2004-12-01
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Year 4 and 5 from Bakewell Primary School accompanied by Ms Rosa Rasing; and Years 2 and 3 from Wulagi Primary School, accompanied by Ms Barbara Griffith. On behalf of all members, I extend a very warm welcome to you. We are pleased to see you here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 643 petitioners relating to the realignment of Girraween Road. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 4677 petitioners praying that the area known as ‘the headland’ and ‘Little Mindil’ should be rezoned as parkland. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 604 petitioners relating to the heritage status of the Rieff Buildings in Alice Springs. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Madam SPEAKER: For the benefit of visitors in the gallery, now and again the Speaker puts on a different hat as the member for Braitling, and in that case I wanted to present a petition to the parliament. That is why I swapped roles with the Deputy Speaker. It does not happen often; but now and again you need to make sure you have a different hat on.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the Assembly today on my recent visit to Japan from 14 to 19 November 2004. The next phase of development for Timor Sea gas was the focus of my discussions in Japan with LNG customers, current and potential investors, and owners and developers of Timor Sea gas fields. The Timor Sea has around 21 trillion cubic feet of gas in five major fields and an additional five trillion cubic feet in Abadi, an adjacent field. To underscore the importance of Japanese interests in the Timor Sea, they are involved in three out of those six fields.
You will recall that in the August sittings I outlined government’s agenda to broaden the economic base of the Territory through our approach to developing gas projects. Our four goals for the development of Timor Sea gas are the production of additional LNG at Wickham Point for export; competitively priced gas for minerals processing and power generation such as the Alcan Gove Refinery and Power and Water; development of downstream gas manufacturing industries in Darwin; and potential for gas supply to the national energy grid, if this customer base will support our first three objectives.
Just over 20% of investment in the Bayu-Undan project, that is, the Darwin LNG plant and the offshore pipeline is Japanese. The Japanese companies which have invested more that $1bn into the Bayu-Undan project are significant players in world energy production and sales. In Tokyo and Osaka I met with representatives of ConocoPhillips, Tokyo Gas, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, Osaka Gas, the Japanese Bank of International Cooperation, Inpex, and Mitsubishi Gas Chemicals. Tokyo Gas and TEPCO collectively own 10% of the Bayu-Undan field development and pipeline to shore. They are also the sole LNG customers for the initial 3 million tonnes per annum of output from the LNG plant. With approvals already in place to expand the capacity of Darwin LNG from three to 10 million tonnes per annum, TG and TEPCO are obvious potential customers for expanded LNG production at Darwin LNG and also possible investors in the development of new gas reserves such as the Sunrise field or, potentially, Caldita.
ConocoPhillips Japan, with whom I met and discussed progress of the Bayu-Undan project, is also the operator of Caldita which is planned to be drilled in search of oil and gas during the next Dry Season. The Japan Bank of International Cooperation is a major financier of international investments by Japanese companies. JBIC has provided finance for the US$608m share of the Bayu-Undan project for TG, TEPCO and Inpex. JBIC has already invested $380m in various Territory projects including the Bayu-Undan project, and the McArthur River and Roper River mines. We discussed the potential for JBIC to be a significant investor in future projects as we move to the next stage of developments in the Timor Sea.
Osaka Gas is a 10% interest holder in Sunrise and Evans Shoals gas fields and a potential buyer of LNG from Sunrise. We discussed the potential for Evans Shoal which has 6.6 trillion cubic feet of gas to supply gas for a Darwin-based gas manufacturing precinct for products such as methanol.
Inpex is a major upstream petroleum company with exploration and production interests around the world as well as interests in LNG and downstream gas manufacturing opportunities. Inpex owns 10% of Bayu-Undan and Darwin LNG, 100% of Abadi field, and just over 16% of the Tangguh LNG project. With reserves well in excess of five trillion cubic feet, Abadi has potential to supply power generation and gas manufacturing industry in Darwin, subject to future discussions with the Indonesian government.
Mitsubishi Gas Chemicals, MGC, is a worldwide investor in chemical manufacturing, including methanol, ammonia/urea and petrochemicals, and a potential investor in other gas-based manufacturing, such as Dimethyl ether. We outlined the advantage of Darwin to be the Australia’s first gas manufacturing centre, given its proximity to gas and plentiful land and a committed government. I also outlined progress with our plans to develop Glyde Point as a gas manufacturing precinct.
Madam Speaker, my visit to Japan was an important step in strengthening the Territory’s relationship with current and future investors in the Territory. I am sure that all honourable members will support our continued efforts to move to the next phase of developing the Timor Sea’s gas resources as a means of broadening the economic base of the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this report is welcomed by the opposition. Such business as the Chief Minister has reported to this Chamber is of significance, as is the rightful role of government to engage in this level of negotiation and promotion of the Northern Territory.
It appears, however, that it is only in recent times that the level of engagement has increased. It begs the question whether this level of engagement is driven by coming to a new understanding that we need to engage most actively and strategically, or is it to demonstrate something for short-term political gain? That is to the wider community that: ‘Here we are. Here is a government that is over there’. They are happy to take media with them when it suits for the purpose of sending photographs and reports to the Northern Territory community that they are out there and they are doing it, but the Northern Territory community wants to see the results and they want to know that this is actually a sustained and strategic approach.
The Chief Minister, when in opposition, committed to releasing to the media a full and detailed itinerary of any trip that would be undertaken at taxpayers’ expense. That is yet another commitment made in opposition that has not been honoured, and the media is mindful of that.
While you were in Japan, Chief Minister, I am sure you were aware that there was a very concerning report coming from Woodside that the deal between East Timor and Australia jeopardises the project’s viability. I hope in your reply that you will comment, as leader of the Northern Territory parliament, on the matter of negotiations between Australia and East Timor so that Sunrise does proceed.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, what a churlish response from the Opposition Leader. Had he listened to the report, instead of making cynical and opportunistic comments, he would have heard that the reason I went to Japan was to look at the next phase of Timor Sea development - the next phase.
Bayu-Undan is in place, which is terrific. Blacktip is the second field that is most likely to be developed, and those final investment decisions will be made in the second quarter next year, probably May. Right now it is important to not have a trip which has no particular purpose; to run off to Asia and say: ‘I am here, but what am I doing?’ This trip had a particular purpose and, as I said in the report quite clearly, it was for the next phase of Timor Sea development.
Madam Speaker, I do not travel without a purpose. I do not run around Asia. I had a purpose in travelling to China, to countries such as Malaysia and Singapore. We have seen the results of that travel and I am very proud of it. This was next phase Timor Sea, and it was a good trip to make.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, there are few illnesses that provoke more fear than cancer. I am sure that many of us have had the experience of family or friends diagnosed with the disease, and we have seen the effect it can have on the person and those close to them.
Fortunately, improvements in detection and treatment mean that over half of those diagnosed with cancer in Australia today will be effectively treated. It is still a serious health problem, however, treatments are improving all the time. The survival rate for many cancers has increased by over 30% over the last 20 years.
One of the key treatments is radiotherapy, which treats the illness with controlled doses of radiation. The Northern Territory has never had a radiotherapy unit and Territorians requiring this treatment have always had to travel interstate. Obviously, this is far from ideal, especially given the emotional and physical stresses the patient and their families are facing.
In recognition of this need, soon after coming to power this government committed to establishing an Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. We are still committed to working towards this goal. Nevertheless, our review of the health system, the Bansemer Review, raised concerns about the sustainability and clinical safety of such a unit. It recommended that an external specialist be commissioned to provide expert advice on the proposal.
In June 2003, we commissioned such a study and, in January 2004, the tender was awarded to Professors Michael Barton and Michael Frommer from the South Western Sydney Area Health Service Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation - what a major title. In August 2004, the report by Professors Barton and Frommer, Options for radiation oncology services in the Northern Territory, was completed.
The report documents the medical need for a radiation oncology unit and concludes that, currently, radiotherapy is underutilised by NT cancer patients. The report predicts that the burden of cancer in the Northern Territory is expected to rise due to the high rates of smoking and an ageing population. It also raises the possibility that such a unit, if established, could treat cancer patients from the northern parts of Western Australia. While the report documents the medical need, it also identifies the risks that have to be overcome to set up and run a successful service. The risks include that of being unable to recruit and retain staff, which are in short supply nationally and internationally; the risk that expensive equipment will be underutilised; and the risk that other services, for example, allied health and accommodation services will not have the capacity to support the radiation oncology patients. These issues of safety, quality and sustainability are critical. We are not going to close our eyes to those difficulties and set up a service which is not sustainable and may end up being clinically unsafe.
Since the completion of the report, this government has been looking carefully at a way forward. It has become clear to us that while a fully publicly-funded and run unit is not viable, there is real possibility for progress with either a fully privately-funded and run unit, or a public/private partnership. Not only may private involvement bring higher levels of Commonwealth funding into the Territory but, most importantly, it may provide the necessary skills and clinical backup from larger services based interstate. Private involvement is a way of lowering the risk, the expert report identifies.
The initial signs are good that such an approach may yield fruit. Private companies involved in delivering these types of services interstate have expressed informal interest in such a proposal, and negotiations between the Commonwealth and the NT Health Department lead us to be optimistic that funds may be available for the capital cost of establishing a unit. It may take some time to work through these options and establish a unit if our negotiations are successful.
In the meantime, I have asked my department to look at the ways in which we can improve care and support services for Territorians requiring interstate radiotherapy treatment.
If we are going to establish a successful, sustainable and safe radiation oncology unit, we will all have to get behind it. This is an issue that requires realistic and sober judgment, not point scoring. It is too important to play party politics with. I have written to the federal Health minister outlining the possibilities and requesting Commonwealth government engagement. I urge the members opposite to support the government in this issue and support our pushing Canberra for something that will benefit hundreds of Territorians.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, weasel words is how that statement can be best described - weasel words. This government went to Territorians at the last election with a fully costed series of policies in relation to an oncology unit. They promised Territorians that it would deliver. This is a ...
Mr Burke: That was before the GST.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, exactly member for Brennan - since then, $500m in additional GST revenue. This underscores how pathetic this government is when it comes to health. A budget in excess of $600m and these people cannot even find $14m for an oncology unit. It is a disgrace, and it really shows how the minister lacks energy and commitment.
He has referred to the report that was completed in August. I call for him to make that public. We understand that an oncology unit is, in fact, viable. So do not use weasel words when you come in here, in essence saying, ‘We have another broken promise’. But that is what we expect from the Australian Labor Party. And this is what we expect from this minister, who said, interestingly enough, on radio last month: ‘My life is such a blur sometimes I do not know where I am going next’. This is the Northern Territory Health minister, who obviously does not know which way is up and which way is down.
He said when he came to this post that he had a health problem. He does have a health problem, and it gets worse. In relation to his blurriness, I could suggest that he see a doctor or a nurse. But, oops, there aren’t many of them.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: I could suggest that he go to RDH.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw personal comments …
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … and do not continue on that line.
Ms CARNEY: I could suggest that Territorians go to Royal Darwin Hospital, but they are upset about waiting for hours on hospital trolleys. I could suggest that the people of Alice Springs get treated in Alice Springs for elective surgery, but they have to travel south. I could suggest that, if all of the members on the other side were women, that they go to Breast Screen NT but they would find them closed, not just for the Christmas period but for a period of two-and-a-bit months. It is outrageous.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, yesterday I moved a motion calling on the government to introduce an Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit for Royal Darwin Hospital, so I welcome the minister’s report. However, it is certainly long overdue.
If you disregard the promises Labor made, the mini-budget did put this into context. It said the government will establish an Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. They were to spend $2m in 2002-03 and $12.47m in 2003-04. In other words, we should be nearly at the point of having that unit up and running. It is a shame that we have not gone down that path.
I am not sure that viability is the thing that we should necessarily be looking at. Of course, it is important. However, we are a long way from anywhere; we are a centre for the north of Australia. The Commonwealth and the Territory governments, commercial interests, and people like the Royal Adelaide Hospital should be involved in trying to develop a scheme which will allow people in the Northern Territory, north Australia and northern neighbours, to have this facility.
Also - and I notice that it is not mentioned in the documents - for many Aboriginal people it is most important that we have this facility. It must be a nightmare for a person from Bathurst Island to go to Adelaide for treatment - no friends, foreign place, no idea of where they are. We certainly need this facility. We have to work together in bipartisanship. We should be working with the Commonwealth. Both sides of parliament should be saying: ‘Let us work for this to come into fruition’. It is sad that it has taken so long and it is really coming up in an election year. If that means it gets a boost along – terrific.
However, all the people of the Northern Territory and this region need one of these units. We really should be saying: ‘We are going to strive to produce one of these, not worry about the problems which might be associated with it not coming into being. We will have one of these’. That is where the government should be going.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, there is one thing you can say about health: that we owe Territorians carefully thought-out and safe service delivery, not service delivery based on headlining. I can assure you, we are not going to do what the member for Brennan said on 104.1 Top FM:
Mr Dunham: Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE: ‘Hear, hear’ says the member for Drysdale. In parliament on 15 June 2004: ‘Some of these things are not fixed with money’. These are not fixed with money because you cannot say we are going to build an oncology unit and there is money in the budget for it. Do you know why? Because you cannot get oncologists and you cannot get the critical mass to keep them skilled ...
Mr Dunham: Ding! You have just woken up, that is the truth.
Dr TOYNE: … and you cannot keep the staff to keep all the machinery going …
Mr Dunham: Wake up, Sleepy! You should have talked to me before the election; I would have told you that!
Dr TOYNE: I do not know who is the health spokesman over there, but they are not speaking to the same tune …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Burke interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, I said order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, today I outline to the House why I have gone against the advice of the Heritage Advisory Council and decided not to list the heritage buildings in Alice Springs. The Rieff Buildings are the buildings on the corner of Gregory Terrace and Hartley Street, diagonally opposite the Diplomat Hotel. They are currently painted a range of different colours. The Turkish Kebab shop is on the corner. The buildings were nominated for heritage listing at the same time as the owners of the buildings, Yeperenye Ltd, announced a $5m redevelopment of the site that would create 100 jobs during construction.
In following due process, public submissions were invited. The government was keen to hear the views of the community and we advertised for submissions. We received five submissions, and the Heritage Advisory Council prepared their advice to me as minister. The government was committed to an extensive consultation process and, indeed, spent six months looking at it. Every effort was made by me and my department to broker a compromise to retain the buildings and integrate them into the redevelopment. However, in this instance, these efforts were not productive and I was presented with a very difficult choice.
The Heritage Advisory Council provided advice to me that recommended heritage listing the buildings. They recommended listing because two of the buildings were of World War II vintage while the others were designed by Beni Burnett and because of their association with Simon Rieff, a mining pioneer. It was a very difficult decision but having looked at the information and personally a number of times visiting Alice Springs and inspecting the buildings, I was not convinced that the heritage values were strong enough to outweigh the broader benefits to Alice Springs deriving from redevelopment of the site.
I understand that some members of the Alice Springs community are not happy that I have gone against the advice of the Heritage Advisory Council. I respect their position and I do not seek to change their minds but I do want them to understand that we have had a very public process and spent six months considering this. It was a decision that I had not made lightly.
The government is very proud of its record on heritage both in Alice Springs and throughout the Territory. Since coming to government we have listed 21 sites across the Territory. Earlier this year, I heritage listed the Alice Springs Telegraph Station. We have listed some other important sites in Alice Springs such as the Araluen Homestead precinct, which contains buildings by Beni Burnett, also the Catholic Church precinct, and the old Owens Spring Homestead and associated buildings. We have also re-established a dedicated Heritage Officer position in Alice Springs and we are making a $1m investment this year in our declared heritage places that will see important Alice Springs heritage icons such as the Old Court House and The Residency receive much needed repairs and maintenance.
I respect the professional advice that the HAC provides me with. The work they do is invaluable and much appreciated by this government. However, as minister, I am not simply a rubber stamp for the HAC. It is my responsibility to make decisions that are in the overall best interests of the community. I have a responsibility to listen to the building owners as well as the HAC and the wider community. We have done this and we have made our decision.
I am aware of the petition that has been tabled. I will undertake to write to all the petitioners who have signed the petition to outline the reasons for our decision. These decisions are always difficult but the community can be assured that I remain committed to ensuring that the Territory’s unique heritage is protected, conserved and celebrated.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, just a short comment. The minister was not in government or in parliament prior to the last election and it is certainly interesting to hear her make comments about how she does not have to act in accordance to the directions or the advice of the Heritage Advisory Council. I guess it is an interesting experience for the minister and for the Labor government to have that shoe on their foot now when I gather that in the past when CLP were in government, Labor would make quite substantial complaints to us in regards to the government overturning or not acting as to the way the Heritage Advisory Council advised government. It is just interesting to see now that the government is having to do the same thing.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, it is a little rich for the opposition to criticise us for going against the advice of the HAC. If they were so committed to the advice of the HAC then the Hotel Darwin and the old Alice Springs Gaol would still be around.
As I said, the project is worth $5m and will create 100 construction jobs. We saw the antidevelopment stance of the CLP yesterday in relation to the waterfront and it has been extended to Alice Springs today.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, members will recall the debate in the Assembly in August this year in regard to the Territory road program. In particular, members will recall the unanimous motion that arose out of that debate calling on the Commonwealth to provide equitable funding for Territory roads in unincorporated areas. As a result of that motion, the then shadow minister for transport, the member for Brennan, and I co-signed a letter to the federal minister for roads drawing the Commonwealth’s attention to the unanimous motion and attaching a copy of the entire debate.
In the motion – if I could just highlight the main points of the motion – we noted the shortfall of some $20m in Commonwealth funding for unincorporated Territory roads under the then current Roads to Recovery program. That is a fairly important aspect about what I am going to talk about now. We also noted the promises made to Territorians by the Prime Minister and other Commonwealth ministers that the inequity in the road funding would be addressed. We noted the increase in funding committed this year by the Martin Labor government that seeks to cover part of the gap, that is the $10m that we put in to roads over two years, and the effort made by the Commonwealth, through the Roads Recovery program, to respond to the situation with increased funding.
It is pleasing to note that the Commonwealth has put in approximately $17m over four years through Roads to Recovery for unincorporated roads. We also noted the achievements of our Northern Territory federal representatives, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the Local Government Association to highlight these issues.
We called on the Commonwealth to urgently address the shortfall in unincorporated roads funding for the Territory by immediately providing $20m to cover the existing shortfall, that is the shortfall of $20m over the previous four years, and providing equitable and appropriate ongoing funding that will allow the Northern Territory to properly maintain these roads. Whilst $17m is not as much as the $20m we required, it is welcome and should be acknowledged.
However, what I am going to talk about in this report is the $20m shortfall for which we are still waiting. In the joint letter the member for Brennan and I sent to the Commonwealth minister, we stated:
It was a unanimous motion. In the course of the last federal election, the Australian Labor Party included an additional $19m in its road policy to address the Coalition’s past under-funding of Territory roads in unincorporated areas. In other words, a $19m catch-up. However, the Coalition parties were fairly silent on this matter during the election campaign.
As recently as last week, I attended a meeting of Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers, prior to which I had not received a formal response to the Assembly’s unanimous motion. I again wrote to the federal minister for roads and arranged to discuss the issue with him whilst at that meeting. I did have the opportunity to speak to Jim Lloyd, and I found him to be a personable sort of a bloke. I put to him first that we acknowledged the $17m that has been provided in forward funding, however we also wanted the $20m that we have missed out on in the previous four years.
The Commonwealth appears to be reluctant to restore the balance of funding to the Territory. The Chief Minister wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2004, and I will quote from her letter, which I am prepared to table:
Here is a letter from the Prime Minister dated 17 November basically saying that the current Roads to Recovery program has already been fully allocated. He goes on to say that they have increased our share to $35m, $15m for roads in unincorporated areas; however, he does not address the very important issue of the $20m we are still owed.
Madam Speaker, I put on the record that I will still be fighting for that $20m. I hope the opposition will continue that fight.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Indeed, it is part of your job, minister, to go to Canberra and fight for the betterment of things for the Territory, so welcome to your job. It does not matter who is in Canberra. It is important that we take a very strong view about what benefits this place.
Madam Speaker, the genesis of our problem with roads in unincorporated areas comes from Warren Snowdon. It is easy to track the debate back to when the federal government was a Labor government and the treacherous actions of Warren Snowdon left us with this problem.
Sure, we should have more money, but if the minister wants to continue to politicise this issue, he has a problem. He is saying what Labor would have done, but we know what Mr Latham’s view of this place was: that there was a greater need in places such as Blacktown than there was up here. Do not run what Mr Latham would have done because - heaven forbid! - if he had been elected, the country would be in parlous ruin.
The minister talked about various letters he has written to people. I hope in his reply he will talk about the letters I have written to him, particularly the one about how much the land at the waterfront development costs, and he has yet to answer that one.
He is also talking about roads. I would like to know what is going to happen when the power goes out in a couple of days, for days, according to the CEO of Power and Water. Roads are important. Go and have the good fight, but, gee, you have a lot on your plate, mate, and I will tell you what: we expect some answer from you. We expect some answers on the various issues in your portfolio that are your matter and your problem. So do not go duck-shoving stuff to the Commonwealth for stuff that you have to answer for to this House.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member for Drysdale try to wander off the subject. I will not go into that, however, for him to come in here and accuse Warren Snowdon of the underfunding of Territory roads – the Commonwealth government has had nine years to fix it. They have not fixed it. What have we seen? We have seen the member for Gwydir with $40m through the Roads to Recovery program - twice that of the Territory. We saw Wilson Tuckey with substantially more than the whole of the Territory. These people have grabbed the money and left the Territory motherless and fundless in this regard. Do not talk about Warren Snowdon; look to your own camp.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This government prides itself on assisting Territory business and promoting a fairer, more equitable and robust tax system. Budget 2004 reduced the tax burden on Territorians. The payroll tax threshold has been lifted, and will be lifted further to $1m on 1 July 2005. The HIH levy was removed. The Territory is now the lowest taxing jurisdiction on small business of 20 staff or less, and will be the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia of 40 staff or less as of 1 July next year.
At that time, I announced the establishment of an independent appeals process from the decisions of the Taxation Commissioner. This bill achieves that. It is about promoting greater access to dispute resolution in our tax and mineral royalty system. This will be achieved by creating the Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal. The creation of the tribunal aims to provide an alternative and inexpensive option to appeal objection decisions of the Commissioner of Taxes or Mineral Royalty Secretary.
In future, people dissatisfied with a stamp duty, payroll tax or mineral royalty objection decision will have a choice of appealing that decision either to the tribunal or the Supreme Court. This choice is a hallmark of a flexible and accessible taxation system.
The tribunal will be constituted by the Chief Magistrate, or a magistrate chosen by the Chief Magistrate. The Chief Magistrate may make rules and practice directions relating to the practice and procedure of the tribunal and setting fees in relation to appeals. In line with the aim of creating a less expensive alternative to the Supreme Court, the bill proposes that an appeal to the tribunal is to be determined on the papers where possible. This means the tribunal will generally determine the appeal on the information that was before the commissioner or the secretary at the time of deciding the objection, as well as additional information included by the taxpayer in their notice of appeal and written submissions of the parties.
However, the tribunal will be able to conduct a hearing if it believes that it cannot make a decision on the information before it. Considering an appeal on the papers limits the requirement for an appeal hearing and therefore limits the cost of legal representation for such a hearing. In effect, there should be little additional cost incurred in the appeal process beyond that incurred in the preparation of the originating objection.
Furthermore, determining an appeal on the papers should also ensure that tribunal appeals are less intimidating to a small business owner or an unrepresented taxpayer. In line with the government’s objective of a fair and accessible tax system, appeals to the tribunal will be appeals de novo. This means that the tribunal stands in the shoes of the commissioner or secretary and either confirms the decision or otherwise makes what it considers is the correct decision. What is more, it is proposed that an appeal against an objection decision to the Supreme Court will also be an appeal de novo. This is a significant departure from the current approach, as a tax or mineral royalty payer will no longer be required to show some error in the commissioner’s or secretary’s reasoning before the tribunal or court is able to substitute its own decision.
The bill also provides that a tax or mineral royalty payer is not restricted to the grounds of their objection, and may provide additional submissions when filing an appeal against that decision with the tribunal or Supreme Court. Similarly, the bill clarifies that the commissioner or secretary may lodge further submissions on the appeal and is not restricted to the reasons given in the objection decision. Again, this is an important departure from the current arrangements which do not allow new grounds of objection to be submitted.
Further flexibility is introduced into the appeals process by enabling the Supreme Court to admit new evidence on appeal that was not before the commissioner or secretary if it is satisfied that the evidence is material to the decision. The commissioner or secretary will be permitted to reconsider their decision based on this new information which may resolve the matter in dispute without the appeal continuing any further. If the commissioner or secretary allowed the objection in whole or part as a result of this new information, the court can award costs in their favour. This recognises that the appeal may have been unnecessary if the tax or mineral royalty payer had provided the relevant information when they lodged their objection to the assessment. Together, these major departures remove restrictions on the manner in which a tax or mineral royalty payer can conduct an appeal against an objection decision in either the tribunal or the Supreme Court.
In reaching its decision, the tribunal will be required to keep a record of proceedings and to give written reasons for its decisions. This allows the decisions to be used in the future as precedent for the commissioner or secretary, or to aid the Supreme Court should there be an appeal from the decision of the tribunal.
An avenue for appealing the tribunal’s decision to the Supreme Court on a question of law is available to any of the parties to the tribunal proceedings. The bill also recognises that, in some situations, it may be more appropriate for an appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court rather than the tribunal, for example, such as where there are complex questions of law or fact that may require a formal hearing. For this reason, it is also proposed that the tribunal be provided with the power to refer an appeal to the Supreme Court if it considers that the court is the more appropriate venue to hear the matter.
To assist in keeping tribunal appeal costs low, it is proposed that each party to such an appeal pay their own costs, irrespective of the appeal outcome. The tribunal will, however, be able to direct one of the parties to the appeal to pay some or all of the costs of the other party in limited circumstances, for example, where a party fails to comply with an order of the tribunal. In addition, the tribunal can also require a representative of one of the parties to pay some or all of the costs of the other party where the representative has unnecessarily delayed or frustrated the tribunal proceedings.
The bill also establishes a uniform framework of procedures for objecting or appealing taxation or mineral royalty assessments.
The bill largely maintains the current procedures for lodging an objection or appeal, except where changes were necessary for the purposes of uniformity or equity. I will detail those changes. The bill proposes that objections are to be lodged within 60 days after the notice of the decision is issued by the commissioner or secretary. This is a change from the current practices, as it extends the time for objection to a stamp duty or mineral royalty assessment from 30 days to 60 days. It maintains the 60-day period for objecting to payroll tax assessments. The bill also proposes that the commissioner or secretary retain the power to extend time for the taxpayer to lodge an objection.
The bill also clarifies that the 60-day period runs from the date of issue of the notice of the decision rather than from the date of service or notification of the decision. This is because the date of issue is certain as it is written on the notice, whereas determining when a notice has been served can be more difficult, for example, because of postal delays.
One of the more noticeable changes to the current system of objections and appeals is in relation to the Mineral Royalty Act. The bill proposes that the current procedure under that act for establishing a board of review to advise the Treasurer on the correctness of an assessment is replaced with the choice of an appeal to the tribunal or the Supreme Court. The proposal recognises that the review process has never been used, and seeks to provide consistent treatment with the accepted procedure for appealing other revenue decisions. It also provides an established framework for the consideration of such appeals.
In addition, the bill ensures that a royalty payer is entitled to receive interest on any amount of royalty that has been overpaid, and is refunded to them as a result of a successful objection or appeal. This entitlement does not exist under the current legislation. Another matter in which the bill alters the current appeals process is that it provides that the court or tribunal will have the power to extend time for the lodging of an appeal to the court or tribunal respectively. This power currently sits with the Commissioner of Taxes for appeals to the Supreme Court.
Giving the court and tribunal this power removes any possible concern about the commissioner having any conflict of interest in deciding whether to extend time to appeal an objection decision, and is in line with the objective of creating a fair and accessible taxation system. As I mentioned earlier, the bill makes changes to the existing procedures for objections and appeals only where necessary for the purposes of uniformity or equity.
Other than the changes I have just described, the procedures set out in the bill replicate the existing procedures and rules and maintains the current policy. For example, new section 105Q replicates existing section 104 of the Taxation (Administration) Act in requiring the adjustment of tax if a person’s liability is altered on objection or appeal. Similarly, new section 105R replicates section 105A of the Taxation (Administration) Act in providing for interest to be paid on a refund of tax arising from a decision on objection or appeal. New section 105S replicates section 105B of the Taxation (Administration) Act by directing that the commissioner’s decisions outlined in that section are to be reviewed through the objections and appeals process rather than some other form of judicial review.
Finally, I turn to the transitional provisions in the bill. These provide that the new provisions apply to all decisions on objections made after 18 May 2004 where the tax or mineral royalty payer has not already lodged an appeal under the old objection and appeals provision. This government will be pushing for these new objection and appeal procedures to start as early as possible in 2005.
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 now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to address the unsatisfactory state of land title in respect of the Lake Bennett locality. In order for members to appreciate this bill, it will be necessary for me to detail the history of the Lake Bennett area regarding the land transactions which have given rise to uncertain and unsatisfactory land title in the area.
Lake Bennett is an artificial lake which was created in the mid-1970s on privately-owned freehold land approximately 80 km south of Darwin. In the early 1980s the land around the lake and the lake foreshore was subdivided into various parts. Between 1987 and 1996, the then owner of the land, Nazime Pty Ltd, sold most of the land that surrounded the lake. Each section of land adjoining the lake was granted a registered easement giving the new owners free and uninterrupted passage across, and use of, the lake and foreshore. Most sections of the surrounding land sold were also the subject of a registered covenant restricting the use of each section to a single dwelling, and limiting the clearing of native vegetation. The covenants were enforceable against the owners of the sections surrounding the lake, by the owner of the lake itself, and its foreshore. The main exceptions were section 95 which, until recently, had been owned by the original developer, and other land which was never owned by the original developer.
In 1996 and 1997, the lake and surrounding foreshore were subdivided into two sections and approval was given to develop the land. One of the sections included the lake, the area upon which the resort now exists, and the dam wall. The second section was comprised by the remaining foreshore area of the lake. This approval permitted the development of the foreshore area as a staged condominium development under the Unit Titles Act. The outcome of such a development is corporately controlled common property, with a series of mutual obligations binding on the developer and on future owners of units created under the subdivision. It is significant to note that such developments take place in stages with progressive release of titles to the purchasers.
Such purchasers obtain title on the basis of rights and expectations embodied in the disclosure statement lodged with the Registrar-General by the land’s developer. The subdivision and development approval necessarily included planning approval under the Planning Act, building approvals in relation to the actual construction of bungalows which had been permitted under the planning approval, and the registration of a disclosure statement.
A disclosure statement under Part IV of the Unit Titles Act sets out the rights and obligations of a land developer in respect of land during the course of development. It represents a collection of binding obligations on the developer that, if met, will result in titles for units being issued by the Registrar-General under the Real Property (Unit Titles) Act. The disclosure statement in respect of the development of the lake and foreshore areas was registered by the Registrar-General.
There were problems with the registration of the disclosure statement which included: one, that the land sought to be subdivided and developed was subject to registered easements in favour of the owners of each adjoining section; and two, the consent of each of the owners of adjoining lots had not been obtained and included with the proposal for the subdivision and development as required under the Unit Titles Act.
Following the registration of the disclosure statement and the issue of the first of the titles for units which had been erected upon the foreshore of the lake, it became apparent that there had been a failure to comply with some of the requirements of the land titles legislation. The former government attempted to rectify some of these problems by the enactment of the Real Property Amendment (Unit Titles) Act 1998 on urgency. The two main effects of the act were as follows:
In 1998, the Registrar-General refused an application by the developer to vary the original disclosure statement because the developer had again failed to obtain the required consents from each easement holder. That decision led to various court cases, the nett outcomes of which were:
It has also been noted in more recent times that the building permits cannot be issued without consent of the holder of each easement over the subject land.
In summary, the current position in relation to land title in the Lake Bennett locality is:
One of the basic features of Australia’s economic and social framework is the Torrens Land Title system. That system seeks to provide for certainty of title and consequential ease in dealing with land. Certainty of land title is the usual outcome of planning, building and land titles processes. However, in the Lake Bennett location, these processes have failed. They have produced a land development that is dysfunctional and which can only worsen over time.
It should be remembered that each of the easement holders could have taken action in the courts to prevent the erection of buildings upon their easement and, accordingly, to protect their own interest. In response to the unsatisfactory state of the land title in the Lake Bennett locality, the Northern Territory has funded a mediation between each of the affected parties, including the Northern Territory. That mediation has resulted in a broad understanding and agreement as to what should be the end result of land ownership issues. The adjustment of interest in land is a necessary part of reaching the desired end result. Some land-holders may seek compensation for the adjustment of their interest. The majority of financial issues have been settled following the process of mediation.
Additionally, I note that the land ownership is not fixed. Over time, land is bought and sold, with the consequence that there are new people who become affected by the issues. The understanding and agreement reached between each of the affected parties involved in the mediation is embodied in the Lake Bennett (Land Title) Bill, the operation of which I will now address.
The Lake Bennett (Land Title) Bill facilitates the various intricate land transactions required to adjust the interests of the land-holders to a point where they are no longer inconsistent with one another, nor generally uncertain. The bill facilitates those transactions by providing for the preparation and registration of instruments relating to land in the Lake Bennett locality in accordance with the terms of compromise reached through the mediation process by the parties involved in that process.
The bill provides that those transactions are to be exempt from stamp duty and lodgement fees which would normally accompany them. That exemption is provided for in the interest of fairness and equity to the land-holders. The land-holders in the Lake Bennett locality are not transferring ownership of their land, nor are they creating any new interests in land. Rather, the vast majority of land-holders recognise the benefit of a secure title provided for under the bill. These land-holders have agreed on certain terms to allow for their interests to be modified in furtherance to that cause.
The bill obliges the various ministers to prepare all instruments necessary to achieve the objects of the bill, and allows, for convenience sake, for the Attorney-General to execute certain of those instruments on behalf of any person.
The bill provides for a new plan of subdivision which creates new sections for the lake and most of the foreshore, the resort, and a condominium development. The creation of the new sections allows for new easements over each of the created sections consistent with the objects of the act.
A new units plan is also provided for in the bill. The new units plan creates new lots for each existing unit on the foreshore of the lake, as well as a lot for the development area. The lot for the development area is created in order to allow up to 15 new units to be erected on land which has already been prepared for that purpose.
The bill provides for extinguishment of certain easements which currently restrict any further development of the foreshore area of the lake. Those easements are to be resurrected under the bill in a form which is consistent with the objects of the bill. The new easements are to be consistent with certainty of land title for the owners of existing units, as well as units which may be erected in future on the development area. The new easements will still provide for each owner of surrounding land the right of access to, and passage across, the lake and foreshore for recreation in those areas. The practical outcome will be that the easements which currently exist will be extinguished to the extent that they affect the resort development and the unit development other than the common property area which forms part of the unit development. The easement rights will remain over the lake and undeveloped part of the foreshore.
New service easements are created which burden the section comprised by the lake. These easements allow for the continued provision of services such as water and electricity supply and sewerage to sections on the western side of the lake.
The minister is obliged to lodge the new plan of subdivision, the new units plan, and each of the instruments of easements as soon as practicable after the commencement date of the bill. The Registrar-General is then obliged to cancel the old units plan, 97/026, and each certificate as to title for lots contained in the Lake Bennett locality. The Registrar-General is also obliged to register the extinguishment of each of the old easements. In short, each interest in land in relation to the lake and foreshore is extinguished. Each of those interests is then resurrected in a modified form by the registration of the new plan of subdivision, the new units plan, the new easements, and by the issue of new certificate as to title.
The Northern Territory has already negotiated settlements with the vast majority of the landowners in respect of any possible adverse effect this bill will or may have on their interests in land.
The bill also provides that the lake and the resort, while they are separate sections, are to at all times have identical proprietors. Neither the lake nor the resort can be sold or assigned in any way without the other. This restriction on ownership means that the resort will be responsible for monitoring the quality of water in the lake. The quality of the lake water is an asset to each landowner in the locality; however, it is obviously beneficial to have the responsibility for its monitoring vested in one owner. As the resort owner has a commercial interest in maintaining water quality, it is appropriate that the responsibility to monitor the quality of the water be vested in the resort owner. The bill ensures that the relevant minister has sufficient power to impose appropriate licence conditions on the resort owner under the Water Act which are not set in stone.
Part 3 of the bill obliges the minister responsible for the Planning Act to amend the Northern Territory Planning Scheme by revoking the Lake Bennett Area Plan and making new development provisions. The new development provisions are contained in Schedule 5 of the bill. The development provisions provide for the manner in which different sections may be developed. These provisions provide for types of development which can proceed without the approval of the consent authority, some types which can only proceed with the consent of the development authority, and for certain types of development which are altogether prohibited.
Generally speaking, the development provisions allow for low-level residential developments which are consistent with the principles of sustainable development of land and water resources. The development provisions also seek to minimise environmental degradation and pollution, and to preserve the aesthetic and natural heritage of the locality. This planning regime has not been developed in accordance with the specific requirements of the Planning Act. In fact, the consultative processes leading to this planning scheme for the land were probably much more intense and focussed than the usual processes. Accordingly, I can, with reasonable confidence, state that the planning scheme in the bill represents the planning scheme that would be developed for the land if the ordinary processes under the Planning Act had been followed. Details of the proposals are now recorded in the Record of Administrative Interests maintained by the Registrar-General. Accordingly, anyone seeking to deal with land should become aware of the proposals.
Part 3 of the bill also obliges the planning minister to issue a development permit for the development area in the terms set out in Schedule 6 of the bill. Schedule 6 allows for the erection of up to 15 new single-storey units on the eastern side of the lake. The schedule also provides for a number of other building restrictions in relation to the proposed new units, largely providing for the maintenance of the amenity and aesthetic attraction of the area.
It should also be noted that clause 23 of the bill will operate so as to freeze development and land use for the lake. The lake will, subject to minor exceptions, only be able to be used for the lawful uses in place when this legislation commences operation. Those uses generally include passive recreation. The easement conditions and water licence conditions prohibit power boats on the lake apart from in emergency situations, or where they are required for necessary works, which is also the current position.
This bill comprehensively addresses the issue as to land title and rights which have plagued owners of the property in the Lake Bennett locality for years. The passage of this bill will allow for the continuation of development of the locality in a manner which is largely acceptable to the current landowners. The rights of access to, and passage over, the lake and the recreational use of the lake and foreshore will be preserved in favour of every landowner in the locality. The inconsistency between the title to units currently existing on the foreshore of the lake and the easements over that land will cease to exist.
This bill is not a quick fix. A significant amount of time and effort has been expended negotiating to a point where a workable solution has been produced. The bill is a cooperative measure between the Northern Territory and the landowners. The bill clarifies the rights, titles and interests in relation to land in the area, and allows for continued development of the area in a manner which benefits land-holders in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speak, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Australian Crime Commission (Northern Territory) Bill (Serial 265) and Australian Crime Commission (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 266):
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills now be read a second time.
The purpose of these bills is to provide a legal framework for the Australian Crime Commission to operate in the Northern Territory. The history of these bills goes back two decades. In 1984, the National Crime Authority, or NCA as it was known, was established in order to lead a national law enforcement response to organised crime which could overcome the barriers caused by jurisdictional boundaries inherent in the Australian federal system. The NCA was not concerned with street crime. It was concerned with combating serious crime and it provided a structure whereby federal, state and territory police could work together in a seamless manner so that appropriate high level decisions could be made and essential intelligence could be shared.
Commonwealth legislation supporting the NCA and the complementary legislation was enacted in the states and territories. In the Northern Territory, the National Crime Authority (Territory Provisions) Act commenced in 1985. The NCA was appropriate and effective in its time but the world today is very different from the world that existed 20 years ago. Today, it is a world of globalisation, of new technologies, of new drugs; a world of organised crime on a scale previously unimaginable which often involves a complex web of criminal activity crossing over many jurisdictions; a world that is now much more aware of the potential of terrorism following the New York 11 September and Bali bombings. Modern criminals are highly sophisticated and not restrained by borders, so it is essential that there be a cooperative national approach to combat new threats that are increasingly more entrepreneurial and dangerous in nature.
Concerns about tackling the changing nature of crime were discussed at the Australian Government Leaders Summit on Terrorism and Multi-jurisdictional Crime held in April 2002. It was agreed that it was time to strengthen Australia’s armour in the fight against serious and organised crime by disbanding the NCA and replacing it with an Australian Crime Commission, the ACC. The rationale for the change was that the capacity of the NCA to expeditiously respond to emerging threats in the criminal environment was hampered by an overly complex legislative regime of references and unwieldy formal consultation requirements between Commonwealth, states and territories. The ACC aims to enhance Australia’s law enforcements’ capacity to counter serious and organised criminal activities by improving the quality and analysis of criminal intelligence. Being a national body it is able to set clear national and criminal intelligence priorities.
The commission has similar duties, functions and powers to those of the NCA and is built on the successes of the NCA. The ACC brought together three agencies: the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence which was established in 1981 to provide a national criminal intelligence service for law enforcement; the National Crime Authority which was formed in 1984 to provide an effective counter-measure to Australian organised crime; and the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments which was formed in 1994 to provide strategic intelligence advice on emergent criminal issues.
The ACC, which was established by the Commonwealth’s Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, commenced on 1 January 2003. The Commonwealth act provides the legislative authority to investigate matters and conduct intelligence operations that have a federal aspect. The Commonwealth act has been replicated in most states, and these bills provide for the operation of the ACC in the Northern Territory. These bills allow intelligence operations and investigations into relevant criminal activity involving Territory offences irrespective of whether those offences have a federal aspect.
The bills recognise that the police network cannot today work alone, and that contemporary policing requires an ability to carry out investigations that go beyond our borders. The definition of ‘serious and organised crime’ mirrors the offences that the ACC would investigate with the addition of offences involving firearms so that it has the power to investigate the illegal trafficking of firearms and cyber crime to ensure that the ACC can counteract this emerging issue.
These bills establish a board, which comprises the Commissioner of the Federal Police who is also the chair of the board; the police commissioners from the eight states and territories; the Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department; the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service; the Chair of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission; the Director-General of Security holding office under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act; and the Chief Executive Officer of the ACC.
The board is a new feature of the ACC, and representation of the Northern Territory Police Commissioner on the board will ensure that the Territory’s needs are reflected in the ACC’s national intelligence priorities. The board is responsible for determining national criminal intelligence priorities and for overseeing the strategic direction of the ACC. It also authorises the ACC to undertake intelligence operations and investigations, and determine whether an intelligence operation may have access to special coercive powers.
