Saints, Chris Williams from Tahs and Ark Tyrrell from Palmerston all agreed to have their hair cropped or coloured – I am unsure which because I was overseas at the time. A total of $3500 was raised for cancer research. I congratulate the coordinator of the event, Mr Greg Cilento. Greg has coordinated Dripstone Day for many years. He is a great teacher. He rang to ask whether I would have my hair cropped for Dripstone Day. Thankfully, I looked at the diary and saw that I would be overseas, but I can see that I will have another phone call again next year. I do not know whether I am brave enough to do it. To Greg, it was a great event; keep up the good work.
Wanguri Primary School is going from strength to strength in my electorate. They held a great event on Father’s Day. They organised a breakfast for all the fathers and there was a huge turnout. It kicked off at 7 o’clock in the morning with a fully cooked breakfast. There must have been well over 100 dads having Friday morning breakfast with their children before school started. I thank all the teachers at the school who organised this event. Everyone put in. Jenny Robinson, the principal of the school, was very pleased to see so many fathers turn up because it is often hard to get the dads involved in events at the school because most fathers are out working. I think this has started a bit of a tradition at Wanguri. It was very much appreciated and enjoyed by all the dads and all the kids.
On the same day, Wanguri Primary held a Numbers and Bubbles Fair, which saw the school buzzing with energy and excitement. The fair was initiated to promote the maths and science areas of curriculum in a positive way through a variety of novel and exciting experiences. A carnival atmosphere was created, with large, colourful signs, balloons and streamers helping to generate an exciting feel. I attended the fair with my daughter, Isabelle, who has just started preschool at Wanguri. She had a fabulous day. I particularly would like to mention that the fair was a concept created by Sue Heysen, the Library Hub teacher, and organised by ESL teacher, Cheryll Le Conte. Every classroom teacher designed and ran a stall on the day themed around maths and science. The teachers are now looking at a Literacy Fair along the same lines. That will be another event for the calendar. Certainly, Wanguri is making education and learning an exciting activity for the children.
I would like to briefly mention Leanyer Primary School. I know Henry Gray is a member of the North Darwin Rotary Club, which, every year, has Pride of Workmanship Awards. My colleague, the member for Johnston, presented the awards this year. I had the pleasure of doing it for the last two years and I certainly enjoyed those awards. It is great to see people from our local community acknowledged by Rotary for their contribution to the community.
Three Leanyer Primary School teachers, Mrs Natalie Ede, Mrs Melanie Cole and Ms Ana Bernardino were given awards this year, not only for their contribution to the school but to the general community. To those teachers at Leanyer, and to everyone who won awards this year, congratulations and well done. Again, congratulations to the North Darwin Rotary Club for sponsoring that event every year.
I had the pleasure of sitting down recently with a young constituent of mine, a great young Territorian, who came to see me in my electorate office to see if I would help and could sponsor him as being one of the first Territorians to represent the youth of Australia at the United Nations Youth Council. This young fellow’s name is Karan Anand. Karan has been selected to attend The Hague International Model United Nations conference as a member of Australia’s delegation which takes place in The Netherlands in January 2005.
Karan is the first Territorian to attend the United Nations Youth Council; a great honour. He is a fantastic young man who really is committed, not only to the United Nations, but to the work of the United Nations and the aspirations of the United Nations in making the world a better place for everybody who lives in it. Meeting a young person like Karan, who is going to represent Australia in The Netherlands in January 2005, was one of the highlights of the year for me in my electorate.
I was very pleased to be able to sponsor Karan. He had a couple of fundraising nights recently at the Indian restaurant in the Mall. I was pleased to be able to organise a framed print for auction that night of a print of the first train coming into Darwin, a limited edition print, which all of my Cabinet colleagues signed, and we had that framed and auctioned that night. I was very pleased to see that it sold for $600. Other people donated prizes and all up those two evenings, talking to Karan yesterday, helped raised $3500. He is looking to try to raise $5500 to help him attend this conference. He is certainly a young man who is going places.
It is great to see our young people in the Territory, not only being able to cut it at a national level, but to go on and represent Australia internationally at such a prestigious event. It is absolutely fabulous. I certainly look forward to hearing from Karan as to how he went when he gets back in late January next year.