The ACC’s coercive powers are the same as those held by the NCA. The power to conduct examinations, which includes powers to produce documents and answer questions, is a powerful investigative tool that is central to the role and function of the ACC. The coercive powers exercised by independent statutory officers, called examiners, and their independence is an important safeguard on the exercise of the powers.
The operation of the board is subject to the scrutiny of a ministerial Inter-governmental Committee, the IGC. The IGC comprises Commonwealth, state and territory police and justice ministers and monitors the work of the board. Whereas the NCA’s ability to conduct hearings and use coercive powers were dependent on a ministerial referral and the approval of the IGC, the new legislation enables the ACC to conduct its own investigations and use its coercive powers on the approval of the ACC board. However, as an additional check, the IGC can revoke a determination of the board that allows the use of coercive powers.
These bills create a number of offences such as failing to attend an examination, or failing to answer questions, and failing to produce documents when required to do so by summons. The offences in the bill reflect the offences that were contained in the NCA legislation and complement existing offences in the Commonwealth act. The penalties provide a sufficient deterrent for those who try to obstruct or frustrate the ACC’s activities.
These bills repeal the National Crime Authority (Territory Provisions) Act and make consequential amendments to other acts to change references to the NCA to now refer to the ACC. The bills ensure that the Territory has a comprehensive framework in place to permit the ACC to perform its function of combating serious and organised crime.
I believe that all members of this Assembly will agree that this is essential legislation to ensure that we are able to deal with the serious criminal elements in our society. The bills are in the best interest of all Territorians and will ensure that the crime fighting efforts of the ACC complement the efforts of the Northern Territory Police in fighting, reducing and preventing crime and keeping the Territory a safe place to live. I seek bipartisan support for the passage of the bills.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills 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 amend the Residential Tenancies Act. The Residential Tenancies Act commenced on 1 March 2000, and provides a framework of clear and consistent guidelines relating to residential tenancies. The act sets out the minimum terms of residential tenancy agreements, the procedures relating to bonds and the handling of security deposits, condition reports, and payments of rent. The act also provides Northern Territory tenants and landlords with a speedy and low cost avenue for the resolution of disputes through the Commissioner of Tenancies situated within the Consumer and Business Affairs Office of the Department of Justice.
With the passage of time, a number of issues relating to the operation of the act have been identified by stakeholders, including the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, Territory Housing, and the Commissioner of Tenancies. This bill has been developed in consultation with these stakeholders to address those issues.
The act currently provides that a landlord or tenant may give the other a notice of breach of a tenancy agreement, and if the breach is not rectified by the date specified in the notice, the tenancy agreement is automatically terminated. This automatic termination can at times be undesirable, particularly if the parties come to an agreement but the notice is not withdrawn as required under the act. The bill amends the act so that if a notice of breach of tenancy agreement is given and the breach is not remedied, then application can be made to the commissioner or, as is currently the case in some circumstances, the court, for an order terminating the tenancy and giving an order for possession. This is similar to the situation in other jurisdictions.
The bill amends section 24 of the act so that it is permissible for a landlord to require the payment, or agreement to pay, outstanding tenancy debts arising from a previous tenancy as a condition for granting or renewing a tenancy agreement. The prohibition in section 24 of a landlord requiring payment of anything other than rent or security deposit is intended to prohibit the demand for, or payment of, key money and the like. It is not intended to prevent a landlord pursuing or requiring payment of legitimately owed monies before giving a tenant another tenancy. The main landlord to be affected by this change is Territory Housing.
The provisions relating to notices regarding unpaid rent will be simplified, and it is proposed that, in consultation with stakeholders, a prescribed or pro forma form of notice of unpaid rent will be developed. This form will be user-friendly and will set out all the relevant information a tenant needs to know in order to verify the arrears and rectify the situation.
Section 129(4) of the act currently provides that the commissioner may delegate his or her power to conduct inquiries, which are proceedings that lead to formal determinations of legal rights and responsibilities and are thus judicial in nature. The commissioner must, wherever practicable, only appoint a person as a delegate if that person has 10 years or more experience as a legal practitioner. It is proposed to reduce this level of experience to five years, which is considered more appropriate and will bring the act in line with the provisions of the recently commenced Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act.
The act contains quite prescriptive provisions dealing with the giving and accepting of condition reports at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Whilst maintaining the general framework, the bill simplifies these procedures by omitting some of the requirements relating to the giving of duplicate copies of condition reports and the return of these duplicate documents by the tenant and, in some circumstances, the landlord. The amendments will continue to protect both the landlord’s and tenant’s interests, but with reduced requirements for exchanging duplicate copies of the same document. The proposed amendments have been developed in consultation with stakeholders.
In addition, the bill provides for the making of regulations which will permit condition reports to be given by way of video recordings or photographs, or similar types of recording. Similar rules as currently exist surrounding the giving of condition reports would continue to apply, such as the requirement to give a tenant a copy, and the right of the tenant to be present when the condition of the property is recorded.
A number of other small changes are made which are of a housekeeping nature. For example, section 107 needs to be amended to remove an incorrect reference to the commissioner having the power to terminate a tenancy under certain circumstances. This should, in fact, refer only to the court. Additionally, to remove any potential ambiguities, section 88A which relates to drug premises is to be amended so that it is clear that it applies to premises whose tenancies continue to be governed by the Tenancy Act as in force prior to 1 March 2000. These issues do not appear to have caused any practical difficulties to date, but the opportunity is being taken to fix these provisions.
Members will be aware that the Northern Territory is one of the few jurisdictions that does not have an independent tenants’ advice service. The Commissioner of Tenancies provides an advice service to landlords and tenants but this service is, in practice, somewhat limited because the focus is often the administration of the act rather than the broader issues. The commissioner also has the power under the act to hold formal inquiries into matters of dispute and make determinations between landlords and tenants. Given this role, the commissioner must be careful not to compromise the independence of formal inquiries, particularly where advice is given and the matter later becomes a subject of a formal inquiry.
I am pleased to advise that the government has established a steering committee comprised of representatives from organisations such as the Darwin Community Legal Service, Shelter NT, Consumer Affairs, Territory Housing and the Indigenous Housing Authority Northern Territory to develop a proposal for the establishment and funding of a tenants’ advice service in the Northern Territory. It is proposed the service will be funded from the Tenancy Trust Account established under section 16 of the act. The tenants’ advice service will be independent and will undertake case work and community education, and provide community input into appropriate housing and tenancy policy issues. It is important that tenants in regional areas, including indigenous tenants, have access to such a service, and the steering committee will consider these issues. Such an advice service based on the community sector will provide a service to those most disadvantaged tenants in the Northern Territory including the aged, youth, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and indigenous people.
Experience demonstrates that the commissioner’s office is not regularly accessed by these most disadvantaged tenants, whereas the community-based organisations such as DCLS and Shelter are well placed to provide assistance to these groups, many of whom seek assistance from these organisations which may be unable to assist due to funding constraints.
Section 16 of the act, which establishes the Tenancy Trust Account, provides that part of the fund established under the Agents Licensing Act can be paid into the Tenancy Trust Account to be used for the purposes of meeting the costs of administering and enforcing the act, and for educating landlords and tenants of their rights and obligations.
To clarify the situation for members, the fund established under the Agents Licensing Act is, in the main, an accumulation of interest on deposits paid by purchasers of properties which are held in trust accounts of the real estate agents and conveyancers. Additionally, depending on how the real estate agent structures their accounts, the income may also include interest on security deposits paid by tenants which are held in real estate agent trust accounts. These funds can properly be considered to be consumers’ funds.
The fund currently stands at just under $9m. The fund contributes some $200 000 annually to the Department of Justice to cover the cost of operation of the Property Agents Licensing Section in Consumer and Business Affairs. It is reasonably clear from the second reading speech to the Residential Tenancies Bill in 1999 that section 16 was intended to permit the use of the Tenancy Trust Account to fund a variety of services to tenants and landlords, including the funding of the provision of advice services other than those provided by the commissioner. However, there is a suggestion that the wording of section 16(1) may not be broad enough to allow for funding for an advice service or services external to the commissioner. The bill contains an amendment to this section to remove any doubt that the Tenancy Trust Account can be used to fund a tenants’ advice service. The outcome will be better advised and inform landlords and tenants, leading to better outcomes for residential tenancies generally and less demand on the commissioner’s resources in formally determining disputes that could be avoided if tenants and landlords were better informed.
Madam Speaker, the amendments have, for the most part, been identified by those involved in tenancy as being desirable for the easier and more simple operation of the act, or to address some problems that have been identified since the act commenced in 2000. In developing these amendments I am grateful for the input of the Residential Tenancies Act User Group comprising representatives of the Consumer and Business Affairs and Policy divisions within the Department of Justice, Territory Housing and the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory. This group has been particularly helpful in assisting government with developing a balanced approach for consumers and businesses.
In order to sustain this resource for the government, it is appropriate I mention in the context of this legislation that the government will be developing a residential tenancies taskforce. The role of the taskforce will be to examine, in particular, the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords in the implementation of this legislation and the interaction between the tenancy agreements and the legislation such as noise abatement laws and environmental health requirements. Common and easily understood and enforceable clauses in tenancy agreements are essential. The taskforce will be charged with ensuring that this is realised in application. The taskforce will have Territory-wide application for private and public tenants and landlords alike.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Marrara Christian School and their house parents, Ellen and John Gotts. The students are from Warruwi and Minjilang communities. On behalf of honourable members, I offer you a warm welcome to our Assembly.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Darwin Port Corporation Amendment Bill has three purposes. First, it removes conflicts in the existing governance structure of the Port Corporation and more appropriately clarifies the relationship between the Chief Executive Officer of the Port Corporation, the minister, and the board. The amendments establish a governance framework whereby the Chief Executive Officer, or CEO, is appointed by the Administrator under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, subject to the Financial Management Act, accountable to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for the administration of the agency and subject to the direction of the minister.
This will introduce a corporate governance and accountability structure that is consistent with that for other government agencies in place of the current governance arrangement which sees the CEO appointed by the minister but subject to the direction of the Darwin Port Corporation Board. The amendments will remove the current position of conflict which faces the CEO and more appropriately allocate functions and responsibilities between the CEO, the minister, and the board.
The Darwin Port Corporation Board ceases to be a governing and management board and will be an advisory board with a focus on trade development. The approach of an advisory board is consistent with that adopted for other government agencies such as the Land Development Corporation and the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation. The maximum number of board members has been increased from five to seven to provide additional skills on the board if necessary.
The second purpose of the bill is to remove superseded references to the Assistant Harbour Master, pilots, port officers and to merge references to the port superintendent with that of the Harbour Master. The amendments expand the role of the Harbourmaster to reflect the actual operational roles that have been in place for a number of years. The enhanced role of the Harbour Master is consistent with similar roles in other commercial ports throughout Australia. The position of Assistant Harbour Master will be removed on the basis that is no longer required. Under the current arrangements, in the absence of the Harbour Master, an Acting Harbour Master is appointed.
Provision for formal appointments of port officers are also not required and will be removed. Provision for formal appointment of pilots is also not required. Removal of these provisions does not affect pilots who are appointed by the Darwin Port Corporation under the Marine Pilotage Regulations.
Third, the bill converts the current dollar penalties contained in the Darwin Port Corporation Act into penalty units. This change to penalty units is consistent with amendments made to other legislation. There is an obligation on government to ensure that penalties in legislation remain current; that is, that they retain an appropriate deterrent effect. Penalties expressed in legislation are intended to be the penalty that should be imposed by a court for the worst possible breach of any particular offence. In this case, the worse case breaches would involve a large internationally owned ship breaching the various harbour rules and directions. Such rules and directions are designed to protect the health and safety of people in the port and to protect the environment. In order for the threat of prosecution to have some impact on the commercial operations of such potential offenders, the maximum penalties must be appropriate. With the conversion to penalty units, the penalties themselves have also been revised to ensure that they are appropriate to act as a deterrent to potential breaches of the legislation. Conversion to the penalty unit regime and increase in penalty units is considered long overdue, as most of the penalties have not changed since the enactment of the Darwin Port Corporation Act in 1983.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Marine Act came into operation on 16 March 1982 to regulate the safe operation of vessels in Northern Territory waters, which includes the coastal waters of the Northern Territory subject to its jurisdiction and to other navigable waters within the Territory.
The Marine Act has been administered on the basis that ‘other navigable waters’ includes rivers and other inland waters, whether they are formed naturally or man-made. The types of vessels that could be affected include tour operators, canoe and boat hire, and commercial operations where vessels are used as work platforms such as dredges. All known operators are currently complying with the safety requirements of the Marine Act and will not be affected by this amendment.
The proposed amendment redefines the meaning of ‘Northern Territory waters’ to remove any doubt about its jurisdiction, ensuring that vessels operating on any inland waters within the Northern Territory do so safely.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 14 October 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, I advise the House that the government will be making some changes to this legislation in the committee stage.
Several aspects of the Work Health Act are to be amended. The primary change to the legislation is intended to overcome a court decision that extended the definition of ‘ordinary time earnings’ to include superannuation. Occupational superannuation was never intended to be covered by the legislation.
Following a process of consultation, it was evident that the proposed bill went further than we intended. Two aspects of the proposed bill will be reversed. They are the requirement for an employee to seek alternative employment, and the exclusion of non-cash benefits from the definition of ‘normal weekly earnings’.
Dealing with alternative employment: the requirement to have an employee seek alternative employment was considered to be contrary to the main thrust of the act. That main thrust is rehabilitation. There was a concern that some employers might use the amendment, placing a further obligation on employees to avoid their own obligation to rehabilitate workers. The ratio of injured workers returning to work in the Territory is above the national average. There are currently sufficient mechanisms to oblige injured workers to participate in rehabilitation. Benefits may be cancelled or reduced if a worker unreasonably refuses to participate. The proposed amendment is not likely to assist getting an injured worker back to work. A more stringent requirement could be used as a method to refuse claims rather than return to work. An injured worker will have limited capacity to seek alternative employment. An injured worker may not have the expertise to ascertain their capacity to seek certain types of alternative employment. The proposed amendment had the capacity to increase litigation concerning the operation of the act.
Dealing with non-cash benefits: the other measure arising out of court cases was whether or not non-cash benefits should be included in the definition of an employee’s weekly earnings. Case law had developed over a number of years to include non-cash benefits. The first decision pertaining to non-cash benefits was Palumpa Station Pty Ltd v Victor George Fox. This decision of the Work Health Court in 1999 determined that board, meat, etcetera was not an allowance but did form part of an employee’s remuneration. Murwangi Community Aboriginal Corporation v Denis Martin Carroll was a decision of the Court of Appeal in 2002 which confirmed the principle established in Fox. This case also established that the value of the non-cash benefits was to be calculated at the value to the worker. Workers in a number of industries have come to rely upon this type of payment. For example, workers in the pastoral industry receive a relatively low wage, but are compensated by free board and lodging. The proposed amendment would have disadvantaged this group of workers.
Superannuation: the third decision in a line of cases was a Court of Appeal decision in 2004, Hastings Deering Australia Pty Ltd v David John Smith. This decision extended the definition of an employee’s remuneration to include superannuation. The Cabinet decision was to return to the status quo that existed prior to the case Hastings Deering v Smith. The proposed bill now achieves that objective.
Superannuation, on the other hand, is intended to be removed from the definition. Advice received by government was that the inclusion of superannuation in the definition of weekly earnings would have resulted in substantial increases in work cover premiums. The government was not prepared to accept the potential adverse effect on employment that could have occurred. The workers compensation scheme in the Territory is a relatively generous scheme. To not exclude superannuation from the definition of remuneration might jeopardise the continuing viability of the scheme as it currently stands.
Madam Speaker, there is some urgency associated with the passage of this bill. It is important that stability be returned by way of the amendment. These changes will be brought forward at the committee stages.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I point out the presence in the gallery of students from Year 7 from Maningrida Community Education Centre, accompanied by their teacher, Ms Jo Killimister. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments about this bill. It was interesting that, at the briefing the member for Nelson and I attended, the first thing we were told was that there is going to be a swag of amendments coming through on the bill. When we sought the reason why the government has started to do this, we were told that officers had been in consultation with people in the Territory regarding the bill and that they had been conducting a consultation in the last four weeks or so.
This is typical of a government that does work, puts in legislation without thinking it through, drops it on the people, and then starts doing backflips left, right, and centre. If this is not a dog’s breakfast, I do not know what you call it. It is the way this government does business. It does not think about things; it just leads with its chin, gets clobbered by unions or employer groups, and then says: ‘We have to do this, or do that’. A government by apology; a government by backflips.
The idea of legislation such as this is about how to make it cheaper to do business in the Northern Territory. That is the first thing to think about. However, in doing so, they have to consider the interests of both employer and employee groups. At the stage when the bill was introduced in October, those thoughts were not put to mind and, instead, it came out with a hotchpotch of the bill. Now, they have to start withdrawing whole swags of stuff, as the member for Stuart articulated earlier.
Let me go to some of the issues raised by the minister in October. It is, obviously, about workers compensation that was reviewed by the previous government through the Lord Report. There are issues about workers compensation which were never satisfactory. I recall when I was working in the industry many years ago, that there was always conflict between the employer and employee.
Workers compensation was designed as a means of ensuring employees who are injured at work are adequately cared for and rehabilitated. It should always have been a cooperative process rather than adversarial. However, because one party claims to have certain injuries and the other party says they do not, people end up fighting each other over, some times, very minor issues. What happens then is that the conflict aggravates the injury through mental stress, and you have a party demanding maximum compensation whilst the other party decides not to pay up, or to pay the minimum possible.
When the government presented this bill in October, the first thing it wanted to do was remove superannuation and also what was loosely defined as ‘normal weekly earnings’. As you know, sometimes in a job you are paid nominal wages. You are also paid a living allowance, whether it be a form of free board and lodging and other non-cash remuneration such as use of a car perhaps, or a utility on a property. Instead of thinking it through, the government jumped into it. It brought out the bill as presented in October and found that it bit off more than it could chew. At the briefing, the government told me that superannuation will now be retained in this bill; however, the other non-cash remuneration will be removed, therefore allowing a better means of measuring what type of compensation payment can be made to the injured employee.
I was interested to see that the government brought in the matter of the initial medical certificate, limited to 14 days. I thought that was a good move. Quite often, people who have injured themselves see a medical practitioner for assessment and the initial certificate could extend for several weeks at a time. Obviously, there are injuries such as fractures or very severe injuries that require months of medical care prior to rehabilitation and which means that a 14 day certificate will be fairly inadequate. At least the first certificate is for 14 days. It allows reassessment to occur fairly quickly, after the initial medical settlement of the injury, then the reassessment after 14 days can give better advice to both the employee and the employer as to what will happen down the track. I support that part of the bill to ensure that each medical certificate is limited to 14 days.
Another matter that government raised was the issue of a time limit for when a claimant can seek meditation following the receipt of a formal decision over the claim. In the past, there has not been a time limit and that posed many problems in the sense that a person with a work-related injury went to a medical practitioner, was given a certificate to allow them to be off work and on worker’s compensation, and this could go on for months, sometimes even years. Sometimes, when a determination is made, the claim is no longer supported or allowed. The injured employee does not do anything about it for many months, sometimes even two years and then when they seek mediation after that, such a long period of time has lapsed since the injury that things get very blurred, and I believe that is not a good thing. Besides that, employers are left hanging not knowing what is going to happen to that case and it makes it hard for their insurer to then assess what sort of financial reserves have to be put in place to cover that particular case.
Bringing the 90 day limit to it will bring matters to a much quicker finality. At the same time, one has to be a little bit cynical to say that insurance companies would like this very much because it means that they can actually have finite reserves put against each case. That in itself, whilst good for business, whilst good for the insurer, may not necessarily be good for the injured employee. There has to be a bit of a balance. I trust that the authorities which are going to be oversighting this make sure that other parties are not disadvantaged.
The issue of normal weekly earnings has obviously been a problem. Where do you draw the line as to what is normal weekly earnings? I would like to hear the minister explain this a bit more and explain clearly what their position is. At the moment they are having a bob each way on this matter and it would be good to hear in clear terms where this government intends to go with it.
In clause 195 of the bill, we talk about compensation paid under sections 64 and 65. It is about the retrospective effect of the bill. I would like the minister to make it quite clear to me how that retrospectivity affects a claimant. When does it apply to the workers compensation payments made to the injured employee? Where does it start? Where does it finish? Will an employee who is currently on worker’s compensation be disadvantaged once this bill is passed? At the moment, the way the bill and the second reading speech are worded, it is quite unclear.
Let me put a case to the minister so that he has something concrete to work with: a person works in the building industry, falls off scaffolding, hurts himself and, for all intents and purposes, everything was done according to WorkSafe standards and it was no fault of the employer or employee; it was a pure accident. The employee breaks a leg and takes several months to heal enough to come back to work, at least in a rehabilitative fashion. The claim was lodged and paid under the current system. The current system allows for superannuation in normal weekly earnings. When this bill is passed, does it affect the amount of compensation paid to that person on a weekly basis? If it does, is this person going to be disadvantaged by this bill? The minister needs to explain that clearly.
When you have legislation that is as important as workers compensation which impacts on everyone we employ in the Territory, both in private and government enterprises, obviously we have to get this right. The CLP, in its last term, had the Lord Report done and were working through the Lord Report progressively to try to implement as many of the changes possible that the report recommended.
I commend the government for following through on this. However, I criticise the government for, in doing this, it has not proceeded cautiously or followed through in a way that is good for both employers and employees. Listening, too, are probably the insurers and their lobby groups. Just remember that the insurer, at the end of the day, does not make a loss. It is rare that an insurer makes a loss. An insurer is engaged by an employer to provide that financial backing in case of a worker’s injury. An insurer will always ensure that through their premiums they charge the employer, they regain the money they pay out to injured employees.
Minister, you have to take responsibility that this bill has been badly drafted on your instructions. For instance, it has to be laid squarely on your lap for not thinking it through properly. The opposition does support the issues that you have decided to retain in your legislation, and we look forward to clearer thinking next time you introduce legislation. We obviously want to go to committee to go through the amendments and we will be asking further questions at that time.
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I should say from the beginning that I am not going to support this bill. Having substantially changed the bill before it made it to debate today, there is not much meat left in the sandwich, but the little morsel that is left is a very important part of the sandwich. Of course, I am referring to the amended definition of ‘normal weekly earnings’.
This legislation is designed to annul the court decision which stated that superannuation is to be part of normal weekly earnings when dealing with workers compensation payments. This is grossly unfair. For a government which prides itself in sticking up for the worker, this move is unbelievable. What you are saying to a person who has been injured on the job, who was paying his superannuation, and receiving the employer’s contribution whilst he was working, is that now, not only will you receive three-quarters of your original earnings after 28 weeks, but you will not receive your superannuation contribution.
Therefore, the worker who has probably based his home mortgage payments on how much he or she earns may now be struggling to repay that loan because of the reduced income, and then gets hit with another blow: there will not be superannuation payments. Instead, they will be put on the pension when they are 65.
Let us not forget the worker was okay until he was injured. He was on full pay and had a superannuation fund. Now his or her life has changed. We have a court decision that says that superannuation should be counted as part of normal weekly earnings, and this Labor government says we cannot afford that; it is too much for the employer and the insurance companies. Who is the sacrificial offering? The worker.
The government argues that employer premiums will go up and they cannot afford any more increases. Fair enough, but what about the government or the insurance companies taking up the slack? Over the last few years, governments have introduced all sorts of measures to make the life of the insurance companies much better because as after 11 September and the HIH collapse, it was poor bugger me, I am an insurance company, I cannot survive.
Let us look at QBE, one of the insurance companies involved. I have their half year report here. For the half year ending 30 June 2004, they made a nett profit, after tax, of $320m, up 33%. Their insurance profit reached $409m, up 58%. That profit was $88m in 2000. What about Allianz? It is a worldwide insurance company which made $2.7bn nett income last year. The government put in all these measures to reduce the risk to insurance companies, and yet premiums still rise, and they continue to rise, not fall, even when all our safety programs have made work safer. Why bother with WorkSafe? You would expect some reduction on premiums, but that is not happening. Have savings just gone into profits?
So if the insurance companies are not going to help, what about the government? How many people in the Northern Territory are affected by this change in the legislation? We are a small population, so there will not be a huge number of people who need assistance. Why doesn’t the government offset the rise in premiums for those particular people, or contribute themselves directly to a super fund? You might say that will not work, it is too expensive, but who else is going to look after the worker? Doesn’t the government have a role to play in the welfare of its citizens; isn’t that what governments are all about?
The court has said that super is a legitimate part of a worker’s earnings, that although it is not money accessible now, it is just put away until it is accessible. It belongs to the worker; it is like money earned and held in trust. The big question that is missing in this whole debate is, does the government agree with the decision of the court? Regardless of whether it believes it cannot afford the decision of the court, could the minister please say whether he believes workers who are receiving workers compensation should still receive superannuation payments? Is that not the crux of this debate - what is fair for the inured worker, his family and his future?
What is also strange is that you have now changed your mind on other matters that you were going to include in normal weekly earnings, such as accommodation, food, electricity and motor vehicles, and now you have put them back in the legislation. Why not super? What is the difference to the other extras? Has the government looked at all the options, or has it simply said, ‘The definition of normal weekly earnings was supposed to mean this so we will change it’? ‘It is too costly for the insurance companies, so let us not upset them or premiums will go up for employers and they cannot afford any more increases’. Or, ‘It is not done in other states, so why should it be done here’. I have heard that argument many times from both directions, especially when it comes to unlimited speed limits on highways.
So let us forget the worker who, through no fault of his own, is now worse off because he was injured on the job. Surely this Labor government, the one who told me I knew nothing about such matters as the eight hour day, the party who marches so proudly on Labour Day, the one who espouses the virtues of the working class, and I quote from a recent speech by the member for Sanderson when he was questioning my views on workers when we debated the balancing work life issue. He said, and it is a very simple quote: ‘Labor governments get behind workers’. I read that, and I find it difficult to comprehend why a Labor government is willing to drop the worker bit and support the big end of town. Why a Labor government would not protect the rights of workers but instead throw them on the scrap heap of political and economic expediency, and why that is, is beyond me. The government should have looked at other options to protect the worker. It announced a $5m sponsorship to the V8s yesterday. Why then could it not sponsor injured workers and show that it had not lost sight of its priorities and sponsor those workers as well?
Madam Speaker, this is a clear example of where a government has a role to play as a protector of the weak and sick in our society. Unfortunately, that has gone out the door and the new philosophy of the world has taken its place: economic rationalism.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Greatorex and Nelson for their contribution to debate. I will go back over how this came about for the benefit of the member for Nelson, particularly because it does seem to be up his nose that we are an anti-worker government in some way. Far from it.
If we were not to act in a responsible fashion in relation to this court decision about super it would be more anti-worker, because if we see premiums rise to the extent that they were a few years ago, if we see costs of the scheme getting out of control, what happens? QBE might well be sitting on $303.5bn or $100bn profit around the world - they ain’t very interested in staying in the Northern Territory if they are not making a profit. What happens when they walk? What happens when the whole load falls back on TIO, and that cannot cope and goes under, or withdraws from the market? What happens when Allianz or any of the others decide this market is a bit too hot? There ain’t anyone left to put workers compensation cover out there for workers - there is no workers compensation scheme! And who is the big loser then? Not business, but the worker themselves. That is why is is necessary for government to come to every equation such as this with a balance of responsibility to both the employee and the businesses.
Why cannot government pick it up? Why cannot government just pay the workers superannuation component for the boss, or for the insurance company, because we are taking it out of the system? Why cannot government pick it up? Well, the actuarial estimates around this, over time, were going to add about 4% to the premiums paid by employers - 4% per worker. Hello, hello! That 4% was about the levy - was exactly the levy - that this government placed on employer’s workers compensation premiums in order to address the massive backlog of long-tail claims from HIH.
Government decided that it would step in and cover that long-tail liability resting against HIH and remove the 4% levy on workers compensation premiums. At what cost? Well, we do not know, but it is somewhere in the order of $20m or more. That is what it has cost this government – that is what it has cost the taxpayers - in order to cover those rip-off scumbag merchants who dragged HIH to ground. That is the order you have to be saying over time that government would have to put in - or be prepared to stand by - if government was to cover the superannuation component for injured workers forever and a day.
Here is the balance of the equation: it is not a condition or a right that accrues in any other workers compensation scheme in Australia. Nowhere in Australia, at this day, does the worker get the employer component of superannuation while they are on sick leave. We are the second and third and, in some cases, the top in generosity - the most generous in some areas, the second most generous in some, the third most generous scheme in Australia - for workers. No other jurisdiction covers them for super when they are injured, but the member for Nelson says we are banging workers around. We already have the most generous scheme, or the second most generous scheme, or the third most generous scheme - whichever of the entitlements that you want to look at - and he says not only do they get knocked around in losing their income, they have six months on 100% salary. Point to the other schemes in Australia that give you 100% of wage and salary for six months before there is any step-down at all to 75% after six months.
The whole basis of our scheme is one of rehabilitation, designed to get the worker through the injury, rehabilitated, and back to work as soon as possible. That is the best thing you can do for the worker for their superannuation because, the sooner they are back at work, the sooner their employer component of the superannuation keeps going in.
I get a bit sensitive when I get banged up for being an anti-worker government when, quite the contrary, we are looking at preserving the integrity of this scheme and the market for many years to come.
In relation to this question of non-cash benefits, there is no doubt that information came to government and to me when we circulated the amendment for discussion. The amendment was designed to take out superannuation which had been put in by a court decision. We wanted to restore the status quo. The effect of the amendment, as pointed out to us, was that it actually went further, and it removed a number of non-cash benefits that had been in the system as a result of case law over a number of years, to include non-cash benefits in the definition of normal weekly earnings.
The first decision pertaining to non-cash benefits was Palumpa Station Pty Ltd v Victor George Fox, a decision of the Work Health Court in 1999 determining that board, meat, etcetera, was not on allowance but did form part of an employee’s remuneration. MurwangiCommunity Aboriginal Corporation v Dennis Martin Carroll was a decision of the Court of Appeal in 2002 and that confirmed that principle established in Fox, and the case also established that the value of non-cash benefits was to be calculated at the value to the worker.
We had a number of submissions and a number of people put to us that those workers in a number of industries who rely on that payment, and I will give you an example, pastoral workers in primary industry who do not receive high wages and salaries, they are relatively low because part of their remuneration is the free board and lodging, three meals a day while they are there. However, if they are injured, and they have to come to Darwin and they are off the property, and maybe they have to do rehab in and out of hospital on a daily basis for weeks at a time, and they have to pick up their rent out of their pocket here, and they are only getting the small actual cash benefit that they were getting before, then they are obviously disadvantaged. Not only that, they are among the lowest and most disadvantaged workers in the work force in the economy anyway and we did not want to further bang them up by taking away something which was already in the system, and had been as a result of these court decisions going back to 1999.
That was not our intent. It was not the intent of government to remove rights that were already there in the system. It was very clearly our intent to excise, remove, take out, subtract, superannuation from the equation. That is why the amendments that we have before us today are to reinforce the fact that we are taking out superannuation but we are not moving on those non-cash benefits.
I cannot see that this is the end of this debate. Since the act came into being in 1987, we have had a number of movements in relation to conditions of service and wages and salaries. One, of course, is the mandated superannuation. It did not exist back in 1987; that is why the act never envisaged superannuation as being part of normal weekly earnings. Notwithstanding that, and we are holding the status quo there, there is a body of work to be done and a close scrutiny and a close analysis of what actually constitutes non-cash benefits in weekly earnings, and what might be considered and what perhaps ought not be considered.
I believe the member for Greatorex raised that question in his contribution in the second reading. Where do you draw the line? It is a question that I cannot answer standing here today. That is a body of work that needs to be done and it needs a very close scrutiny over all of the decisions that have been made. It also needs a scrutiny and a study of the way wages and salaries have gone. We have seen salary sacrificing, for example, over the past decade which was never envisaged in 1987 when this act was written. What is a fair line to draw in the sand - we are not going to pay the gym fees, or for the swimming pool, or the sons and daughters’ private boarding school fees, but we are going to pay this?
There are any manner of things that need to be brought to that debate and a line drawn through that in fairness and equity to the worker on the one hand. We do not want to see the worker disadvantaged anymore than they are. It is bad enough to get injured at work without being banged around again. As I said, we do have to have an eye to the viability of the scheme over time and that is the balance that we have to draw. That is the balance that we will be seeking to find in relation to this question of non-cash benefit and what might be reasonably construed as should constitute a normal part of weekly earnings against perhaps other parts that should not.
It is a very important body of work. The member for Greatorex hit the nail on the head in relation to that question he put to me about where you do draw the line.
On those points, Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Stuart, picked up a number of points. The other withdrawal was this attempt to bring into the act this need for the employee to seek alternative employment, but when you look at the act overall, that amendment was considered to be contrary to the main thrust of the act, which is, of course, rehabilitation, as I said. There was a concern that some employers might use that amendment to place a further obligation on employees in order to avoid their own obligation, which is, in the first place, to rehabilitate the worker and get them back to work.
We know, as the act stands and operates in the Territory, that the ratio of injured workers returning to work is above the national average. So we did not want to interfere with a ratio that suggests the scheme is working well, the act is working well, in the sense of getting workers back to work. There are, of course, already sufficient mechanisms in the act to oblige injured workers to participate in rehabilitation. They have to play their part in the equation overall. Benefits may be reduced accordingly or cancelled altogether if a worker unreasonably refuses to participate in the process, or to see doctors, or to carry out reasonable instructions in order to get themselves rehabilitated. So it did not seem that adding this provision was going to assist getting injured workers back to work when the scheme already allows a worker to be bumped off entitlements all together if they do no cooperate and play their part.
In addition, you would have to recognise that any injured worker is going to have a further limitation on their capacity to seek alternative employment. They may not have the expertise to ascertain their own capacity to seek certain types of alternative employment and what might be acceptable. Therefore, we thought that amendment had the potential as well to increase litigation around the operation of the act. There are already enough lawyers who do very well out of the operation of work health in the Northern Territory and we did not want to make it any worse.
The transitional provisions are also being amended to ensure that the retrospective application of the act is reinforced. It is clear that if superannuation applies retrospectively, the system would be subject to a multimillion dollar hit and it simply would not withstand that. We know that the scheme is a relatively generous scheme, and to not exclude superannuation from the definition could well jeopardise the continuing viability as it currently stands and, as I said, could lead to insurers withdrawing from the field. It is important that we get stability back into the system.
The bill retains the following elements:
They sound, in reading, very commonsense, and you would wonder why they do not do it. The fact is there are difficulties between medical practitioners, between insurers, and between employees all around. This will mandate how those steps are taken and the relationships between the employer and the insurer and the medical practitioner of their choice one the one hand and the employee and medical practitioner of their choice on the other. So there will not be further argy bargy around that.
In going through those points, and I deliberately wanted to put them on the record because the member for Nelson suggested that the bill had all been scrapped with the exception of the superannuation, but that is not true. In fact, 70% of the bill remains intact. It is those couple of changes we have made by way of committee stage amendments, and there are four; two amendments in the first place and two amendments in the committee stage that are consequential to the changes brought about by the first two amendments.
I again thank members for their contribution. I would be happy to talk to the member for Nelson, and indeed, the member for Greatorex, at any time if he still has a view, or he wants to accuse us of banging around workers. That is not what this is about at all. I say again, there will be a close in-house analysis of this whole question of non-cash benefits, because we recognise that times have changed, and that conditions and the way things are paid have moved on over the past 17 years since this act came in to play. Therefore, we do need to have a good look at that, and we will.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 92.1 which is to omit from proposed section 49(1A)(c) all words after ‘include’ and insert in their stead ‘superannuation contributions made by the employer’.
Mr Chairman, I will also invite defeat of clause 7.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, can we stick to clause 5? Let us do one at a time, otherwise it gets too confusing. In regards to clause 5, you want to have only superannuation retained and the rest removed. When you retain that in the bill - not that I am against it, I just want you to clarify it for me - it means that an employee who is injured and on workers compensation will now no longer receive a percentage of the superannuation contribution as part of the workers compensation payment. Is that correct?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, it operates like this. The scheme never paid superannuation for workers while they were on workers compensation until a court decided that superannuation is a part of normal weekly earnings, and we are going to award that in normal weekly earnings. Therefore that worker, and I do not know who that was when that case went through, received it, and so would a number of others in the system at that time. If they have an award handed down, if they get their case handed down through the court system after that case, and before this bill is assented to and takes effect, they will retain that benefit.
However, the effect of this amendment is that after this bill comes into effect, superannuation will not be part of workers compensation benefits, will not be deemed part of normal weekly earnings.
So everyone who did not get it up until that particular court case will remain not getting it; everyone after will remain not getting it. There is a windfall gain, I suppose, for those people whose decisions were made prior to this taking effect. The act does not take away those who were fortunate enough to be in that situation.
Dr LIM: The member for Nelson is sitting in the chair, so he may not be able to ask this question. I am going to pose some questions that I have not discussed with him, but I believe are probably in his mind. As a normal employee, I receive my weekly wages. The employer pays the 9% superannuation levy on my wages into a fund which I will then have access to when I retire or when I reach the age of 55 - I think it is 55 when you get that. I am now 50 years old, I am working and, suddenly, I am injured. I receive my workers compensation based on my salary. However, now this 9% superannuation is not paid into my superannuation fund any more. By the time I reach 65 - for a period of 15 years if I were to remain injured and incapacitated and unable to work until I retire at 65 - for whatever reason the workers compensation payment stops. You would say: ‘Okay, now I can access my superannuation to live on’. That superannuation now is short of 15 years of contribution by an employer so, theoretically, I am disadvantaged.
Is there any mechanism, minister, that you are going to bring into place to offset that? I know it did not occur before; it is not going to occur in the future. However, is there something you are going to be able to do to offset that at all in any way?
Mr STIRLING: That is a question of looking at all of the non-cash benefits, the structure of wages and salaries that are paid now, and what might be done. It goes to that line in the sand that the member for Greatorex raised: what is a fair thing and where does this sit in relation to that line? I say again, though, that when you have the first, second and third most generous scheme in Australia in relation to benefits paid to workers, no other worker in Australia – it does not make it right, of course - has their superannuation paid. You have to balance the benefits paid to the worker against the viability of the scheme, of keeping insurers in the game and having premiums that are affordable by the business sector.
If any one of those components falls out of sync, you start to get into trouble. If premiums rise too high, you start belting business and that has a downward effect on them and their ability to employ workers. If the benefits do get out of hand and premiums get too high to pay then, of course, insurance companies walk. In that situation, you have no coverage for anyone. That is worse case scenario; I accept that. However, when the member for Greatorex asked how we are going to look at that or balance that, the only way would be to offset the generosity of the scheme in some other area in order to pick that up - which would be to the long-term benefit of the worker in the case you put forward where no contribution went forward into the scheme for 15 years, or for however long the worker was out injured. It is a huge problem for that worker in their future life beyond work.
I cannot say yes, no, or this is what you might do, on the spot here without that investigation and analysis. However, my first thoughts would be that, if we thought for the longer-term benefit of the worker superannuation benefits ought be part of the scheme, ought be paid, then we would have to look at the offset in the scheme somewhere else in order to keep costs relatively stable.
Dr LIM: I ask the minister to go a bit further. In your second reading speech, you spoke about the negotiated settlements - and that is not in the bill; I understand that. However, it is being explored. You are studying South Australian experience to go from there. Negotiated settlements are something that insurance companies like because it gives a finite liability. Insurance companies know this is how much we will have to pay somebody; once the person has been paid that you draw the line across the name and it is all over, and it is clear for them. It might not be good for society in general, it might not be good for the employer, it might not even be good for the employee because they might blow the money and then suddenly they have nothing left.
Maybe this is a way for you to consider the offset in superannuation. Somewhere through negotiated settlement that might be able to come along, help the employer, help the employee and ensure it also has a finite way of drawing the line. I am just tossing that as an idea for you.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I did make comment on negotiated settlements in the second reading and made it fairly clear that the South Australian experience had not been a good one, and that many of the principles of our scheme do align reasonably closely with the South Australian scheme. Our people have watched very closely what has occurred across the border and the member for Greatorex touched on it when he talked about the big win.
Our scheme, though, is about rehabilitation. If you encourage or foster a lotto-type mentality it may be that the worker is not interested in rehabilitation anymore if they can see $200 000 or $300 000, a pot of gold, at the end. South Australia, as an example, suggests that that has happened to their scheme at not only the cost to the scheme but in a number of cases, too many, at the cost of the employee as well who has lost future entitlements of course. Sometimes, if there is a lotto mentality about it, there is a lotto mentality to spend it as well and the insurer pays up a big whack and the worker loses out because it comes and goes too quickly and they have no further entitlements.
Again, South Australia is actually looking to how they might wind back the number of negotiated settlements in their scheme because it does not appear to be helping anyone. We do not want to get into that situation. That is not to say that there is not closer watching and more study and analysis of those types of settlements to be done and it is a part of that work that I have talked about. If there were good grounds and good arguments to go more into them, or to allow more flexibility around them, then we would.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I invite defeat of this clause. This is the extra provision that would have obliged an injured worker to take reasonable steps to obtain suitable alternative employment for themselves where the original employer could not provide that suitable employment, and ensuring that the provision did not release the employer from their obligation under the act to the return to work process.
I spoke about why we were withdrawing this amendment in closing debate. There are already mechanisms in the act if a worker is recalcitrant and does not involve themselves in rehabilitation, if they do not go to see the doctor, or do not comply with reasonable directions and instructions deemed to be in their own good, then of course benefits can be reduced or cancelled altogether and that is the ultimate sanction.
On reflection, we are seeking defeat of this clause in the view that the act already covers it.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I support this invitation to defeat this clause. I thought it was unreasonable to expect an injured employee to seek employment of his or her own accord if that person does not agree with, or is unable to comply with, the rehabilitator’s attempts to find employment for the injured employee.
First, an injured employee, whilst they would know about the injury better than anybody else, may not understand the limitations the injury would impose upon his or her body. To then get that person to go and find a job is most unreasonable.
Most times, you will find that if a good, professional rehabilitator is involved, who is a strong employee advocate, and the key words are ‘strong employee advocate’, usually you have a very positive outcome. It is often the other way around because the insurer tends to be the one that somehow gets the assessing officer to try to get the injured employee back into work. Those assessing officers tend not to be worker’s compensation specialists but administrators and they tend not to get the right sort of motivation with the employee. Get a strong advocate for the employee, and this will be a positive step in the right direction.
Mr STIRLING: I thank the member for his support.
Clause 7 negatived.
Clauses 8 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, there are two amendments in clause 14, both consequential to the amendments that we have just passed. To make it clear for the member for Greatorex, I move amendment 92.2 which affects proposed section 195: omit ‘contribution or benefit’ and substitute ‘superannuation contribution’; and an amendment to proposed new subsection 195(1) of the bill consequential to committee stage amendment 92.1 which removes the exclusion in the bill of ‘non-cash remuneration’ from the definition of ‘normal weekly earnings’. So it stems from the passage of that amendment earlier.
I further move amendment 92.3, which is to insert after proposed section 195(1):
Mr Chairman, I further move amendment 92.4 in respect of proposed section 196 to omit the whole section. Again, that is consequential to the committee stage amendment inviting defeat of clause 7 ‘Workers being proactive in the return to work process’. So these three are a result of the amendments we have just passed.
Dr LIM: Thank you, minister. I understand what you said, but can I have the words reduced to simple English? What you are saying is that those people who have been on worker’s compensation before the court determination did not receive superannuation and they will not. All right? Those who have been on worker’s compensation since the court decision have now been receiving superannuation and they will not be disadvantaged by the passage of this bill. Those subsequent to the passage of this bill will not longer receive superannuation. Yes or no? That is clear and people will be happy.
Mr STIRLING: Those who have been awarded superannuation as part of normal weekly earnings keep it. Those prior, who did not get it, do not get it. Those after the commencement of this act will not get it, but if they received it through the court system and it is in their entitlement, this act does not remove it.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
I want to clarify a point of understanding here in relation to those benefits. I believe what I said was right, but there is room for misinterpretation in how the Hansard might read in my answer to the member for Greatorex about superannuation benefits. If they received it in the courts, they would not have to pay it back, that is an entitlement. However, they do not continue to get it after the commencement of this act.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, in response to what the minister said, you are depriving someone of a right they have already have. With the passage of this, you are depriving them of that right. You are taking a financial benefit away from them. I believe you are opening yourself up to a potential challenge by the current recipient of that money and I do not think that is appropriate. These people were the ones who, through a court decision, received remuneration that included superannuation. Right or wrong, that was decided by the court. If you are going to take it away from them, you are removing - well, I am not a lawyer, whether it is contempt of the court decision or not, if there is such a thing - but you are depriving them of a right that they currently have. There has to be just compensation for that deprivation of a right. I know we are out of committee, and I do not know how you respond to this, and what process you can use to do that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few things in relation to summing up about the bill. I thank the minister for his comments, and I understand where he is coming from.
Trying to put this into perspective, I realise we are a small population part of Australia. However, if we were talking about the numbers of people who are permanently disabled for the rest of their life, how many people would there really be? And for those few people who are permanently disabled for the rest of their life, could the government not afford to look after those people? That is really what I am saying.
I do not take the argument that just because the other states do not include superannuation as part of normal weekly earnings, therefore we should not, and I will say again, we tend to use that argument in reverse when it suits us. As I said, we do not agree with changing the speed limit just because the other states want us to. All I am saying is that, in our particular case, if we put together the number of people who are really affected by this legislation, could not this government look at funding those people?
We talk about $1.2bn for the waterfront, and we quote big figures for development. I sometimes think that is wonderful; however, in the end, you might say people who need us most are not being assisted and we base that non-assistance on: ‘Other states will not do it, insurance companies will not come to the Territory, it is too hard for the employers’. To me, the person we should really be helping is missing out. All I am saying is: before the government introduced this legislation it could have at least looked at other possibilities of helping those workers who will now lose out. For those workers who may be injured early in life, they will not get superannuation unless they have some other way they can fund it. They will end up just receiving the pension. Whilst that might be okay, it certainly might not have been what that employee, when they took on a job, thought they would be able to put away so when they retired they would have the extra money which a lot of other workers will have.
Minister, that is basically where I was coming from. I believe we should do our best to look after workers, especially ones who have been injured. I believe they are an extra special category which I believe is the responsibility of government - not just insurance companies, not just workers, but a responsibility of government to look after.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! During committee stage, the minister said a particular form of words which I agreed with.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Dr LIM: Immediately after we completed that, at the third reading he said: ‘Sorry, that is not what I meant’. The process might have to be wound back. What the minister said subsequent to completion of the committee stage is quite different to what he said at the committee stage at the time when I agreed with what he said. I now do not agree with what he says, and I have problems with it.
I am asking for guidance as to the process to reopen this issue. This issue is quite significant. Think about it. By what you said, you have put yourself in to a difficult situation, minister, and I am seeking guidance from the Clerk and the Speaker as to the process.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not believe there is a point of order, member for Greatorex. I can only advise that the minister and you get together and sort this out. Have discussions and see whether you are both on the same track.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are in the third reading and not going back to committee stages? I was listening to what the minister was saying in regards to that very point regarding the payments that are currently in place and being paid to recipients. I listened particularly to the answer and I thought: ‘Right, you are not going to touch those, therefore, we would be happy’. However, after the committee stage finished and the minister came back in the third reading, it is a concern to our side of the House.
It is our only point of concern with the amendments. We know where you are heading and why this is happening, and where it has come from - the Lord Report and all the rest of it. However, we are very interested in getting more detail on why you have recommended to go down this line. It could be sorted out here, but we are treading on protocols and how we are supposed to do things. However, it was not until he came back and clarified it in the third reading that …
Madam SPEAKER: We do have a question before the Chair at the moment. Minister?
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Recommit Bill to Committee Stage
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being reconsidered in Committee of the Whole on the question – That the bill, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, the committee will now consider the bill, as amended.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, it was in discussion with my advisor that I realised that there could be different interpretations on what I was saying. I felt it important to make it clear on Hansard exactly the intent of the amendment. There was never any intent to mislead or suggest it was something other than what it was.
Dr Lim: I do not think that at all.
Mr STIRLING: That is why I felt it important to clarify at that third reading but I do apologise for getting us in that situation where I then could not respond.
The advice was that you could not write it, you could not take it back out without affecting everyone, including those who had received it. What the member for Greatorex is suggesting is that it may be open to challenge because you have acquired a right in the sense of a property right and, of course, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act says you can only do that on just terms of compensation. That, in itself, is a case for a future court decision if someone wanted to challenge and appeal that.
The legal advice behind the amendment, the way it was written, is that that has been taken into account and they believe they are on strong ground, that that case would not get up. Nonetheless, I would not pre-empt a court decision but that is the legal advice that government had.
Possibly you could say that those who were in the system and received that, it may have been fairer if they kept it; on the other hand, no one before has that right and no one after has that right. So there is a lack of equity for those others. We would be talking about a handful of cases inside and through the system which received this award. Nonetheless, it does change the possible interpretation, or the meaning, that was around the words I used before. It is important to have the record straight.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, that is why I was quite specific in asking the minister to explain in plain English what it meant. Those before the court case, no super. Those after this bill, no super. Those in between have been receiving super. And the minister at one stage said, ‘Yes, that is right and they will keep on getting’. Now he says, ‘No, they do not’.
Mr STIRLING: Keep what they have but they do not …
Dr LIM: They keep what they get, that is right. But they do not pay it back but they will not keep on getting it. Okay.
You said there is a handful. I wonder whether you know what the absolute numbers are, over what period of time? Again, why are you forcing these people who are now receiving the super component to go through a court case to get a determination on their behalf? These are the people who are already suffering a disability. They are getting compensation because of a disability. This government now wants to push them into a situation where they have to go through court. At whose cost? Who is going to fund their court case to try to get back just compensation for a right that you have just acquired?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I do not have the information with me in relation to the number of cases. We will seek it and we will provide that to the member for Greatorex. In relation to who might fund it, it is a bit hypothetical in that sense but I would imagine if there was a push by lawyers to say that this is wrong and they ought have super in their benefits, there might be a push for people to get together or get a test case through. In terms of the cost of running the case for the benefit, we would be talking in the main of about 9%. I suppose if it was a young worker over a long period of time then it would be of great significance, even recognising that 9% of super over a working life is probably not enough in itself to fund a productive and happy retirement. Nonetheless, there could be, in those terms, a significant loss of right.
Who funds it? Not government because we have to preserve the situation as it is.
Dr LIM: Not that I am a great union supporter, but I am now coming from the employee’s point of view or the patient advocate role I used to have. Minister, I repeat you are acquiring somebody’s right. You are saying: ‘You have the money and you keep it, but you are not going to get any more’. The court had determined that they had the right to be provided with that superannuation component of their workers compensation. There might be only five, there might be only one person, but that person now has to go through a court process to regain that or test it to see whether they can get it back from you.
Would you consider, as you did with NTGPASS, funding a test case? Remember that these employees currently receiving the super component are already on workers compensation. They are already financially disadvantaged, not to speak about their physical disadvantage. They are already suffering a physically disability from a work injury. You are now putting them onto a financial disability by taking away the right they have been awarded by the court. Why are you putting those people through this hardship when there is no need for it? If you choose to continue down this path of acquiring that right, why are you now forcing them to come back to you through a court process to regain the right? It may cost them a lot of money. Because it is a workers compensation case, they will not get legal aid, no way in the world. Where are they going to find the money to do it? Are you going to say: ‘Well, stiff, mate, you have no money, you cannot come back because you cannot do it’?
I do not think that is fair. In all sense of equity, that is just not fair. You say to me it is a handful, so you are not talking about a lot of money in continuing to provide them with that super component of their workers compensation. It is not a lot of money. It cannot be: you are talking of 75% of 9%, which is coming right down to nearly 5% or 6%; that is all.
Minister, you ought to think it through properly. This is depriving a physically disadvantaged person of a right they have been given by a court and you are going to say: ‘Stiff. You can come back to me and try to get it through a legal process,’ but the missing words are ‘if you can afford to have it done’.
I am happy to let it go if you say you will fund this test case and see where it goes. At least the disabled employees are not being financially disadvantaged and they have a chance to try to prove their case.
Mr STIRLING: It is a bit hard to argue this on equity; we could be talking one worker, two workers, three workers, I do not know. Until I have those figures, it is a bit hard to argue. What I do know is that thousands of injured workers between 1987 and the time that the decision around super went through for that one particular worker did not have it. Did not have it. Many workers who are injured in the future after this bill takes effect will not have it. So why would we be hell-bent on ensuring that one, two, three, four or even five, if there would be that many in the system, have a right simply because a court made a decision that in their view superannuation ought be seen as part of normal weekly earnings?
It was never envisaged as part of this legislation, never envisaged as part of this scheme, which is among the most generous in Australia, it was never recognised in any other jurisdiction in Australia. Why would government fund a test case to protect that benefit for one, two, three or four workers when thousands of others are not going to get it? There is no equity in that. They do keep whatever benefit was paid in during the time until this bill takes effect. That is the only way that it could be written.
The threat of legal challenge to it has been recognised by government and advice provided that whilst challenges may be forthcoming, they are not likely to be successful. That is the advice to government. I do not pre-empt the outcome of possible court decisions. It is a matter for the courts; it is a matter of how the case is fought out. However, we will not be going to fund the test case.
What we are talking about with the NTGPASS and the need to look at that is, there are many thousands of public servants in that situation between 1999 and now, and it is a very different situation to this. I will get the figures, I am sorry I do not have those figures – but probably a handful. I could say, on equity grounds, why should that handful have something that many thousands of others do not have and have no prospect of getting?
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I agree with the minister that many people, prior to the court case, never received the super component, and many people from now on into the future will not receive it either. However, the group in the middle that we talked about, why should they receive it? The court decided that they should receive it. Who are we to say that they should not? You are now saying that the court is wrong, and that is why you introduced this bill, and therefore, those of you who are captured by the court decision, well, stiff bickies.
It is up to you, minister. I have put my case to you. I believe you need to re-examine this more closely. Your knee-jerk reaction is probably a little bit too fast, and you are not considering the rights of Territorians who are currently in that middle group. These Territorians deserve to have their rights protected. I am just doing that to ensure that you are fully aware of what you are doing and you bear the consequences of those actions. I believe they are wrong.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, just for the record, again, we did not say that the courts were wrong. Courts will do what courts will do. In fact, I heard my colleague, the Minister for Housing, on ABC radio the other week and he said, ‘Courts are about justice’, and I thought what a great quote. If we all remembered that - courts are about justice - and that is the way they make their decisions, according to justice.
We did not say the court decision was wrong. What we recognised was the impact of that decision on the scheme, on viability, on costs, and the enhancement to workers’ benefits in comparison to what the scheme tries to do. I do not want it on the record that we viewed the court decision as wrong. Simply that we recognise the implications and consequences as a result of that court decision and the need to put the act back the way it was.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to, bill read a third time.
Continued from 13 October 2004.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in relation to this bill, we say that it receives qualified support. It probably deserves qualified support because it does improve the current situation. However, it is worth noting that the CLP’s position in relation to it is that it does not go far enough. I will repeat that: it does not go far enough. I anticipate making amendments to this bill in due course because we want to get rid of customary law from the collective consideration of the courts.
Members will recall that I introduced the Criminal Code Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill in August 2003. The Sentencing Amendment Bill proposed that a court shall not have regard to any aspect of customary law in sentencing. We stand by that bill. There are many reasons why I introduced that bill, and it is appropriate that I now quote some of the reasons I gave then. I said on 13 August 2003:
When he opposed the bill that I introduced, the Attorney-General said a number of things. I do not propose to revisit them all. However, the fact is that, from what he said at the time and subsequently in the media, it is abundantly clear that the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory supports two laws - one for Aboriginal people, and one for non-Aboriginal people - when it comes to the criminal jurisdiction in particular. There are a number of things I could say in relation to the Attorney-General’s reply which he gave on 26 November 2003, which I have recently re-read. There is one thing he said which, in my view, stands out, and I will quote it:
I ask: whose rights? The rights of violent Aboriginal men, or women and children who are their victims? There are competing human rights here, and the Attorney-General clearly does not want to touch it. He would rather have a situation where the rights of violent Aboriginal men prevail over the rights of Aboriginal women and children …
Dr Toyne: You do not understand the bill.
Ms CARNEY: … who are the victims of violent offences …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Ms CARNEY: I note that members on the other side are calling it rubbish. That is their view. I have long maintained that customary law is a shield behind which violent Aboriginal men hide. That is the case. It cannot be anything other than the case.
Due to whatever sensitivities the Attorney-General has, we have a situation where, despite the extremely high, extraordinarily high, appalling high levels of violence in Aboriginal communities which has been talked about in this place - this has been talked about by the member for Arnhem, where he described some time ago - perhaps last year or the year before - the dysfunction in Aboriginal communities. He talked about the violence. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, he represented the Northern Territory at the national summit that was called on domestic violence.
Notwithstanding the comments made in this Chamber, some of which had been very genuine, the fact is we have a government that despite all of the evidence, despite the changing world in which we live, that is, an increasing number of Aboriginal women and children being assaulted and otherwise victimised, they do not want to do anything about it.
Why is it that a court can have regard to customary law under the Sentencing Act for violent Aboriginal men, when the court does not have the same regard for what could be described, I suppose, as customary law for non-Aboriginal men? It clearly demonstrates that this government accepts two systems - two systems of law. Well, we do not.
It is appropriate at this juncture that I refer to - and I am happy to direct members to it – an article in The Bulletin dated 27 July 2004 written by Paul Toohey. I will quote a relevant bit. I will apologise in advance because the short bit that I will quote has some language in it that is decidedly unparliamentary. However, it is a direct quote that was published in The Bulletin. Mr Toohey was talking about what he described as the ‘excuse of drunkenness and tribalism’. He said, and I quote:
Now …
Mrs AAGAARD: Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I would suggest that even though that was a quote, it is extremely unparliamentary.
Ms CARNEY: And I gave notice of the fact that it would be.
Mr Henderson: Yes, but we did not know what was in there.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It is a quote. It is attributed clearly to somebody else and it is something which is logical and probative. There is no point of order.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, speaking to another point of order. Standing orders does preclude unparliamentary language. Whether there is a definitive quote or not, the language that is utilised in this House is on the public record. I do not believe that that particular word is worthy of the public record of this parliament. I would ask the Chair to reconsider, regarding parliamentary propriety, whether that word should be on the Parliamentary Record. The word could have been left out or out of context. I certainly do not think that this House wants to set a precedent that members can come in here and use quotes like that and have that type of language on the Parliamentary Record.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Members on the other side have misunderstood two points. One is that, firstly, I did the House the courtesy of apologising in advance, declaring the language was unparliamentary. Secondly, I am quoting from a source. We are all representatives of the Northern Territory community. Many of us, I suspect, read The Bulletin. Indeed, many people in the Northern Territory probably read The Bulletin. It was published in The Bulletin. If the Leader of Government Business wants to censor what can be quoted, what material we can bring in here, then god knows where it will end up. That is the quote, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to rule against the point of order.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Just because it was printed and the member for Araluen decided to quote it, there is no reason for breaching a convention of using unparliamentary language in this House. On her analogy that because it is in the printed media she can use unparliamentary language, therefore any standing order can be breached if it is in print.
Therefore, any blasphemous words which she may care to read out, which I daresay she will if she gets the nod on this one, can be said; any words that are disrespectful to the Crown can be said; any words disrespectful to other MLAs or other parliamentarians in other places that are in print can be said. According to the principle that she is now trying to bring into this House, because they appear in a paper or in printed media, anywhere, in any form, is not a breach of standing orders.
I urge you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, to rule that this is unparliamentary; it is unwarranted and uncalled for. I certainly hope that the print media pick up on the foul language that the member for Araluen uses in this House because no one else would ever dare to be so impertinent as to use this type of language in a place like this.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Regarding the point of order, there is a matter of context in which all words may and may not be used. The word uttered by the member for Araluen is, in almost every situation, unparliamentary. After taking advice from the Clerk, I am of the view that the word should not appear in Hansard, but rather that the document be tabled and made available for the public to see should someone decide to investigate it.
I formally order that the word be expunged from Hansard, and that the publication be made available by way of tabling.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, presumably the article in its entirety would not be published in Hansard?
Mr Elferink: It can be taken as a tabled paper.
Ms Carney: Yes, I am very happy to table it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct, it will not be in Hansard, but it will be a tabled paper.
Ms CARNEY: That is cool. The point has been made in any event, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I still request that the member for Araluen withdraw that remark.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think there was a withdrawal, member for Sanderson.
Mr KIELY: No, there was no withdrawal.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, do you formally withdraw that, then that will become a tabled paper?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr KIELY: And she should withdraw!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Would you sit down!
Ms CARNEY: As I say, in any event the point has been made! If government members want to be cute then so be it. I take this matter very seriously and it is abundantly clear to me that some of the members on the other side do not. That is very unfortunate.
I remind members that the Attorney-General also said in his reply opposing the bill I introduced, which was about August 2003, and has since repeated it in the media, which is something of a worry because he is misrepresenting, as I understand it, the current situation. The Attorney-General said on 26 November 2003:
The Attorney-General named two cases. I doubt that there are more. If there are more, I invite him to give me the list. If there are more than half a dozen, I would be surprised. What is disturbing is that he did not say how many cases there were, even though he quoted two. In fact, I think he said elsewhere in his speech that the court used customary law as an aggravating factor for sentencing offences on many occasions. I doubt that that is the case, and I challenge him to provide me with a list of cases.
What we do know, though, is that on a regular basis in the courts in the Northern Territory, submissions as to customary law are used to mitigate sentencing. That is the case. Having said that, though, and in relation to the way the court hears about customary law to mitigate the sentence, the bill presently before us does improve the present system so that a party who seeks to present information about customary law must give notice to the other party and provide information by way of oral evidence, affidavit or statutory declaration. That does overcome the problem that has existed, namely submissions from the bar table, which have, some would say, appeared so seductive to judges and magistrates in many cases.
However, whilst this bill formalises the way in which customary law can be put to the court on notice to the other party, it still provides for customary law to be used in mitigation when sentencing. We say that it should not be there at all because it is a shield behind which violent men hide. That has been our view for some time, and it is appropriate for me to read another part of what I said in August 2003 to hammer the point home in regards to the role of customary law in the criminal jurisdiction for sentencing, and it is that specific.
The CLP acknowledges the role of customary law in a number of laws across the Northern Territory, and customary law has been acknowledged for many, many years, but we say, given the extraordinarily and outrageously high levels of violence, there is a point at which legislators need to nail their colours to the mast and say, ‘Enough is enough’. It should also include an acknowledgement that there are competing rights and that, the rights of Aboriginal women and children, when they have been assaulted, should be favoured above those of violent Aboriginal men. I said, in August 2003:
Nevertheless, given that the government is apparently, and the Attorney-General in particular, comfortable with the fact that the use of, and reliance on, customary law in sentencing protects violent offenders, then we are left to consider this bill on its merits. Knowing that the government has no intention of changing the law to remove customary law from sentencing, knowing that the Attorney-General would prefer to sit by and refuse to act, we are in a position to offer qualified support to this bill, which I said at the outset.
Mr Henderson: Two bob each way.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I could go on talking about this for another 25 minutes, I am happy too.
Mr Henderson: Oppose it.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. No, no. We said - the member for Wanguri, Leader of Government Business, dill that he is, must have misunderstood, or must have wax in his ears.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I am not a sensitive person, however, it is unparliamentary. She can call me that outside, but not in here.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, will you withdraw that?
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw ‘dill’, and replace it with - I think ‘fool’ on the last occasion was ordered not unparliamentary …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! It is unparliamentary. It is in standing orders about casting aspersions such as that. It is quite clear, it is in there. It is unparliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the adjective you used to describe the member for Wanguri on the second occasion.
Ms CARNEY: I am happy to withdraw that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
I note that the member for Wanguri said that it was a bob each way, and he challenged us to oppose it. I will repeat that, at the beginning I said - I think twice - that this bill warrants qualified support. It is the job of the opposition to support or oppose and, occasionally, oppositions do sit on the fence. I am saying to the member for Wanguri in particular that, in relation to this bill …
Mr Henderson: You support it. That is great. Let’s move on.
Ms CARNEY: No, we are not moving on, member for Wanguri. You are going to hear for the next 25 minutes how much we support this bill in a qualified way because, if you are going to throw inane, provocative, offensive remarks across the Chamber, then you deserve everything you get. I am happy to keep grazing over the issues so that you know where I am coming from. The member for Wanguri does not even know when to stop. I believe, if I heard his mutterings correctly, that he invited me to move on. I assume that he understands that it is the right of the opposition to support or oppose, even in a qualified way. However, the Leader of Government Business is a bit of a mess when it comes to his presentation in the parliament.
When the opposition acts in a certain way and government members get twitchy, he acts in a very aggressive, provocative, offensive way. I remember saying in the Chamber about 18 months ago that it was pretty easy to see what buttons to press with the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party. The button pressed is that this government reacts terribly badly to criticism; it just does not like receiving any form of criticism.
Therefore, having started my reply to the bill saying: ‘This bill is worthy of qualified support’, and then going on to say why it is that it does not go far enough - at some length in a fairly logical, sensible way, I would have thought – and why it is that we do not support a situation where the rights of violent men are protected above those of women and children who have been assaulted, the member for Wanguri had a go. He cannot help himself. He has demonstrated that ever since I came to parliament in October 2001, and he has never let me down. Press the criticise button and off he goes!
I do not know what he expects. No, I do actually. I know what the member for Wanguri expects; I have just worked it out. He would like us …
Mr Henderson: You have 20 minutes.
Ms CARNEY: You have another 20 minutes of this. You would like us, member for Wanguri, to simply stand here and agree - possibly in about 10 words or less - to every piece of legislation that is brought before this parliament. I said on another occasion that my life is too short to simply nod to every piece of legislation …
Mr Kiely: Then why do you inflict it on us?
Ms CARNEY: What was that contribution, member for Sanderson? Please provide us with your illuminating views.
Dr Burns: Just get on with it.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, member for Johnston.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Araluen should be addressing her remarks through the Chair.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to address your remarks through the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: I can assure you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that I will do so.
I would ask that, if members of the government do not want to listen to this, there is a door over there. By their presence, they clearly do want to listen to this. I would be grateful if they would give me the courtesy of letting me finish. Indeed, had the member for Wanguri given me the courtesy of letting me finish without his inane interjections, we may have been finished by now, but alas, there is more to be said.
Before I was rudely interrupted by the member for Sanderson, I suggested, or proffered, what it was that the member for Wanguri would like us to do. Come in here and just agree? If we did just agree with everything then we would not have a government and an opposition. We could all sit on that side of the House and we would not need to disagree in any way shape or form. No doubt, the member for Wanguri would think that was a fabulous result. What the member for Wanguri fails to appreciate is that there are 10 of us over here actually elected by the people of the Northern Territory. We represent our electorates and constituents.
Of course it is noteworthy that last night in the adjournment debate when I was talking about a serious health issue on behalf of a constituent, the member for Wanguri got all twitchy about that as well and just encouraged me to forget about that and get into the Christmas spirit. I said last night and I say again, that we are pretty well paid for this. I will not put the interests of my constituents above having a drink at Christmas and getting into the Christmas spirit.
Equally, I will not stand by and allow a situation to continue to the extent that I am able and that is let the rights of Aboriginal men, many of whom, although clearly not all, but many of whom who go to our courts are violent. I repeat that there is nothing culturally appropriate about physical and sexual violence. I do not know, perhaps the member for Wanguri thinks there is.
Mr Henderson: You are offensive.
Ms CARNEY: Perhaps he thinks physical and sexual violence is okay.
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. It is against standing orders to impugn motives that are unbecoming to any member of this House. The member well knows that. I urge you to ask her to withdraw those very offensive remarks which have no substance.
Ms Carney: I said I did not know.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I am asking you just to address your comments to the bill and try to keep it not personal. I do not think there is a need to withdraw that hypothetical.
Mr Kiely: And withdraw those comments.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. There is no doubt that the …
Mrs AAGAARD: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I am very concerned that the member for Araluen has been allowed to maintain that sort of thing on the public record. She made inferences that the member for Wanguri agreed that sexual molestation of young women was acceptable. That is completely unparliamentary and she should be asked to withdraw.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have made a determination. My recollection was that it was a hypothetical that ‘maybe that blah, blah, blah’. I have given a direction that her comments be confined to the bill and we try to avoid the personal attacks. There is no point of order.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. That same tactic, that same kind of innuendo has been used time and time again by the member for Araluen. Last sitting, I recall quite vividly she used the same tactics. It is not an accident …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. It is interesting. It must be the critical button that has been pressed …
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I would urge you to seek advice from the Clerk. I am not trying to be difficult here but I am offended by the imputation that the member for Araluen has made by way of innuendo that the member for Wanguri would condone domestic violence, sexual assault, against Aboriginal women by Aboriginal men. I see no reason for that to stand on the public record unless the member really wishes to impugn my character by having that on the record without any evidence. I would urge you to seek advice from the Clerk. I would be happy to accept your ruling after you have had advice from the Clerk.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Wanguri has, as is usually the case, twisted it. I simply raised the question that I did not know what his views were on these things. So he need not get hysterical; his blood pressure need not go through the roof. It was simply that I did not know his views on these matters.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: After taking some advice, I ask the member for Araluen to rephrase that.
Ms CARNEY: I will rephrase it, and I look forward to the Hansard tomorrow, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I will put it this way: I do not know the member for Wanguri’s views on physical and sexual violence.
Mr Henderson: I oppose it.
Ms CARNEY: I do not know, and I look forward to him telling me at a later time.
These are the sorts of things that I would have thought members of parliament in the execution of their duties could raise. I know the views of my colleagues on this side of the House; I do not know the views of individual members on that side of the House. I can make all sorts of assumptions. I reckon I know what a couple think, but I really do not know. I do not socialise with these people, nor would I want to, but I do not know their views. We tend only to talk about things of a political nature, but, clearly, they are a very sensitive bunch of people.
I wish their sensitivities would extend to Aboriginal women and children. I hope that the indignation shown by the member for Wanguri in relation to my views on what he thinks about physical and sexual violence extends to outrage for the violence committed in Aboriginal communities. I can, however, only assume that it does not because if he was truly outraged as I am outraged, as members on this side of the House are outraged, as I assume the member for Braitling is outraged, about the outrageously high numbers of Aboriginal women and children who are being beaten up every day and every night in many of our Aboriginal communities, then the member for Wanguri, as a minister of the Crown and, in particular, the minister for Police, might even want to do something about it.
I hope his indignation extends to the current situation in the Northern Territory. I can only assume it does not because if it did, he would have had a word …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 62, which states very clearly that:
All of us who are elected to this parliament are law abiding citizens. We all find it absolutely offensive that any person in the Territory would be subject to physical or sexual abuse. To apply innuendo that somehow in supporting this legislation, which the opposition also supports, that we support, or that I in particular, support physical or sexual violence against Aboriginal people, I find offensive. There is no need to go down this path. I would urge you to rule under Standing Order 62 that I find that by innuendo, these comments, this tirade of abuse from the member for Araluen offensive and unbecoming to this parliament. I would urge you to ask her to withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister cannot be recognised unless he is speaking from his post.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I can just make a ruling: this is robust debate and in the context, those comments are not within the scope of Standing Order 62. There is no point of order from the member for Wanguri.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I know that many Territorians and certainly women, Aboriginal women and non-Aboriginal women, are appalled by the high level of violence. They come to me. They go to people like the member for Braitling. I know the member for Macdonnell has had a number of representations, from Aboriginal people in particular, who are outraged by the high level of violence, who do say, ‘We do not want two systems of law in the Northern Territory’.
Why is it that a white man can go to court and submissions or evidence as to his lifestyle, I suppose, for want of a better description, cannot be taken into account by a court in the same way that customary law can be taken into account for Aboriginal people?
This is the Northern Territory in 2004. I would have thought that people like the member for Wanguri, and others, would have received representations in the way that we have that would be to the effect of not condoning two systems of law, of ensuring that a violent white man who goes to a court is treated in the same way that a violent Aboriginal man is, and therefore it follows that a white victim of violence be afforded the same level of protection as a black victim of violence.
The Northern Territory’s Attorney-General, and the likes of the member for Wanguri, can say whatever they like, but the facts speak for themselves. The Australian Labor Party government in the Territory favours a law, a system, whereby Aboriginal men are favoured above white men, and where violent Aboriginal men are put above …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the member for Araluen is alluding to some sort of racial discrimination being taken on by government. I find that offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. We do refer to Aboriginal people in this Chamber and we should be allowed to. However, the member for Araluen was referring to the collective Australian Labor Party in her comments.
Member for Araluen, though, I will caution you. You have been provocative, and some of your statements have been out of order. I ask you to refrain from personal comment and stick to the bill. Keep your remarks relevant.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope that the member for Wanguri proposes to contribute to this debate because, having said that I do not know what his views are, I look forward to hearing them. They might be similar to mine, but I come back to the point that I can only assume that they are not because, in August 2003, the government had an opportunity – the member for Wanguri was a part of that government at the time - to support a bill which would have removed customary law from section 5 of the Sentencing Act, and that was opposed.
That bill was opposed by every member of the Labor Party, every member of this government. Not one of them even had the courage to have a go at crossing the floor, have a go, presumably, of talking to their colleagues and saying: ‘Shouldn’t we get this right?’ So, based on that, based on the cross-Chamber comments made by the member for Wanguri, I can only assume that his views are fundamentally different from mine.
I said earlier that I am not prepared to sit by and just accept what government says. I get paid too much for that. There are people in my electorate who expect much more of me. I am very sorry that the member for Wanguri has such difficulty with that. It appears to me that he does not understand the parliamentary process or, if he understands it, then he deeply resents it, on the basis of his form …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, would you get back to the bill, please.
Ms CARNEY: … that members can come in here and debate legislation. I said at the beginning, and I have said throughout the last 30 or so minutes, that this bill deserves qualified support, given that the government is not going to eliminate customary law from consideration of the courts when sentencing. I am, at the end of the day, a realist, as are my colleagues. It would have been absurd for us to maintain our position in relation to customary law, and then in relation to this bill say we oppose the bill. That would be churlish, a word oft used by the member for Wanguri and some of his colleagues. I do not propose to be churlish with this type of legislation, and these types of issues. If members on the other side chose to do so, then that is a matter for them and their conscience.
I say to the Attorney-General that this - and I respect the fact that he has been pretty silent throughout this. He knows where I am coming from and, if we disagree, so be it …
Dr Toyne interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I did not hear what he just said. However, at least he has not been anywhere near offensive and childish as the member for Wanguri in the context of this debate. The Attorney-General knows well that this bill would obtain qualified support. It is worthy of qualified support in all of the circumstances. I am sorry …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I am sorry, member for Wanguri, was that an interjection, or was it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, speak to me.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting..
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, cease.
Mr Henderson: I did not say anything.
Madam SPEAKER: The member behind you then; I was speaking to the member behind. Just cease your interjections, thank you. Let us get this debate finished.
Ms CARNEY: I am appalled, Madam Speaker. I do not know what it is about this issue which is so difficult for the government. We have the member for Wanguri throwing absurd, inane comments. Now we have a minister of the Crown, an indigenous leader considered by some, a member of this parliament for some years, the member for Arnhem, having a great chuckle ...
Mr Ah Kit: Because you are a joke.
Ms CARNEY: It is not often I am lost for words, minister, but …
Mr Ah Kit: You are a joke.
Ms CARNEY: … I almost am. I find that astonishing and, perhaps, a bit upsetting. However, as I said earlier, it is a matter for you and your conscience.
The member for Wanguri has necessitated me spending much more time on this than I anticipated. I had a couple of pages of notes; I intended to quote from what I said in August 2003. However, the behaviour of the member for Wanguri demonstrated in the context of this very serious debate that he does not take it seriously and that he is prepared to take cheap political shots. We are not; it is as simple as that.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude in the way that I started; that is, this bill improves the present situation and is worthy of qualified support.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I support the bill despite the diatribe we heard for the last 20 minutes.
Aboriginal customary law has been maintained for many thousands of years across the Territory. In many of our indigenous communities it remains a strong element of daily life. The Martin government has committed to formally recognising aspects of customary law where possible, and where it is not in obvious conflict with the statutory or common law of the Northern Territory.
This bill will implement the second part of the government’s response to recommendation 5 of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee’s inquiry into Aboriginal customary law. It will ensure that courts will fully and appropriately test evidence about customary law issues that may affect a court’s sentencing of an offender. Customary law evidence has, at least since the 1950s, been informally presented to Northern Territory courts as a mitigating factor for courts to consider in sentencing indigenous offenders.
This bill formalises what has been an informal ad hoc process. However, it must be borne in mind that we are not talking about the reliance on Aboriginal customary law as a defence to a sexual offence. It is interesting that the member for Araluen, after standing in here for 20 minutes, hand on the heart, and professing that she has the only mandate in terms of the violence that is committed against Aboriginal women and children decides to leave the Chamber. No, we are not talking about …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You know standing orders and I should not have to point them out to you about reflecting on the presence or absence of a member in this Chamber. So you withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw the comment about her presence.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I said I withdraw, member for Drysdale.
This is an issue that is not just solely the heart of the CLP. For many years - and I will get to that - indigenous women and children have been let down by the previous CLP government in this.
This bill and this amendment is actually going to be addressing something that has been missing for a long time. What we are talking about is how a sentencing judge is to go about the complex exercise of identifying the surrounding facts and circumstances that shed light on, and are relevant to, the commission of the offence and how it should be punished. This bill will enable a judge to carry out the sentencing task without having to operate in a virtual vacuum when it comes to expert guidance in relation to Aboriginal customary law matters. It is aimed at ensuring that the quality and reliability of the information provided to, and acted upon, by the sentencing judge is such that the interest of the victim, the offender and the community are all safeguarded.
Madam Speaker, as I have said, the exercise of inquiring into and taking evidence about Aboriginal customary law is not something new in the Territory. It has been happening in land claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act for decades. The way it works in the land claims is that the claimants have their own consultant anthropologist, or anthropologists, often working in conjunction with senior traditional informants who are experts in their own right; the Northern Territory government has its own consultant anthropologist; and the Land Commissioner also has a consultant anthropologist who assists him in assessing the evidence and submissions put to him on customary law matters by all parties. It would be inconceivable in a land claim for the Land Commissioner to proceed to determine a claim on the basis of expert anthropological evidence and commentary coming only from anthropologists retained on behalf of the claimants. This bill will mean it is no different in sentencing hearings in the Supreme Court.
This formal way of presentation of evidence of a customary law nature is fair. Fair to the victim of the crime, fair to the perpetrator, and fair to the community where the customary law is practiced or respected. Formalising the way information about any relevant customary law is presented to court means that any party to criminal proceedings who wishes to present aspects of customary law has to give formal notice to the other party and to provide the information as oral evidence in court or by affidavit or by statutory declaration.
The Pascoe case involved people who are my constituents. I was provided with a briefing from authoritative community spokespersons in relation to the reality of the Aboriginal customary law rules and guidelines that apply to the fact situation dealt with by the court. I do not propose to go into all the details of that case except to make one critically important point: neither the prosecution, nor the sentencing judge sought or obtained any report from any appropriately qualified independent expert regarding the substance and details of the customary law rules and guidelines that applied.
This brings me to the point that I was making earlier. In this Chamber we have members who were members of the legal fraternity for many years before becoming members of parliament. They worked at the coalface of criminal law in the courts and would have seen different cases of violence against indigenous women. Not once was there an outcry to have this changed, mandated and put in legislation. Nor, through those defence arguments where customary law rights were raised as a defence, did anyone bother putting the views of those women and that the prosecution should have been testing or validating the arguments raised by the defence.
It is hypocritical for members to say that it is the mandate of the CLP to support the rights of Aboriginal women when they have had 26 years to do something to fix it. Your hypocrisy stinks. Do not come in here …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder if the words ‘hypocrite’ and ‘hypocrisy’ is allowable or disallowable. It has been on both sides of the fence.
Madam SPEAKER: In the context in which it was given, it is not personal, so I will allow the comment.
Mr Dunham: Thank you, it is a word I like to use myself.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will withdraw ‘stinks’ but I do not think I will withdraw ‘hypocrisy’. Unlike the member for Araluen, I get around my electorate, and not just my electorate; I have been into the electorate of the member for Macdonnell as well as the various electorates of bush members and talked to many women in relation to this issue. The member for Araluen should choke on the hypocrisy of what she said for the last 20 minutes.
Madam Speaker, this bill will ensure that when presented, customary law evidence will be tested by the court to the benefit of all. For that reason, I heartily commend the bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I confess that I have struggled with these issues over the years, and even until quite recently, I had some sympathy for the position being put by government in this bill. However, having considered the issue of mitigation of sentencing, I am concerned about the use of traditional law for mitigating purposes.
The essence of this whole argument can be summed up in the opening sentence of the second last paragraph of the second reading speech of the Attorney-General, who said:
Good! What it does is tidies up what lawyers and other people in this place have seen all too often in the courtroom in the case of some sort of payback, which is often used as an excuse for a stabbing, and that payback somehow mitigates from the seriousness of the stabbing for which a person has been found guilty.
It is very attractive to say if there is a customary law element to this, then we should allow a certain amount of mitigation to occur in the sentencing process because we understand that a person has, in some fashion or another, done what they have done lawfully under traditional law.
Let us discuss the nature of what we are talking about: criminal law. That is what you are sent to gaol for. You are not sent to gaol for non-criminal matters such as breach of contract or negligence, unless it is criminal negligence. Criminal law sets a very low benchmark in our community, which is basically what we consider the lowest possible standards a community will tolerate from its citizens before we start to actively consider removing those people from society. That is why we send people to gaol ultimately. We even do that for simple offences such as people not paying their fines; they go to gaol. That is the nature of criminal law. It sets the lowest standard.
Beyond that there is the tort of negligence, breach of contract, all manner of other types of other legal frameworks within which the law of the Northern Territory and the former CLP government was happy to acknowledge the existence of customary law. For example, traditional marriage is recognised inasmuch as that, should a person die as a result of a motor vehicle accident, and that car is properly insured under the third party personal insurance, under our Northern Territory legislation, as a recognition of traditional law, wives, plural, are allowed to be recipients of that income. It also washes over into succession law and those sorts of things.
So there are whole bunch of acts which recognise to a degree, greater or less, the existence of customary law. The issue actually here is: what is the bottom level that we are prepared to allow. Now, the current situation is that, as the member for Arafura quite correctly points out, often the courts will hear blind evidence of customary practices, and often the courts would not be any the wiser whether those customary practices are allowable or not.
However, the bill, quite rightly if you are going to argue customary law in mitigation, demands that some higher level of evidence be offered to support any assertion that customary law is being practised, and I support that. I agree with the shadow Attorney-General on this matter that the problem is that it simply does not go far enough. What it does by inference is acknowledge that certain things like stabbing people in the thighs may still, in some way, be mitigation for the purposes of sentencing.
Mitigation, in its very nature, is suggestive of things being less serious. If we were to say that there is a maximum sentence for every offence, and there was actually a minimum sentence for every offence, we could call that mandatory sentencing if you like. But if we apply maximum sentences and we would expect the courts to apply maximum sentences in all findings of it guilt, then clearly that would be an unwelcome outcome. The courts are allowed to turn their minds to different levels of offences in sentencing, and so you plead mitigation. You go into court and say: ‘Well, I did smash that window, but in actual fact the person had just called my wife an unspeakable name and, in a rage, I threw a brick. I knew that it was the wrong thing to do and it was not quite provocation under the Criminal Code so, yes, I am guilty of it. But gee whiz, I was very angry at the time and that person’s window deserved it’. The court will quite rightly say, well, there is a certain element of mitigation in there, and I will not send you to gaol for the mandatory - from memory off the top of my head for a straight criminal damage - two years. You will get fined, the facts proved without proceeding to conviction; there is a whole raft of possibilities available to a court.
What are we doing in this instance? We are saying that, if a crime of violence occurs, that that crime of violence, if the person is found guilty of stabbing another person, we are going to allow that person because they are an Aboriginal person to claim that I stabbed that person in the leg because it was part of my traditional law. However, we then come to the point of what is the lowest standard that we are prepared to accept as a parliament regarding what the bottom line is, and if we are not going to allow our expectations to drop any lower.
As much as I have wrestled with this issue, and even up until recently I have still been wrestling with this particular issue, finally you have to come to the point where you have to say the use of customary law to commit criminal offences and use that as mitigation, I do not think carries ultimate weight. There are two reasons for these. The first one has been alluded to by the shadow Attorney-General in terms of women and children being victims of crime – the law that we have has been developed, not over 30 000 years, but certainly over the last 1000 years from England, in trespass on the person and those sorts of things, and criminal trespass on the person, for a very good reason. And especially in the last 100 years, we have been developing standards where we said these things are just not good enough. We are not going to accept certain base behaviours in our community.