A new business has opened up in Hibiscus Shopping Town, where I have my electorate office. The most recent addition to that particular shopping centre is McKells Real Estate, which also has an office in Palmerston. Gary and Chris have fitted right in to the friendly shopping atmosphere at Hibiscus. It is good to see a new real estate office in the area as it reflects the market which is situated amongst Leanyer and Wanguri. It is great to see house prices rising. Certainly, my constituents are very happy to see their capital assets increase in value. Speaking with Gary and Chris the other day, they are pretty excited about where the Territory is headed at the moment, and how strong the real estate market is. I welcome Gary and Chris to our community at Hibiscus.
Things are moving ahead in the Northern Territory. People are getting ahead in the Northern Territory. It is a pretty exciting place at the moment, and certainly, there are many good things happening in my electorate. I will continue to make note of the great things happening in the Wanguri electorate in adjournments in the weeks to come.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, as patron of the Jingili BMX Club, it gave me great pleasure to be invited to sponsor and award lanyards to all riders in the Northern Territory BMX Association Age Pre-Meet Titles 2004, held on Wednesday 29 September, at the Jingili BMX track.
I witnessed some fantastic riding from these young, and not so young, BMX riders, and watched with interest as competitors as young as those in the Under-5s - Jesse Browne, Quaid Carter and Lauren Drummond - to those 16-year-olds - Carlee Grant, Nicky Sinclair, Kristy Dickens, Talya Johnston, Keith Easterbrook, Ashley Johns, John Johnson and Dwayne Beaumont - competed in their age group. Last came the Over-19-plus men - Christopher Johns from the Satellite City Club, Darren Hicks from the Jingili Club, and Jamie Coxon from Nhulunbuy - and the Open Women and Cruisers - Brooke Ellison and Natasha Dickens of Jingili against Rene Baker of Nhulunbuy and Barbara Wogandt of Satellite City. It is amazing that this sport attracts riders from four to 49 years of age, male and female.
It was great to see them go around the track. The Jingili BMX Club has put a lot of work into their track; it is looking absolutely fantastic. It is a real challenge for all of those riders. It was good to see some of the younger four- and five-year-olds on their little bikes, with their mums and dads helping them up over the humps and around they went. They compete really hard and they really enjoy it. It is a great sport for young and old. It was also great to see riders from all over the Territory. They received a warm welcome and had a great time. All the riders, parents and support teams were made to feel very welcome at the Jingili BMX Club.
One hundred and twenty six riders turned out for the pre-titles which enabled them to familiarise themselves with the track leading up to the age titles, which were held on Friday and Saturday night, 1 and 2 October. These pre-titles also provided a valuable shake down for the officials from all clubs - a great learning experience for all involved. There is a lot of coordination involved in the racing. There is a communication system, marshals all around the track, and marshals getting riders ready to come onto the starting grid. It requires a lot of organisation, split-second timing and there is a lot of pressure. People really enjoy it and I commend the officials from the clubs. They all put in and it went very smoothly.
The titles are held annually around the Territory. It involves seven BMX clubs: the Red Centre Club, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Jabiru, Wanguri, Satellite City at Palmerston, and Jingili in my electorate. As mentioned earlier, this year Jingili BMX Club had the honour of hosting the titles and spent many hours preparing the track for the occasion. I am pleased to be able to present a couple of grants to the club to improve the lighting, the track, and the purchase of a laptop computer with software specially designed for conducting BMX races, thereby saving many hours of time-consuming organisation of races and scoring.
The Age Championships held following the pre-title meeting provided, by all accounts, a fantastic competition for all involved. Unfortunately, I had other commitments, but I sent my best wishes and wished all the competitors in the pre-meet, when I awarded the lanyards, the best on their big nights on Friday an Saturday night. One hundred and thirty six riders turned out: 60 from the Jingili club, 33 from Palmerston Satellite City, 10 from Katherine, one from the Wanguri Club and 20 all the way from Nhulunbuy - a great contingent - and the Red Centre was represented by 12 riders. I thank them for coming all the way up from Alice Springs.