Women and children are often the victims of these offences and, often, the only respite they can get, sadly, is when the person who is convicted of the offence is taken away from the community. In many of these communities the population is – what? – 300 or 400 people, which means that when that person is released they come back into the community. If they have argued - after an assault on a woman, for arguments sake; perhaps even a wife - that it was under some sort of customary law and the argument was successful and mitigation was granted, the offender will be back in the community quicker. That is something that is of concern.
The second principle which I turn my mind to is this: if a person, even under legitimate customary law, is stabbed in the back of the leg, and the person who stabs them is convicted - or I should bring it back a bit. That person who was stabbed in the back of the leg feels aggrieved and was an Aboriginal, but they say: ‘Look, I do not want to subordinate myself to customary law; I want to turn to the law of the community in general …’ - which is non-customary law; the stuff that you and I and the courts do in the Northern Territory - ‘… and I want to feel the full cover and respect under that law’. We, as the dominant legal system, come up with certain standards and say to people out there in the community that these are the standards …
Mr Kiely: Oh, there we go!
Mr ELFERINK: Just as an aside, now the power has gone, I will be curious to know how long before the minister for power can guarantee that will be going on? If Mr Wood is to be believed, then perhaps it could be days.
However, I will continue in the dark. If a person turns to our legal system and says: ‘I want the full protection of your legal system,’ the implication in this legislation is that when the person who has stabbed that person and seeks the protection of the legal system and goes to court and they are ultimately convicted, the offender then says: ‘I want to rely on customary law as my source of protection in mitigation and being sentenced’. Because the victim in this instance is a person who has been subjected to customary law, that means they get a second class reliance on a legal system which for me - because I am not subjected to customary law - would be a first class or a normal reliance on that legal system.
I find that that particular position means that I cannot bring myself, as a member of this House, to lower the standards one step further. It is something that I have wrestled with, but there has to be a line drawn in the sand on this stuff. Because a person is Aboriginal they should not, as a victim, be delivered of a second class standard of sentencing when a person who has stabbed them is relying on a legal system which can only be alluded to, and can only be suggested of. The determinants are quite vague and insufficient in particular and individual cases to satisfy me that it is sufficient to say it is something that can be effectively relied upon.
Because of that, I cannot bring myself to say that there are two standards of Territorians under law. To allow this to percolate through for the purposes of sentencing, as tempting as it may seem, it means that there will be people out there who get second class outcomes. That is the shame of recognising customary law in this fashion.
However, that is not to deny customary law because there are rafts of other relationships amongst Aboriginal people which easily fit within the parameters of our legal system. I have spoken at length on this in the past and I do not intend to revisit here today. Suffice to say that fully 90% of custom could be recognised within our current legal systems. We have even tinkered with our legislation to adjust our laws for other purposes, relationships, recognition of certain other elements of law, which is good, but we just cannot afford to go below the standard that the criminal law sets.
It is for those reasons that I am reluctant to say that this bill does enough. It steps in the right direction which is why it has the support of members opposite, but the fact is that it is still does not provide protection for people who live in my electorate. These are the victims who live in the communities that I see everyday. When one of those people does turn to the western legal system, they have every right to be protected by it like any other citizen in the Northern Territory. To suggest otherwise, is not conducive to an equitable result under the law.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is quite interesting that we are having this debate parliament because I cannot recall before when we have actually discussed customary law and what happens in courts so openly. Members will be aware that I frequently championed the rights of, and the need to protect, young indigenous girls and women in our court system. I guess this amendment has been prompted by the fact that I have amendments sitting on the books at the moment. It is true that my amendment has caused some concern throughout the legal profession, so I appreciate the fact that this minister has addressed that and tried to come up with a solution, but still maintaining the main purpose of my act which was to protect girls, particularly at the sentencing stage in sexual assault.
We are all concerned that family and domestic violence is recognised as a major issue in Aboriginal communities. It is difficult because when it comes to court action the evidence can be skewed by customary law whether it is a mitigating or aggravating factor. It is always very difficult for young girls and women to go to the police to lodge a complaint, and for them to go through the whole court process. It is an extremely trying and difficult thing for them to do. It is even more and more disappointing and sickening for them when they realise that customary law is being used, not in its proper sense, against them as an excuse for what the perpetrator has done.
I am aware customary law is complex. I do not profess to be an expert on it. I have only listened to many people and their views. However, it seems to me that it follows that only partial representation of aspects of customary law in the court situation, this partial representation, is open to criticism. Many of the people in that situation have said that the customary law that is often presented is very selective but because of the current situation it cannot be challenged. We have seen that in a number of situations in recent court cases and it has received much public attention. I believe that it is a bold step on the government’s part to take this step when I know that, in many cases, they have not been seen to address this as strongly as we would wish.
It is also refreshing to see the member for Arafura stand up and speak up for her people with a lot of passion. I have had many discussions with her and I think she agrees with me that sometimes customary law evidence that is presented is skewed, not always accurate, and there is often no chance to challenge it.
In particular, often women in a community will state the attitudes of certain sectors of their community which do not necessarily represent the collective beliefs of the community. I refer to the fact that some of the grannies have said to me that some of the things that are being presented by the men are not true and not accepted as true customary law.
It is a complex law, but in our current sentencing process there is little opportunity for alternate views to be raised. The government bill aims to remove this restriction by allowing parties to present other views or opinions. That is the substance of what I was really trying to achieve: that when we get to this end point, the prosecutor is not suddenly hijacked by the presentation of customary law that they cannot refute because they are not aware that it is going to be raised.
This can only strengthen the legal system, ensuring everyone, defendant and victim alike, is assured that customary law evidence will be fairly presented. Is not that what we are all about, having a fair and just system? Equally, we are not suggesting that this is a way that secret or sacred information should be made public. It is merely allowing the relevant people the opportunity to present other information. After all, what is at stake is not just the rights of the defendant, which we hear too often, but the rights of the victim and the fact that we want our court system to be fair and just.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have done a lot of consultation since the government came to me with this proposition. I wrote to many of the organisations that I had previously. I am aware that some of those organisations did not support what I had proposed, so I asked them to consider what was being proposed now. I will read one of the comments that came back:
That was from someone who did not agree with my bill but now agrees that the government’s bill will be a fair and balanced approach, so I am pleased to see that.
There are, however, other solutions and members would be aware that when this bill was introduced, I moved to postpone debate on my own bill. I took that action because I wanted to see how the government’s bill works when it is implemented. The only way we can really assess the impact of this is to see it in practice, and we will all be looking closely and consulting with people on it.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this may seem like a straight-forward amendment, but from some of the comments that have been made by the opposition, it is not so simple. I hope that people in Aboriginal communities do not see it as an attack on, or interference with, customary law. That was never the intent of what we were trying to do.
We have seen instances where the government has acted in what they thought was good faith only to have uproar from some of our very respected Aboriginal leaders, and I can think of that coming through the Northern Land Council in one instance, but I do not see the bill that way. It is the duty of government now to explain the bill to communities, to elders and women. Most of all, we need to get that message through to the women and the girls that this is now in place and will help them when they are actually in the court.
This is the next step that the government needs to concentrate on; that we get that message out in communities so that these women will have the confidence, when they do appear in court, that the court will be there to protect them. I ask the minister not just to have a poster or anything like that, but to make sure that this is an item addressed in your Family Violence campaign.
We already have a problem with negative views of the legal system by indigenous people and we have seen that in many cases. It is vital that the government sells this bill in the right way so that women and girls believe their rights will be protected and their voices will be heard in the legal system. That is part of the trouble; they have not had the confidence or belief that the legal system will protect them. At the same time, Aboriginal elders and leaders should also be assured the bill is not seeking to interfere with customary law, and I stress that. It has never been my purpose to interfere with customary law, just to ensure that it does not interfere with the rights of young girls.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, having said that, I will support the bill. I call on the government to take one step further. The bill only concerns sentencing procedures, and we have heard this from the member for Araluen. What about situations during court proceedings when the defence intends to introduce customary law in defending certain behaviours or attitudes? At the moment, the defence is not required to tell the prosecution about the evidence; the onus lies only with the prosecution. It does seem somewhat of a contradiction if we allow both parties to be aware of any customary law evidence during the sentencing phase but not during the criminal proceedings. I ask the government to consider amending the Criminal Code to allow the prosecution to give notice and be supplied with any matters the defence intends to rely upon with regard to customary law and vice versa.
I would also ask the minister if he could clarify for me the circumstances in minor offences where customary law is a main factor. For example, a situation where a person who may be unlicensed but is under a cultural obligation to drive a vehicle because he is in an avoidance relationship with another person. This bill does not make it mandatory for the other party to have to test the customary law evidence in cases of minor offences. Perhaps the minister might like to clarify for me exactly what this bill will apply to.
In closing, I would also like to state that the broader issue of violence and mistreatment against women and girls in Aboriginal communities remains an ongoing matter and an ongoing concern. I am supportive of the government which taken this step today. This bill goes some way towards giving people a fair go in courts, but experience shows prevention will always be the preferred course of action. I would hope that the issue of violence and mistreatment against Aboriginal girls remains high on the government’s agenda and that we do see programs and support for them.
I trust the amendment will give confidence to women and girls to report offences and have faith in our system. I trust it will give them the confidence to proceed with the matter in court and know that they are going to get at least a fair hearing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I only wish to say a few words on this issue. I concur with the member for Braitling. I believe she has covered most of the issues that need to be covered. I also believe it is a very complex issue. I sometimes feel that perhaps I am not qualified to speak on such matters because you are dealing with someone else’s laws.
However, I do have an affiliation with Aboriginal people, and sometimes, when I need advice I turn to the person I am married to, who is an Aboriginal. I asked her the question, in the cases of violent crime, such as murder, and bashings and rape, should customary law be used as a defence, and she just said straight out, ‘No’. She believes, as I believe, that human rights, in certain cases, overrides customary law. I also agree with the member for Macdonnell, who says there are many other areas where customary laws should be taken into account. However, the protection of human rights, whether it is men, women or children, should be paramount and I do not believe that customary law should be an excuse to violently step on those people’s human rights.
I have long memories of my time as a young person at Daly River seeing women bashed up, and bashed up badly. It always stayed in my mind that this should not have been happening. It happened in the days when domestic violence was not a word that we even knew. It was just one of those things that occurred. I suppose we took it as violence, and it was something that was usually associated with alcohol. Thankfully, we are starting to at least address some of those issues. We have a long way to go, and I believe part of this debate today will highlight some of the difficulties we have in that area.
I support the bill, simply because it does allow people who use customary law as a defence to at least have that defence challenged.
There are times when customary law has been used as an excuse to abuse other people. Again, I remember my time at Daly River where there was a process called ‘Sunday business’. ‘Sunday business’ was where the men could place a bull-roarer, as it is called – it is a wooden object the shape of a penis - anywhere they liked. If a woman was to see that, then they, basically, could do what they liked with that woman. Whilst there may have been some customary law as to its proper use, the belief was that it was being used and placed in places where women could not avoid seeing it and, therefore, it was being used inappropriately and more for the benefit of the men, rather than anything to do with traditional customary law. They did try to revitalise that some years later and, once again, thankfully, it was stamped out.
I believe there are occasions where the customary law must be challenged. Other speakers have said the same. When you have spoken to the women, they will tell you that that is not true. I believe there are times when men have used customary law outside of what it was meant for. Allowing the courts to challenge that is a good process to put in place. Whether customary law should be a defence at all in violent crimes and rape is another matter that could be debated. However, my understanding is that cannot happen because of the Racial Discrimination Act. Maybe that debate would be purely theoretical under our existing laws. As I said, my wife was very clear. She believes that customary law should not be a defence against that type of crime, and I agree with her.
I note, and I would be interested in the minister’s response, that I sent a letter to the Northern Land Council on 17 November 2004. They said at that time that they had only had limited time to obtain legal advice. Today, I received a memorandum of advice from Mr Ron Levy, Principal Legal Officer of the Northern Land Council, from John Basten QC regarding the matters which we are discussing today. I have not had time to go through that, nor am I am a lawyer, so I would just be interested in what the minister has to say about those matters that were raised by the Northern Land Council. The Northern Land Council had asked for a deferment. That is in the letter that was put on my desk about an hour ago. They did ask for the debate to be deferred, so I would be interested in the government’s comments: if they are not going to defer the debate, why they are not; and if they have any comments on the legal advice that the Northern Land Council received.
Madam Speaker, I have said I will support the bill. If it protects women and children - and men and young boys also - then all the better for it. This whole issue of customary law will continue to be a complex and difficult issue for governments to deal with. I hope that there will be more debate about this issue so that we can all become more educated on where we should end up going with this particular matter.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, firstly, I thank the opposition for their qualified support - support of any kind is always welcome - the support of the two Independents, and the contribution particularly of the member for Arafura from our ranks. These are issues that are of a great moment, and it is not unexpected that there would be some passion in the debate. However, it is very important if we are debating these matters to keep the debate above the personal level. I still get disappointed when the debate strays away from the actual matters that are involved in the bill and the actual content of the bill. Nevertheless, the support that has been expressed today is welcome.
Rather that deal with the contributions to debate speaker by speaker, I intend to go through the key issues as I understand them that have been brought forward today. There are quite a few speakers who were making essentially the same points so it is probably more efficient to deal with them first.
The first point to be made here is that this legislation in front of us simply establishes a procedure, a process, by which customary law would be handled during the sentencing part of the hearing of the matter. It does not, in any way, apply to the actual hearing leading up to a finding of a guilt or innocence. The hearing of the matter will be a hearing of charges laid under the Territory Criminal Code and, therefore, we are not talking about two sets of laws. We are talking about a one set of laws: the Northern Territory Criminal Code under which the charges have been laid and the hearing is heard. A finding of guilt or innocence according to those charges will be made in a court. This bill now says something of what will happen following if that finding is of guilt.
The second thing I want to say about this is that by introducing this process of testing evidence regarding customary law into the sentencing process it has a wider context. The pre-sentence report, prepared as a result of that part of the hearing, could consider quite a number of factors: the age of the offender; the social history and background of the offender; medical and psychiatric history of the offender; the offender’s educational background; the offender’s employment history; and circumstances of other offences of which the offender had been found guilty or which are known to the court; the extent to which the offender is complying with the sentence currently imposed on the offender; the offender’s financial circumstances; and any special needs of the offender; and any courses, programs, treatment, therapy or other assistance that could be available to the offender and from which the offender may benefit.
Members can see that the process of preparing to set a sentence on the offender once found guilty has a wide context. The courts must, of necessity, consider case by case a whole range of factors that could have not only led to the offending behaviour of the person but their prospects for rehabilitation and the particular impact that the crime had on the victim.
This bill seeks to deal with comments from previous court cases such as Mamarika and Munungurr, where comments were made by the court about the need to test more rigorously customary law claims that were introduced at the sentencing stage of the hearing. There have certainly been cases where an informal submission has been made at the sentencing part of the hearing, normally it would be the defence, in an attempt to influence the severity of the sentence or otherwise. The courts have commented that that needs to be formalised and made more rigorous so that there is a chance for both sides appearing within the hearing, first of all, to expect that evidence to be handled under the hearing, and secondly, to have some chance to contest its veracity.
What has been almost studiously ignored in this whole debate certainly is that we have looked for a balance point between the potential for customary law claims to aggravate a sentence and mitigate it. All I have heard from members through the debate is the use of customary law claims to mitigate the outcome for an offender found guilty. That is not the intent of this legislation.
There are two sides to a hearing. There is the prosecution; there is the defence. Both the prosecution and defence can proffer a customary law argument at the point at which the court is deciding the level of sentence that is appropriate to a case. In the case of a prosecution, the prosecution may well seek a harder sentencing outcome by arguing that in some circumstances, customary law would actually preclude the behaviour of the offender. For example, with avoidance relationships, the fact that an offender approached, let alone effected a criminal act on a person with which they had an avoidance relationship makes that a much more serious activity in the eyes of the community.
Yes, there are situations where the defence may seek a mitigated outcome by claiming that there was some justification under customary law for the behaviour of the offender, but there is equally the potential for customary law to be interceded into sentencing process with the effect that it leads to a more severe sentencing outcome.
There have been some points made about the currency of this process to the various parts of the Criminal Code. How severe or how trivial might an offence be which could bring on this process? There is no limitation within this legislation as to which offences would be the subject of a court hearing and precipitate this procedure for handling the customary law evidence.
All this is saying is that if either the defence or prosecution want to bring a customary law claim into the determination of a sentence, they have to follow this procedure, which guarantees that there will be some testing of the veracity of the claims.
Another point that has probably been missed in this debate is that customary law is not individually held. It is collectively held. If a person is going to make a claim about their rights to take some action under customary law or, in fact, if the community is going to make a claim about the inappropriateness of that person’s action according to customary law, that evidence really has to be tendered with a wider knowledge of the co-holders of customary arrangements than just simply the offender or their advocate, or the victim or their advocate. This is a collectively held system of living and needs to be tested in a wider context than just the claims of one individual to whatever end they are seeking at sentencing.
That leads me to the wider context in which we are seeking to place this reform. We are pursuing day by day community justice initiatives aimed at things such as concerns raised by the member for Araluen about the levels of violence. I totally agree with her that there is an urgent need to take account of the unacceptable levels of violence throughout the Territory community. We have to do something urgently about that.
One of the key things that we have to do is to mobilise participation by the wider community. By taking the line that we have on this of not precluding customary law evidence in court hearings, by insisting that the collective holders of that customary law verify any claim made, we are taking an important step in involving the wider community in the flow-on of offending behaviour. That, to me, is a very important step alongside the community-based initiatives that we are pursuing, which have exactly the same aim. That is to engage people and the traditional authorities under customary law alongside the statutory response authorities that exist in the wider law to get maximum purchase on community attitude and community behaviour, with the aim of reducing the levels of violence and protecting the most vulnerable people in those communities.
I believe this reform today is consistent with the aims that we are expressing through the community justice groups, the involvement of circle sentencing processes in our courts, and many other community-based initiatives that we are developing in conjunction with the government’s plan for Building Safer Communities across the Territory over the next five years. I believe it is important to understand that as the context of this as a matter of policy direction.
In terms of the member for Nelson raising the matter of the Racial Discrimination Act, certainly, the NLC had sought and obtained a legal opinion about how the proposal sits with the Racial Discrimination Act. We have done the same, and both our agency and Ms Sally Gearin has looked at the proposal as regards the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. Sally Gearin says:
That is independence advice that I certainly welcome.
Equally, the NLC has produced legal advice that is at odds with that. John Basten QC:
I believe it is a matter of two opinions, two different endpoints. We believe that the advice that we have is reliable. We believe that, if there is any discriminatory element at all in the provisions that have been brought in by this bill today, it is probably in the positive in terms of the continuation of customary law as a contemporary force within the Northern Territory community and within our indigenous communities. To take the alternative route of excluding customary law matters from our courts is to really condemn customary law to a further level of irrelevance from the wider operation of our community. We do not believe that that is helpful, and in many ways that would be very clearly a discriminatory act against the Racial Discrimination Act and our own Anti-Discrimination Act.
On the balance of things, with these complex issues, it sometimes is a matter of professional judgment. We believe the existence of a strong legal opinion which is giving us some comfort about how these provisions will sit against the anti-discrimination legislation is sufficient reason to proceed. I make the same undertaking that I always make presenting legislation in this House, that we will watch how it beds down. We will certainly respond to any difficulties with its operation, but we are confident that we have a fair and balanced reform. It will contribute, along with many other things that we are doing, to give indigenous people support and a security of place within our broader process in the community and make its own beneficial contribution to that.
Madam Speaker, that covers my main points. I again thank members for their support today, and we will move ahead.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 14 October 2004.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this afternoon I brief members of the House on the key elements of the first Northern Territory Electoral Commission Annual Report 2003-04. The establishment of an independent Electoral Commission for the Territory was an election commitment and an important initiative of my government. The work of the Electoral Commission is to provide an electoral service to the citizens and the government of the Territory that is professional, fair and impartial, and is undertaken in accordance with legislative provisions.
Last financial year, my government engaged consultants Minter Ellison Consulting to review the Northern Territory electoral system. The consultants undertook public consultation with the issue of a discussion paper and the conduct of public forums. In addition, the consultants sought the views of a number of electoral experts on best practice electoral administration. The review issued a draft report in June 2003, with over 100 recommendations, the majority of which were accepted. These recommendations were carried into a new Electoral Bill which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly in February 2004, and the Electoral Act was assented to in March 2004.
The Electoral Act enabled the establishment of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission on 15 March 2004. Transitional arrangements provided for the Electoral Office to cease operations on 14 March. The new act set out the functions and operations of the commission and prescribed electoral administrative procedures. In addition, the act provided for a number of new functions including promotions of public awareness of electoral matters and the conducting and promotion of electoral research. The act also requires the commission to administer the registration of political parties and financial disclosure of political parties, entities and candidates, and the formation of an augmented redistribution committee to review objections to the proposed electoral boundaries.
The report notes the activities of the Electoral Commission including the conducts of the Katherine by-election, as well as elections for the Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs Municipal Councils and the Litchfield Shire. A number of elections were also conducted for community government councils. The commission also provided support to the Electoral Redistribution Committee following its formation in March 2004. Through participation in the Electoral Council of Australia and with joint roll partner, the Australian Electoral Commission, the commission was involved in electoral roll management enhancement initiatives. In all, there were 29 000 enrolment forms processed for the year, an increase of 40% from the year before.
I commend the dedication of the staff who have worked so hard this year, in particular, Barry Hamilton, the Acting Electoral Commission Chief Executive.
Also, while talking to the annual report, I wish the man who was to be our Electoral Commissioner, Kerry Heisner, all the best for his future. He won the position as Electoral Commissioner; he has a fine record in the area. As we know, the United Nations asked him to go to Iraq for three months, which he did. However, he became very ill, to such an extent that he will not be able to take up the job. This is a real loss for the Territory. We certainly wish him well for his future, for a recovery. With a fair bit of sadness we are readvertising the position.
I thank again Barry Hamilton for doing an excellent and professional job and I thank him for the time he has put in to electoral matters in the Territory.
It is with a lot of pride we should look at the first independent NT Electoral Commission Annual Report which is this 2003-04 year.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister may want to talk to her speech writer a little bit about lifting paragraph after paragraph out of other people’s work because once again we find the minister, in this instance the Chief Minister, quoting word for word ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, get to your reply, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am referring word for word to the actual report, and frankly, it is enormous laziness not on the part of the Chief Minister but on one of her staff members up there, that a large slice of her speech is lifted straight out of Barry Hamilton’s Electoral Commissioner’s Report in the front cover of the report. This government has been caught out several times like this and I had thought that they had gotten over this problem but clearly they have not.
I do want to pick up where the Chief Minister left off. I would like to congratulate Barry Hamilton for an excellent job and for being independent for many years. Of course, one of the risks you run when you claim that you need to introduce something like an independent electoral commissioner, is that somehow the Electoral Commissioner was not independent at some time prior to that. The structure of the system saw that the Electoral Commissioner was part of the Chief Minister’s department in the past. But there was never any suggestion whatsoever, that I am aware of, that Mr Hamilton was entirely less than independent for the years that he ran the electoral commission.
The establishment of the new legislation basically created another body, named independent, and this body now, as part of the legislation, has to report on an annual basis, and that is what we are debating here: the annual report. As usual, Mr Barry Hamilton has provided us with a top level service. It is very readable and very understandable as far as the report is concerned. It outlines very succinctly in a couple of pages what he has done in the last year, outlines the financials, the structure of his department and he has submitted it in accordance with the act to the parliament for discussion.
I also wish to pass on my best wishes to Mr Kerry Heisner. It is never good if a person has to retire because of injury or illness, and we all read in the newspaper that Mr Heisner was suffering an illness, and I wish him the very best.
However, it does bring me to one of the issues that we have to raise in relation to an independent electoral commission. That is, that the structure which has been replicated to a large degree by the government from what used to be the old structure - it was just organised differently - leaves members on this side of the House with a certain concern. The concern is this: although the report refers to an independent electoral commission, the processes of electing a new electoral commissioner are not as transparent as the Chief Minister would have us believe.
The Electoral Commissioner of this system as it currently stands is appointed and that appointment is done without reference to the opposition. When it comes to electing the Attorney-General, the opposition is consulted. Government comes to the opposition and says, ‘This is the person we are looking at, and we think they are a fine person’, and the opposition gets to look at their credentials and say, ‘Mmm, gee whiz, that would be a good thing. We have no major problem with that person being selected as the Attorney-General’. However, the process ...
Ms Martin: You mean the Auditor-General; I appoint the Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK: Auditor-General, I apologise. Thank you, Chief Minister. The process of selecting the Auditor-General is therefore free and open and there is no suggestion of anything untoward. It is well accepted that that is the process we go through.
However, in the case of Mr Heisner, the opposition was not asked at all as to whether they thought this person was an appropriate selection. As we have heard already in this place from the member for Drysdale, there would have been question marks hanging over the top of Mr Heisner and he was simply appointed.
The opposition puts on the record its concerns about this process. The opposition would appreciate being able to examine a candidate for the position so that the word ‘independent’ can carry a complete and fulsome flavour with it rather than having the suggestion, which the Chief Minister whilst in opposition would often make, hanging over a particular individual, that they are either too close to government or too close to a department.
The independence that the Chief Minister says her electoral commission has should extend to the selection process; and the opposition places on the record a request, if you like, that the process is open and accountable and honest, as promised by the Chief Minister, and that the opposition is approached in relation to the selection of the successful candidate similar to the process with the Auditor-General so that we can be assured that we have a person who is truly, in the words of the Chief Minister, independent.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the member for Macdonnell’s comment where he said that in the appointment of the electoral commissioner the opposition was given no say. The opposition was consulted, like yourself as an Independent and the member for Nelson as an Independent, and that was the legislation that was passed in this House. It is simply inaccurate to say that there was no …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister has already spoken and in the rules of this debate, there is only one bite of the cherry. This matter was introduced by minister Henderson so he has the reply, not the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: If you wish to, you can seek leave to close the debate.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to close the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to make the comment that the member for Macdonnell was inaccurate about the case. The appointment of the electoral commissioner was consulted with both the opposition and the…
Mr Elferink: No, it wasn’t. You told opposition who it was going to be once you made the selection. That is wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the member for Macdonnell should listen because he is making assertions that are simply wrong. A recommendation came from an independent team to government, a recommendation of senior public servants at CEO level. They did the interviews. They made the assessment and recommendation. I took that recommendation to the opposition and the independent members. That is a fact.
If the member for Macdonnell was not apprised of that, I am very sorry for him, but that is the case. It is important that he does not come into this place and make up the legislation and the process.
I am proud of the fact that we have an independent electoral commission now. There is no way that you could say it was independent when it was within the Department of the Chief Minister. That is not independent. The Electoral Commission now is independent.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2004, Members of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council or Ministers of the Territory.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2004 – Members of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council or Ministers of the Territory
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
I welcome this report into the House. It completes a very transparent process whereby Territorians, including members of the House, are given the opportunity to have input into remuneration for members of the Assembly.
Advertisements were placed in Territory papers calling for public submissions, and letters were sent to members and the Department of the Legislative Assembly inviting submissions. There were four written submissions received.
The report provides for the Opposition Leader to allocate trips within the Territory from a pool of shadow ministers to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The new determination also ensures that there is no duplication in reimbursement when two or more members are travelling together. The tribunal has also determined that where members need to conduct interstate travel, they may redeem frequent flyer points, whereas previously this was only available for travel in the Territory.
Telephone credit cards have been withdrawn as no longer being required. An increase in office holder salary of 3.74% has been made in line with the annual rate of general community wage increase in the Northern Territory, as shown in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Wage Cost Index.
Madam Speaker, my thanks again to the tribunal chair, Otto Alder, for his work. Government accepts the determination. I commend the report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I present the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2004-05. The mid-year report is a means of updating financial information for the budget year and forward estimates. It meets the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act and the Territory’s mid-year reporting obligations under the Uniform Presentation Framework Agreement. The budget and forward estimates have been updated to reflect decisions taken by government since budget time, the outcome of the 2003-04 financial year, the effect of the Commonwealth government’s pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook Report, and updated Territory revenue estimates. The Territory’s contribution to the Darwin City Waterfront Project is not included as financial close and finalisation of the structure of the Territory’s payments have not yet occurred.
Highlights include an improvement in key financial measures in all years; performance against fiscal strategy targets are on track; and economic indicators are consistent with budget estimates. The only change to economic assumptions in the mid-year report is an upward revision to forecast population growth in 2004-05.
Gross state product, or economic activity in 2004-05, was forecast to increase by 5.8%. This is unchanged from the time of the budget. This follows the recently released ABS growth estimate of 0.4% in 2003-04, which was influenced significantly by falling oil production at Laminaria/Corallina. The onshore economy will continue to be the driver of growth in 2004-05, as employment and population growth strengthen, and the recovery under way in recent years broadens across a range of industries. The offshore economy will also have a positive impact on growth as a full year of condensate production from the Bayu-Undan fields more than offsets falling oil production from Laminaria/Corallina.
State Final Demand, another broad measure of economic activity, is forecast to increase by 1.9% in 2004-05, unchanged from the time of the budget. Like Gross State Product, Territory State Final Demand has been volatile in recent years, largely due to the huge impact of oil and gas, and railway investment. 2004-05 investment is forecast to fall marginally, but to remain at a very high level supported by increased public sector expenditure.
Employment growth is forecast to strengthen to 2.9 % in 2004-05. This is unchanged from the time of the budget, despite weaker than expected ABS employment data over the past six months. ABS acknowledges that high sample variability and other methodological difficulties with Northern Territory labour force statistics result in estimates for the Territory that are less reliable than national estimates for those of other jurisdictions. Recent ABS labour force statistics in the Northern Territory suggesting a weak labour market are not supported by other economic indicators. Many of these indicators suggest labour and skill shortages and significantly stronger demand for labour.
Territory population growth started to recover in mid-2003, with annual growth of 0.4% to December 2003, slightly stronger than the 0.3% estimated at the time of the budget. Growth is forecast to strengthen to 0.5% to December 2004. The more positive outlook associated with an improvement in nett interstate migration, increased employment opportunities associated with the strengthening onshore economy, and the improving global economic conditions should continue to have a positive impact on the volatile nett interstate migration component of population growth.
The 2004-05 mid-year report forecasts demonstrate that the government’s responsible fiscal management continues to result in improved fiscal performance. The cash outcome for the general government sector for 2004-05 and the forward years remains unchanged from the time of the budget. However, the main elements within the cash flow statement have changed. Operating receipts for 2004-05 have increased since the May budget by $60m due to the additional GST revenue of $37m, increased specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth of $5m, and an upward revision to payroll tax receipts and conveyancing duty of $16m as a result of greater economic activity.
For 2004-05, the revised Territory GST revenue was $1729m; $37m higher than budget time. The increase is primarily due to a higher than expected national GST pool size, as presented in the Commonwealth pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook Report released in September. If realised, this will translate to an additional $32m in GST revenue in 2004-05. Additionally, the increase in the Territory’s population growth estimate by 0.2% will translate to an additional $5m in GST revenue in 2004-05.
Payments have also increased by $59m, primarily due to the carry over of $28m from 2003-04, largely due to late specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth and additional capital spending of $24m on roads, East Arm Port and various health, education and justice projects.
I turn now to the accrual estimates. The nett operating balance shows an improvement of $15m in 2004-05. Members are aware the operating statement does not include capital-related costs. Thus, the improvement in the operating balance is due to some of the additional revenue reserved in 2004-05 being used for capital rather than operating expenses. The fiscal balance takes into account capital funding which remains relatively unchanged. In forward years, the nett operating balance improves by $5m in each of 2005-06 and 2006-07, and $6m in 2007-08 since the May 2004 budget. The fiscal balance remains largely unchanged in the forward years.
Non-financial public sector nett worth has improved by $227m since budget time. This is a result of the improved outcomes for 2003-04, and relates predominantly to the increase in the Territory’s asset values offset by a slight decrease in liabilities. Nett debt has also improved slightly due to the improved cash outcome in 2003-04. Interest expenses as a proportion of revenue have reduced significantly since 2001-02.
The Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act requires the mid-year report to provide updated information to allow an assessment of the government’s fiscal strategy. The four key principles set out in the 2004-05 Budget Papers were sustainable service provision, infrastructure for economic and community development, a competitive tax environment, and prudent management of liabilities.
In regards to sustainable service provision, the improvement on original budget estimates is $15m in 2004-05, $5m in each of 2005-06 and 2006-07, and $6m in 2007-08. This, together with a forecast nett operating surplus of $1m by 2007-08, indicates that the Territory will achieve the target of an operating balance by 2012-13.
In regards to the infrastructure for economic and community development, after peaking in 2005-06, the nett borrowing position will begin trending downwards indicating the Territory is still on track to achieve the target of a balanced position by 2012-13. Whilst updated state tax data for 2004-05 is not yet available - I note we are the first jurisdiction to table a mid-year report - the 2003-04 outcomes show a continuation of higher revenue from property sales. Importantly though, the Territory’s increases are considerably lower than the states. Increased activity in the property market is expected to continue in 2004-05 and has caused Territory taxation revenue per capita to rise. This is expected to be mirrored by the states. The Territory’s relative tax position compared to the states is not expected to change. This, together with the fact that the Territory has the second lowest taxation revenue per capita of any jurisdiction, confirms the Territory’s competitive tax environment.
The government continues to provide effective management of the Territory’s liabilities. In the mid-year report, the Territory nett debt and nett debt plus employee liabilities as a proportion of total revenue has declined moderately, but more than projected in May. This is a continued result of minimal cash deficits, a smaller increase in employee liabilities, and higher revenue growth. After peaking at 134% in 2001-02, the ratio of nett debt and employee liabilities to revenue has reduced to 118% and is forecast to continue declining over the budget and forward estimates period to 110% in 2007-08.
The mid-year report provides further evidence that the government is adhering to its fiscal strategy principles. By managing its finances responsibly, the government has been able to boost spending in key areas while keeping to its fiscal principles. I commend the 2004-05 mid-year report to the House.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that leave be granted to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, last night I commenced my report on my overseas trip. I would like to continue further what transpired when I was overseas in India.
Before I go onto that, I would like to just make comment about what the member for Wanguri decided to quote this afternoon at Question Time, and he did that in the most disrespectful way. In quoting a paragraph from my adjournment last night, he quoted it completely out of context. That is a perversion of any truth that is in my report. My report in fact stated that there are two types of call centres and that some call centres may be beneficial to Australia while others may not. For the minister to twist it completely is just reprehensible. I seriously suggest to the minister that he owes me an apology if nothing else. To have him read that out of context over the radio is something that is well below any sense of decency.
Madam Speaker, while I was in India I was invited to tour a school in New Delhi and meet with departmental officers who were involved with early childhood education. I was very keen to explore early childhood education in India and also in Malaysia because of the language mix in those countries. India has Hindi as its main language but each different caste, and each different state and region has their own dialects or vernacular. In a place like New Delhi you have children going to school from various backgrounds and they might come to the school with various dialects. They start school at an early age, four, at preschool level. They have a different system of labelling levels of school; they are not called Preschool, Transition, Year One and so on. They are Primary 1, Primary 2 and so on. When the children go to school, they are all speaking their own mother dialects and mother tongue. When they start school they are taught only in English.
The same applies to school children in Malaysia. They believe that children should go to school to non-compulsory early child school at about four years of age. They reckon anything less than that is probably too early and the kids are probably not quite ready for formal schooling. When they go to school in Malaysia, they might be speaking different dialects, such as Cantonese, Mandarin, and Hokkien. There could be Tamil children, Hindi children, there could be Malay children, all attending the same class. To have a teacher who is multilingual would almost be impossible. So the teacher teaches those children only in English and, very rapidly within the first few days of school, the kids learn what they call ‘survival words’ like ‘food’, ‘rest’, ‘play’, ‘playground’, ‘toilet’; words allow them to get on with their daily survival, I suppose you could call it. However, they say that within six months, they have enough scope to develop a vocabulary so that they can actually get on in school.
I prepared some notes, which I will eventually complete and table in the Legislative Assembly.
This experience showed me that no matter what language a child speaks initially, get them to attend school regularly, and that means every day, and they will learn the language that they are taught in. They go home, they speak to their parents or friends in the language with which they are most comfortable, and I would assume that in early childhood, they would all revert back to their own vernacular.
You look at children going through school in places like India and Malaysia. By the time they are in secondary school, they are speaking fluent English and by the time they finish high school, they are ready to go to university. In India, many universities are taught in English only. In Malaysia, there are universities that teach in Bahasa, others in English, and others in Chinese. They graduate from university and they are employable all over the world.
It is interesting when you look at a place like India where some schools are extremely rich and well resourced. I went to one school that had in their computer laboratory a computer for every child in the class. They have three laboratories, one for each level of school: primary, middle and secondary. They go to the computer laboratory and every child sits in front of a computer. The kids in early childhood, as young as five and six years old, play with computer programs that are essentially games which teach them the alphabet and arithmetic. When they get the correct result, a clown juggling balls floats across the screen as a bit of a reward and the music comes along saying ‘Da da, da da! Well done’, and so, through play, these children actually learn their basic literacy and numeracy. At a well resourced school, they can do that. I suppose there are other schools which do not have the resources.
When I was speaking to the principal of the school, she told me that school starts at 7 am and they go through until about 1.30 pm. When the day school finishes in the afternoon, from 2 pm to 4.30 pm they run what they call a ‘paupers school’. This is a rich school and it services children from wealthy families. They also have many children living in slums surrounding the school and the paupers program was designed to allow children from the slums to attend and at least have some exposure to education because not everyone in India has access education. They do an afternoon class because many of the children living in the slums have to work with their families through the day and would not be able to get to a normal school. So they spend a few hours in the afternoon of each day to at least get some education. Interestingly, even with the limited number of hours of school each day, within a few years many of these kids strive to be in the day school and get full-time education. Because of the resources of the school, many of these children from the paupers group are provided with scholarships.
In Malaysia, I spoke to the Director of Early Childhood Schools. In Penang, and also in Taiping, they bring the children in, and because there is a policy of teaching mainly in Bahasa Melayu, the language of the country, they will teach English as one subject, and teach mathematics and science in English. When you put the two lots of subjects together, essentially, each child attending a state school would spend half the time learning subjects in Bahasa Melayu and the other half of the class will be in English. If you happen to be a Chinese or an Indian child, your own language is left up to your family to teach and for you to grow up speaking. It seems that this system works, and works well. By the time a child has reached the end of primary school, they are fluent in their own native tongue, in Bahasa Melayu, and in English. They continue into secondary school, again, having the non-technical subjects taught in Bahasa Melayu, and the technical subjects of science and maths taught in English. On top of that, they have English language as a separate language subject.
I find that interesting when I compare that to our indigenous youth in the Northern Territory and you ask: why are we not able to get the same sort of results? Is it because we are not teaching the kids properly? Is it because we are not using multiple languages in the class? Is it because we are not getting the children to turn up to classes every day? It is a combination of those things. The thing to do now is to try to work out a mechanism which will encourage children to go to school every day, make sure they turn up to school every day, and I believe that is probably the key to it all. Get them to school every day, get them exposed to the instruction, making it not only meaningful but interesting more than anything else.
This is where I find the new technology that is coming through called MARVIN - we have all heard about MARVIN, which is designed in Alice Springs. It has now won national and international awards, and the young man who designed it, J Easterby-Wood, has received many accolades for his discovery - if you can combine that into a class structure, it will make a huge impact on how children will be engaged with education.
The program that was started under the previous government, and now strongly pushed by this government with the help of the federal government, of building swimming pools in communities, encouraging kids to go to school with the ‘no school no pool’ policy, will be another way of providing kids with incentive to turn up to school every day.
I believe that is really the main issue. Get the kids to go to school every day, and teach them without deviating from the syllabus, making sure that they get the information provided to them, make it interesting so that they can interact with the computers or with the teachers and, somehow, ensure that parents in those communities value the education that is being provided, and make sure that their children then attend school every day. If we do that, we will seriously make inroads into the literacy and numeracy deficit that is so evident amongst many remote indigenous youths.
As for children of secondary school age who are living out in the bush and who are not getting the education, it is important not to force them into classrooms where they sit with kids half their age; that can be a real shame job. We should be able to design classes where children of secondary school age can actually study, separated from the younger children, and provided with accelerated literacy and numeracy classes. The technique of accelerated learning is a very useful method. Many children learn very quickly using the scaffolding technique, and I encourage the government to pick that up and spread the accelerated literacy and numeracy program far and wide. It should not be kept as a trial. A trial has been proven to be successful, and it should now be used throughout every community.
There is every opportunity for all our kids to be just as well educated as you and I. We should be pushing as hard as we possibly can so that we can all share in the benefits that the Territory will bring to us in the coming future.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is the fourth time that I have had the pleasure of standing in this Chamber and thanking a range of colourful and friendly people who have helped me throughout the year to faithfully serve the community of Sanderson. It is not lost on me that this is the final time in this parliamentary session that I will have this opportunity to thank all those members of the Sanderson community, all the staff of the ministerial offices and, indeed, all the people in the government departments, particularly in the Legislative Assembly, who have made it truly a great pleasure this year, once again, to faithfully serve the people of Sanderson.
As with all members of the Legislative Assembly, I keep in contact with my community members through a newsletter. I put out a newsletter every quarter. Every quarter, because it is an A3 and it is not machine folded, we have a range of volunteers who come into the office to help us fold the newsletter manually. Without them, I just could not get this quality newsletter out to the community.
I would particularly like to thank Teng Murray and her husband, Michael, for the help that they give in doing that. We have a whole range of people of Timorese and Chinese extraction who come in to help. Just about every month we put out different newsletters and pieces of correspondence that they all help with. There is Ligia Vung and her sons, George and Lino, Taek Fung Lay, Tsi Leong Lay, Fuc Sang, Lily Korkoka, Jia Zhan Duan, and Kue Tjing Mu. You can see that the spirit in our office is great and very colourful and multicultural. There is also Barbara Baggley, Terrie Domingo and Cynthia Bader. It is just a great group who are always hard working. Without any problems, you can ask these people to assist and they offer to assist. I am always happy to have them in the office. We sit around and get the work done. We get a meal from across the way from Fonnie who has the Hot Wok restaurant. They always serve us great food and that keeps everyone going; although I must admit that these group of volunteers are also partial to a drop of Red Rooster or Kentucky Fried Chicken, and we are partial to giving it to them. I really thank them for their assistance and the happiness they bring to the office. I just cannot speak highly enough of them.
The office, being in Northlakes, is located centrally in my electorate. Because it is on McMillans Road, there are many groups which come in and use the office and the community rooms on a weekly basis. We have people from the Filipino Australia Association of the NT who come in, and I would like to send a big G’day to them because they are a great community. As people might know, my electoral officer Therla Fowlestone is of Filipino extraction. We have a lot of Tagalog and a lot of work with the Filipino community in our office, and I am really happy to be a supporter of the members of the Filipino community.