The riding was fast and furious in all divisions and, of course, unbelievable riding in the Under 4, 5, 6 and 7-year-olds sprockets, who are just beautiful to watch. These kids exhibit so much joy in their sport and are very competitive. They are in it totally for the fun, as well. The largest race saw 19 riders compete in the 7 Sprocket race, which included Billy Browne and Simon Sutcliffe from my electorate. In the 9, 11 and 13-year-old boys categories, after qualification events, there were some real cut-throat, dead man finishes, which always produce fantastic races. It always comes down to one final ride - one push of the pedal.
The 9-year-old category pitting 16 riders against one another, was won by Jack Dalton from the Wanguri Club, Jack Henning from Satellite City was second place and Luke Ellison from Jingili was third. The 11-year-old boys was won by Jace Betts from Nhulunbuy with Harrison Roberts from Jingili second, and Carl Wogandt from the Satellite City third. I see that Jeremy Lassemillante, Stephen Shaw, Zac Fidler, Jackson Drew and Benjamin Rogers of the Jingili Club also raced in this category.
In the 12 rider 13-year-old event Hayden Jude from the Red Centre took first followed by Shane Frew and Timothy Grant of Jingili and Matthew Lassemillante in fifth position. In the 19-plus category, while the field was only small, it pitted Australian No 1 Christopher Johns from Satellite City against Australian No 3 Darren Hicks from Jingili. Their ride was shoulder to shoulder, heart stopping stuff. There was push and shove all the way with incredible strategic moves seeing Darren Hicks the eventual winner over the two nights. These young riders are an inspiration to all the riders and aspiring riders in the BMX field.
There were many races during the championships and it is very difficult to mention everyone. These championships could not be run without the parents and friends who get together for their kids. Paul Lassemillante, president of the Jingili BMX Club and his committee, did a fantastic job of preparing the track and organising all that was involved in the running of the event. I know that Helena Lassemillante, a very competent club secretary, spent many hours photocopying and preparing newsletters, agendas, and race guides for the club. Also on hand to ensure the success of the championship was Jackie Dobson, Jason Eecen - despite a couple of broken wrists, and Ray and Sue Fraunefelder, the caretakers who do an incredible job on the grounds as mentioned by the association president as the best in the NT and comparable to any track in the Territory.
Craig Cousins, ex-long term president, was naturally on hand to guide and assist in every facet of the organisation and racing and scoring. His long term commitment to the Jingili BMX and BMX in general was recognised by an award with life membership of Jingili BMX. So congratulations, Craig. Craig has been involved with the Jingili Club for over 10 years, eight as a committee member, six as president. Craig became involved with the club when his two boys took up riding but long after they moved on he continued to lead the club, gaining expertise in grant submissions, enhancing the club year after year. Craig has recently been astounded to have his son, Blake, return to BMX riding after many years. My sincerest congratulations to Craig on the life membership in recognition of his enormous contribution to BMX. I am very much aware of how much time and effort he has put into the club since I first became patron and cannot think of a more worthy recipient of this honour.
Finally, I would like to praise the efforts of Jann Goodworth, who was the first aid officer for the championships. Jann works at the Alawa Preschool and volunteers her time to the BMX club on a weekly basis. Sitting next to Jann all night, I was extremely impressed with her gentle and caring manner with the children and young adults. She immediately engaged them and quickly got their confidence. She was also extremely efficient and thorough in the way in which she treated each and every rider in her care. So to Jann, on behalf of the BMX riders, their parents and the community, thank you for all your efforts. Finally, congratulations to everyone involved in the successful pre-titles and championships event at the Jingili BMX club.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about some comments made by the Attorney-General as reported in the NT News on Tuesday, 5 October. I refer to another letter written by a member of the public. These matters go to the administration of justice as overseen by the Attorney-General in the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General made some comments in relation to the incident in which Mr Stefan Wood was involved and the Attorney-General, quite rightly in my view at least, said that he would look at closing off whatever loop holes existed so that such an incident would not occur again. I do not think I need to go into the details.
However, what was incredibly disturbing was as per the Northern Territory News on 5 October: ‘Dr Toyne also issued a stern warning to Mr Wood’, and on page 2, Dr Toyne is quoted:
- ‘If I was that guy I would be looking in the rear-view mirror because he could very likely see a police car
there for the next several months,’ he said.