We have the Hakka Association come in on an ad hoc basis. Henry Yap and George Mu come in and use the offices and are very supportive of the community. We get behind them and help them in their efforts to help the community. I am glad to be able to assist wherever I can.
The RSPCA uses our office. The RSPCA is a worthwhile community group always looking for support, and we in the Sanderson office are happy to help them.
The Sri Lankan Australia Friendship Association meets regularly; the Australia China Friendship Association; and the Enrolled Nurse Special Interest Group comes in. We have the Sing Song Signers, the Asia Pacific Community Group, and the Africa Australia Friendship Association. The English for Beginners has English classes in our office on a Tuesday morning; Teng Murray runs them for Timorese-Chinese migrants. That is a marvellous thing that happens out of our office. All these community groups make up the rich tapestry of the electorate of Sanderson. I am really happy to be able to get in there and work with them. I support them all the way and I am happy to have been able to work with them during 2004.
The electorate of Sanderson is also well serviced by quite a number of clubs. I daresay it would be the club capital of the Territory because of its proximity to Marrara sporting precinct and there are many clubs down that way, particularly Darwin Golf Club, which I have mentioned time and time again in this place in adjournment debates. They have had a good year. They have a new general manager. They have had their AGM just recently. I believe the golf club is going places. They have always had my support. They are a great club, they are a great community focussed club, and they work well with the community. I know that right now they are looking to build on their relationship with the people who live around the perimeters of the golf course. They understand that as a golf club, they are part of the Northlakes community. The people who live in Northlakes, although not all of them are members, are certainly most welcome to participate in the golf club social functions and to interact; and it is great that they really do strive to communicate with the residents of Marrara east and west.
There is the Darwin Football Club and congratulations to them, they had a win the other night, and that was a fabulous effort by them. The Darwin Football Club and the PINT Club are two clubs that are very close to my heart. I am the patron of the PINT Club. It was good to work with the other patron, the member for Arnhem, to see about getting a close partnership going between Darwin Football Club and the PINT Club, and this is working. Members of both clubs are getting on well. Darwin Football Club does not have its own club house and the PINT Club has said, ‘Come down, share our facilities, use our facilities, try it out’. It is not a merger by any means. Both clubs are very separate in their organisations and committees, but both are working together and it is quite a good relationship. Darwin Football Club has many members, and because they are members the Darwin Football Club pays for their membership to the PINT Club. So there are more members building up the base; and it is working quite well for both clubs.
I mentioned the Darwin Golf Club and there is the Women’s Golf NT. They had a big tournament this year and I was happy to sponsor one of the holes. They now meet regularly in our office, and they are a great bunch of women. The members of the committee from all the golf clubs around the place get in there, and they are progressing women’s golf in the Territory and that is great to see.
Squash NT meets there and one of my favourites, the North Darwin RSL Club Sub-branch, of which I am a patron, meet as well. They are a battler of a club. They could do with some more amenities, but their club house is nice and open with lots of fresh air. They have a green there with synthetic turf laid on it. They do a wonderful job for the community. I would like to see more people there and I am sure they will. They are working on it; they are going to stick around for a long, long time. They can always do with assistance, and they get many volunteers and I am happy to help them out wherever I can.
I have three schools in the electorate: Sanderson High School, Anula Primary School and Wulagi Primary School. The school councils which assist in the running of these schools are very active. They are great. They are all made up of volunteers, and when you sit down in the school council with them and you hear them talk, you hear their plans and their aspirations, and setting the directions for the schools, they really do care. They have a genuine feel for the futures of not only their own children, but for all those children who attend the school. There have been some tough times for some of the schools. There have been some incidences around Anula Primary School of late, but they will see their way through. I cannot speak highly enough of the three principals, Mrs Wilkowski, Mrs Perrin and Mrs Garrigan, and their staff.
I was fortunate the other week to host morning tea for teachers at those schools. Although I hosted it, it was really a thank you and recognition of the work that the teachers do and a show of appreciation and recognition that I, as a representative for the people of Sanderson, for the work that they do for the people of Sanderson.
As I said, I could not do my job effectively, or efficiently, or as enjoyably, as I do without the support of the professionals in the different departments, and particularly here in the Legislative Assembly. Sitting before us is the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk; there are the committee secretariat people such as Terry Hanley and the group which supports the Public Accounts Committee; Pat Hancock; Graham Gadd; Steve Stokes; and Sam Mannette. There are so many names that if I start trying to roll them off individually, I will miss some of them, so I will say a blanket heart-felt thank you for the work you have done.
I worked with many of these people prior to entering the political arena. I know what professionals they are, and they demonstrate it time and time again. The level of commitment and service to all members in this House is fantastic. They do not play favourites or anything of that nature; they are truly professional. I thank them and I appreciate that. I am sure that as the night goes on and as the days go by, all members in this House will also thank this group of people.
To all the members of the ministerial staff on the fifth floor, I cannot do my job effectively without your assistance. As a local MLA, you do not approach government departments directly. That is not right and is a breach of convention. I do not do that, but I do seek assistance from ministerial staff who are quick to respond to issues. I would particularly like to thank them for all their hard work and dedication. It is not so much a matter of assisting me as assisting the people of Sanderson, so on behalf of the people of Sanderson I thank all those on the fifth floor for the work they have done to help us get through.
There is another network of unsung heroes, and that is the electorate officers around the place, particularly in the northern suburbs of Darwin. There is Judy Herring, Debbie Rowland, Jana Neve, Warren Martin, Steve Brennan, Jessica Horne, Christine Gray, Phil Powling, Francine Quong; the list goes on. These electorate officers do fantastic jobs because, as a local member, you will be out of the office, on committees, travelling or doing other work making representations somewhere, and it is impossible for a local member to be on deck all the time. It is through the hard work of these electorate officers and the way that they discuss issues between themselves that many issues can be resolved in a timely manner, quickly and efficiently with the best result for the constituents of our electorates.
I would particularly like to say a big thank you to Therla Fowlestone for the work she has done. I believe we work as a good team and serve our community well. I am positive that I could not get all good results that I do consistently without having a good team member in the office. I am very comfortable with her abilities and I know that the people of Sanderson are very comfortable working with Therla. To Therla and husband, Tony, and their family, a big thank you because Therla does put in. Time and again, she puts in more hours than what she is paid for, which is, sadly, the way that all of us are. It is not only us; I know there are many public servants who put in far more hours than they are paid for. On behalf of the people of Sanderson, I would like to thank them for their efforts as well.
Finally, as with all members - most members, I should say – I should not generalise so much – I could not do half the things I do without the support of my own family. I put on record my thanks to my wife, Marie, and our children for allowing me to do what I enjoy. Without their support, I could not do it. I dare say not many more of us could really go on with this job unless we had good, strong support in our own homes. To my family, I place on the record a big thank you for their efforts over 2004. I look forward next year to working hard. It is an election year and everyone will be working hard.
I would like, because I have been reminded, to make special recognition of my poor dog, Wags, who happened to turn up his tail the other day. He was a great family pet. Unfortunately, he has moved on to the big kennel and I will start 2005 without him, which is a bit sad, but life goes on.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what a year it has been. The last 12 months have gone so fast that it is really amazing that we are standing here tonight, and another electorate Christmas adjournment is about to commence. However, there has been much work in the Wanguri electorate over the last 12 months, and I would like to say thank you to many people in the electorate in the lead up to Christmas and wish everybody all the best for Christmas.
I would like first to talk about the schools in and around my electorate. All of us as local members know that the schools are at the heart of all our electorates, and there are some wonderful people associated with every school in the Northern Territory. Wanguri is no different. This year, the school has seen the departure of a great principal, Marie Bredhauer, who implemented some significant changes at the school, and the arrival of Jenny Robinson who, again, is doing great work as the Acting Principal at the moment. Jenny, you really are a breath of fresh air in the school and making your mark in the community.
One of the big initiatives this year has been the school’s biodiversity garden. It has been going for a while, but now Wanguri is the proud parent to a bush tucker garden, which was created as a memorial for the late Mr Jimmy Clarke who was heavily involved with the school since 1976. Just last week, the school, along with the help of Mitre 10 and Greening Australia – so thanks to Mitre 10 and Greening Australia – planted more plants in the garden. It now looks vibrant and fantastic; a real learning treat for the students of indigenous history and culture.
The school has also started a bike workshop, where students are taught how to build bikes out of old spare parts - part of their boys program at school - and them sell them to raise money for the school. I know the boys at the school have really taken to that program. These are just two of the new initiatives the school has introduced over the past year, as well as their inaugural Fathers Day Breakfast, the Number and Bubbles Fair, National Teachers Day events, car boot sales, and preschool art exhibition. Winning an environment award for the plastic bag program and getting budget allocations for much needed improvements around the school will only help the school blossom in 2005.
I would like to thank the principal, Jenny Robinson, teachers, staff, parents, students, and the school council for all their hard work they have done over the past year to really get Wanguri school back on the tracks, and particularly the school council chair, Julie Donohue, and her team. It has been a pleasure working with you. I look forward to working with you again next year.
Leanyer Primary School has had a huge year in 2004, a school year packed with events as it achieved 21 years of age, celebrated on 17 September by kicking off with a much anticipated opening of the Gather and Goss garden, which has been a dream of art teacher, Margaret Ferguson, for many years. The garden is an excellent initiative by the school and students will be enjoying it for many years to come. The day was packed tight with displays, performances, cutting of the cake, and then the following evening a bush dance was held in the school’s honour, which was a great evening of song and dance. It was great to be there. Parents, students, many students from years gone by, and even our administrator, His Honour Ted Egan, and partner, Nerys. Ted even got up and sang a song that night, so it was a fabulous evening.
The Leawanala School Band has gone from strength to strength, and has built a very strong reputation with the community with their outstanding commitments and talents, proven with each performance. I would like to congratulate the organiser of the band, Assistant Principal, Daryl Trainor, and I hope the students can continue with their hard work in 2005. Daryl really is passionately committed to the music programs at Leanyer school, and Daryl, I have enjoyed working with you this year. We had a couple of wins and hope to build on that next year.
Congratulations to senior teacher Ms Sally Bruyn on her recent award for life membership of School Sports NT on Friday, 19 November - an excellent reward in recognition of Sally’s long and valuable contribution to school sport in the Northern Territory for more than 20 years.
Just quickly, I would like to place on record my appreciation for the many officers involved with the asbestos matter at Leanyer school just a few weeks ago. It is appropriate to do that, as my colleague, the education minister and work health minister, launched the asbestos awareness campaign today. The professionalism of DEET, DCIS, WorkSafe, along with Henry Gray and the staff at the school, saw what could have been quite a stressful time for parents managed very well. Everybody did a great job.
Thanks to this government, Leanyer is so much closer to getting their basketball courts under cover, with $60 000 in the budget this year adding to the already outstanding fundraising efforts of the SRC and school council. I would like to thank Henry Gray for his fantastic team of staff and teachers, the school council members, the active SRC members and students who contribute so much to the school on a daily basis. Denise Phelps, the chair of the school council, you are doing a great job. It is a very vibrant school council, and I enjoy working with you, Denise.
Before I move on to other schools in the electorate, I extend my sincere good wishes to Joshua Liddle, a Transition student at Leanyer. Members of the House will remember the brave face behind the story regarding Joshua’s extremely challenging life. Joshua is currently recovering following surgery in Adelaide to amputate his left foot. Joshua was born with a condition known as amniotic band syndrome, an amputation of the limbs during pregnancy. Joshua has lost his right arm just above his elbow, lost the right finger, left hand, and big toe on his right foot, and has had numerous operations to correct severe deformities of his left leg. He is a very brave little boy. I am looking forward to catching up with Joshua and his family on their return from Adelaide.
I congratulate Henry Gray and the Leanyer school community, and Joshua’s fantastic teacher, Mrs Kaye Cowley for organising the successful media campaign which was widely supported by Territorians. More than $15 000 was raised by our generous community and donated to the family to help Joshua’s family be with him in Adelaide, and support him back in Darwin. For everybody who donated to a very genuine and great family, my heartfelt thanks. Also thanks to our firies who often jump in and support many people with problems in our community. They gave Joshua a fantastic send-off by giving him a lift from the hospital to the airport via Leanyer school in a fire truck. To the firies: good on you!
Holy Spirit, in the Wanguri electorate, is a long-established Catholic primary school and has always held itself with excellent integrity and provided education to students for a long time. Principal Gill Webb and all of the teachers at Holy Spirit, again, had another fantastic year. The fete, an annual event, is probably the best fete - I will get into trouble with my colleagues, but every year it is a fabulous event - I believe it is the best fete in the northern suburbs. There was a strong introduction of IT this year with inclusion of interactive whiteboards in the classrooms. The performing arts have been an outstanding area for Holy Spirit in 2004 as the school participated in the Eisteddfod, the Wakakirri Festival, and within the Catholic Schools Performing Arts Concert. The fun run was also organised to raise money for the less fortunate. Holy Spirit has raised over $3000 in ice cup sales alone this year, with the money going to the missions and the children in East Timor. A fabulous effort from the kids at Holy Spirit with $3000 to children in East Timor. Well done.
Harmony Day was a particular highlight for me as each class explored a different nationality and understood the meaning of the day. It was great to get around all the classrooms and see each of the classes adopting a different country and coming to understand the culture, the language, and the various social aspects of those countries. To the Parents and Friends Committee president, Peter Dixon, thank you for your hard work and the committee’s hard work, in supporting the school this year.
St Andrew’s Lutheran School, in my electorate in Leanyer, is a small school but a great school. Principal Tom Leach and all the teachers there do a great job. Literacy is a priority of the school and this can be seen with the introduction of the early years’ literacy program this year, which involved professional development for the teachers and new courses purchased.
Virginia Gardiner started at the school at the beginning of the year bringing her aerobic expertise with her. She trained five students to form a successful aerobic team which won the NT Aerobics Championships and were also invited to attend the National Aerobics Championships in Sydney. So, Virginia, it is great to see you and a great start to your time at St Andrew’s.
The school has wonderful parental involvement, not only within the classrooms but on the Parents and Friends Association, and help maintain the school’s buildings and grounds. I think it was the first school in the Territory that was designed and built by Troppo Architects. It is a fabulous school and an expression of tropical achitecture. To the Chair of the PFA, Michael Tait, thank you and your team for another great year at St Andrew’s. St Andrew’s celebrated its cultural diversity with an indigenous cultural day and international food fare this year as well.
Henbury School in my electorate is a very special place for me. I always enjoy visiting the teachers and the students at Henbury who care for our kids with disabilities. Michael Jones, the principal, I think, started this year - it might have been just over a year ago – and is doing a fantastic job as principal there. I always enjoy catching up with you and Michael, keep up the good work. The Sensory Garden was created this year to encourage students to use all five senses – sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing - in the garden using different plants and flowers. I am very proud of this initiative and it certainly gives the kids a great and different experience. For the first time ever, two students received school-based apprenticeships and it is great to see kids with a disability in Henbury School actually embarking on apprenticeships. It is absolutely fabulous and really pleasing to see.
Also it is the first time the school has joined with Darwin High for VET funding. Again the focus now on the school of seeing very meaningful outcomes and the ability for students to get into the workplace post their time at Henbury School is a great focus and starting to bring its own rewards. There were 43 students in 2004, set to increase numbers in 2005, and nine teachers. Many successful grants have been put to great work at the school over the year and I am pleased to say I champion every application that Henbury puts in. Students are working towards there NTCE at Casuarina Secondary College as well. Student Creations has turned the art department into a viable enterprise program for students and the school and sales are only increasing. I support the school every year for my local electorate Christmas cards, always designed by students at Henbury and I am pleased to be sending them out to my constituents again this year.
The school in 2004 became a successful applicant to be part of the accelerated literacy program with Sanderson High School. I know in talking to Michael just a few weeks ago just how successful that accelerated literacy program is. I know my colleague, the education minister, is very excited about it and the fact that it is deployed at Henbury is magnificent.
Seven students received gold awards from the Duke of Edinburgh Program as well this year. So to Michael, the principal, and Lyn Strathie, the Chair of the School Council, you are doing a magnificent job and it is a great and very special school.
Dripstone High School is in my colleague, the member for Casuarina’s electorate, is a major feeder school for kids at Wanguri and Leanyer. Dripstone is always busy with events and activities. To help the enthusiasm levels this year, the school also locked down a new principal, Lyn Elphinstone, who is doing a great job. Lyn, it is great to have you there at Dripstone. The biggest day on the school’s calendar is Dripstone Day which is filled with community and cultural activities that culminates in a talent quest, swimming and athletics carnivals and charity raisers. They have Crop and Colour every year at Dripstone. My colleague, the member for Casuarina, had his head shaved a couple of years ago. I was very fortunate to be in Sabah this year and to escape that particular invitation. I am sure it will be coming next year and Greg Cilento does a great job organising that event every year.
Unfortunately, I could not attend the presentation awards and Year 12 Graduation last week as I was in Indonesia. I heard it was a great night. It is a night I do not normally miss. To all of those Year 12’s graduating, congratulations. I know the Laptops for Teachers Program was very well received at Dripstone High School and all the teachers have appreciated receiving those laptops to help them prepare curriculum for the classroom.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, to all of the schools in and around my electorate, congratulations on a very busy 12 months. I am looking forward to the Christmas concerts at the end of the year and catching up with all the principals and teachers over the next couple of weeks. I will continue with my electorate Christmas adjournment tomorrow night.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, first let me wish all honourable members a merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year.
I also extend my thanks to the Legislative Assembly staff, to the Clerk, and particularly to Ms Pat Hancock, the Secretary of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community. This is my first year working on this committee and Pat has done a fantastic job. I also thank Liz McFarlane who has been working on that committee. It has been an interesting journey this year looking at various things to do with substance abuse and I know that all honourable members of that committee would agree with me that it has been hard work that Pat has put in.
I would just like to say on a personal level with Pat that she does a tremendous amount of work. She is a constituent of mine. She does a lot of work for breast cancer awareness, particularly with Dragons Abreast. Members would be interested to know that she has been involved in raising money for breast cancer research and Dragon’s Abreast with their new calendar. Pat is one of the models – Miss October, I think. It is worth buying one of those calendars for $22. You can buy one from Speaker’s Corner or you can buy one from my office if you are interested as well. Thank you very much, Pat, for all your hard work.
In my electorate, I would particularly like to thank Warren Martin, my new electorate officer. It is a very hard job being an electorate officer. The person you are looking for has to be totally dedicated to the member and to your constituents, and you can add the political party to that group as well. Warren has been putting in a fantastic effort. I thank him and his family for all his efforts including on the weekends as well.
I would like to thank my past electorate officer who, sadly, moved on. He was promoted to a higher job in Emergency Services. My thanks to Chris Draffin. I wish him all the best in his new job and I hope that he does not get called out for too many cyclones this season. I know that he will be very well prepared if he has to.
I would particularly like to thank all members of the Nightcliff Branch of the Labor Party. I like to think that this is probably one of the most active branches in the Northern Territory. We have a fantastic president in Helen and treasurer in Sally and I have tremendous supporters with Bob Corry, Jack, and Bill McMahon. I thank them particularly for their hard work.
This has been a year where the North Darwin Regional Business Association has really taken off and I am a committee member of that organisation. I would like to wish merry Christmas to Greg Sharam, Allan Anderson, Joan Miller and Christine Osborne and Mark Dickfos, all members of that committee, and to put on the record how much the government wants to work with this small group of businesses in the northern suburbs. It is interesting that over the past 18 months a small group would arise and start working in the community. I attended their Christmas meeting earlier this week. It was a very good evening and I congratulate them for that.
As patron of the Evergreens, which is a seniors group which started in Nightcliff, I was pleased that this year they celebrated their 15th anniversary. They are such an energetic group. They have bingo nights and bowling. I actually did a try-out bowls evening with them and I have never played lawn bowls. It was a great night. I wish them success for the coming years, and a safe and happy New Year. I look forward to attending their Christmas lunch next week.
I am also the patron of the Nightcliff Sports Club and I thank Pam Watson for her hard work as the president and thank all the members at that club.
I have many schools in my electorate. Nightcliff Primary School is the largest one and I believe it is one of the Territory’s best primary schools. All of my children have attended there, and I still have a daughter at the school. In recent years, Steve Marshall, as the principal of that school, has been absolutely fabulous. The school has gone from strength to strength, and parent, student and teacher involvement in the school is of the highest level. I thank Jill Finch, the assistant principal, and Greg Robson as well. In particular, this has been a hard year for Jill. She was quite unwell last term, but has come good this term, and I wish her all the best for the coming year. Nightcliff Primary School has a very active school council, and I would like to thank all council members including the chairman, Byron Olstad.
Nightcliff High School is a high school in my area. This is a high school which seems to have received a lot of negative publicity this year. I must say that it has been very unfortunate, because this is a school which has really tried to reform itself. It has been a school which, over a decade, has been rundown and then, about two years ago, we got a new principal who is determined to reform that school. They have been putting in place some very innovative programs, both in Year 8 and coming into Year 9, as well as looking at different ways of dealing with educational issues in the school system. I would have to say that the results have been quite good. Sure, there have been teething problems, particularly in the Year 8 Innov8 program. I had a son there this year, and he had a fabulous time during the year and seems to be doing very well.
This is a school which really needs the community to get behind it. There is nothing more important in a community than having an excellent high school and excellent schools in your area where you feel confident that your children can go to those schools and they will have good educational outcomes. I would be asking all honourable members to get behind this school to make sure that when we are considering making comments about a school like this, that we think, this is a school where people are sending their children, that we want the best outcomes for them. This is a good school which is working hard to improve itself.
Last week, I was very pleased to note that Nightcliff High School won the two highest awards for the Young Business Achievers for Territory schools. They were just so excited about that and I was very pleased to be at the presentation in Parliament House. I thank Paul Atkinson, the principal of the school, for all his hard work, Julie Kellem, and the person in charge of the Innov8 program, Keith Moylan, who has been working on that program this year. It has been a great program. I know that it will improve over the next few years. I also thank the members of the Nightcliff High School Council, particularly the chair, Rosemary Campbell.
Another school in my area is Essington School. This is the 15th year of Essington School. It is a fantastic school, and certainly offers a tremendous alternative for people who prefer the private sector. David Cannon, who has been the principal for many years, is full of energy and drive and he has made this into probably one of the best schools in Darwin. As I said, over 15 years, it has really improved. The president of the school board is John McLaren, and the vice-president is Phil Donohoe, and they have been a driving force also behind making sure that this is a very financial school with excellent facilities and programs at the school and Mrs Jill Kuhn is responsible for the music program and I thank her for all her hard work.
I also have in my electorate St Paul’s Catholic School, which is a very small school. It only has about 120 students in it, but it is a lovely little school. I offer my congratulations to Mary Cutjer, the principal of that school, and to all the teachers at that school. I wish them all Christmas blessings for this coming season.
A new school turned up in my electorate at the beginning of this year, the Milkwood Steiner School. This started with just a tiny number of students, I think about 25, and it is already growing. They will need new buildings by the beginning of next year. They are hunting around to find out whether they can get demountables. The parent involvement in this school is amazing. The parents get in and renovate the buildings, they paint things, make things, and they are constantly at the markets at Nightcliff to help with the fundraising. It is a fantastic school and they are lovely people who send their children there. The Steiner education system is very interesting. I congratulate them on starting this school. I was very pleased recently to be able hand over a cheque of $4400 to assist them with new airconditioners which have come from the Education department. Keep up the good work, Milkwood. It is a great school. I pass on my thanks to the president of the school council, Michael Wells, who is also doing a great job.
One of the features of the Nightcliff electorate is the large number of Greek residents. Being a member, one of the most great things - because I have lived in Nightcliff for a long time - has been becoming involved with the Greek community and going to so many Greek functions at the Greek school. The Greek school is just around the corner from my house but I had never actually been there until I became a candidate. It has been a privilege to get to know many Greek families in the Nightcliff area and to attend these functions. I must say, though, my Greek has not improved over the time and, sometimes – as I am sure honourable members would know - you go to these Greek functions and you actually do not have a lot of idea about what is going on but you just go with the flow and stand up when everyone else stands up and sit down when everyone else is sitting down.
They are wonderful occasions, and there have been some very special occasions this year, particularly the opening of the Olympic Games at the Greek school. It was a wonderful occasion and one where a huge group of Greek Territorians were present along with other Territorians. We all really enjoyed ourselves, and it was a great experience.
Mr Henderson: And their European soccer winner.
Mrs AAGAARD: Yes, of course, the soccer the member for Wanguri comments on which, of course, is very big with the Greek community and a wonderful thing.
Coming up very soon is the final Greek school presentation night where all of the children who attend the Greek school - which is every Saturday morning - get up and present a poem or a Christmas piece of prose in Greek and tell us stories about Greece and the history of Greece. It is a very interesting evening and a very pleasant one. I look forward to attending that.
I would also like to pass on my Christmas blessings to all of the ministers of religion in my area: to Rev Kate Fraser, to Rev Mark Dickins, to Father Peter Robinson and to Pastor John Vitale. These people work very hard in our community and are often not recognised for the hard work they do. I thank them for the work they have done in my community, with people who have perhaps been missed by the rest of the system. I look forward to working with them over the next year.
Somebody I would like to mention tonight is Tony Milhinhos. I have mentioned Tony in past adjournment speeches. Just last week, Tony was recognised as the Senior Territorian of the Year. I was very excited about this. Tony is the owner of Woolworths at Nightcliff, and he is a very generous person who has given a tremendous amount of money over many years - I believe more than $0.5m over the last decade - to various charities. Just in this last year, he has given over a $100 000 to three charities. He was particularly keen, if I was going to talk about him, that I mention Northern Territory Autism, because he has suddenly become very attached to this group. He has, in fact, given quite a considerable amount of money to them, not having known anything whatsoever about autism. He feels that - in his early 60s - it is a terrible thing that he has reached the age of early 60s and not known anything about autism, which is a very traumatic condition for a young person and their family. He is hoping to become quite involved in this association over the next few years. I congratulate him; he is a fantastic person and a tremendous Nightcliff resident. It has been lovely getting to know Tony over the last few years.
In addition I would like to mention the Melaleuca Refugee Association which has its office just above my office. What great work they do in the community for refugees coming to the Territory. I have had the pleasure of hosting some of these refugees in Parliament House, and I have another group coming next Tuesday. It is a wonderful opportunity for people who have come from war-torn countries where the idea of democracy is quite a difficult issue for them to come into a place like this and to realise that, in fact, you can have disagreements across a House and still actually run a government and have an opposition. It is great to be able to do that. I congratulate them on all their hard work.
Finally, I would just like to thank Mr Arun Ganesh Mahajani, who is Emeritus Consultant Surgeon to the Royal Darwin Hospital, for all of his hard work over many years. Dr Mahajani came into my office yesterday, but unfortunately I was not there and he has left me with a very nice letter telling me about all the achievements of his family. I congratulate him, especially on his medals at the Alice Springs Masters Games.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I too rise tonight to pay tribute and to extend my appreciation and thanks to a whole host of people who have played a very important role in supporting me. I begin by extending my very big thanks to everyone associated with this House, the staff of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Thank you very much for your support throughout the year. It is important that we acknowledge your contribution to us in providing a very professional service. I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a very peaceful and safe holiday period and a wonderful 2005.
I extend my appreciation to my parliamentary colleagues who have provided me with support and assistance over the last 12 months. We have been able to provide some very important initiatives in respect to the provision of services into my electorate, so thank you very much. Also to the opposition, not always do we agree on certain issues but pleased be assured that your contributions are appreciated and it is what democracy is all about, so thank you.
I forgot to mention previously in respect of the people associated in this House, and I want to pay tribute Rick Gray. Rick, as I understand it, has now retired. Rick has provided sterling service to all members of this House particularly in with the Legal and Constitutional Committee and played an important role in the statehood process. To you, Rick, and your family, thank you very much and we hope that whatever you do in your retirement, you have a very wonderful time.
I would now like to turn to matters relative to the electorate of Barkly. I do not intend to single out people as such because it would take me quite a period to do that and, perhaps by doing so, those I miss out I would be doing them a disservice. Let me begin by saying that as you travel throughout the Barkly you really begin to understand and appreciate the wonderful service and the wonderful commitment by a whole host of people. I refer to, in particular, the teachers who operate in very difficult circumstances, under sometimes very difficult conditions. You get the opportunity to meet them other than as teachers and you then really do appreciate the hard work they put in.
I want to make reference to the teachers at Robinson River and Borroloola, Kiana, Corella Creek, Epenarra, Canteen Creek, out at Marlinja, and also at Mungkarta, Elliott, Tara, Neutral Junction and of course Tennant Creek High School and Tennant Creek Primary School. To you all, thank you very much. The same applies to the council members of all those schools who put in hard work, and to the students in all the schools I have mentioned, thank you very much and I congratulate you all for working very hard and achieving results.
I want to pay tribute to the police. I have mentioned some of the communities previously in respect of education. Equally, there are police officers out there in the community and they play a very important role. I have previously said in this House that their role is not necessarily purely operational. They play an important role in enhancing and supporting our community efforts. To all the officers at Borroloola and Elliott, at Ali Curung, thank you very much; out at Avon Downs, Bob Maturna, who does a great job; and to all our officers and ACPOs in Tennant Creek.
Particularly this year, I want to pay a tribute to Superintendent Bruce Porter who has played a key role in bringing the community together. Bruce has now gone to Alice Springs to look after the southern region, I understand. He has been replaced by Superintendent Colin Smith, so welcome, Colin. We trust that everything will be well and that we will continue to work together in the interests of the community.
Also to Sergeant Richard Martin who plays a key liaison role between the community and the Barkly Region Safer Community Committee. Richard is involved in a whole host of other community activities. Thank you, Richard, because without people like yourself and your colleagues in the Barkly, I am absolutely certain that your efforts are appreciated by the community.
To all our nursing staff out in the communities, thank you very much. I acknowledge your contribution to the Barkly and to the Northern Territory.
I pay tribute to many of the public servants in Tennant Creek whom I have come to know over the last year, particularly those that have come into town. You, too, play a very important role and we appreciate your efforts.
As you travel around, you have the opportunity to visit pastoral properties around the place. They have a different focus but, nonetheless, their commitment to growing the economy in the Northern Territory is very important in terms of exports and jobs, so thank you. I trust that the bushfire situation will not be as bad as it has been in previous years, although over the last six to eight weeks it has got pretty bad, and I really do hope that we are able to curtail that. I would urge everyone to ensure that they take every necessary precaution to ensure that the countryside is protected in relation to bushfires.
Members would have heard yesterday about Bootu Creek and the mine which will be commencing at Bootu Creek which is north of Banka Banka. It has been a great pleasure working with the people associated with Bootu Creek over a very long time. I thank them for their commitment to the community, and to the Barkly. I know that they worked very hard with NLC to secure the appropriate compliances. I thank them for their commitment to provide jobs and to encourage local businesses and local indigenous businesses to get involved in the Bootu project. To Trevor Tennant and Duncan Beggs in particular, thank you very much. We look forward to an ongoing partnership that will hopefully provide a real economic boost to the whole region.
Giants Reef continues to play a very important role in our community. I have mentioned previously in this House that they have provided $60 000 to the Barkly Australian Football League, and also around $11 000 for Warrego School; so they play a very important role in supporting local community organisations. Most importantly, they are also involved in some exploration work which I honestly believe will come to fruition in new mines in our region. I thank you for your contribution.
To members of my branch, the Barkly Branch of the ALP, thank you very much for your support throughout the year, and in particular, Sharon Kinraid, Rob Trenery and Alf Chittock and a whole host of other people. As a local member, you would not exist unless you had the support of people like that who put in the long hours and who are there for you providing support as required. And believe me, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, there are occasions when, if it were not for people like that, I reckon you would end up going nuts or doing something equally drastic. Thank you very much to all those people.
Thanks to Gayle Dougall, my electorate officer – Gayle does a wonderful job. It is not an easy office to staff. We probably have in excess of a couple of hundred people who come into that office most days of the week. We have the only toilet in the main street and, of course, the only place where people can get a drink of water. It is not an easy task staffing that, as I say. So Gayle, thank you very much for your patience and your understanding, and your respect for people as they come in that door because that is very, very important.
Also, to my beautiful partner, Barb, thank you very much for all your support throughout the year. I know that you are extremely busy in your role as a General Manager of Anyinginyi Congress. You have done a wonderful job in getting that organisation back on its feet. So thank you and it is very much appreciated.
Thanks to all the indigenous organisations – Julalikari Council, Anyinginyi Congress, and also Papulu Appar Kari Language Centre. They may be indigenous organisations, but they are more than that. They provide relevant services to both indigenous and non-indigenous people, and they provide a very strong economic base upon which the town relies. Thank you very much for your stewardship and good management over the last few years.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I note that you made some references yesterday in your adjournment about the Airnorth situation. Whilst I certainly share your concerns, you should be assured that I believe the decision that we took regarding airlines servicing Tennant Creek will provide a real benefit not only to Tennant Creek, but to Katherine, and perhaps to other parts of the Northern Territory as well. For the first time, there is competition in the marketplace, and that is great. You obviously know what I am talking about, because I was able to brief you about some of the issues. I am confident that there will be an enhanced air service into Tennant Creek.
In conclusion, the Barkly is a very vibrant and very important electorate in respect to the ongoing economy, not only of itself but to the Northern Territory. To all those people who live in the Barkly, I wish you all a very safe and peaceful Christmas. Of course, if you are driving over that period, I trust that you will drive safely. To all the people whom I have been associated with throughout the year, who supported me: thank you very much and I wish you a very peaceful and prosperous 2005.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I contribute to the adjournment debate as the local member for the electorate of Arafura. I suppose the greatest source of satisfaction and meaning of why I am in this place is representing an electorate as great and as beautiful as I have in Arafura.
I was listening earlier to the member for Barkly who was saying, given the size of his electorate, it is hard to actually narrow your electorate down to one or two individuals. You could stand up for longer than the 15 minutes, and I am sure that other members in this House all share that: that there are so many people you wish you could thank. Not to mention that there are other people whose names you would not normally raise who would get offended. I also, like the member for Barkly, would say, of everyone, there are people in my constituency who give me a high level of support.
There are many women and real survivors and fighters out on the ground in my electorate whom I take a great deal of pride in, and I am privileged to be able to represent these women. When I leave this place and go out to that electorate and sit down with those women and see the hard yards that they are doing and what they are having to endure day in, day out, it puts back into perspective for me as to the reason and the meaning of why I chose to stand and be a representative for them. Therefore, whilst acknowledging that there are many constituents who are certainly deserving of my thanks and respect, I do want to take time to just mention a few.
Dwayne Baker is a young male leader who is coming up in the Jabiru region. He is the coordinator of the Kakadu youth YawkYawk Yawurrinj Group which continues to set new standards for bringing young people together - not just the young Bininj or Aboriginal kids in the Jabiru, Kakadu region, but it is also looks at a lot of the non-indigenous kids who live in that Jabiru region. They are saying to them this it is not just about being black; it is about black and white, moving, working and being together, setting the standards together for both black and white, and that youth can get beyond all the racial barriers and prejudices that older people have. They can see beyond that and work together in a peaceful, safe and mutually supportive way. That is certainly moving in a very positive way. I congratulate Dwayne because he has a young family. His wife, Freda, recently gave birth to their second child. They now have two children, and he balances a lot of the time that he spends with the youth groups out in Jabiru to also spend just as much time with his family. The commitment that he has to these kids and the youth is just fantastic.
The Kakadu Youth chairperson Louisa Bayne is a fantastic young indigenous woman. She is spending the week in Darwin in my ministerial office to have a look at the parliamentary processes and how I operate as a member. For Louisa, I hope that she enjoys the week that she gets to spend with me. I have certainly enjoyed having her and sitting down and chatting with her about the youth issues out there. I thank Andy Ralph and other committee members for the great work that they are doing to ensure a healthy future for the youth of Kakadu.
Jonathon and Sharon Nadji, Liam Maher, and all board members and staff are determined to turn Jabiluka Association into the economic development powerhouse that Bininj people of Katherine need to secure their long term economic future. I wish them well and am confident that under their leadership their dreams would be realised.
Other deserving special mention include Yvonne Margarula for her efforts for the Gunjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, and Corrine Warhurst for her considerable work in promoting and administering sports in the Jabiru Kakadu region. David Scholz continues to be a strong advocate for the integration of health and services in the region.
I will go from one part of West Arnhem to, I suppose my home island, the Tiwi Islands. The Tiwi people, too, have made substantial progress towards realising their dreams of economic independence. The first shipment of Tiwi timber to Asia was the highlight for my Tiwi people and I congratulate all concerned. I am especially pleased to see the development of so many trainees and apprenticeships amongst the Tiwi people. The Tiwi Islands Local Government deserves special commendation for their commitment to the training and education of our people.
There are many Tiwi striving to make a difference in their community but I wish to acknowledge Gawain Tipiloura. Gawain is another young leader who is coming up. He is the son of the late Stanley Tipiloura who was also a member for Arafura. Maralumpuwi and Kilpayu Purantatameri and my predecessor, the former member for Arafura, Maurice Rioli, for the strong leadership they continued to provide to Tiwi people. To Manny Rioli and all the board members at Pirlangimpi and the wisdom and guidance of course from leaders like Cyril Kalippa and the members of the Tiwi Land Council.
There are also many people at Maningrida who on a daily basis strive to make that large community and its many homelands better places to live. Maningrida is probably the second largest Aboriginal community in the Territory after Port Keats. However, I want to place on the record my respect for some of the people there. David Bond has given the best years of his life to Maningrida and homelands and despite living there for 25 years or more he is still as passionate as ever in his desire to see Maningrida reach its full economic and social potential. He is well supported by his partner, Helen Bond-Sharpe, who shares his passion particularly in the areas of education and training. Their work is well complemented by many others including people like Helen Williams and Deen Hereen whose work in the community government in this area will, I am sure, bear fruit for all who reside in the Maningrida region. Thanks for the support.
I need to also thank Ian Munro, Peter Danaja, Morris Geinbarraba and his wife Jackie, Gordon Machbirrbirr and his wife, Cindy, Felicity Douglas and there are so many others from whom I have had a lot of support at Maningrida. I thank Lyn Hollows and many of the teachers. The member for Barkly talked about the teachers and I could not agree more with his comments about the hard yards that teachers do there. But I would also like to mention the hard yards of Aboriginal health workers and the work that they do on the ground as well, and the nursing staff.
Gunbalanya made headlines this year with its Community Education Centre winning an award for its outstanding animated film, The Echidna and the Turtle. Esther Djayhgurrnga and her staff at the CEC continue to develop the potential of the young people there and only have optimism for the future. I would like in particular to mention Maree Timms who has been the senior teacher and acting principal of Gunbalanya CEC in the last part of this year. Injalak Arts continues to astonish the art world with the vibrancy of their creations. I wish to particularly acknowledge the art advisor there Anthony Murphy, who I have always had a lot of support from, and whose skills help facilitate the art production and who then very successfully markets the product to the world.
Jim Gorey, the CEO, with the able support of Bunug Galaminda, Jenny and others, continues to serve the people of Warruwi. To Bev McLeod, the sister-in-charge at the Warruwi Clinic; James, Jenny, Nancy and all the Aboriginal health workers and staff of Warruwi clinic, and Anne Hewitt and staff at the Warruwi school. Warruwi community’s prominent role in this year’s Darwin Festival was a highlight of the year for me, especially the wonderful performances of the rock band, the Northern Gentlemen, and rock duo Rupert and Renfrey Manmarulu.
Minjilang’s leadership group includes Mary and Daisy Yarrmirr. These progressive individuals always play a rejuvenating role for me when I visit them. Their inspirational leadership reminds me of why I am in politics. They give and they give and all they expect in return is a little bit of support. They are so representative of the strong women throughout my electorate. They make me feel strong and confident for the future of families of the Arafura electorate. I would also like to thank Margaret O’Brien, the CEO of the council, Shane Wauchope and all the staff who have worked hard all year.
Finally, I get to say thank you to all my hard working and loyal staff: Penny Carr in the ministerial office, Alicia Sherwood, Maria Paterakis, Maria Billias, Kerry Gardiner, Andrew Buick and Sue Moore. It has not been an easy transition over the last 12 months. I really enjoy my role as the member. Certainly, the last 12 months as a minister has been a learning process, and I thank all of the staff for the role that they have played. I thank Ron Greaves, who steered me through the transition period, which was not an easy task to begin with, and after that, David Money, who is my senior advisor, for his guidance. I am not the easiest person to work with and David can give testament to that. His guidance, advice and support has certainly been appreciated.
Thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly. In particular, I would like to name Elizabeth Clark, because every time I run into some sort of difficulty, I am constantly ringing or sending e-mails to Elizabeth. I place on record my thanks for her patience and support over the last 12 months. It has been great, not just with me but also with my electorate office. Sometimes, when I look back on some of the queries and complaints I have made, they have actually been quite small, but the staff of the Legislative Assembly have been very patient and will work through those issues. I thank all of the staff there.
I thank my fellow Caucus members and members opposite, and in particular, my shadow minister. We have a good 12 months coming up after that.
Of course, to Madam Speaker and the Clerks, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
Before I finish, I want to mention my loyal and hard working electorate officer, Francine Quong. I had better not forget Frankie, she would never forgive me. I thank her for being there for me over the last 12 months. It has not been easy for her and I thank her wholeheartedly and wish her all the best because she has gone to a new job.
Finally, I have to acknowledge two very special people in my life, and one that I am going to be going down and seeing very soon. They are two very special young women in my life. I am talking about my daughters, particularly my eldest daughter who went to Melbourne as a young 14 year old student to do her high school, completed her HSC and then went in to do her Bachelor of Social Science degree, majoring in psychology. It will be a proud moment for me on the 15th when I watch her graduate with her degree. That is a major achievement because, in our family, not many have been able to get through that. Cherise has watched me work in the area of Aboriginal health and she has seen a real priority for mental health. It is a proud moment for me to have her come back with her degree in psychology.
Dr TOYNE (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak tonight about my electorate of Stuart, which I have represented since 1996. 2004 has been a very challenging year for me as a local member as well as for the many communities in my electorate.
I would first like to thank the people of Stuart for their support over the year and all the previous years. There are a few people I would like to mention in particular, who are about to leave communities in my electorate, and who have made significant contributions to the communities they have served.
Margaret Reilly has been my electorate officer for many years and has moved on. I thank her for her dedication and hard work over the years. I would like to wish her all the best for her new chosen career.
John Lillis, who was the CEO of the Ampilatwatja Council, left during the middle of the year after a couple of years at this community. John really worked hard, together with the leaders and people of Ampilatwatja to keep this community really strong.
Shaun Heffernan, who is the current CEO of Kalkarindji/Daguragu Council, will be leaving in the near future. I would like to thank Shaun for the work he has undertaken over the years and the fantastic job that he has done for the people of Kalkaringi and Daguragu. He has a strong group of community leaders behind him and I believe, given some of the excellent outcomes and initiatives coming out of Kalkarindji today, Shaun has certainly held his head up high.
I would also like to make mention the community of Alpurrurulam which, as a result of the recent redistribution, will be moving into the electorate of Barkly at the next election. I know my colleague, the member for Barkly, will provide a very good service to this community. Over time, I have had many fond memories and established many good friendships at Alpurrurulam.
In saying this, I would also like to welcome a number of town camps around Alice Springs which will become part of the Stuart electorate at the next election. Stuart is a very dynamic and progressive electorate and, during this year, there have been some events and highlights I would like to mention as I reflect over the year.
There have been some very exciting sports and cultural weekends over this year, including the Yuendumu sports weekend held over August long weekend, the Nyirripi sports weekend and the Ampilatwatja sports weekend held on 18 and 19 September.
I also acknowledge the good work of some of the night patrols in my electorate, particularly the work that they put into working with the police and Alice Springs community during the Wizard Cup Challenge Match on 5 March 2004. The night patrols from Laramba, Yuelamu and Yuendumu were very active before, during and after the match, ensuring the event went smoothly.
I make special mention of the anniversaries of important organisations that were celebrated during the year. These organisations not only play a significant role in my electorate, but also in the Central Australian community. The Central Land Council put together a very exciting event to celebrate their 30th anniversary. Batchelor College also celebrated their 30th and Tangentyere Council celebrated 25 years with a very appropriate theme of ‘Handing on the Passion’.
There have been many highlights in my electorate over the year, and I would like to mention a few of them. The Indigenous Language Story Writing competition winners: first prize of $1000 was won by an old man from Kalkarindji, Ronnie Wave Hill, in the indigenous story writing section, plus he also won the CLC prize of $250 for his story River Mermaid. Dandy Danbayarri won second prize of $500 in the contemporary section. He also won the CLC prize of $150 for his story First Aeroplane at Wavehill. Warren Williams from Yuendumu also won a prize in the contemporary writers section entitled Travelling from Mt Theo to the Granites. It was a story told to him by his father many years ago.
In mentioning this competition, I would like to mention the sponsors for the Indigenous Languages Story Writing Competition, which were CLC, CAAMA, Imparja, IAD, Magabala Books, Allen & Unwin and NT DEET.
Moving to the Ampilatwatja Aherrenge Store. Workers at the store, Levina and Virginia Morton, assisted by Blair McFarland, have been awarded a grant of $5500 from the Remote Area Alcohol and Other Substance Strategy. This money is to run discos and other recreational activities during the Christmas holiday period within their community. This will provide a focus for Ampilatwatja young people with some much needed fun, recreational activities and an otherwise peaceful and quiet period.
The Daguragu Warnkurr Workers Club has been successfully operating for over five years. The club demonstrates that Aboriginal people have the capacity to manage alcohol-related enterprises responsibly and profitably. Daguragu Council only allows workers to drink at the club. This ensures that young people have work as their primary focus. Nutritious meals are also provided and the council actively monitors any problems with their drinking.
Harry Creek South Tourism Enterprise - Simon and Maria Thompson have worked very diligently on their property at Harry Creek South, which is about 50 km north of Alice Springs. They are developing an eco-friendly tourism venture. I have visited Simon and Maria’s place in October and was absolutely amazed at the beauty of the place and also the enormous capacity they have built into that facility to cater for small groups working in workshop mode, or backpackers wanting to have a really unique experience of the mulga woodlands. They have done it literally with their bare hands. I can certainly say that Simon is probably one of the best bower birds I have ever met. He has collected stuff from all over Central Australia – there is some amazing stuff there.
Book launches in the electorate: we had the Alyawarra Picture Dictionary launch at Ampilatwatja School on 13 October. The Katytetye, Alyawarra and Eastern Anmatjere colouring books was launched at the Batchelor Study Centre in Arplarra, Utopia on 11 November. I acknowledge the outstanding work of the Institute for Aboriginal Development through the IAD Press in supporting the writing and publishing activity of our communities. The published works will be important tools for both teaching and encouraging young people to keep their participation in their education.
I conclude by once again thanking those communities in my electorate and all those organisations and people I have worked with over the year. I wish them and their families a happy and safe Christmas and look forward to working with them in 2005.
I want to acknowledge the retirement of a very well-known Alice Springs personality, Rev Lindsay Faulkner. I pay tribute to Lindsay who, until recently, was the Uniting Church Minister for the Flynn Church in Alice Springs. Lindsay first arrived in Alice Springs in 1956 as a cook with the Griffiths House Hostel, a hostel for children who came in from remote communities. He said it was during this time, while he was a member of the Flynn Church congregation, he first realised his calling to become a minister. He went to Adelaide for six years of study with the intention of returning to Alice Springs. However, over the next 40 or so years, he travelled extensively through Australia and only made it back to Alice in 2000. Lindsay said it was a big gap of time, but he always felt he would come back to the place where it all began.
He was a great asset to the Alice Springs community during his four years there. He was not afraid to get involved in difficult community issues, whilst always remaining sensitive to any individual needing a little extra compassion or understanding.
Lindsay was particularly proud of the start of Lifeline in Alice Springs, of which he was the inaugural chairman. He saw a need and worked hard, including strong lobbying of government to get it established and open. It is now a stable and viable organisation with a large network of very loyal volunteers. Lindsay was also strongly behind the formation of the Interfaith Network in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks. Lindsay felt strongly that the events of 11 September must not be a trigger for division and hate. His practical response was to work with others to bring together different faiths represented in Alice Springs, including the Muslim leaders of the town. He felt this would provide a powerful symbol and an antidote to the spread of fear and mistrust.
Lindsay’s highlights from his service included being elected Moderator of the Northern Synod of the Uniting Church, which covers one-fifth of the continent.
Lindsay held his last service on Sunday, 31 October. I wish him well in retirement and trust he will visit Alice Springs many times.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE: I also want to tell the House of the achievements of Kunmanara Pukutiwara, an Anangu elder who died in Alice Springs on 10 November. This remarkable man was born just south of Uluru some time around 1930. As a young man, he went to at the newly-established community at Ermabella, where he worked as a shepherd and a shearer. Here he married his lifelong love, Topsy, and they started a lifetime of work together.
In 1981, they came to Uluru with a group of artists and coordinators, including his lifetime friend, Peter Yates, and set up a tent at the base of Uluru from which they demonstrated and sold their craft to tourists for over a fortnight. This was the humble beginning of what has now become Central Australia’s most respected art businesses, Maruku Arts and Crafts, based at Mutitjulu, with a retail outlet at Uluru Kata Tjuta Cultural Centre.
This old man remained on the government committee for 20 years holding the position of chairman many times. Steve Fox, the current director of Maruku says that Mr Pukutiwara was the greatest ambassador for Maruku Arts and Crafts that any centre could wish for. He could inspire people from the youngest visitors at the gallery to international dignitaries. He was always truly proud of the quality carved wooden art works that were created by more than 1000 artists that Maruku supports. Mr Pukutiwara and his wife, Topsy, travelled to Munich and Japan where they wooed the crowds with mesmerising songs and dances and demonstrations of their carving skills.
This senior man was also a member of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board from 1976 to 1978. As part of his genuine belief in sharing culture and knowledge Mr Pukutiwara was one of the main people involved in setting up the now famous Anangu Tours and proudly led their first tour in 1995. His daughter, Rene, and son-in-law, Richard Kulitja, now carry on that tradition. Indeed, Richard followed in his father-in-law’s footsteps and travelled to Washington earlier this year to pick up an international heritage and culture award for Anangu Tours. Rene is well known for her painting of one of the Qantas planes.
For all of his public achievements, Mr Pukutiwara is just as well known locally for his advocacy of the need to address petrol sniffing. Two of his sons are permanently disabled from sniffing and he and his wife were driven to speak publicly about this issue.
All his life he remained a humble man living in extreme poverty and using what money he had to support his family. His strong spirit shone through all circumstances and he remained to the end a person who could charm and inspire anyone he met. Our thoughts are with his family and his community and may the work he started continue, proudly showing Anangu Culture to the world.
Lastly, in the time remaining, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the career of Gail Turvey in the Department of Health and Community Services. Gail Turvey was born in Darwin and lived here most of here life. Gail commenced work in the retail industry but later began a hairdressing apprenticeship until her marriage in 1960. Gail commenced work in the then Health Department on 18 July 1971, undertaking a variety of positions such as Registration Clerk at Stores Division at Bishop Street which later relocated to Fannie Bay; receptionist for Nursing Administration; and also acting as Matron’s Secretary at the Old Darwin Hospital at Myilly Point. Gail did have a short period out of Darwin having been evacuated to Melbourne after Cyclone Tracy where she lived in a refugee camp, as she has called it.
On her return to Darwin, Gail worked in various positions such as Pharmacy Assistant, Assistant Travel Clerk, Registry Clerk, Switchboard Operator prior to taking the position of receptionist at General Services which she held until her retirement on 7 June 2004. Gail has had relatively poor eyesight for many years and when she still had her driver’s licence everyone in the department knew when not to travel along Dick Ward Drive to work. Gail drove at a steady 30 kph which in peak hour traffic ensured that many people had a long slow trip in the morning and afternoon following her VW Beetle.
Despite her poor eyesight, Gail could see a good looking fellow at 100 paces. She knew every fellow employed in the department and although they were all rated on a scale of one to 10, some scored a 100. Gail was always bright and cheerful as was her makeup: bright blue eye shadow, bright pink lipstick and very bright blusher on both cheeks.
Gail loved to socialise and a party would never be dull when she was in attendance. Many have spoken about her dancing ability at the old department social club gatherings. Gail’s unique personality, her friendship and cheerfulness will be greatly missed by her colleagues at the department. I wish her all the best in her retirement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Year 4 and 5 from Bakewell Primary School accompanied by Ms Rosa Rasing; and Years 2 and 3 from Wulagi Primary School, accompanied by Ms Barbara Griffith. On behalf of all members, I extend a very warm welcome to you. We are pleased to see you here.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITIONS
Realignment of Girraween Road
Realignment of Girraween Road
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 643 petitioners relating to the realignment of Girraween Road. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- We the undersigned respectfully ask the Northern Territory government that because of the high number
of crashes (two fatal, seven serious, four minor and 32 non-injury) over the last 10 years at the Girraween Road
and Stuart Highway intersection, that Girraween Road be realigned so that it intersects the Stuart Highway at
the Henning Road traffic lights at Coolalinga and that these works commence in the 2005 Dry Season.
Rezoning of ‘Little Mindil’
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 4677 petitioners praying that the area known as ‘the headland’ and ‘Little Mindil’ should be rezoned as parkland. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory: we
the undersigned respectfully showeth the Northern Territory government’s proposal for the development
of the Myilly Point precinct as a future tourist resort is not representative of the people or the spirit of
the Northern Territory. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the
Northern Territory government to rezone the area known as ‘the headland’ and the ‘Little Mindil’ site to
parkland, thereby retaining direct beach access and acknowledging the unique and pristine nature of
the areas. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Heritage Status of Rieff Buildings in Alice Springs
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 604 petitioners relating to the heritage status of the Rieff Buildings in Alice Springs. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
we the undersigned respectfully showeth our great concern with the decision not to list the Rieff Buildings
on the Northern Territory Register of Heritage Places, a decision which will permit its demolition. The buildings
have been assessed to be of heritage significance by the Heritage Advisory Council and there is strong public
support from residents of Alice Springs for preserving and protecting the buildings so that future generations
may be able to better appreciate the town’s history.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the minister for Heritage rescind her decision not to include the
Rieff Buildings in the Northern Territory Register of Heritage Places.
We further pray that the Northern Territory government reconsider the nomination of the Rieff Buildings
following an assessment of public support for the Territory heritage nomination. And the petitioners, as in
duty bound, will ever pray.
Madam SPEAKER: For the benefit of visitors in the gallery, now and again the Speaker puts on a different hat as the member for Braitling, and in that case I wanted to present a petition to the parliament. That is why I swapped roles with the Deputy Speaker. It does not happen often; but now and again you need to make sure you have a different hat on.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Ministerial Delegation to Japan
Ministerial Delegation to Japan
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the Assembly today on my recent visit to Japan from 14 to 19 November 2004. The next phase of development for Timor Sea gas was the focus of my discussions in Japan with LNG customers, current and potential investors, and owners and developers of Timor Sea gas fields. The Timor Sea has around 21 trillion cubic feet of gas in five major fields and an additional five trillion cubic feet in Abadi, an adjacent field. To underscore the importance of Japanese interests in the Timor Sea, they are involved in three out of those six fields.
You will recall that in the August sittings I outlined government’s agenda to broaden the economic base of the Territory through our approach to developing gas projects. Our four goals for the development of Timor Sea gas are the production of additional LNG at Wickham Point for export; competitively priced gas for minerals processing and power generation such as the Alcan Gove Refinery and Power and Water; development of downstream gas manufacturing industries in Darwin; and potential for gas supply to the national energy grid, if this customer base will support our first three objectives.
Just over 20% of investment in the Bayu-Undan project, that is, the Darwin LNG plant and the offshore pipeline is Japanese. The Japanese companies which have invested more that $1bn into the Bayu-Undan project are significant players in world energy production and sales. In Tokyo and Osaka I met with representatives of ConocoPhillips, Tokyo Gas, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, Osaka Gas, the Japanese Bank of International Cooperation, Inpex, and Mitsubishi Gas Chemicals. Tokyo Gas and TEPCO collectively own 10% of the Bayu-Undan field development and pipeline to shore. They are also the sole LNG customers for the initial 3 million tonnes per annum of output from the LNG plant. With approvals already in place to expand the capacity of Darwin LNG from three to 10 million tonnes per annum, TG and TEPCO are obvious potential customers for expanded LNG production at Darwin LNG and also possible investors in the development of new gas reserves such as the Sunrise field or, potentially, Caldita.
ConocoPhillips Japan, with whom I met and discussed progress of the Bayu-Undan project, is also the operator of Caldita which is planned to be drilled in search of oil and gas during the next Dry Season. The Japan Bank of International Cooperation is a major financier of international investments by Japanese companies. JBIC has provided finance for the US$608m share of the Bayu-Undan project for TG, TEPCO and Inpex. JBIC has already invested $380m in various Territory projects including the Bayu-Undan project, and the McArthur River and Roper River mines. We discussed the potential for JBIC to be a significant investor in future projects as we move to the next stage of developments in the Timor Sea.
Osaka Gas is a 10% interest holder in Sunrise and Evans Shoals gas fields and a potential buyer of LNG from Sunrise. We discussed the potential for Evans Shoal which has 6.6 trillion cubic feet of gas to supply gas for a Darwin-based gas manufacturing precinct for products such as methanol.
Inpex is a major upstream petroleum company with exploration and production interests around the world as well as interests in LNG and downstream gas manufacturing opportunities. Inpex owns 10% of Bayu-Undan and Darwin LNG, 100% of Abadi field, and just over 16% of the Tangguh LNG project. With reserves well in excess of five trillion cubic feet, Abadi has potential to supply power generation and gas manufacturing industry in Darwin, subject to future discussions with the Indonesian government.
Mitsubishi Gas Chemicals, MGC, is a worldwide investor in chemical manufacturing, including methanol, ammonia/urea and petrochemicals, and a potential investor in other gas-based manufacturing, such as Dimethyl ether. We outlined the advantage of Darwin to be the Australia’s first gas manufacturing centre, given its proximity to gas and plentiful land and a committed government. I also outlined progress with our plans to develop Glyde Point as a gas manufacturing precinct.
Madam Speaker, my visit to Japan was an important step in strengthening the Territory’s relationship with current and future investors in the Territory. I am sure that all honourable members will support our continued efforts to move to the next phase of developing the Timor Sea’s gas resources as a means of broadening the economic base of the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this report is welcomed by the opposition. Such business as the Chief Minister has reported to this Chamber is of significance, as is the rightful role of government to engage in this level of negotiation and promotion of the Northern Territory.
It appears, however, that it is only in recent times that the level of engagement has increased. It begs the question whether this level of engagement is driven by coming to a new understanding that we need to engage most actively and strategically, or is it to demonstrate something for short-term political gain? That is to the wider community that: ‘Here we are. Here is a government that is over there’. They are happy to take media with them when it suits for the purpose of sending photographs and reports to the Northern Territory community that they are out there and they are doing it, but the Northern Territory community wants to see the results and they want to know that this is actually a sustained and strategic approach.
The Chief Minister, when in opposition, committed to releasing to the media a full and detailed itinerary of any trip that would be undertaken at taxpayers’ expense. That is yet another commitment made in opposition that has not been honoured, and the media is mindful of that.
While you were in Japan, Chief Minister, I am sure you were aware that there was a very concerning report coming from Woodside that the deal between East Timor and Australia jeopardises the project’s viability. I hope in your reply that you will comment, as leader of the Northern Territory parliament, on the matter of negotiations between Australia and East Timor so that Sunrise does proceed.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, what a churlish response from the Opposition Leader. Had he listened to the report, instead of making cynical and opportunistic comments, he would have heard that the reason I went to Japan was to look at the next phase of Timor Sea development - the next phase.
Bayu-Undan is in place, which is terrific. Blacktip is the second field that is most likely to be developed, and those final investment decisions will be made in the second quarter next year, probably May. Right now it is important to not have a trip which has no particular purpose; to run off to Asia and say: ‘I am here, but what am I doing?’ This trip had a particular purpose and, as I said in the report quite clearly, it was for the next phase of Timor Sea development.
Madam Speaker, I do not travel without a purpose. I do not run around Asia. I had a purpose in travelling to China, to countries such as Malaysia and Singapore. We have seen the results of that travel and I am very proud of it. This was next phase Timor Sea, and it was a good trip to make.
Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit, Royal Darwin Hospital – Update
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, there are few illnesses that provoke more fear than cancer. I am sure that many of us have had the experience of family or friends diagnosed with the disease, and we have seen the effect it can have on the person and those close to them.
Fortunately, improvements in detection and treatment mean that over half of those diagnosed with cancer in Australia today will be effectively treated. It is still a serious health problem, however, treatments are improving all the time. The survival rate for many cancers has increased by over 30% over the last 20 years.
One of the key treatments is radiotherapy, which treats the illness with controlled doses of radiation. The Northern Territory has never had a radiotherapy unit and Territorians requiring this treatment have always had to travel interstate. Obviously, this is far from ideal, especially given the emotional and physical stresses the patient and their families are facing.
In recognition of this need, soon after coming to power this government committed to establishing an Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. We are still committed to working towards this goal. Nevertheless, our review of the health system, the Bansemer Review, raised concerns about the sustainability and clinical safety of such a unit. It recommended that an external specialist be commissioned to provide expert advice on the proposal.
In June 2003, we commissioned such a study and, in January 2004, the tender was awarded to Professors Michael Barton and Michael Frommer from the South Western Sydney Area Health Service Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation - what a major title. In August 2004, the report by Professors Barton and Frommer, Options for radiation oncology services in the Northern Territory, was completed.
The report documents the medical need for a radiation oncology unit and concludes that, currently, radiotherapy is underutilised by NT cancer patients. The report predicts that the burden of cancer in the Northern Territory is expected to rise due to the high rates of smoking and an ageing population. It also raises the possibility that such a unit, if established, could treat cancer patients from the northern parts of Western Australia. While the report documents the medical need, it also identifies the risks that have to be overcome to set up and run a successful service. The risks include that of being unable to recruit and retain staff, which are in short supply nationally and internationally; the risk that expensive equipment will be underutilised; and the risk that other services, for example, allied health and accommodation services will not have the capacity to support the radiation oncology patients. These issues of safety, quality and sustainability are critical. We are not going to close our eyes to those difficulties and set up a service which is not sustainable and may end up being clinically unsafe.
Since the completion of the report, this government has been looking carefully at a way forward. It has become clear to us that while a fully publicly-funded and run unit is not viable, there is real possibility for progress with either a fully privately-funded and run unit, or a public/private partnership. Not only may private involvement bring higher levels of Commonwealth funding into the Territory but, most importantly, it may provide the necessary skills and clinical backup from larger services based interstate. Private involvement is a way of lowering the risk, the expert report identifies.
The initial signs are good that such an approach may yield fruit. Private companies involved in delivering these types of services interstate have expressed informal interest in such a proposal, and negotiations between the Commonwealth and the NT Health Department lead us to be optimistic that funds may be available for the capital cost of establishing a unit. It may take some time to work through these options and establish a unit if our negotiations are successful.
In the meantime, I have asked my department to look at the ways in which we can improve care and support services for Territorians requiring interstate radiotherapy treatment.
If we are going to establish a successful, sustainable and safe radiation oncology unit, we will all have to get behind it. This is an issue that requires realistic and sober judgment, not point scoring. It is too important to play party politics with. I have written to the federal Health minister outlining the possibilities and requesting Commonwealth government engagement. I urge the members opposite to support the government in this issue and support our pushing Canberra for something that will benefit hundreds of Territorians.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, weasel words is how that statement can be best described - weasel words. This government went to Territorians at the last election with a fully costed series of policies in relation to an oncology unit. They promised Territorians that it would deliver. This is a ...
Mr Burke: That was before the GST.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, exactly member for Brennan - since then, $500m in additional GST revenue. This underscores how pathetic this government is when it comes to health. A budget in excess of $600m and these people cannot even find $14m for an oncology unit. It is a disgrace, and it really shows how the minister lacks energy and commitment.
He has referred to the report that was completed in August. I call for him to make that public. We understand that an oncology unit is, in fact, viable. So do not use weasel words when you come in here, in essence saying, ‘We have another broken promise’. But that is what we expect from the Australian Labor Party. And this is what we expect from this minister, who said, interestingly enough, on radio last month: ‘My life is such a blur sometimes I do not know where I am going next’. This is the Northern Territory Health minister, who obviously does not know which way is up and which way is down.
He said when he came to this post that he had a health problem. He does have a health problem, and it gets worse. In relation to his blurriness, I could suggest that he see a doctor or a nurse. But, oops, there aren’t many of them.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: I could suggest that he go to RDH.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw personal comments …
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … and do not continue on that line.
Ms CARNEY: I could suggest that Territorians go to Royal Darwin Hospital, but they are upset about waiting for hours on hospital trolleys. I could suggest that the people of Alice Springs get treated in Alice Springs for elective surgery, but they have to travel south. I could suggest that, if all of the members on the other side were women, that they go to Breast Screen NT but they would find them closed, not just for the Christmas period but for a period of two-and-a-bit months. It is outrageous.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, yesterday I moved a motion calling on the government to introduce an Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit for Royal Darwin Hospital, so I welcome the minister’s report. However, it is certainly long overdue.
If you disregard the promises Labor made, the mini-budget did put this into context. It said the government will establish an Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. They were to spend $2m in 2002-03 and $12.47m in 2003-04. In other words, we should be nearly at the point of having that unit up and running. It is a shame that we have not gone down that path.
I am not sure that viability is the thing that we should necessarily be looking at. Of course, it is important. However, we are a long way from anywhere; we are a centre for the north of Australia. The Commonwealth and the Territory governments, commercial interests, and people like the Royal Adelaide Hospital should be involved in trying to develop a scheme which will allow people in the Northern Territory, north Australia and northern neighbours, to have this facility.
Also - and I notice that it is not mentioned in the documents - for many Aboriginal people it is most important that we have this facility. It must be a nightmare for a person from Bathurst Island to go to Adelaide for treatment - no friends, foreign place, no idea of where they are. We certainly need this facility. We have to work together in bipartisanship. We should be working with the Commonwealth. Both sides of parliament should be saying: ‘Let us work for this to come into fruition’. It is sad that it has taken so long and it is really coming up in an election year. If that means it gets a boost along – terrific.
However, all the people of the Northern Territory and this region need one of these units. We really should be saying: ‘We are going to strive to produce one of these, not worry about the problems which might be associated with it not coming into being. We will have one of these’. That is where the government should be going.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, there is one thing you can say about health: that we owe Territorians carefully thought-out and safe service delivery, not service delivery based on headlining. I can assure you, we are not going to do what the member for Brennan said on 104.1 Top FM:
- We can put more specialised facilities, we can put in an oncology facility, we can put in four cardiac facilities …
Mr Dunham: Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE: ‘Hear, hear’ says the member for Drysdale. In parliament on 15 June 2004: ‘Some of these things are not fixed with money’. These are not fixed with money because you cannot say we are going to build an oncology unit and there is money in the budget for it. Do you know why? Because you cannot get oncologists and you cannot get the critical mass to keep them skilled ...
Mr Dunham: Ding! You have just woken up, that is the truth.
Dr TOYNE: … and you cannot keep the staff to keep all the machinery going …
Mr Dunham: Wake up, Sleepy! You should have talked to me before the election; I would have told you that!
Dr TOYNE: I do not know who is the health spokesman over there, but they are not speaking to the same tune …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Burke interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, I said order!
Heritage Status of Reiff Buildings in Alice Springs
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, today I outline to the House why I have gone against the advice of the Heritage Advisory Council and decided not to list the heritage buildings in Alice Springs. The Rieff Buildings are the buildings on the corner of Gregory Terrace and Hartley Street, diagonally opposite the Diplomat Hotel. They are currently painted a range of different colours. The Turkish Kebab shop is on the corner. The buildings were nominated for heritage listing at the same time as the owners of the buildings, Yeperenye Ltd, announced a $5m redevelopment of the site that would create 100 jobs during construction.
In following due process, public submissions were invited. The government was keen to hear the views of the community and we advertised for submissions. We received five submissions, and the Heritage Advisory Council prepared their advice to me as minister. The government was committed to an extensive consultation process and, indeed, spent six months looking at it. Every effort was made by me and my department to broker a compromise to retain the buildings and integrate them into the redevelopment. However, in this instance, these efforts were not productive and I was presented with a very difficult choice.
The Heritage Advisory Council provided advice to me that recommended heritage listing the buildings. They recommended listing because two of the buildings were of World War II vintage while the others were designed by Beni Burnett and because of their association with Simon Rieff, a mining pioneer. It was a very difficult decision but having looked at the information and personally a number of times visiting Alice Springs and inspecting the buildings, I was not convinced that the heritage values were strong enough to outweigh the broader benefits to Alice Springs deriving from redevelopment of the site.
I understand that some members of the Alice Springs community are not happy that I have gone against the advice of the Heritage Advisory Council. I respect their position and I do not seek to change their minds but I do want them to understand that we have had a very public process and spent six months considering this. It was a decision that I had not made lightly.
The government is very proud of its record on heritage both in Alice Springs and throughout the Territory. Since coming to government we have listed 21 sites across the Territory. Earlier this year, I heritage listed the Alice Springs Telegraph Station. We have listed some other important sites in Alice Springs such as the Araluen Homestead precinct, which contains buildings by Beni Burnett, also the Catholic Church precinct, and the old Owens Spring Homestead and associated buildings. We have also re-established a dedicated Heritage Officer position in Alice Springs and we are making a $1m investment this year in our declared heritage places that will see important Alice Springs heritage icons such as the Old Court House and The Residency receive much needed repairs and maintenance.
I respect the professional advice that the HAC provides me with. The work they do is invaluable and much appreciated by this government. However, as minister, I am not simply a rubber stamp for the HAC. It is my responsibility to make decisions that are in the overall best interests of the community. I have a responsibility to listen to the building owners as well as the HAC and the wider community. We have done this and we have made our decision.
I am aware of the petition that has been tabled. I will undertake to write to all the petitioners who have signed the petition to outline the reasons for our decision. These decisions are always difficult but the community can be assured that I remain committed to ensuring that the Territory’s unique heritage is protected, conserved and celebrated.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, just a short comment. The minister was not in government or in parliament prior to the last election and it is certainly interesting to hear her make comments about how she does not have to act in accordance to the directions or the advice of the Heritage Advisory Council. I guess it is an interesting experience for the minister and for the Labor government to have that shoe on their foot now when I gather that in the past when CLP were in government, Labor would make quite substantial complaints to us in regards to the government overturning or not acting as to the way the Heritage Advisory Council advised government. It is just interesting to see now that the government is having to do the same thing.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, it is a little rich for the opposition to criticise us for going against the advice of the HAC. If they were so committed to the advice of the HAC then the Hotel Darwin and the old Alice Springs Gaol would still be around.
As I said, the project is worth $5m and will create 100 construction jobs. We saw the antidevelopment stance of the CLP yesterday in relation to the waterfront and it has been extended to Alice Springs today.
Unincorporated Roads – Commonwealth Funding
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, members will recall the debate in the Assembly in August this year in regard to the Territory road program. In particular, members will recall the unanimous motion that arose out of that debate calling on the Commonwealth to provide equitable funding for Territory roads in unincorporated areas. As a result of that motion, the then shadow minister for transport, the member for Brennan, and I co-signed a letter to the federal minister for roads drawing the Commonwealth’s attention to the unanimous motion and attaching a copy of the entire debate.
In the motion – if I could just highlight the main points of the motion – we noted the shortfall of some $20m in Commonwealth funding for unincorporated Territory roads under the then current Roads to Recovery program. That is a fairly important aspect about what I am going to talk about now. We also noted the promises made to Territorians by the Prime Minister and other Commonwealth ministers that the inequity in the road funding would be addressed. We noted the increase in funding committed this year by the Martin Labor government that seeks to cover part of the gap, that is the $10m that we put in to roads over two years, and the effort made by the Commonwealth, through the Roads Recovery program, to respond to the situation with increased funding.
It is pleasing to note that the Commonwealth has put in approximately $17m over four years through Roads to Recovery for unincorporated roads. We also noted the achievements of our Northern Territory federal representatives, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the Local Government Association to highlight these issues.
We called on the Commonwealth to urgently address the shortfall in unincorporated roads funding for the Territory by immediately providing $20m to cover the existing shortfall, that is the shortfall of $20m over the previous four years, and providing equitable and appropriate ongoing funding that will allow the Northern Territory to properly maintain these roads. Whilst $17m is not as much as the $20m we required, it is welcome and should be acknowledged.
However, what I am going to talk about in this report is the $20m shortfall for which we are still waiting. In the joint letter the member for Brennan and I sent to the Commonwealth minister, we stated:
- Despite the ranges of opinion expressed in the debate, it is highly noteworthy that the motion was
endorsed unanimously.
It was a unanimous motion. In the course of the last federal election, the Australian Labor Party included an additional $19m in its road policy to address the Coalition’s past under-funding of Territory roads in unincorporated areas. In other words, a $19m catch-up. However, the Coalition parties were fairly silent on this matter during the election campaign.
As recently as last week, I attended a meeting of Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers, prior to which I had not received a formal response to the Assembly’s unanimous motion. I again wrote to the federal minister for roads and arranged to discuss the issue with him whilst at that meeting. I did have the opportunity to speak to Jim Lloyd, and I found him to be a personable sort of a bloke. I put to him first that we acknowledged the $17m that has been provided in forward funding, however we also wanted the $20m that we have missed out on in the previous four years.
The Commonwealth appears to be reluctant to restore the balance of funding to the Territory. The Chief Minister wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2004, and I will quote from her letter, which I am prepared to table:
- I appreciate that you have acknowledged past under-funding of the Northern Territory and have pledged
the Commonwealth to address this under-funding from 2005-06 onwards. However, I remain disappointed
at your stated unwillingness to address this concern in the current financial year.
Northern Territory remote residents and industries operating in unincorporated areas, including the
pastoral and mining industries, have been adversely affected by the $20m under-funding of Northern
Territory roads.
Here is a letter from the Prime Minister dated 17 November basically saying that the current Roads to Recovery program has already been fully allocated. He goes on to say that they have increased our share to $35m, $15m for roads in unincorporated areas; however, he does not address the very important issue of the $20m we are still owed.
Madam Speaker, I put on the record that I will still be fighting for that $20m. I hope the opposition will continue that fight.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Indeed, it is part of your job, minister, to go to Canberra and fight for the betterment of things for the Territory, so welcome to your job. It does not matter who is in Canberra. It is important that we take a very strong view about what benefits this place.
Madam Speaker, the genesis of our problem with roads in unincorporated areas comes from Warren Snowdon. It is easy to track the debate back to when the federal government was a Labor government and the treacherous actions of Warren Snowdon left us with this problem.
Sure, we should have more money, but if the minister wants to continue to politicise this issue, he has a problem. He is saying what Labor would have done, but we know what Mr Latham’s view of this place was: that there was a greater need in places such as Blacktown than there was up here. Do not run what Mr Latham would have done because - heaven forbid! - if he had been elected, the country would be in parlous ruin.
The minister talked about various letters he has written to people. I hope in his reply he will talk about the letters I have written to him, particularly the one about how much the land at the waterfront development costs, and he has yet to answer that one.
He is also talking about roads. I would like to know what is going to happen when the power goes out in a couple of days, for days, according to the CEO of Power and Water. Roads are important. Go and have the good fight, but, gee, you have a lot on your plate, mate, and I will tell you what: we expect some answer from you. We expect some answers on the various issues in your portfolio that are your matter and your problem. So do not go duck-shoving stuff to the Commonwealth for stuff that you have to answer for to this House.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member for Drysdale try to wander off the subject. I will not go into that, however, for him to come in here and accuse Warren Snowdon of the underfunding of Territory roads – the Commonwealth government has had nine years to fix it. They have not fixed it. What have we seen? We have seen the member for Gwydir with $40m through the Roads to Recovery program - twice that of the Territory. We saw Wilson Tuckey with substantially more than the whole of the Territory. These people have grabbed the money and left the Territory motherless and fundless in this regard. Do not talk about Warren Snowdon; look to your own camp.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT (OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS) BILL
(Serial 263)
(Serial 263)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This government prides itself on assisting Territory business and promoting a fairer, more equitable and robust tax system. Budget 2004 reduced the tax burden on Territorians. The payroll tax threshold has been lifted, and will be lifted further to $1m on 1 July 2005. The HIH levy was removed. The Territory is now the lowest taxing jurisdiction on small business of 20 staff or less, and will be the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia of 40 staff or less as of 1 July next year.
At that time, I announced the establishment of an independent appeals process from the decisions of the Taxation Commissioner. This bill achieves that. It is about promoting greater access to dispute resolution in our tax and mineral royalty system. This will be achieved by creating the Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal. The creation of the tribunal aims to provide an alternative and inexpensive option to appeal objection decisions of the Commissioner of Taxes or Mineral Royalty Secretary.
In future, people dissatisfied with a stamp duty, payroll tax or mineral royalty objection decision will have a choice of appealing that decision either to the tribunal or the Supreme Court. This choice is a hallmark of a flexible and accessible taxation system.
The tribunal will be constituted by the Chief Magistrate, or a magistrate chosen by the Chief Magistrate. The Chief Magistrate may make rules and practice directions relating to the practice and procedure of the tribunal and setting fees in relation to appeals. In line with the aim of creating a less expensive alternative to the Supreme Court, the bill proposes that an appeal to the tribunal is to be determined on the papers where possible. This means the tribunal will generally determine the appeal on the information that was before the commissioner or the secretary at the time of deciding the objection, as well as additional information included by the taxpayer in their notice of appeal and written submissions of the parties.
However, the tribunal will be able to conduct a hearing if it believes that it cannot make a decision on the information before it. Considering an appeal on the papers limits the requirement for an appeal hearing and therefore limits the cost of legal representation for such a hearing. In effect, there should be little additional cost incurred in the appeal process beyond that incurred in the preparation of the originating objection.
Furthermore, determining an appeal on the papers should also ensure that tribunal appeals are less intimidating to a small business owner or an unrepresented taxpayer. In line with the government’s objective of a fair and accessible tax system, appeals to the tribunal will be appeals de novo. This means that the tribunal stands in the shoes of the commissioner or secretary and either confirms the decision or otherwise makes what it considers is the correct decision. What is more, it is proposed that an appeal against an objection decision to the Supreme Court will also be an appeal de novo. This is a significant departure from the current approach, as a tax or mineral royalty payer will no longer be required to show some error in the commissioner’s or secretary’s reasoning before the tribunal or court is able to substitute its own decision.
The bill also provides that a tax or mineral royalty payer is not restricted to the grounds of their objection, and may provide additional submissions when filing an appeal against that decision with the tribunal or Supreme Court. Similarly, the bill clarifies that the commissioner or secretary may lodge further submissions on the appeal and is not restricted to the reasons given in the objection decision. Again, this is an important departure from the current arrangements which do not allow new grounds of objection to be submitted.
Further flexibility is introduced into the appeals process by enabling the Supreme Court to admit new evidence on appeal that was not before the commissioner or secretary if it is satisfied that the evidence is material to the decision. The commissioner or secretary will be permitted to reconsider their decision based on this new information which may resolve the matter in dispute without the appeal continuing any further. If the commissioner or secretary allowed the objection in whole or part as a result of this new information, the court can award costs in their favour. This recognises that the appeal may have been unnecessary if the tax or mineral royalty payer had provided the relevant information when they lodged their objection to the assessment. Together, these major departures remove restrictions on the manner in which a tax or mineral royalty payer can conduct an appeal against an objection decision in either the tribunal or the Supreme Court.
In reaching its decision, the tribunal will be required to keep a record of proceedings and to give written reasons for its decisions. This allows the decisions to be used in the future as precedent for the commissioner or secretary, or to aid the Supreme Court should there be an appeal from the decision of the tribunal.
An avenue for appealing the tribunal’s decision to the Supreme Court on a question of law is available to any of the parties to the tribunal proceedings. The bill also recognises that, in some situations, it may be more appropriate for an appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court rather than the tribunal, for example, such as where there are complex questions of law or fact that may require a formal hearing. For this reason, it is also proposed that the tribunal be provided with the power to refer an appeal to the Supreme Court if it considers that the court is the more appropriate venue to hear the matter.
To assist in keeping tribunal appeal costs low, it is proposed that each party to such an appeal pay their own costs, irrespective of the appeal outcome. The tribunal will, however, be able to direct one of the parties to the appeal to pay some or all of the costs of the other party in limited circumstances, for example, where a party fails to comply with an order of the tribunal. In addition, the tribunal can also require a representative of one of the parties to pay some or all of the costs of the other party where the representative has unnecessarily delayed or frustrated the tribunal proceedings.
The bill also establishes a uniform framework of procedures for objecting or appealing taxation or mineral royalty assessments.
The bill largely maintains the current procedures for lodging an objection or appeal, except where changes were necessary for the purposes of uniformity or equity. I will detail those changes. The bill proposes that objections are to be lodged within 60 days after the notice of the decision is issued by the commissioner or secretary. This is a change from the current practices, as it extends the time for objection to a stamp duty or mineral royalty assessment from 30 days to 60 days. It maintains the 60-day period for objecting to payroll tax assessments. The bill also proposes that the commissioner or secretary retain the power to extend time for the taxpayer to lodge an objection.
The bill also clarifies that the 60-day period runs from the date of issue of the notice of the decision rather than from the date of service or notification of the decision. This is because the date of issue is certain as it is written on the notice, whereas determining when a notice has been served can be more difficult, for example, because of postal delays.
One of the more noticeable changes to the current system of objections and appeals is in relation to the Mineral Royalty Act. The bill proposes that the current procedure under that act for establishing a board of review to advise the Treasurer on the correctness of an assessment is replaced with the choice of an appeal to the tribunal or the Supreme Court. The proposal recognises that the review process has never been used, and seeks to provide consistent treatment with the accepted procedure for appealing other revenue decisions. It also provides an established framework for the consideration of such appeals.
In addition, the bill ensures that a royalty payer is entitled to receive interest on any amount of royalty that has been overpaid, and is refunded to them as a result of a successful objection or appeal. This entitlement does not exist under the current legislation. Another matter in which the bill alters the current appeals process is that it provides that the court or tribunal will have the power to extend time for the lodging of an appeal to the court or tribunal respectively. This power currently sits with the Commissioner of Taxes for appeals to the Supreme Court.
Giving the court and tribunal this power removes any possible concern about the commissioner having any conflict of interest in deciding whether to extend time to appeal an objection decision, and is in line with the objective of creating a fair and accessible taxation system. As I mentioned earlier, the bill makes changes to the existing procedures for objections and appeals only where necessary for the purposes of uniformity or equity.
Other than the changes I have just described, the procedures set out in the bill replicate the existing procedures and rules and maintains the current policy. For example, new section 105Q replicates existing section 104 of the Taxation (Administration) Act in requiring the adjustment of tax if a person’s liability is altered on objection or appeal. Similarly, new section 105R replicates section 105A of the Taxation (Administration) Act in providing for interest to be paid on a refund of tax arising from a decision on objection or appeal. New section 105S replicates section 105B of the Taxation (Administration) Act by directing that the commissioner’s decisions outlined in that section are to be reviewed through the objections and appeals process rather than some other form of judicial review.
Finally, I turn to the transitional provisions in the bill. These provide that the new provisions apply to all decisions on objections made after 18 May 2004 where the tax or mineral royalty payer has not already lodged an appeal under the old objection and appeals provision. This government will be pushing for these new objection and appeal procedures to start as early as possible in 2005.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
LAKE BENNETT (LAND TITLE) BILL
(Serial 267)
(Serial 267)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to address the unsatisfactory state of land title in respect of the Lake Bennett locality. In order for members to appreciate this bill, it will be necessary for me to detail the history of the Lake Bennett area regarding the land transactions which have given rise to uncertain and unsatisfactory land title in the area.
Lake Bennett is an artificial lake which was created in the mid-1970s on privately-owned freehold land approximately 80 km south of Darwin. In the early 1980s the land around the lake and the lake foreshore was subdivided into various parts. Between 1987 and 1996, the then owner of the land, Nazime Pty Ltd, sold most of the land that surrounded the lake. Each section of land adjoining the lake was granted a registered easement giving the new owners free and uninterrupted passage across, and use of, the lake and foreshore. Most sections of the surrounding land sold were also the subject of a registered covenant restricting the use of each section to a single dwelling, and limiting the clearing of native vegetation. The covenants were enforceable against the owners of the sections surrounding the lake, by the owner of the lake itself, and its foreshore. The main exceptions were section 95 which, until recently, had been owned by the original developer, and other land which was never owned by the original developer.
In 1996 and 1997, the lake and surrounding foreshore were subdivided into two sections and approval was given to develop the land. One of the sections included the lake, the area upon which the resort now exists, and the dam wall. The second section was comprised by the remaining foreshore area of the lake. This approval permitted the development of the foreshore area as a staged condominium development under the Unit Titles Act. The outcome of such a development is corporately controlled common property, with a series of mutual obligations binding on the developer and on future owners of units created under the subdivision. It is significant to note that such developments take place in stages with progressive release of titles to the purchasers.