I raise this matter in adjournment debate because it could be said that an ill-tempered comment such as that amounts to a threat. It could be said that such an ill-tempered remark from the Territory’s first law officer appears to sanction and indeed encourage police harassment of Stefan Wood. It is certainly threatening. I have not spoken to Mr Wood about this, but I understand that he may be taking the matter further, although I have only heard that third or fourth hand.
The issue at hand is these extraordinary comments of the Attorney-General. I think it is unprecedented in the Territory, and probably in Australia, for an Attorney-General to come up with something like that. It is symptomatic of the Attorney-General’s approach. He is very keen to be quoted in the media and does not always think before he opens his mouth.
This is a very serious matter and sends a terrible message to other people in the Northern Territory, and that is evidenced by one letter - there may have been more, I have not noticed them - but one letter in the NT News dated 7 October. It is written by Mr David Fidler who lives in Leanyer, and I will quote two parts of that letter, as follows:
- In announcing the government’s intention to do just that, …
… Peter Toyne has made the most ill-advised statement ever uttered by an NT Attorney-General.
To suggest someone, presumed under the law to be innocent, is to be shadowed by police for six
months, is frightening.
The author goes on to refer to it as ‘… foolish statement’ and then says:
- The Chief Minister should consider the propriety of Dr Toyne’s continued occupation as Attorney-General
and Minister for Justice.
I heartily agree with David Fidler. These sorts of comments, apart from being bullying, threatening and apparently sanctioning harassment of someone who is presumed innocent until guilty, and I will come back to that, are extraordinary and not the comments of anyone fit to be the Territory’s first law officer.
There is another matter, however. Elsewhere in the article on 5 October, it said that police are still investigating this matter and it goes on to say that they are interviewing people who attended a charity golf event at which Mr Stefan Wood was present on the day. If I understand the situation correctly, Mr Wood is not facing a charge of drinking and driving because there is no evidence; there can be no evidence of that under the existing legislation.
Having outlined the impropriety of the Attorney-General’s comments, I raise the question perhaps for others to answer in due course as to what role, if any, the police minister has had in what might be described as victimisation when the police are still investigating something for which Mr Wood, as I understand it, cannot be charged.
We have two very important things going on here. One is the Attorney-General is, on the face of it, encouraging the police to chase, irritate, and harass a person, a citizen of the Northern Territory; and at the same time, it could be said that the police minister is - I do not know whether he is, but it is certainly a perception out there - encouraging the police to investigate something for which there can be no charge.
These are very serious matters, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, and …
Mr Henderson: I have not even spoken to the police about it.
Ms CARNEY: … I know that there are many people in the Northern Territory who were equally as appalled and shocked really that the Attorney-General was so silly as to make those remarks.
But of course, from this government we are seeing the way they operate. We saw it with Mr Warren Anderson. We saw the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, in essence, say, ‘Oh well, the court was wrong, the court did not know what it was doing. Mr Anderson was guilty after all’. Fortunately, after threat of legal proceedings, and by God, Warren Anderson was going to follow through with it, but at the 11th hour, the Chief Minister obviously was advised to apologise and withdraw her remarks. As I understand it, Mr Anderson has issued proceedings against minister Ah Kit.
However, it does, I believe, show a trend in this government to persecute, to hunt down, and to get, and to get in every way, get stuck into, to humiliate, to just try to crash their way through if people do things that they do not like. This goes to abuse of their positions, potentially, as the Attorney-General and police minister. I do not put it in any higher than that, but there is a perception there that there are more questions to be answered, and I will probably be asking some of those questions in another forum. However, it is appropriate that I do raise those very important questions regarding the administration of justice.
Mr Kiely: Over some glass of chardonnay.
Ms CARNEY: I should also, while I am on my feet, and while I am talking about the Attorney-General, refer to, and I am happy to table it at the end if members would like, a letter I wrote to him on 8 October. Now, the Attorney-General, apart from, or in addition to, trying to harass people, is making a bit of a habit, it seems to me, of simply refusing - we saw it today, we saw it earlier this week - to answer questions in the committee stages of debate. In other words, if it gets too hard for him, he just sits there and shakes his head, which amounts to not answering a question.
The Attorney-General is getting even worse at answering questions. I gave him some questions months ago in relation to the May budget that remain unanswered. The letter I wrote to him on 8 October says as follows:
- Dear Attorney,
I refer to a letter from your office, dated 7 September, in which I was advised that various letters I wrote to
you about the May budget would be placed before the minister at the earliest opportunity.
My correspondence extends back to 29 June and includes letters sent in July and August. All of the questions were,
in fact, provided to you in early June. Despite advising me in parliament on 16 June that you were ‘preparing all
of the answers’, it became clear that no answers would be provided in a timely manner. Hence, questions were
sent to you again but they remain unanswered.
Many of the questions I asked were on behalf of some members of the Territory’s legal profession. Your refusal
to answer legitimate questions about the budgetary allocation for the Department of Justice and in relation
to the administration of justice in the Northern Territory is arrogant and discourteous.
I have sent a copy of my letter of 8 October, together with the copy of the letter from the minister’s office, which extends to four pages, detailing my letters and the relevant subject matters of them. I have sent this letter to many law firms in the Northern Territory, all around the Northern Territory and, in particular, of course, to those law firms and lawyers who specifically asked me to ask questions about the May budget.
What do we have at the end of this? We have an Attorney-General who makes ill-advised, ill-tempered comments, some would say threats, to an individual in the Northern Territory who is innocent until proven guilty. We have a police minister who, it could be said, is, from the sidelines, encouraging, and I do not put it any higher than that, possibly encouraging …
Dr Burns: What evidence do you have for that? Where does it say that in the paper?
Ms CARNEY: … the police to continue to investigate the matter, because, of course, the buck stops with the ministers in these sorts of matters.
Dr Burns: They do not get involved in operational matters.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: It does not matter what people like the member for Johnston say, but the buck always stops with the minister. We do have people in the Northern Territory …
Mr Elferink: Oh, don’t you?
Dr Burns: No.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: I do not think so.
Dr Burns: Ah, you are a clown.
Mr Elferink: I really do not think so. And you want to be very careful where you threaten this.
Ms CARNEY: … who are very concerned about the Attorney-General …
Dr Burns: I do not have to be careful. I won’t be threatened by you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: You keep saying it.
Dr Burns: And you watch yourself!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Macdonnell and member for Johnston.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, order!
Dr Burns: You move outside and I’ll have you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! We will have no banter across the Chamber please. Member for Araluen, continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I heard what the member for Johnston said, and obviously it is not just the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory who is making threats to citizens of the Northern Territory. The member for Johnston said to the member for Macdonnell: ‘Let us step outside and I will have you’. That is what he said.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That is not what was said.
Dr Burns: That is not true. Say that outside – say it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order?
Dr Burns: Say that outside – say it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KIELY: The point of order is that she is lying. She is lying; that is the point of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No, there is no point of order.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is obviously the bully boy, bovver boy, tactics that Mark Latham was famous for. A bit of pressure, a bit of questioning …
Mr Kiely: Better than the granny girl stuff you come out with. The old granny stuff that you tackle.
Ms CARNEY: Be quiet! I do not think I have heard, in the three-and-a-bit years I have been here, another member make a threat to …
Dr Burns: It is a legal threat!
Ms CARNEY: … from either side of the Chamber: ‘Let us move outside and I will have you’ …
Mr Elferink: Make a promise [inaudible] Go and see the …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms CARNEY: … and I’ll order a Hansard rush, I think …
Dr Burns: I heard it!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not intend to indulge the member for Johnston’s fantasies about thumping the member for Macdonnell …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Once again – once again – she is saying things that are not true.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, withdraw that please. That was not what was said.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: In any event, those two gentlemen can, in their own way, sort it out inside, outside, in a court, or anywhere else they might like to.
It is fascinating that, in the context of adjournment debate in which I raised very serious concerns about the conduct of the Attorney-General and comments he has made, that I note that he has not sought, in the parliament at least, to correct those. Then, of course, I lined it up with a letter to the Attorney-General in which I say that his failure to answer my letters is arrogant and discourteous. I guess it is not surprising that members on the government side would be making threats; it is the way they operate.