Such purchasers obtain title on the basis of rights and expectations embodied in the disclosure statement lodged with the Registrar-General by the land’s developer. The subdivision and development approval necessarily included planning approval under the Planning Act, building approvals in relation to the actual construction of bungalows which had been permitted under the planning approval, and the registration of a disclosure statement.
A disclosure statement under Part IV of the Unit Titles Act sets out the rights and obligations of a land developer in respect of land during the course of development. It represents a collection of binding obligations on the developer that, if met, will result in titles for units being issued by the Registrar-General under the Real Property (Unit Titles) Act. The disclosure statement in respect of the development of the lake and foreshore areas was registered by the Registrar-General.
There were problems with the registration of the disclosure statement which included: one, that the land sought to be subdivided and developed was subject to registered easements in favour of the owners of each adjoining section; and two, the consent of each of the owners of adjoining lots had not been obtained and included with the proposal for the subdivision and development as required under the Unit Titles Act.
Following the registration of the disclosure statement and the issue of the first of the titles for units which had been erected upon the foreshore of the lake, it became apparent that there had been a failure to comply with some of the requirements of the land titles legislation. The former government attempted to rectify some of these problems by the enactment of the Real Property Amendment (Unit Titles) Act 1998 on urgency. The two main effects of the act were as follows:
- it removed the apparent need for consent to be obtained from all persons with interests in land where
the interest would not be affected by the subdivision; and
In 1998, the Registrar-General refused an application by the developer to vary the original disclosure statement because the developer had again failed to obtain the required consents from each easement holder. That decision led to various court cases, the nett outcomes of which were:
- that the access and use of easements held by owners of lots adjoining the lake were determined to be valid.
The validity of the easements meant, and continue to mean, that the consent of each easement holder is
required in order for the foreshore land to be developed; and
extension of time for the completion of the project without the consent of all of the holders of the
easements over the affected land.
It has also been noted in more recent times that the building permits cannot be issued without consent of the holder of each easement over the subject land.
In summary, the current position in relation to land title in the Lake Bennett locality is:
- there is a partly completed condominium development around the edge of Lake Bennett. The
development cannot be completed because, amongst other things, no owner of the undeveloped
parts of the lake and foreshore will ever be likely to obtain the necessary consents from the
easement holders to complete the remainder of the development. This situation creates long-term
problems for the owners of existing units in terms of their obligations as members of the body corporate;
no building alterations can be made to any of the buildings except with the approval of each of the owners
of easements over the area;
potentially, the owners of the easement could take legal action to remove all of the building works
constructed in apparent breach of rights associated with the easements;
Northern Territory. These legal actions allege that the developer was advised that the development
could proceed without the consent of the easement holders; and
for the registration of the disclosure statement and the unit plan without their consent.
One of the basic features of Australia’s economic and social framework is the Torrens Land Title system. That system seeks to provide for certainty of title and consequential ease in dealing with land. Certainty of land title is the usual outcome of planning, building and land titles processes. However, in the Lake Bennett location, these processes have failed. They have produced a land development that is dysfunctional and which can only worsen over time.
It should be remembered that each of the easement holders could have taken action in the courts to prevent the erection of buildings upon their easement and, accordingly, to protect their own interest. In response to the unsatisfactory state of the land title in the Lake Bennett locality, the Northern Territory has funded a mediation between each of the affected parties, including the Northern Territory. That mediation has resulted in a broad understanding and agreement as to what should be the end result of land ownership issues. The adjustment of interest in land is a necessary part of reaching the desired end result. Some land-holders may seek compensation for the adjustment of their interest. The majority of financial issues have been settled following the process of mediation.
Additionally, I note that the land ownership is not fixed. Over time, land is bought and sold, with the consequence that there are new people who become affected by the issues. The understanding and agreement reached between each of the affected parties involved in the mediation is embodied in the Lake Bennett (Land Title) Bill, the operation of which I will now address.
The Lake Bennett (Land Title) Bill facilitates the various intricate land transactions required to adjust the interests of the land-holders to a point where they are no longer inconsistent with one another, nor generally uncertain. The bill facilitates those transactions by providing for the preparation and registration of instruments relating to land in the Lake Bennett locality in accordance with the terms of compromise reached through the mediation process by the parties involved in that process.
The bill provides that those transactions are to be exempt from stamp duty and lodgement fees which would normally accompany them. That exemption is provided for in the interest of fairness and equity to the land-holders. The land-holders in the Lake Bennett locality are not transferring ownership of their land, nor are they creating any new interests in land. Rather, the vast majority of land-holders recognise the benefit of a secure title provided for under the bill. These land-holders have agreed on certain terms to allow for their interests to be modified in furtherance to that cause.
The bill obliges the various ministers to prepare all instruments necessary to achieve the objects of the bill, and allows, for convenience sake, for the Attorney-General to execute certain of those instruments on behalf of any person.
The bill provides for a new plan of subdivision which creates new sections for the lake and most of the foreshore, the resort, and a condominium development. The creation of the new sections allows for new easements over each of the created sections consistent with the objects of the act.
A new units plan is also provided for in the bill. The new units plan creates new lots for each existing unit on the foreshore of the lake, as well as a lot for the development area. The lot for the development area is created in order to allow up to 15 new units to be erected on land which has already been prepared for that purpose.
The bill provides for extinguishment of certain easements which currently restrict any further development of the foreshore area of the lake. Those easements are to be resurrected under the bill in a form which is consistent with the objects of the bill. The new easements are to be consistent with certainty of land title for the owners of existing units, as well as units which may be erected in future on the development area. The new easements will still provide for each owner of surrounding land the right of access to, and passage across, the lake and foreshore for recreation in those areas. The practical outcome will be that the easements which currently exist will be extinguished to the extent that they affect the resort development and the unit development other than the common property area which forms part of the unit development. The easement rights will remain over the lake and undeveloped part of the foreshore.
New service easements are created which burden the section comprised by the lake. These easements allow for the continued provision of services such as water and electricity supply and sewerage to sections on the western side of the lake.
The minister is obliged to lodge the new plan of subdivision, the new units plan, and each of the instruments of easements as soon as practicable after the commencement date of the bill. The Registrar-General is then obliged to cancel the old units plan, 97/026, and each certificate as to title for lots contained in the Lake Bennett locality. The Registrar-General is also obliged to register the extinguishment of each of the old easements. In short, each interest in land in relation to the lake and foreshore is extinguished. Each of those interests is then resurrected in a modified form by the registration of the new plan of subdivision, the new units plan, the new easements, and by the issue of new certificate as to title.
The Northern Territory has already negotiated settlements with the vast majority of the landowners in respect of any possible adverse effect this bill will or may have on their interests in land.
The bill also provides that the lake and the resort, while they are separate sections, are to at all times have identical proprietors. Neither the lake nor the resort can be sold or assigned in any way without the other. This restriction on ownership means that the resort will be responsible for monitoring the quality of water in the lake. The quality of the lake water is an asset to each landowner in the locality; however, it is obviously beneficial to have the responsibility for its monitoring vested in one owner. As the resort owner has a commercial interest in maintaining water quality, it is appropriate that the responsibility to monitor the quality of the water be vested in the resort owner. The bill ensures that the relevant minister has sufficient power to impose appropriate licence conditions on the resort owner under the Water Act which are not set in stone.
Part 3 of the bill obliges the minister responsible for the Planning Act to amend the Northern Territory Planning Scheme by revoking the Lake Bennett Area Plan and making new development provisions. The new development provisions are contained in Schedule 5 of the bill. The development provisions provide for the manner in which different sections may be developed. These provisions provide for types of development which can proceed without the approval of the consent authority, some types which can only proceed with the consent of the development authority, and for certain types of development which are altogether prohibited.
Generally speaking, the development provisions allow for low-level residential developments which are consistent with the principles of sustainable development of land and water resources. The development provisions also seek to minimise environmental degradation and pollution, and to preserve the aesthetic and natural heritage of the locality. This planning regime has not been developed in accordance with the specific requirements of the Planning Act. In fact, the consultative processes leading to this planning scheme for the land were probably much more intense and focussed than the usual processes. Accordingly, I can, with reasonable confidence, state that the planning scheme in the bill represents the planning scheme that would be developed for the land if the ordinary processes under the Planning Act had been followed. Details of the proposals are now recorded in the Record of Administrative Interests maintained by the Registrar-General. Accordingly, anyone seeking to deal with land should become aware of the proposals.
Part 3 of the bill also obliges the planning minister to issue a development permit for the development area in the terms set out in Schedule 6 of the bill. Schedule 6 allows for the erection of up to 15 new single-storey units on the eastern side of the lake. The schedule also provides for a number of other building restrictions in relation to the proposed new units, largely providing for the maintenance of the amenity and aesthetic attraction of the area.
It should also be noted that clause 23 of the bill will operate so as to freeze development and land use for the lake. The lake will, subject to minor exceptions, only be able to be used for the lawful uses in place when this legislation commences operation. Those uses generally include passive recreation. The easement conditions and water licence conditions prohibit power boats on the lake apart from in emergency situations, or where they are required for necessary works, which is also the current position.
This bill comprehensively addresses the issue as to land title and rights which have plagued owners of the property in the Lake Bennett locality for years. The passage of this bill will allow for the continuation of development of the locality in a manner which is largely acceptable to the current landowners. The rights of access to, and passage over, the lake and the recreational use of the lake and foreshore will be preserved in favour of every landowner in the locality. The inconsistency between the title to units currently existing on the foreshore of the lake and the easements over that land will cease to exist.
This bill is not a quick fix. A significant amount of time and effort has been expended negotiating to a point where a workable solution has been produced. The bill is a cooperative measure between the Northern Territory and the landowners. The bill clarifies the rights, titles and interests in relation to land in the area, and allows for continued development of the area in a manner which benefits land-holders in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speak, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take two Bills together
Take two Bills together
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Australian Crime Commission (Northern Territory) Bill (Serial 265) and Australian Crime Commission (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 266):
- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and
- (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL
(Serial 265)
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 266)
(Serial 265)
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 266)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills now be read a second time.
The purpose of these bills is to provide a legal framework for the Australian Crime Commission to operate in the Northern Territory. The history of these bills goes back two decades. In 1984, the National Crime Authority, or NCA as it was known, was established in order to lead a national law enforcement response to organised crime which could overcome the barriers caused by jurisdictional boundaries inherent in the Australian federal system. The NCA was not concerned with street crime. It was concerned with combating serious crime and it provided a structure whereby federal, state and territory police could work together in a seamless manner so that appropriate high level decisions could be made and essential intelligence could be shared.
Commonwealth legislation supporting the NCA and the complementary legislation was enacted in the states and territories. In the Northern Territory, the National Crime Authority (Territory Provisions) Act commenced in 1985. The NCA was appropriate and effective in its time but the world today is very different from the world that existed 20 years ago. Today, it is a world of globalisation, of new technologies, of new drugs; a world of organised crime on a scale previously unimaginable which often involves a complex web of criminal activity crossing over many jurisdictions; a world that is now much more aware of the potential of terrorism following the New York 11 September and Bali bombings. Modern criminals are highly sophisticated and not restrained by borders, so it is essential that there be a cooperative national approach to combat new threats that are increasingly more entrepreneurial and dangerous in nature.
Concerns about tackling the changing nature of crime were discussed at the Australian Government Leaders Summit on Terrorism and Multi-jurisdictional Crime held in April 2002. It was agreed that it was time to strengthen Australia’s armour in the fight against serious and organised crime by disbanding the NCA and replacing it with an Australian Crime Commission, the ACC. The rationale for the change was that the capacity of the NCA to expeditiously respond to emerging threats in the criminal environment was hampered by an overly complex legislative regime of references and unwieldy formal consultation requirements between Commonwealth, states and territories. The ACC aims to enhance Australia’s law enforcements’ capacity to counter serious and organised criminal activities by improving the quality and analysis of criminal intelligence. Being a national body it is able to set clear national and criminal intelligence priorities.
The commission has similar duties, functions and powers to those of the NCA and is built on the successes of the NCA. The ACC brought together three agencies: the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence which was established in 1981 to provide a national criminal intelligence service for law enforcement; the National Crime Authority which was formed in 1984 to provide an effective counter-measure to Australian organised crime; and the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments which was formed in 1994 to provide strategic intelligence advice on emergent criminal issues.
The ACC, which was established by the Commonwealth’s Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, commenced on 1 January 2003. The Commonwealth act provides the legislative authority to investigate matters and conduct intelligence operations that have a federal aspect. The Commonwealth act has been replicated in most states, and these bills provide for the operation of the ACC in the Northern Territory. These bills allow intelligence operations and investigations into relevant criminal activity involving Territory offences irrespective of whether those offences have a federal aspect.
The bills recognise that the police network cannot today work alone, and that contemporary policing requires an ability to carry out investigations that go beyond our borders. The definition of ‘serious and organised crime’ mirrors the offences that the ACC would investigate with the addition of offences involving firearms so that it has the power to investigate the illegal trafficking of firearms and cyber crime to ensure that the ACC can counteract this emerging issue.
These bills establish a board, which comprises the Commissioner of the Federal Police who is also the chair of the board; the police commissioners from the eight states and territories; the Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department; the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service; the Chair of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission; the Director-General of Security holding office under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act; and the Chief Executive Officer of the ACC.
The board is a new feature of the ACC, and representation of the Northern Territory Police Commissioner on the board will ensure that the Territory’s needs are reflected in the ACC’s national intelligence priorities. The board is responsible for determining national criminal intelligence priorities and for overseeing the strategic direction of the ACC. It also authorises the ACC to undertake intelligence operations and investigations, and determine whether an intelligence operation may have access to special coercive powers.
The ACC’s coercive powers are the same as those held by the NCA. The power to conduct examinations, which includes powers to produce documents and answer questions, is a powerful investigative tool that is central to the role and function of the ACC. The coercive powers exercised by independent statutory officers, called examiners, and their independence is an important safeguard on the exercise of the powers.
The operation of the board is subject to the scrutiny of a ministerial Inter-governmental Committee, the IGC. The IGC comprises Commonwealth, state and territory police and justice ministers and monitors the work of the board. Whereas the NCA’s ability to conduct hearings and use coercive powers were dependent on a ministerial referral and the approval of the IGC, the new legislation enables the ACC to conduct its own investigations and use its coercive powers on the approval of the ACC board. However, as an additional check, the IGC can revoke a determination of the board that allows the use of coercive powers.
These bills create a number of offences such as failing to attend an examination, or failing to answer questions, and failing to produce documents when required to do so by summons. The offences in the bill reflect the offences that were contained in the NCA legislation and complement existing offences in the Commonwealth act. The penalties provide a sufficient deterrent for those who try to obstruct or frustrate the ACC’s activities.
These bills repeal the National Crime Authority (Territory Provisions) Act and make consequential amendments to other acts to change references to the NCA to now refer to the ACC. The bills ensure that the Territory has a comprehensive framework in place to permit the ACC to perform its function of combating serious and organised crime.
I believe that all members of this Assembly will agree that this is essential legislation to ensure that we are able to deal with the serious criminal elements in our society. The bills are in the best interest of all Territorians and will ensure that the crime fighting efforts of the ACC complement the efforts of the Northern Territory Police in fighting, reducing and preventing crime and keeping the Territory a safe place to live. I seek bipartisan support for the passage of the bills.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 261)
(Serial 261)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Residential Tenancies Act. The Residential Tenancies Act commenced on 1 March 2000, and provides a framework of clear and consistent guidelines relating to residential tenancies. The act sets out the minimum terms of residential tenancy agreements, the procedures relating to bonds and the handling of security deposits, condition reports, and payments of rent. The act also provides Northern Territory tenants and landlords with a speedy and low cost avenue for the resolution of disputes through the Commissioner of Tenancies situated within the Consumer and Business Affairs Office of the Department of Justice.
With the passage of time, a number of issues relating to the operation of the act have been identified by stakeholders, including the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, Territory Housing, and the Commissioner of Tenancies. This bill has been developed in consultation with these stakeholders to address those issues.
The act currently provides that a landlord or tenant may give the other a notice of breach of a tenancy agreement, and if the breach is not rectified by the date specified in the notice, the tenancy agreement is automatically terminated. This automatic termination can at times be undesirable, particularly if the parties come to an agreement but the notice is not withdrawn as required under the act. The bill amends the act so that if a notice of breach of tenancy agreement is given and the breach is not remedied, then application can be made to the commissioner or, as is currently the case in some circumstances, the court, for an order terminating the tenancy and giving an order for possession. This is similar to the situation in other jurisdictions.
The bill amends section 24 of the act so that it is permissible for a landlord to require the payment, or agreement to pay, outstanding tenancy debts arising from a previous tenancy as a condition for granting or renewing a tenancy agreement. The prohibition in section 24 of a landlord requiring payment of anything other than rent or security deposit is intended to prohibit the demand for, or payment of, key money and the like. It is not intended to prevent a landlord pursuing or requiring payment of legitimately owed monies before giving a tenant another tenancy. The main landlord to be affected by this change is Territory Housing.
The provisions relating to notices regarding unpaid rent will be simplified, and it is proposed that, in consultation with stakeholders, a prescribed or pro forma form of notice of unpaid rent will be developed. This form will be user-friendly and will set out all the relevant information a tenant needs to know in order to verify the arrears and rectify the situation.
Section 129(4) of the act currently provides that the commissioner may delegate his or her power to conduct inquiries, which are proceedings that lead to formal determinations of legal rights and responsibilities and are thus judicial in nature. The commissioner must, wherever practicable, only appoint a person as a delegate if that person has 10 years or more experience as a legal practitioner. It is proposed to reduce this level of experience to five years, which is considered more appropriate and will bring the act in line with the provisions of the recently commenced Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act.
The act contains quite prescriptive provisions dealing with the giving and accepting of condition reports at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Whilst maintaining the general framework, the bill simplifies these procedures by omitting some of the requirements relating to the giving of duplicate copies of condition reports and the return of these duplicate documents by the tenant and, in some circumstances, the landlord. The amendments will continue to protect both the landlord’s and tenant’s interests, but with reduced requirements for exchanging duplicate copies of the same document. The proposed amendments have been developed in consultation with stakeholders.
In addition, the bill provides for the making of regulations which will permit condition reports to be given by way of video recordings or photographs, or similar types of recording. Similar rules as currently exist surrounding the giving of condition reports would continue to apply, such as the requirement to give a tenant a copy, and the right of the tenant to be present when the condition of the property is recorded.
A number of other small changes are made which are of a housekeeping nature. For example, section 107 needs to be amended to remove an incorrect reference to the commissioner having the power to terminate a tenancy under certain circumstances. This should, in fact, refer only to the court. Additionally, to remove any potential ambiguities, section 88A which relates to drug premises is to be amended so that it is clear that it applies to premises whose tenancies continue to be governed by the Tenancy Act as in force prior to 1 March 2000. These issues do not appear to have caused any practical difficulties to date, but the opportunity is being taken to fix these provisions.
Members will be aware that the Northern Territory is one of the few jurisdictions that does not have an independent tenants’ advice service. The Commissioner of Tenancies provides an advice service to landlords and tenants but this service is, in practice, somewhat limited because the focus is often the administration of the act rather than the broader issues. The commissioner also has the power under the act to hold formal inquiries into matters of dispute and make determinations between landlords and tenants. Given this role, the commissioner must be careful not to compromise the independence of formal inquiries, particularly where advice is given and the matter later becomes a subject of a formal inquiry.
I am pleased to advise that the government has established a steering committee comprised of representatives from organisations such as the Darwin Community Legal Service, Shelter NT, Consumer Affairs, Territory Housing and the Indigenous Housing Authority Northern Territory to develop a proposal for the establishment and funding of a tenants’ advice service in the Northern Territory. It is proposed the service will be funded from the Tenancy Trust Account established under section 16 of the act. The tenants’ advice service will be independent and will undertake case work and community education, and provide community input into appropriate housing and tenancy policy issues. It is important that tenants in regional areas, including indigenous tenants, have access to such a service, and the steering committee will consider these issues. Such an advice service based on the community sector will provide a service to those most disadvantaged tenants in the Northern Territory including the aged, youth, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and indigenous people.
Experience demonstrates that the commissioner’s office is not regularly accessed by these most disadvantaged tenants, whereas the community-based organisations such as DCLS and Shelter are well placed to provide assistance to these groups, many of whom seek assistance from these organisations which may be unable to assist due to funding constraints.
Section 16 of the act, which establishes the Tenancy Trust Account, provides that part of the fund established under the Agents Licensing Act can be paid into the Tenancy Trust Account to be used for the purposes of meeting the costs of administering and enforcing the act, and for educating landlords and tenants of their rights and obligations.
To clarify the situation for members, the fund established under the Agents Licensing Act is, in the main, an accumulation of interest on deposits paid by purchasers of properties which are held in trust accounts of the real estate agents and conveyancers. Additionally, depending on how the real estate agent structures their accounts, the income may also include interest on security deposits paid by tenants which are held in real estate agent trust accounts. These funds can properly be considered to be consumers’ funds.
The fund currently stands at just under $9m. The fund contributes some $200 000 annually to the Department of Justice to cover the cost of operation of the Property Agents Licensing Section in Consumer and Business Affairs. It is reasonably clear from the second reading speech to the Residential Tenancies Bill in 1999 that section 16 was intended to permit the use of the Tenancy Trust Account to fund a variety of services to tenants and landlords, including the funding of the provision of advice services other than those provided by the commissioner. However, there is a suggestion that the wording of section 16(1) may not be broad enough to allow for funding for an advice service or services external to the commissioner. The bill contains an amendment to this section to remove any doubt that the Tenancy Trust Account can be used to fund a tenants’ advice service. The outcome will be better advised and inform landlords and tenants, leading to better outcomes for residential tenancies generally and less demand on the commissioner’s resources in formally determining disputes that could be avoided if tenants and landlords were better informed.
Madam Speaker, the amendments have, for the most part, been identified by those involved in tenancy as being desirable for the easier and more simple operation of the act, or to address some problems that have been identified since the act commenced in 2000. In developing these amendments I am grateful for the input of the Residential Tenancies Act User Group comprising representatives of the Consumer and Business Affairs and Policy divisions within the Department of Justice, Territory Housing and the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory. This group has been particularly helpful in assisting government with developing a balanced approach for consumers and businesses.
In order to sustain this resource for the government, it is appropriate I mention in the context of this legislation that the government will be developing a residential tenancies taskforce. The role of the taskforce will be to examine, in particular, the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords in the implementation of this legislation and the interaction between the tenancy agreements and the legislation such as noise abatement laws and environmental health requirements. Common and easily understood and enforceable clauses in tenancy agreements are essential. The taskforce will be charged with ensuring that this is realised in application. The taskforce will have Territory-wide application for private and public tenants and landlords alike.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Marrara Christian School and their house parents, Ellen and John Gotts. The students are from Warruwi and Minjilang communities. On behalf of honourable members, I offer you a warm welcome to our Assembly.
DARWIN PORT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 264)
(Serial 264)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Darwin Port Corporation Amendment Bill has three purposes. First, it removes conflicts in the existing governance structure of the Port Corporation and more appropriately clarifies the relationship between the Chief Executive Officer of the Port Corporation, the minister, and the board. The amendments establish a governance framework whereby the Chief Executive Officer, or CEO, is appointed by the Administrator under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, subject to the Financial Management Act, accountable to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for the administration of the agency and subject to the direction of the minister.
This will introduce a corporate governance and accountability structure that is consistent with that for other government agencies in place of the current governance arrangement which sees the CEO appointed by the minister but subject to the direction of the Darwin Port Corporation Board. The amendments will remove the current position of conflict which faces the CEO and more appropriately allocate functions and responsibilities between the CEO, the minister, and the board.
The Darwin Port Corporation Board ceases to be a governing and management board and will be an advisory board with a focus on trade development. The approach of an advisory board is consistent with that adopted for other government agencies such as the Land Development Corporation and the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation. The maximum number of board members has been increased from five to seven to provide additional skills on the board if necessary.
The second purpose of the bill is to remove superseded references to the Assistant Harbour Master, pilots, port officers and to merge references to the port superintendent with that of the Harbour Master. The amendments expand the role of the Harbourmaster to reflect the actual operational roles that have been in place for a number of years. The enhanced role of the Harbour Master is consistent with similar roles in other commercial ports throughout Australia. The position of Assistant Harbour Master will be removed on the basis that is no longer required. Under the current arrangements, in the absence of the Harbour Master, an Acting Harbour Master is appointed.
Provision for formal appointments of port officers are also not required and will be removed. Provision for formal appointment of pilots is also not required. Removal of these provisions does not affect pilots who are appointed by the Darwin Port Corporation under the Marine Pilotage Regulations.
Third, the bill converts the current dollar penalties contained in the Darwin Port Corporation Act into penalty units. This change to penalty units is consistent with amendments made to other legislation. There is an obligation on government to ensure that penalties in legislation remain current; that is, that they retain an appropriate deterrent effect. Penalties expressed in legislation are intended to be the penalty that should be imposed by a court for the worst possible breach of any particular offence. In this case, the worse case breaches would involve a large internationally owned ship breaching the various harbour rules and directions. Such rules and directions are designed to protect the health and safety of people in the port and to protect the environment. In order for the threat of prosecution to have some impact on the commercial operations of such potential offenders, the maximum penalties must be appropriate. With the conversion to penalty units, the penalties themselves have also been revised to ensure that they are appropriate to act as a deterrent to potential breaches of the legislation. Conversion to the penalty unit regime and increase in penalty units is considered long overdue, as most of the penalties have not changed since the enactment of the Darwin Port Corporation Act in 1983.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MARINE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 269)
(Serial 269)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Marine Act came into operation on 16 March 1982 to regulate the safe operation of vessels in Northern Territory waters, which includes the coastal waters of the Northern Territory subject to its jurisdiction and to other navigable waters within the Territory.
The Marine Act has been administered on the basis that ‘other navigable waters’ includes rivers and other inland waters, whether they are formed naturally or man-made. The types of vessels that could be affected include tour operators, canoe and boat hire, and commercial operations where vessels are used as work platforms such as dredges. All known operators are currently complying with the safety requirements of the Marine Act and will not be affected by this amendment.
The proposed amendment redefines the meaning of ‘Northern Territory waters’ to remove any doubt about its jurisdiction, ensuring that vessels operating on any inland waters within the Northern Territory do so safely.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
WORK HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 248)
(Serial 248)
Continued from 14 October 2004.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, I advise the House that the government will be making some changes to this legislation in the committee stage.
Several aspects of the Work Health Act are to be amended. The primary change to the legislation is intended to overcome a court decision that extended the definition of ‘ordinary time earnings’ to include superannuation. Occupational superannuation was never intended to be covered by the legislation.
Following a process of consultation, it was evident that the proposed bill went further than we intended. Two aspects of the proposed bill will be reversed. They are the requirement for an employee to seek alternative employment, and the exclusion of non-cash benefits from the definition of ‘normal weekly earnings’.
Dealing with alternative employment: the requirement to have an employee seek alternative employment was considered to be contrary to the main thrust of the act. That main thrust is rehabilitation. There was a concern that some employers might use the amendment, placing a further obligation on employees to avoid their own obligation to rehabilitate workers. The ratio of injured workers returning to work in the Territory is above the national average. There are currently sufficient mechanisms to oblige injured workers to participate in rehabilitation. Benefits may be cancelled or reduced if a worker unreasonably refuses to participate. The proposed amendment is not likely to assist getting an injured worker back to work. A more stringent requirement could be used as a method to refuse claims rather than return to work. An injured worker will have limited capacity to seek alternative employment. An injured worker may not have the expertise to ascertain their capacity to seek certain types of alternative employment. The proposed amendment had the capacity to increase litigation concerning the operation of the act.
Dealing with non-cash benefits: the other measure arising out of court cases was whether or not non-cash benefits should be included in the definition of an employee’s weekly earnings. Case law had developed over a number of years to include non-cash benefits. The first decision pertaining to non-cash benefits was Palumpa Station Pty Ltd v Victor George Fox. This decision of the Work Health Court in 1999 determined that board, meat, etcetera was not an allowance but did form part of an employee’s remuneration. Murwangi Community Aboriginal Corporation v Denis Martin Carroll was a decision of the Court of Appeal in 2002 which confirmed the principle established in Fox. This case also established that the value of the non-cash benefits was to be calculated at the value to the worker. Workers in a number of industries have come to rely upon this type of payment. For example, workers in the pastoral industry receive a relatively low wage, but are compensated by free board and lodging. The proposed amendment would have disadvantaged this group of workers.
Superannuation: the third decision in a line of cases was a Court of Appeal decision in 2004, Hastings Deering Australia Pty Ltd v David John Smith. This decision extended the definition of an employee’s remuneration to include superannuation. The Cabinet decision was to return to the status quo that existed prior to the case Hastings Deering v Smith. The proposed bill now achieves that objective.
Superannuation, on the other hand, is intended to be removed from the definition. Advice received by government was that the inclusion of superannuation in the definition of weekly earnings would have resulted in substantial increases in work cover premiums. The government was not prepared to accept the potential adverse effect on employment that could have occurred. The workers compensation scheme in the Territory is a relatively generous scheme. To not exclude superannuation from the definition of remuneration might jeopardise the continuing viability of the scheme as it currently stands.
Madam Speaker, there is some urgency associated with the passage of this bill. It is important that stability be returned by way of the amendment. These changes will be brought forward at the committee stages.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I point out the presence in the gallery of students from Year 7 from Maningrida Community Education Centre, accompanied by their teacher, Ms Jo Killimister. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments about this bill. It was interesting that, at the briefing the member for Nelson and I attended, the first thing we were told was that there is going to be a swag of amendments coming through on the bill. When we sought the reason why the government has started to do this, we were told that officers had been in consultation with people in the Territory regarding the bill and that they had been conducting a consultation in the last four weeks or so.
This is typical of a government that does work, puts in legislation without thinking it through, drops it on the people, and then starts doing backflips left, right, and centre. If this is not a dog’s breakfast, I do not know what you call it. It is the way this government does business. It does not think about things; it just leads with its chin, gets clobbered by unions or employer groups, and then says: ‘We have to do this, or do that’. A government by apology; a government by backflips.
The idea of legislation such as this is about how to make it cheaper to do business in the Northern Territory. That is the first thing to think about. However, in doing so, they have to consider the interests of both employer and employee groups. At the stage when the bill was introduced in October, those thoughts were not put to mind and, instead, it came out with a hotchpotch of the bill. Now, they have to start withdrawing whole swags of stuff, as the member for Stuart articulated earlier.
Let me go to some of the issues raised by the minister in October. It is, obviously, about workers compensation that was reviewed by the previous government through the Lord Report. There are issues about workers compensation which were never satisfactory. I recall when I was working in the industry many years ago, that there was always conflict between the employer and employee.
Workers compensation was designed as a means of ensuring employees who are injured at work are adequately cared for and rehabilitated. It should always have been a cooperative process rather than adversarial. However, because one party claims to have certain injuries and the other party says they do not, people end up fighting each other over, some times, very minor issues. What happens then is that the conflict aggravates the injury through mental stress, and you have a party demanding maximum compensation whilst the other party decides not to pay up, or to pay the minimum possible.
When the government presented this bill in October, the first thing it wanted to do was remove superannuation and also what was loosely defined as ‘normal weekly earnings’. As you know, sometimes in a job you are paid nominal wages. You are also paid a living allowance, whether it be a form of free board and lodging and other non-cash remuneration such as use of a car perhaps, or a utility on a property. Instead of thinking it through, the government jumped into it. It brought out the bill as presented in October and found that it bit off more than it could chew. At the briefing, the government told me that superannuation will now be retained in this bill; however, the other non-cash remuneration will be removed, therefore allowing a better means of measuring what type of compensation payment can be made to the injured employee.
I was interested to see that the government brought in the matter of the initial medical certificate, limited to 14 days. I thought that was a good move. Quite often, people who have injured themselves see a medical practitioner for assessment and the initial certificate could extend for several weeks at a time. Obviously, there are injuries such as fractures or very severe injuries that require months of medical care prior to rehabilitation and which means that a 14 day certificate will be fairly inadequate. At least the first certificate is for 14 days. It allows reassessment to occur fairly quickly, after the initial medical settlement of the injury, then the reassessment after 14 days can give better advice to both the employee and the employer as to what will happen down the track. I support that part of the bill to ensure that each medical certificate is limited to 14 days.
Another matter that government raised was the issue of a time limit for when a claimant can seek meditation following the receipt of a formal decision over the claim. In the past, there has not been a time limit and that posed many problems in the sense that a person with a work-related injury went to a medical practitioner, was given a certificate to allow them to be off work and on worker’s compensation, and this could go on for months, sometimes even years. Sometimes, when a determination is made, the claim is no longer supported or allowed. The injured employee does not do anything about it for many months, sometimes even two years and then when they seek mediation after that, such a long period of time has lapsed since the injury that things get very blurred, and I believe that is not a good thing. Besides that, employers are left hanging not knowing what is going to happen to that case and it makes it hard for their insurer to then assess what sort of financial reserves have to be put in place to cover that particular case.
Bringing the 90 day limit to it will bring matters to a much quicker finality. At the same time, one has to be a little bit cynical to say that insurance companies would like this very much because it means that they can actually have finite reserves put against each case. That in itself, whilst good for business, whilst good for the insurer, may not necessarily be good for the injured employee. There has to be a bit of a balance. I trust that the authorities which are going to be oversighting this make sure that other parties are not disadvantaged.
The issue of normal weekly earnings has obviously been a problem. Where do you draw the line as to what is normal weekly earnings? I would like to hear the minister explain this a bit more and explain clearly what their position is. At the moment they are having a bob each way on this matter and it would be good to hear in clear terms where this government intends to go with it.
In clause 195 of the bill, we talk about compensation paid under sections 64 and 65. It is about the retrospective effect of the bill. I would like the minister to make it quite clear to me how that retrospectivity affects a claimant. When does it apply to the workers compensation payments made to the injured employee? Where does it start? Where does it finish? Will an employee who is currently on worker’s compensation be disadvantaged once this bill is passed? At the moment, the way the bill and the second reading speech are worded, it is quite unclear.
Let me put a case to the minister so that he has something concrete to work with: a person works in the building industry, falls off scaffolding, hurts himself and, for all intents and purposes, everything was done according to WorkSafe standards and it was no fault of the employer or employee; it was a pure accident. The employee breaks a leg and takes several months to heal enough to come back to work, at least in a rehabilitative fashion. The claim was lodged and paid under the current system. The current system allows for superannuation in normal weekly earnings. When this bill is passed, does it affect the amount of compensation paid to that person on a weekly basis? If it does, is this person going to be disadvantaged by this bill? The minister needs to explain that clearly.
When you have legislation that is as important as workers compensation which impacts on everyone we employ in the Territory, both in private and government enterprises, obviously we have to get this right. The CLP, in its last term, had the Lord Report done and were working through the Lord Report progressively to try to implement as many of the changes possible that the report recommended.
I commend the government for following through on this. However, I criticise the government for, in doing this, it has not proceeded cautiously or followed through in a way that is good for both employers and employees. Listening, too, are probably the insurers and their lobby groups. Just remember that the insurer, at the end of the day, does not make a loss. It is rare that an insurer makes a loss. An insurer is engaged by an employer to provide that financial backing in case of a worker’s injury. An insurer will always ensure that through their premiums they charge the employer, they regain the money they pay out to injured employees.
Minister, you have to take responsibility that this bill has been badly drafted on your instructions. For instance, it has to be laid squarely on your lap for not thinking it through properly. The opposition does support the issues that you have decided to retain in your legislation, and we look forward to clearer thinking next time you introduce legislation. We obviously want to go to committee to go through the amendments and we will be asking further questions at that time.
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
WORK HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 248)
(Serial 248)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I should say from the beginning that I am not going to support this bill. Having substantially changed the bill before it made it to debate today, there is not much meat left in the sandwich, but the little morsel that is left is a very important part of the sandwich. Of course, I am referring to the amended definition of ‘normal weekly earnings’.
This legislation is designed to annul the court decision which stated that superannuation is to be part of normal weekly earnings when dealing with workers compensation payments. This is grossly unfair. For a government which prides itself in sticking up for the worker, this move is unbelievable. What you are saying to a person who has been injured on the job, who was paying his superannuation, and receiving the employer’s contribution whilst he was working, is that now, not only will you receive three-quarters of your original earnings after 28 weeks, but you will not receive your superannuation contribution.
Therefore, the worker who has probably based his home mortgage payments on how much he or she earns may now be struggling to repay that loan because of the reduced income, and then gets hit with another blow: there will not be superannuation payments. Instead, they will be put on the pension when they are 65.
Let us not forget the worker was okay until he was injured. He was on full pay and had a superannuation fund. Now his or her life has changed. We have a court decision that says that superannuation should be counted as part of normal weekly earnings, and this Labor government says we cannot afford that; it is too much for the employer and the insurance companies. Who is the sacrificial offering? The worker.
The government argues that employer premiums will go up and they cannot afford any more increases. Fair enough, but what about the government or the insurance companies taking up the slack? Over the last few years, governments have introduced all sorts of measures to make the life of the insurance companies much better because as after 11 September and the HIH collapse, it was poor bugger me, I am an insurance company, I cannot survive.
Let us look at QBE, one of the insurance companies involved. I have their half year report here. For the half year ending 30 June 2004, they made a nett profit, after tax, of $320m, up 33%. Their insurance profit reached $409m, up 58%. That profit was $88m in 2000. What about Allianz? It is a worldwide insurance company which made $2.7bn nett income last year. The government put in all these measures to reduce the risk to insurance companies, and yet premiums still rise, and they continue to rise, not fall, even when all our safety programs have made work safer. Why bother with WorkSafe? You would expect some reduction on premiums, but that is not happening. Have savings just gone into profits?
So if the insurance companies are not going to help, what about the government? How many people in the Northern Territory are affected by this change in the legislation? We are a small population, so there will not be a huge number of people who need assistance. Why doesn’t the government offset the rise in premiums for those particular people, or contribute themselves directly to a super fund? You might say that will not work, it is too expensive, but who else is going to look after the worker? Doesn’t the government have a role to play in the welfare of its citizens; isn’t that what governments are all about?
The court has said that super is a legitimate part of a worker’s earnings, that although it is not money accessible now, it is just put away until it is accessible. It belongs to the worker; it is like money earned and held in trust. The big question that is missing in this whole debate is, does the government agree with the decision of the court? Regardless of whether it believes it cannot afford the decision of the court, could the minister please say whether he believes workers who are receiving workers compensation should still receive superannuation payments? Is that not the crux of this debate - what is fair for the inured worker, his family and his future?
What is also strange is that you have now changed your mind on other matters that you were going to include in normal weekly earnings, such as accommodation, food, electricity and motor vehicles, and now you have put them back in the legislation. Why not super? What is the difference to the other extras? Has the government looked at all the options, or has it simply said, ‘The definition of normal weekly earnings was supposed to mean this so we will change it’? ‘It is too costly for the insurance companies, so let us not upset them or premiums will go up for employers and they cannot afford any more increases’. Or, ‘It is not done in other states, so why should it be done here’. I have heard that argument many times from both directions, especially when it comes to unlimited speed limits on highways.
So let us forget the worker who, through no fault of his own, is now worse off because he was injured on the job. Surely this Labor government, the one who told me I knew nothing about such matters as the eight hour day, the party who marches so proudly on Labour Day, the one who espouses the virtues of the working class, and I quote from a recent speech by the member for Sanderson when he was questioning my views on workers when we debated the balancing work life issue. He said, and it is a very simple quote: ‘Labor governments get behind workers’. I read that, and I find it difficult to comprehend why a Labor government is willing to drop the worker bit and support the big end of town. Why a Labor government would not protect the rights of workers but instead throw them on the scrap heap of political and economic expediency, and why that is, is beyond me. The government should have looked at other options to protect the worker. It announced a $5m sponsorship to the V8s yesterday. Why then could it not sponsor injured workers and show that it had not lost sight of its priorities and sponsor those workers as well?
Madam Speaker, this is a clear example of where a government has a role to play as a protector of the weak and sick in our society. Unfortunately, that has gone out the door and the new philosophy of the world has taken its place: economic rationalism.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Greatorex and Nelson for their contribution to debate. I will go back over how this came about for the benefit of the member for Nelson, particularly because it does seem to be up his nose that we are an anti-worker government in some way. Far from it.
If we were not to act in a responsible fashion in relation to this court decision about super it would be more anti-worker, because if we see premiums rise to the extent that they were a few years ago, if we see costs of the scheme getting out of control, what happens? QBE might well be sitting on $303.5bn or $100bn profit around the world - they ain’t very interested in staying in the Northern Territory if they are not making a profit. What happens when they walk? What happens when the whole load falls back on TIO, and that cannot cope and goes under, or withdraws from the market? What happens when Allianz or any of the others decide this market is a bit too hot? There ain’t anyone left to put workers compensation cover out there for workers - there is no workers compensation scheme! And who is the big loser then? Not business, but the worker themselves. That is why is is necessary for government to come to every equation such as this with a balance of responsibility to both the employee and the businesses.
Why cannot government pick it up? Why cannot government just pay the workers superannuation component for the boss, or for the insurance company, because we are taking it out of the system? Why cannot government pick it up? Well, the actuarial estimates around this, over time, were going to add about 4% to the premiums paid by employers - 4% per worker. Hello, hello! That 4% was about the levy - was exactly the levy - that this government placed on employer’s workers compensation premiums in order to address the massive backlog of long-tail claims from HIH.
Government decided that it would step in and cover that long-tail liability resting against HIH and remove the 4% levy on workers compensation premiums. At what cost? Well, we do not know, but it is somewhere in the order of $20m or more. That is what it has cost this government – that is what it has cost the taxpayers - in order to cover those rip-off scumbag merchants who dragged HIH to ground. That is the order you have to be saying over time that government would have to put in - or be prepared to stand by - if government was to cover the superannuation component for injured workers forever and a day.
Here is the balance of the equation: it is not a condition or a right that accrues in any other workers compensation scheme in Australia. Nowhere in Australia, at this day, does the worker get the employer component of superannuation while they are on sick leave. We are the second and third and, in some cases, the top in generosity - the most generous in some areas, the second most generous in some, the third most generous scheme in Australia - for workers. No other jurisdiction covers them for super when they are injured, but the member for Nelson says we are banging workers around. We already have the most generous scheme, or the second most generous scheme, or the third most generous scheme - whichever of the entitlements that you want to look at - and he says not only do they get knocked around in losing their income, they have six months on 100% salary. Point to the other schemes in Australia that give you 100% of wage and salary for six months before there is any step-down at all to 75% after six months.