In any event, the point of me getting up tonight was to raise what I believe are very serious concerns. I am the shadow Attorney-General; it is certainly appropriate that I do so. I know, having spoken to some in the legal profession – although not many, but certainly a couple of lawyers here in Darwin - that they are equally as concerned. With those comments Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to ask, hypothetically, tonight whether the member for Sanderson has been drinking. I ask that question …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member well knows that he cannot make any allegations or assertions as to the conduct of any member of this place, unless he does so by way of substantive motion.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that is a clear breach, making such allegations. It is …
Mr Elferink: Well, this is …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! I have not …
Mr KIELY: This is a most serious allegation. I am prepared to be breathalysed; I am prepared to be tested …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson, you have just given me a point of order. Give me the time to take in what was said. I will just ask the Clerk for some advice.
Mr KIELY: Withdraw it! Mr Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to be breathalysed right here and now. I am prepared to take a blood test!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! My advice is, under Standing Order 62, you must withdraw that please.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I will withdraw it, but there is a point in this, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr Kiely: There is no …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … and the reason I make this point, is that I just heard that little clown make that same allegation about the member for Araluen over the microphones when she was there …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order …
Ms Carney: You are joking! Did he?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I heard the Treasurer, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: … make the same allegations …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: … about the member for …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, you are warned! What is your point of order, member for Wanguri?
Mr HENDERSON: Again, unbecoming language. He is using words that have been previously ruled as unparliamentary. The reference to my colleague, the member for Sanderson, as ‘that little clown’, I ask him to withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you withdraw that, member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: The spurious allegation, under his breath, but close enough to the microphone for me to hear it upstairs, suggesting that the member for Araluen had been drinking chardonnay …
Ms Carney: Was that tonight?
Mr ELFERINK: … was wholly out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms Carney: You little turd!
Mr ELFERINK: The Treasurer …
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen has just called my colleague, the member for Sanderson, ‘a little turd’ and I ask that she withdraw that.
Ms Carney: Yeah, Clare wants you Len, you had better go out.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear that so I cannot ask him to withdraw. Did you say that member for Macdonnell?
Mr ELFERINK: I never said anything of the sort.
Mr HENDERSON: No, the member for Araluen.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, did you …
Mr Ah Kit: It was said by the member for Araluen. I heard it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, did you make that comment, please.
Ms CARNEY: What comment? Sorry, it has all got lost in the …
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Araluen called my colleague, the member for Sanderson, ‘a little turd’ …
Ms Carney: Ah, that comment.
Mr HENDERSON: … and I ask that she withdraw that.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw that comment.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that is …
Mr Elferink: Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on. Member for Araluen, that is not appropriate language …
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, it isn’t but if he is muttering into the microphone ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will deal with one …
Ms CARNEY: … alleging I have been drinking …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: … that is also very unparliamentary, but I take your point.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, we will deal with each issue as it comes. Member for Macdonnell, let us keep this - if you have a complaint about the actions of the member for Sanderson let us keep this at least civil and put your point clearly and without …
Mr Elferink: I am furious, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well you may be, but we need to at least keep this in the context of where we are.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Drysdale, at the throwaway line of the member for Sanderson the last time around, was pilloried in the media, through the media machine that this mob keep on the fifth floor, and was accused of being drunk in parliament.
I have now heard the member for Sanderson repeat that several times in the past and now there is a specific instance that I can point to, and it is clearly audible over the microphones. The Treasurer made the same suggestion about the member for Daly the other day and I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Standing Orders Committee, the Chairman of which is here, I said let us get a breathalyser machine into the parliament because this sort of stupid, inane, gutless, reckless and filthy allegation will be made repeatedly. And guess what? They refuse because no, it was never going to be necessary.
Now, I hear the member for Sanderson saying, ‘Breathalyse me’. Well, where is the breathalyser, Mr Deputy Speaker? Blood test me. Where is the blood test availability? The member for Drysdale said let us drug test members of parliament when this sort of allegation is made and now government members think that they can throw this allegation over the Chamber every time that it suits them. I am getting sick of the allegations being made and having to see the member for Daly having to call points of order.
So I come in here, and I ask on the record a simple question: ‘Has the member for Sanderson been drinking?’ No allegation. And see, he is on his feet.
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The allegation being made I think is in direct contravention of Standing Order 62 …
Mr Elferink: No allegation, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON: … that no member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against the Assembly or member of the Assembly, nor shall a member attribute directly or by innuendo to another member unbecoming conduct or motives. I believe that it is by innuendo. It is a rhetorical question and I ask that he withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just ask for some Clerk’s advice. Member for Macdonnell, although you are asking a question there is an innuendo in what you were saying and I ask you to withdraw it.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, well this is interesting isn’t it, Mr Deputy Speaker. I withdraw it …
Ms Carney: Hypocrites.
Mr ELFERINK: … and that hypocrisy is monumental.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen has now accused me of being a hypocrite ...
Ms Carney: No, I didn’t.
Mr Elferink: Well, you are.
Mr HENDERSON: … and I ask her to withdraw.
Ms Carney: No, I did not.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think the member for Araluen said that. I think the word hypocrisy was used, but I am not sure it was …
Ms Carney: I said hypocrites.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: … aimed at any particular person. I rule against the point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, isn’t it funny that when the same tactic is used in their direction they are on their feet every 15 seconds screaming how unfair and how outrageous it is that anybody should ask it. Well, guess what? The difference between me and them is that I will do it while I am on my feet so I know I am being recorded by Hansard and asking a simple question. No allegation, but of course there is the innuendo and that is how these guys have been operating, Mr Deputy Speaker, innuendo.
I think it is absolutely outrageous that they think that they can get away with this again and again and again. They try it again and again and again. I am furious at it, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is demeaning to this place and demeaning to not only them but to the whole House. And it is a great joke, ‘We got a great hit on the member for Drysdale for being drunk in parliament or suggesting it, while the Treasurer is in the media saying, ‘Well, he might have been standing too close to the bar’. He is allowed to say that in the media, but if I was to say, ‘Has the member for Sanderson been standing too close to the bar tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker, they jump on their feet.
That is an innuendo. I just breached parliamentary protocol and because they know that what I am saying is correct, for the first time during my adjournment debate tonight, he is not on his feet.
I will tell you something, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is this sort of arrogance that is starting to bite out there in relation to this government. This government thinks it is better than everybody. This government thinks it is better than members opposite – and a smirk on the Leader of Government Business’ face – ho, ho, ho; chuckle, chuckle, chuckle; we’ve got it over them now – is telling, absolutely telling.
Keep going, if the government wants to go through life that they are better than everybody else by running people down and then using coward’s castle in here to run these sorts of smear campaigns, think about it, because the quality of representation that Territorians have is awful.
I am infuriated that this tactic has been used repeatedly. I think that the least the member for Sanderson can do is apologise to the member for Araluen for that outrageous …
Ms Carney: Absolutely. Otherwise I’ll ask if he happens to be a child abuser or something like that.
Mr ELFERINK: … slur while I was sitting upstairs. Now, when the Treasurer …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, did you refer to someone as ‘a child abuser’?
Ms CARNEY: Sorry. Say again?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did you refer to someone as ‘a child abuser’?
Ms Scrymgour: Yes.
Ms CARNEY: No, I didn’t. I just said if he doesn’t – the member for Macdonnell …
Ms Scrymgour: You said the word ‘child abuser’.
Ms CARNEY: Excuse me. The member for Macdonnell suggested that he apologise, and I simply said: ‘Or I might suggest that he is a child abuser or something like that’.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to with you to withdraw that, please.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, the least that the member for Sanderson can do is apologise. The Treasurer, when he made the same spurious suggestion, was made to withdraw by the Speaker in relation to the member for Daly during the debate last week.
I ask the Leader of Government Business: does he really want to go down this path? Where does this take us? How long is it before one member is going to say to another member in this place or outside: ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’? How long is it going to be before one member says …
Ms Carney: It’s already been done.
Ms Carter: It’s already happened.
Mr ELFERINK: … to another member in this place …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: … ‘When did you last have sex with a 13 year-old, or didn’t you?’? That sort of thing. That is where it is going. That is the sort of politics that this House will develop into if we do not learn to show some internal discipline and fortitude and start steering away from this sort of reckless abuse.
If members opposite or any other member in this House thinks that it won’t be a pox on all of our houses, or both our houses at least, they are kidding themselves. I am just frustrated that this parliament is starting to go down that path, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My thoughts are on the record. I urge members to consider it before they launch themselves in that direction.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016