The whole basis of our scheme is one of rehabilitation, designed to get the worker through the injury, rehabilitated, and back to work as soon as possible. That is the best thing you can do for the worker for their superannuation because, the sooner they are back at work, the sooner their employer component of the superannuation keeps going in.
I get a bit sensitive when I get banged up for being an anti-worker government when, quite the contrary, we are looking at preserving the integrity of this scheme and the market for many years to come.
In relation to this question of non-cash benefits, there is no doubt that information came to government and to me when we circulated the amendment for discussion. The amendment was designed to take out superannuation which had been put in by a court decision. We wanted to restore the status quo. The effect of the amendment, as pointed out to us, was that it actually went further, and it removed a number of non-cash benefits that had been in the system as a result of case law over a number of years, to include non-cash benefits in the definition of normal weekly earnings.
The first decision pertaining to non-cash benefits was Palumpa Station Pty Ltd v Victor George Fox, a decision of the Work Health Court in 1999 determining that board, meat, etcetera, was not on allowance but did form part of an employee’s remuneration. MurwangiCommunity Aboriginal Corporation v Dennis Martin Carroll was a decision of the Court of Appeal in 2002 and that confirmed that principle established in Fox, and the case also established that the value of non-cash benefits was to be calculated at the value to the worker.
We had a number of submissions and a number of people put to us that those workers in a number of industries who rely on that payment, and I will give you an example, pastoral workers in primary industry who do not receive high wages and salaries, they are relatively low because part of their remuneration is the free board and lodging, three meals a day while they are there. However, if they are injured, and they have to come to Darwin and they are off the property, and maybe they have to do rehab in and out of hospital on a daily basis for weeks at a time, and they have to pick up their rent out of their pocket here, and they are only getting the small actual cash benefit that they were getting before, then they are obviously disadvantaged. Not only that, they are among the lowest and most disadvantaged workers in the work force in the economy anyway and we did not want to further bang them up by taking away something which was already in the system, and had been as a result of these court decisions going back to 1999.
That was not our intent. It was not the intent of government to remove rights that were already there in the system. It was very clearly our intent to excise, remove, take out, subtract, superannuation from the equation. That is why the amendments that we have before us today are to reinforce the fact that we are taking out superannuation but we are not moving on those non-cash benefits.
I cannot see that this is the end of this debate. Since the act came into being in 1987, we have had a number of movements in relation to conditions of service and wages and salaries. One, of course, is the mandated superannuation. It did not exist back in 1987; that is why the act never envisaged superannuation as being part of normal weekly earnings. Notwithstanding that, and we are holding the status quo there, there is a body of work to be done and a close scrutiny and a close analysis of what actually constitutes non-cash benefits in weekly earnings, and what might be considered and what perhaps ought not be considered.
I believe the member for Greatorex raised that question in his contribution in the second reading. Where do you draw the line? It is a question that I cannot answer standing here today. That is a body of work that needs to be done and it needs a very close scrutiny over all of the decisions that have been made. It also needs a scrutiny and a study of the way wages and salaries have gone. We have seen salary sacrificing, for example, over the past decade which was never envisaged in 1987 when this act was written. What is a fair line to draw in the sand - we are not going to pay the gym fees, or for the swimming pool, or the sons and daughters’ private boarding school fees, but we are going to pay this?
There are any manner of things that need to be brought to that debate and a line drawn through that in fairness and equity to the worker on the one hand. We do not want to see the worker disadvantaged anymore than they are. It is bad enough to get injured at work without being banged around again. As I said, we do have to have an eye to the viability of the scheme over time and that is the balance that we have to draw. That is the balance that we will be seeking to find in relation to this question of non-cash benefit and what might be reasonably construed as should constitute a normal part of weekly earnings against perhaps other parts that should not.
It is a very important body of work. The member for Greatorex hit the nail on the head in relation to that question he put to me about where you do draw the line.
On those points, Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Stuart, picked up a number of points. The other withdrawal was this attempt to bring into the act this need for the employee to seek alternative employment, but when you look at the act overall, that amendment was considered to be contrary to the main thrust of the act, which is, of course, rehabilitation, as I said. There was a concern that some employers might use that amendment to place a further obligation on employees in order to avoid their own obligation, which is, in the first place, to rehabilitate the worker and get them back to work.
We know, as the act stands and operates in the Territory, that the ratio of injured workers returning to work is above the national average. So we did not want to interfere with a ratio that suggests the scheme is working well, the act is working well, in the sense of getting workers back to work. There are, of course, already sufficient mechanisms in the act to oblige injured workers to participate in rehabilitation. They have to play their part in the equation overall. Benefits may be reduced accordingly or cancelled altogether if a worker unreasonably refuses to participate in the process, or to see doctors, or to carry out reasonable instructions in order to get themselves rehabilitated. So it did not seem that adding this provision was going to assist getting injured workers back to work when the scheme already allows a worker to be bumped off entitlements all together if they do no cooperate and play their part.
In addition, you would have to recognise that any injured worker is going to have a further limitation on their capacity to seek alternative employment. They may not have the expertise to ascertain their own capacity to seek certain types of alternative employment and what might be acceptable. Therefore, we thought that amendment had the potential as well to increase litigation around the operation of the act. There are already enough lawyers who do very well out of the operation of work health in the Northern Territory and we did not want to make it any worse.
The transitional provisions are also being amended to ensure that the retrospective application of the act is reinforced. It is clear that if superannuation applies retrospectively, the system would be subject to a multimillion dollar hit and it simply would not withstand that. We know that the scheme is a relatively generous scheme, and to not exclude superannuation from the definition could well jeopardise the continuing viability as it currently stands and, as I said, could lead to insurers withdrawing from the field. It is important that we get stability back into the system.
The bill retains the following elements:
- the removal of employer funded superannuation contributions from the definition of
‘normal weekly earnings’;
the 90-day time limit for application for mediation;
the provision to prescribe by regulation to limit the currency of the first medical
certificate to no more than 14 days;
where, in the early stages of claim decision-making, the employer/insurer requires further
medical information, they would be obliged to seek that information from the worker’s
treating medical practitioner. Should the information not be provided within the 14 days,
then the employer/insurer may seek further information from a medical practitioner of
their choice;
where, in the claims management process, the employer/insurer requires the worker to
attend the medical practitioner of the employer/insurer’s choice, they would be obliged
to advise the treating medical practitioner of the contact details of the other medical
practitioner; and
where the employer/insurer obtained a report from the medical practitioner of their
choice, they are obliged to provide a copy of the report to the worker’s treating
medical practitioner.
They sound, in reading, very commonsense, and you would wonder why they do not do it. The fact is there are difficulties between medical practitioners, between insurers, and between employees all around. This will mandate how those steps are taken and the relationships between the employer and the insurer and the medical practitioner of their choice one the one hand and the employee and medical practitioner of their choice on the other. So there will not be further argy bargy around that.
In going through those points, and I deliberately wanted to put them on the record because the member for Nelson suggested that the bill had all been scrapped with the exception of the superannuation, but that is not true. In fact, 70% of the bill remains intact. It is those couple of changes we have made by way of committee stage amendments, and there are four; two amendments in the first place and two amendments in the committee stage that are consequential to the changes brought about by the first two amendments.
I again thank members for their contribution. I would be happy to talk to the member for Nelson, and indeed, the member for Greatorex, at any time if he still has a view, or he wants to accuse us of banging around workers. That is not what this is about at all. I say again, there will be a close in-house analysis of this whole question of non-cash benefits, because we recognise that times have changed, and that conditions and the way things are paid have moved on over the past 17 years since this act came in to play. Therefore, we do need to have a good look at that, and we will.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 92.1 which is to omit from proposed section 49(1A)(c) all words after ‘include’ and insert in their stead ‘superannuation contributions made by the employer’.
Mr Chairman, I will also invite defeat of clause 7.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, can we stick to clause 5? Let us do one at a time, otherwise it gets too confusing. In regards to clause 5, you want to have only superannuation retained and the rest removed. When you retain that in the bill - not that I am against it, I just want you to clarify it for me - it means that an employee who is injured and on workers compensation will now no longer receive a percentage of the superannuation contribution as part of the workers compensation payment. Is that correct?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, it operates like this. The scheme never paid superannuation for workers while they were on workers compensation until a court decided that superannuation is a part of normal weekly earnings, and we are going to award that in normal weekly earnings. Therefore that worker, and I do not know who that was when that case went through, received it, and so would a number of others in the system at that time. If they have an award handed down, if they get their case handed down through the court system after that case, and before this bill is assented to and takes effect, they will retain that benefit.
However, the effect of this amendment is that after this bill comes into effect, superannuation will not be part of workers compensation benefits, will not be deemed part of normal weekly earnings.
So everyone who did not get it up until that particular court case will remain not getting it; everyone after will remain not getting it. There is a windfall gain, I suppose, for those people whose decisions were made prior to this taking effect. The act does not take away those who were fortunate enough to be in that situation.
Dr LIM: The member for Nelson is sitting in the chair, so he may not be able to ask this question. I am going to pose some questions that I have not discussed with him, but I believe are probably in his mind. As a normal employee, I receive my weekly wages. The employer pays the 9% superannuation levy on my wages into a fund which I will then have access to when I retire or when I reach the age of 55 - I think it is 55 when you get that. I am now 50 years old, I am working and, suddenly, I am injured. I receive my workers compensation based on my salary. However, now this 9% superannuation is not paid into my superannuation fund any more. By the time I reach 65 - for a period of 15 years if I were to remain injured and incapacitated and unable to work until I retire at 65 - for whatever reason the workers compensation payment stops. You would say: ‘Okay, now I can access my superannuation to live on’. That superannuation now is short of 15 years of contribution by an employer so, theoretically, I am disadvantaged.
Is there any mechanism, minister, that you are going to bring into place to offset that? I know it did not occur before; it is not going to occur in the future. However, is there something you are going to be able to do to offset that at all in any way?
Mr STIRLING: That is a question of looking at all of the non-cash benefits, the structure of wages and salaries that are paid now, and what might be done. It goes to that line in the sand that the member for Greatorex raised: what is a fair thing and where does this sit in relation to that line? I say again, though, that when you have the first, second and third most generous scheme in Australia in relation to benefits paid to workers, no other worker in Australia – it does not make it right, of course - has their superannuation paid. You have to balance the benefits paid to the worker against the viability of the scheme, of keeping insurers in the game and having premiums that are affordable by the business sector.
If any one of those components falls out of sync, you start to get into trouble. If premiums rise too high, you start belting business and that has a downward effect on them and their ability to employ workers. If the benefits do get out of hand and premiums get too high to pay then, of course, insurance companies walk. In that situation, you have no coverage for anyone. That is worse case scenario; I accept that. However, when the member for Greatorex asked how we are going to look at that or balance that, the only way would be to offset the generosity of the scheme in some other area in order to pick that up - which would be to the long-term benefit of the worker in the case you put forward where no contribution went forward into the scheme for 15 years, or for however long the worker was out injured. It is a huge problem for that worker in their future life beyond work.
I cannot say yes, no, or this is what you might do, on the spot here without that investigation and analysis. However, my first thoughts would be that, if we thought for the longer-term benefit of the worker superannuation benefits ought be part of the scheme, ought be paid, then we would have to look at the offset in the scheme somewhere else in order to keep costs relatively stable.
Dr LIM: I ask the minister to go a bit further. In your second reading speech, you spoke about the negotiated settlements - and that is not in the bill; I understand that. However, it is being explored. You are studying South Australian experience to go from there. Negotiated settlements are something that insurance companies like because it gives a finite liability. Insurance companies know this is how much we will have to pay somebody; once the person has been paid that you draw the line across the name and it is all over, and it is clear for them. It might not be good for society in general, it might not be good for the employer, it might not even be good for the employee because they might blow the money and then suddenly they have nothing left.
Maybe this is a way for you to consider the offset in superannuation. Somewhere through negotiated settlement that might be able to come along, help the employer, help the employee and ensure it also has a finite way of drawing the line. I am just tossing that as an idea for you.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I did make comment on negotiated settlements in the second reading and made it fairly clear that the South Australian experience had not been a good one, and that many of the principles of our scheme do align reasonably closely with the South Australian scheme. Our people have watched very closely what has occurred across the border and the member for Greatorex touched on it when he talked about the big win.
Our scheme, though, is about rehabilitation. If you encourage or foster a lotto-type mentality it may be that the worker is not interested in rehabilitation anymore if they can see $200 000 or $300 000, a pot of gold, at the end. South Australia, as an example, suggests that that has happened to their scheme at not only the cost to the scheme but in a number of cases, too many, at the cost of the employee as well who has lost future entitlements of course. Sometimes, if there is a lotto mentality about it, there is a lotto mentality to spend it as well and the insurer pays up a big whack and the worker loses out because it comes and goes too quickly and they have no further entitlements.
Again, South Australia is actually looking to how they might wind back the number of negotiated settlements in their scheme because it does not appear to be helping anyone. We do not want to get into that situation. That is not to say that there is not closer watching and more study and analysis of those types of settlements to be done and it is a part of that work that I have talked about. If there were good grounds and good arguments to go more into them, or to allow more flexibility around them, then we would.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I invite defeat of this clause. This is the extra provision that would have obliged an injured worker to take reasonable steps to obtain suitable alternative employment for themselves where the original employer could not provide that suitable employment, and ensuring that the provision did not release the employer from their obligation under the act to the return to work process.
I spoke about why we were withdrawing this amendment in closing debate. There are already mechanisms in the act if a worker is recalcitrant and does not involve themselves in rehabilitation, if they do not go to see the doctor, or do not comply with reasonable directions and instructions deemed to be in their own good, then of course benefits can be reduced or cancelled altogether and that is the ultimate sanction.
On reflection, we are seeking defeat of this clause in the view that the act already covers it.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I support this invitation to defeat this clause. I thought it was unreasonable to expect an injured employee to seek employment of his or her own accord if that person does not agree with, or is unable to comply with, the rehabilitator’s attempts to find employment for the injured employee.
First, an injured employee, whilst they would know about the injury better than anybody else, may not understand the limitations the injury would impose upon his or her body. To then get that person to go and find a job is most unreasonable.
Most times, you will find that if a good, professional rehabilitator is involved, who is a strong employee advocate, and the key words are ‘strong employee advocate’, usually you have a very positive outcome. It is often the other way around because the insurer tends to be the one that somehow gets the assessing officer to try to get the injured employee back into work. Those assessing officers tend not to be worker’s compensation specialists but administrators and they tend not to get the right sort of motivation with the employee. Get a strong advocate for the employee, and this will be a positive step in the right direction.
Mr STIRLING: I thank the member for his support.
Clause 7 negatived.
Clauses 8 to 13, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, there are two amendments in clause 14, both consequential to the amendments that we have just passed. To make it clear for the member for Greatorex, I move amendment 92.2 which affects proposed section 195: omit ‘contribution or benefit’ and substitute ‘superannuation contribution’; and an amendment to proposed new subsection 195(1) of the bill consequential to committee stage amendment 92.1 which removes the exclusion in the bill of ‘non-cash remuneration’ from the definition of ‘normal weekly earnings’. So it stems from the passage of that amendment earlier.
I further move amendment 92.3, which is to insert after proposed section 195(1):
- (1A) Despite anything to contrary in section 12 of the Interpretation Act or in any other law in force in the
Territory, and subject to subsection (1), section 49(1A) and (1B) applies in relation to the calculation
of compensation -
- (a) paid before the commencement date; or
(b) payable on or after the commencement date, even if the right to claim compensation
arose before the commencement date.
Mr Chairman, I further move amendment 92.4 in respect of proposed section 196 to omit the whole section. Again, that is consequential to the committee stage amendment inviting defeat of clause 7 ‘Workers being proactive in the return to work process’. So these three are a result of the amendments we have just passed.
Dr LIM: Thank you, minister. I understand what you said, but can I have the words reduced to simple English? What you are saying is that those people who have been on worker’s compensation before the court determination did not receive superannuation and they will not. All right? Those who have been on worker’s compensation since the court decision have now been receiving superannuation and they will not be disadvantaged by the passage of this bill. Those subsequent to the passage of this bill will not longer receive superannuation. Yes or no? That is clear and people will be happy.
Mr STIRLING: Those who have been awarded superannuation as part of normal weekly earnings keep it. Those prior, who did not get it, do not get it. Those after the commencement of this act will not get it, but if they received it through the court system and it is in their entitlement, this act does not remove it.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
I want to clarify a point of understanding here in relation to those benefits. I believe what I said was right, but there is room for misinterpretation in how the Hansard might read in my answer to the member for Greatorex about superannuation benefits. If they received it in the courts, they would not have to pay it back, that is an entitlement. However, they do not continue to get it after the commencement of this act.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, in response to what the minister said, you are depriving someone of a right they have already have. With the passage of this, you are depriving them of that right. You are taking a financial benefit away from them. I believe you are opening yourself up to a potential challenge by the current recipient of that money and I do not think that is appropriate. These people were the ones who, through a court decision, received remuneration that included superannuation. Right or wrong, that was decided by the court. If you are going to take it away from them, you are removing - well, I am not a lawyer, whether it is contempt of the court decision or not, if there is such a thing - but you are depriving them of a right that they currently have. There has to be just compensation for that deprivation of a right. I know we are out of committee, and I do not know how you respond to this, and what process you can use to do that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few things in relation to summing up about the bill. I thank the minister for his comments, and I understand where he is coming from.
Trying to put this into perspective, I realise we are a small population part of Australia. However, if we were talking about the numbers of people who are permanently disabled for the rest of their life, how many people would there really be? And for those few people who are permanently disabled for the rest of their life, could the government not afford to look after those people? That is really what I am saying.
I do not take the argument that just because the other states do not include superannuation as part of normal weekly earnings, therefore we should not, and I will say again, we tend to use that argument in reverse when it suits us. As I said, we do not agree with changing the speed limit just because the other states want us to. All I am saying is that, in our particular case, if we put together the number of people who are really affected by this legislation, could not this government look at funding those people?
We talk about $1.2bn for the waterfront, and we quote big figures for development. I sometimes think that is wonderful; however, in the end, you might say people who need us most are not being assisted and we base that non-assistance on: ‘Other states will not do it, insurance companies will not come to the Territory, it is too hard for the employers’. To me, the person we should really be helping is missing out. All I am saying is: before the government introduced this legislation it could have at least looked at other possibilities of helping those workers who will now lose out. For those workers who may be injured early in life, they will not get superannuation unless they have some other way they can fund it. They will end up just receiving the pension. Whilst that might be okay, it certainly might not have been what that employee, when they took on a job, thought they would be able to put away so when they retired they would have the extra money which a lot of other workers will have.
Minister, that is basically where I was coming from. I believe we should do our best to look after workers, especially ones who have been injured. I believe they are an extra special category which I believe is the responsibility of government - not just insurance companies, not just workers, but a responsibility of government to look after.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! During committee stage, the minister said a particular form of words which I agreed with.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Dr LIM: Immediately after we completed that, at the third reading he said: ‘Sorry, that is not what I meant’. The process might have to be wound back. What the minister said subsequent to completion of the committee stage is quite different to what he said at the committee stage at the time when I agreed with what he said. I now do not agree with what he says, and I have problems with it.
I am asking for guidance as to the process to reopen this issue. This issue is quite significant. Think about it. By what you said, you have put yourself in to a difficult situation, minister, and I am seeking guidance from the Clerk and the Speaker as to the process.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not believe there is a point of order, member for Greatorex. I can only advise that the minister and you get together and sort this out. Have discussions and see whether you are both on the same track.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are in the third reading and not going back to committee stages? I was listening to what the minister was saying in regards to that very point regarding the payments that are currently in place and being paid to recipients. I listened particularly to the answer and I thought: ‘Right, you are not going to touch those, therefore, we would be happy’. However, after the committee stage finished and the minister came back in the third reading, it is a concern to our side of the House.
It is our only point of concern with the amendments. We know where you are heading and why this is happening, and where it has come from - the Lord Report and all the rest of it. However, we are very interested in getting more detail on why you have recommended to go down this line. It could be sorted out here, but we are treading on protocols and how we are supposed to do things. However, it was not until he came back and clarified it in the third reading that …
Madam SPEAKER: We do have a question before the Chair at the moment. Minister?
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Recommit Bill to Committee Stage
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being reconsidered in Committee of the Whole on the question – That the bill, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
WORK HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 248)
(Serial 248)
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, the committee will now consider the bill, as amended.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, it was in discussion with my advisor that I realised that there could be different interpretations on what I was saying. I felt it important to make it clear on Hansard exactly the intent of the amendment. There was never any intent to mislead or suggest it was something other than what it was.
Dr Lim: I do not think that at all.
Mr STIRLING: That is why I felt it important to clarify at that third reading but I do apologise for getting us in that situation where I then could not respond.
The advice was that you could not write it, you could not take it back out without affecting everyone, including those who had received it. What the member for Greatorex is suggesting is that it may be open to challenge because you have acquired a right in the sense of a property right and, of course, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act says you can only do that on just terms of compensation. That, in itself, is a case for a future court decision if someone wanted to challenge and appeal that.
The legal advice behind the amendment, the way it was written, is that that has been taken into account and they believe they are on strong ground, that that case would not get up. Nonetheless, I would not pre-empt a court decision but that is the legal advice that government had.
Possibly you could say that those who were in the system and received that, it may have been fairer if they kept it; on the other hand, no one before has that right and no one after has that right. So there is a lack of equity for those others. We would be talking about a handful of cases inside and through the system which received this award. Nonetheless, it does change the possible interpretation, or the meaning, that was around the words I used before. It is important to have the record straight.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, that is why I was quite specific in asking the minister to explain in plain English what it meant. Those before the court case, no super. Those after this bill, no super. Those in between have been receiving super. And the minister at one stage said, ‘Yes, that is right and they will keep on getting’. Now he says, ‘No, they do not’.
Mr STIRLING: Keep what they have but they do not …
Dr LIM: They keep what they get, that is right. But they do not pay it back but they will not keep on getting it. Okay.
You said there is a handful. I wonder whether you know what the absolute numbers are, over what period of time? Again, why are you forcing these people who are now receiving the super component to go through a court case to get a determination on their behalf? These are the people who are already suffering a disability. They are getting compensation because of a disability. This government now wants to push them into a situation where they have to go through court. At whose cost? Who is going to fund their court case to try to get back just compensation for a right that you have just acquired?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I do not have the information with me in relation to the number of cases. We will seek it and we will provide that to the member for Greatorex. In relation to who might fund it, it is a bit hypothetical in that sense but I would imagine if there was a push by lawyers to say that this is wrong and they ought have super in their benefits, there might be a push for people to get together or get a test case through. In terms of the cost of running the case for the benefit, we would be talking in the main of about 9%. I suppose if it was a young worker over a long period of time then it would be of great significance, even recognising that 9% of super over a working life is probably not enough in itself to fund a productive and happy retirement. Nonetheless, there could be, in those terms, a significant loss of right.
Who funds it? Not government because we have to preserve the situation as it is.
Dr LIM: Not that I am a great union supporter, but I am now coming from the employee’s point of view or the patient advocate role I used to have. Minister, I repeat you are acquiring somebody’s right. You are saying: ‘You have the money and you keep it, but you are not going to get any more’. The court had determined that they had the right to be provided with that superannuation component of their workers compensation. There might be only five, there might be only one person, but that person now has to go through a court process to regain that or test it to see whether they can get it back from you.
Would you consider, as you did with NTGPASS, funding a test case? Remember that these employees currently receiving the super component are already on workers compensation. They are already financially disadvantaged, not to speak about their physical disadvantage. They are already suffering a physically disability from a work injury. You are now putting them onto a financial disability by taking away the right they have been awarded by the court. Why are you putting those people through this hardship when there is no need for it? If you choose to continue down this path of acquiring that right, why are you now forcing them to come back to you through a court process to regain the right? It may cost them a lot of money. Because it is a workers compensation case, they will not get legal aid, no way in the world. Where are they going to find the money to do it? Are you going to say: ‘Well, stiff, mate, you have no money, you cannot come back because you cannot do it’?
I do not think that is fair. In all sense of equity, that is just not fair. You say to me it is a handful, so you are not talking about a lot of money in continuing to provide them with that super component of their workers compensation. It is not a lot of money. It cannot be: you are talking of 75% of 9%, which is coming right down to nearly 5% or 6%; that is all.
Minister, you ought to think it through properly. This is depriving a physically disadvantaged person of a right they have been given by a court and you are going to say: ‘Stiff. You can come back to me and try to get it through a legal process,’ but the missing words are ‘if you can afford to have it done’.
I am happy to let it go if you say you will fund this test case and see where it goes. At least the disabled employees are not being financially disadvantaged and they have a chance to try to prove their case.
Mr STIRLING: It is a bit hard to argue this on equity; we could be talking one worker, two workers, three workers, I do not know. Until I have those figures, it is a bit hard to argue. What I do know is that thousands of injured workers between 1987 and the time that the decision around super went through for that one particular worker did not have it. Did not have it. Many workers who are injured in the future after this bill takes effect will not have it. So why would we be hell-bent on ensuring that one, two, three, four or even five, if there would be that many in the system, have a right simply because a court made a decision that in their view superannuation ought be seen as part of normal weekly earnings?
It was never envisaged as part of this legislation, never envisaged as part of this scheme, which is among the most generous in Australia, it was never recognised in any other jurisdiction in Australia. Why would government fund a test case to protect that benefit for one, two, three or four workers when thousands of others are not going to get it? There is no equity in that. They do keep whatever benefit was paid in during the time until this bill takes effect. That is the only way that it could be written.
The threat of legal challenge to it has been recognised by government and advice provided that whilst challenges may be forthcoming, they are not likely to be successful. That is the advice to government. I do not pre-empt the outcome of possible court decisions. It is a matter for the courts; it is a matter of how the case is fought out. However, we will not be going to fund the test case.
What we are talking about with the NTGPASS and the need to look at that is, there are many thousands of public servants in that situation between 1999 and now, and it is a very different situation to this. I will get the figures, I am sorry I do not have those figures – but probably a handful. I could say, on equity grounds, why should that handful have something that many thousands of others do not have and have no prospect of getting?
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I agree with the minister that many people, prior to the court case, never received the super component, and many people from now on into the future will not receive it either. However, the group in the middle that we talked about, why should they receive it? The court decided that they should receive it. Who are we to say that they should not? You are now saying that the court is wrong, and that is why you introduced this bill, and therefore, those of you who are captured by the court decision, well, stiff bickies.
It is up to you, minister. I have put my case to you. I believe you need to re-examine this more closely. Your knee-jerk reaction is probably a little bit too fast, and you are not considering the rights of Territorians who are currently in that middle group. These Territorians deserve to have their rights protected. I am just doing that to ensure that you are fully aware of what you are doing and you bear the consequences of those actions. I believe they are wrong.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, just for the record, again, we did not say that the courts were wrong. Courts will do what courts will do. In fact, I heard my colleague, the Minister for Housing, on ABC radio the other week and he said, ‘Courts are about justice’, and I thought what a great quote. If we all remembered that - courts are about justice - and that is the way they make their decisions, according to justice.
We did not say the court decision was wrong. What we recognised was the impact of that decision on the scheme, on viability, on costs, and the enhancement to workers’ benefits in comparison to what the scheme tries to do. I do not want it on the record that we viewed the court decision as wrong. Simply that we recognise the implications and consequences as a result of that court decision and the need to put the act back the way it was.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to, bill read a third time.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (ABORIGINAL CUSTOMARY LAW) BILL
(Serial 254)
(Serial 254)
Continued from 13 October 2004.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in relation to this bill, we say that it receives qualified support. It probably deserves qualified support because it does improve the current situation. However, it is worth noting that the CLP’s position in relation to it is that it does not go far enough. I will repeat that: it does not go far enough. I anticipate making amendments to this bill in due course because we want to get rid of customary law from the collective consideration of the courts.
Members will recall that I introduced the Criminal Code Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill in August 2003. The Sentencing Amendment Bill proposed that a court shall not have regard to any aspect of customary law in sentencing. We stand by that bill. There are many reasons why I introduced that bill, and it is appropriate that I now quote some of the reasons I gave then. I said on 13 August 2003:
- It is overwhelmingly the case that Aboriginal women and children are the victims of violence, for the
most part, in Aboriginal communities. The figures bear this out, as does sitting in any court in the
Northern Territory, on any day of the week. One might therefore expect, in light of the evidence,
that the legal system might afford these victims some form of protection, and that we, as legislators,
might assist them in that regard.
Indeed, a system exists whereby Aboriginal women and children, who are the victims of violence,
become victimised, even more by the legal system, and certainly marginalised, and not truly assisted
by it. And let there be no mistake, Aboriginal customary law, in criminal law proceedings, does not
assist them, rather it disadvantages them.
When he opposed the bill that I introduced, the Attorney-General said a number of things. I do not propose to revisit them all. However, the fact is that, from what he said at the time and subsequently in the media, it is abundantly clear that the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory supports two laws - one for Aboriginal people, and one for non-Aboriginal people - when it comes to the criminal jurisdiction in particular. There are a number of things I could say in relation to the Attorney-General’s reply which he gave on 26 November 2003, which I have recently re-read. There is one thing he said which, in my view, stands out, and I will quote it:
- … customary law claims and practices must lie within the overall constraints of the NT Criminal Code
and standards of international human rights.
I ask: whose rights? The rights of violent Aboriginal men, or women and children who are their victims? There are competing human rights here, and the Attorney-General clearly does not want to touch it. He would rather have a situation where the rights of violent Aboriginal men prevail over the rights of Aboriginal women and children …
Dr Toyne: You do not understand the bill.
Ms CARNEY: … who are the victims of violent offences …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Ms CARNEY: I note that members on the other side are calling it rubbish. That is their view. I have long maintained that customary law is a shield behind which violent Aboriginal men hide. That is the case. It cannot be anything other than the case.
Due to whatever sensitivities the Attorney-General has, we have a situation where, despite the extremely high, extraordinarily high, appalling high levels of violence in Aboriginal communities which has been talked about in this place - this has been talked about by the member for Arnhem, where he described some time ago - perhaps last year or the year before - the dysfunction in Aboriginal communities. He talked about the violence. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, he represented the Northern Territory at the national summit that was called on domestic violence.
Notwithstanding the comments made in this Chamber, some of which had been very genuine, the fact is we have a government that despite all of the evidence, despite the changing world in which we live, that is, an increasing number of Aboriginal women and children being assaulted and otherwise victimised, they do not want to do anything about it.
Why is it that a court can have regard to customary law under the Sentencing Act for violent Aboriginal men, when the court does not have the same regard for what could be described, I suppose, as customary law for non-Aboriginal men? It clearly demonstrates that this government accepts two systems - two systems of law. Well, we do not.
It is appropriate at this juncture that I refer to - and I am happy to direct members to it – an article in The Bulletin dated 27 July 2004 written by Paul Toohey. I will quote a relevant bit. I will apologise in advance because the short bit that I will quote has some language in it that is decidedly unparliamentary. However, it is a direct quote that was published in The Bulletin. Mr Toohey was talking about what he described as the ‘excuse of drunkenness and tribalism’. He said, and I quote:
- One Central Australian lawyer told The Bulletin: ‘Just because he lives out bush and hunts and dances,
so … what?’
Now …
Mrs AAGAARD: Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I would suggest that even though that was a quote, it is extremely unparliamentary.
Ms CARNEY: And I gave notice of the fact that it would be.
Mr Henderson: Yes, but we did not know what was in there.
Mrs AAGAARD: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It is a quote. It is attributed clearly to somebody else and it is something which is logical and probative. There is no point of order.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, speaking to another point of order. Standing orders does preclude unparliamentary language. Whether there is a definitive quote or not, the language that is utilised in this House is on the public record. I do not believe that that particular word is worthy of the public record of this parliament. I would ask the Chair to reconsider, regarding parliamentary propriety, whether that word should be on the Parliamentary Record. The word could have been left out or out of context. I certainly do not think that this House wants to set a precedent that members can come in here and use quotes like that and have that type of language on the Parliamentary Record.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Members on the other side have misunderstood two points. One is that, firstly, I did the House the courtesy of apologising in advance, declaring the language was unparliamentary. Secondly, I am quoting from a source. We are all representatives of the Northern Territory community. Many of us, I suspect, read The Bulletin. Indeed, many people in the Northern Territory probably read The Bulletin. It was published in The Bulletin. If the Leader of Government Business wants to censor what can be quoted, what material we can bring in here, then god knows where it will end up. That is the quote, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to rule against the point of order.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. Just because it was printed and the member for Araluen decided to quote it, there is no reason for breaching a convention of using unparliamentary language in this House. On her analogy that because it is in the printed media she can use unparliamentary language, therefore any standing order can be breached if it is in print.
Therefore, any blasphemous words which she may care to read out, which I daresay she will if she gets the nod on this one, can be said; any words that are disrespectful to the Crown can be said; any words disrespectful to other MLAs or other parliamentarians in other places that are in print can be said. According to the principle that she is now trying to bring into this House, because they appear in a paper or in printed media, anywhere, in any form, is not a breach of standing orders.
I urge you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, to rule that this is unparliamentary; it is unwarranted and uncalled for. I certainly hope that the print media pick up on the foul language that the member for Araluen uses in this House because no one else would ever dare to be so impertinent as to use this type of language in a place like this.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Regarding the point of order, there is a matter of context in which all words may and may not be used. The word uttered by the member for Araluen is, in almost every situation, unparliamentary. After taking advice from the Clerk, I am of the view that the word should not appear in Hansard, but rather that the document be tabled and made available for the public to see should someone decide to investigate it.
I formally order that the word be expunged from Hansard, and that the publication be made available by way of tabling.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, presumably the article in its entirety would not be published in Hansard?
Mr Elferink: It can be taken as a tabled paper.
Ms Carney: Yes, I am very happy to table it.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct, it will not be in Hansard, but it will be a tabled paper.
Ms CARNEY: That is cool. The point has been made in any event, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I still request that the member for Araluen withdraw that remark.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think there was a withdrawal, member for Sanderson.
Mr KIELY: No, there was no withdrawal.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, do you formally withdraw that, then that will become a tabled paper?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr KIELY: And she should withdraw!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Would you sit down!
Ms CARNEY: As I say, in any event the point has been made! If government members want to be cute then so be it. I take this matter very seriously and it is abundantly clear to me that some of the members on the other side do not. That is very unfortunate.
I remind members that the Attorney-General also said in his reply opposing the bill I introduced, which was about August 2003, and has since repeated it in the media, which is something of a worry because he is misrepresenting, as I understand it, the current situation. The Attorney-General said on 26 November 2003:
- … the courts have used customary law as an aggravating factor in sentencing for offences of violence …
The Attorney-General named two cases. I doubt that there are more. If there are more, I invite him to give me the list. If there are more than half a dozen, I would be surprised. What is disturbing is that he did not say how many cases there were, even though he quoted two. In fact, I think he said elsewhere in his speech that the court used customary law as an aggravating factor for sentencing offences on many occasions. I doubt that that is the case, and I challenge him to provide me with a list of cases.
What we do know, though, is that on a regular basis in the courts in the Northern Territory, submissions as to customary law are used to mitigate sentencing. That is the case. Having said that, though, and in relation to the way the court hears about customary law to mitigate the sentence, the bill presently before us does improve the present system so that a party who seeks to present information about customary law must give notice to the other party and provide information by way of oral evidence, affidavit or statutory declaration. That does overcome the problem that has existed, namely submissions from the bar table, which have, some would say, appeared so seductive to judges and magistrates in many cases.
However, whilst this bill formalises the way in which customary law can be put to the court on notice to the other party, it still provides for customary law to be used in mitigation when sentencing. We say that it should not be there at all because it is a shield behind which violent men hide. That has been our view for some time, and it is appropriate for me to read another part of what I said in August 2003 to hammer the point home in regards to the role of customary law in the criminal jurisdiction for sentencing, and it is that specific.
The CLP acknowledges the role of customary law in a number of laws across the Northern Territory, and customary law has been acknowledged for many, many years, but we say, given the extraordinarily and outrageously high levels of violence, there is a point at which legislators need to nail their colours to the mast and say, ‘Enough is enough’. It should also include an acknowledgement that there are competing rights and that, the rights of Aboriginal women and children, when they have been assaulted, should be favoured above those of violent Aboriginal men. I said, in August 2003:
- There is nothing culturally appropriate about crimes of violence and it behoves us all to do what we can
to stop it. If we cannot actually stop the violence, we can at least do our best to prevent men hiding
behind the veil of customary law. Offenders who invoke customary law do so for their own benefit.
Indeed, a feminist analysis would be that it works to assist men and disadvantage women. That
certainly appears to be the case when you look at the high level of violence on communities,
and those who are the perpetrators and those who are the victims. Customary law is used as a
shield to further mitigate the sentencing disposition which follows a finding of guilt or a plea of guilty.
- I went on to say:
Customary law, a part of which is payback, often shields an offender from stronger sentences. It is
an unfair and unconscionable mechanism by which their criminality is reduced or excused, resulting
in reduced sentences or, in some cases, no periods of imprisonment at all.
Nevertheless, given that the government is apparently, and the Attorney-General in particular, comfortable with the fact that the use of, and reliance on, customary law in sentencing protects violent offenders, then we are left to consider this bill on its merits. Knowing that the government has no intention of changing the law to remove customary law from sentencing, knowing that the Attorney-General would prefer to sit by and refuse to act, we are in a position to offer qualified support to this bill, which I said at the outset.
Mr Henderson: Two bob each way.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I could go on talking about this for another 25 minutes, I am happy too.
Mr Henderson: Oppose it.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. No, no. We said - the member for Wanguri, Leader of Government Business, dill that he is, must have misunderstood, or must have wax in his ears.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I am not a sensitive person, however, it is unparliamentary. She can call me that outside, but not in here.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, will you withdraw that?
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw ‘dill’, and replace it with - I think ‘fool’ on the last occasion was ordered not unparliamentary …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! It is unparliamentary. It is in standing orders about casting aspersions such as that. It is quite clear, it is in there. It is unparliamentary.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw the adjective you used to describe the member for Wanguri on the second occasion.
Ms CARNEY: I am happy to withdraw that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
I note that the member for Wanguri said that it was a bob each way, and he challenged us to oppose it. I will repeat that, at the beginning I said - I think twice - that this bill warrants qualified support. It is the job of the opposition to support or oppose and, occasionally, oppositions do sit on the fence. I am saying to the member for Wanguri in particular that, in relation to this bill …
Mr Henderson: You support it. That is great. Let’s move on.
Ms CARNEY: No, we are not moving on, member for Wanguri. You are going to hear for the next 25 minutes how much we support this bill in a qualified way because, if you are going to throw inane, provocative, offensive remarks across the Chamber, then you deserve everything you get. I am happy to keep grazing over the issues so that you know where I am coming from. The member for Wanguri does not even know when to stop. I believe, if I heard his mutterings correctly, that he invited me to move on. I assume that he understands that it is the right of the opposition to support or oppose, even in a qualified way. However, the Leader of Government Business is a bit of a mess when it comes to his presentation in the parliament.
When the opposition acts in a certain way and government members get twitchy, he acts in a very aggressive, provocative, offensive way. I remember saying in the Chamber about 18 months ago that it was pretty easy to see what buttons to press with the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party. The button pressed is that this government reacts terribly badly to criticism; it just does not like receiving any form of criticism.
Therefore, having started my reply to the bill saying: ‘This bill is worthy of qualified support’, and then going on to say why it is that it does not go far enough - at some length in a fairly logical, sensible way, I would have thought – and why it is that we do not support a situation where the rights of violent men are protected above those of women and children who have been assaulted, the member for Wanguri had a go. He cannot help himself. He has demonstrated that ever since I came to parliament in October 2001, and he has never let me down. Press the criticise button and off he goes!
I do not know what he expects. No, I do actually. I know what the member for Wanguri expects; I have just worked it out. He would like us …
Mr Henderson: You have 20 minutes.
Ms CARNEY: You have another 20 minutes of this. You would like us, member for Wanguri, to simply stand here and agree - possibly in about 10 words or less - to every piece of legislation that is brought before this parliament. I said on another occasion that my life is too short to simply nod to every piece of legislation …
Mr Kiely: Then why do you inflict it on us?
Ms CARNEY: What was that contribution, member for Sanderson? Please provide us with your illuminating views.
Dr Burns: Just get on with it.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, member for Johnston.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Araluen should be addressing her remarks through the Chair.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to address your remarks through the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: I can assure you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that I will do so.
I would ask that, if members of the government do not want to listen to this, there is a door over there. By their presence, they clearly do want to listen to this. I would be grateful if they would give me the courtesy of letting me finish. Indeed, had the member for Wanguri given me the courtesy of letting me finish without his inane interjections, we may have been finished by now, but alas, there is more to be said.
Before I was rudely interrupted by the member for Sanderson, I suggested, or proffered, what it was that the member for Wanguri would like us to do. Come in here and just agree? If we did just agree with everything then we would not have a government and an opposition. We could all sit on that side of the House and we would not need to disagree in any way shape or form. No doubt, the member for Wanguri would think that was a fabulous result. What the member for Wanguri fails to appreciate is that there are 10 of us over here actually elected by the people of the Northern Territory. We represent our electorates and constituents.
Of course it is noteworthy that last night in the adjournment debate when I was talking about a serious health issue on behalf of a constituent, the member for Wanguri got all twitchy about that as well and just encouraged me to forget about that and get into the Christmas spirit. I said last night and I say again, that we are pretty well paid for this. I will not put the interests of my constituents above having a drink at Christmas and getting into the Christmas spirit.
Equally, I will not stand by and allow a situation to continue to the extent that I am able and that is let the rights of Aboriginal men, many of whom, although clearly not all, but many of whom who go to our courts are violent. I repeat that there is nothing culturally appropriate about physical and sexual violence. I do not know, perhaps the member for Wanguri thinks there is.
Mr Henderson: You are offensive.
Ms CARNEY: Perhaps he thinks physical and sexual violence is okay.
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. It is against standing orders to impugn motives that are unbecoming to any member of this House. The member well knows that. I urge you to ask her to withdraw those very offensive remarks which have no substance.
Ms Carney: I said I did not know.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I am asking you just to address your comments to the bill and try to keep it not personal. I do not think there is a need to withdraw that hypothetical.
Mr Kiely: And withdraw those comments.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. There is no doubt that the …
Mrs AAGAARD: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I am very concerned that the member for Araluen has been allowed to maintain that sort of thing on the public record. She made inferences that the member for Wanguri agreed that sexual molestation of young women was acceptable. That is completely unparliamentary and she should be asked to withdraw.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have made a determination. My recollection was that it was a hypothetical that ‘maybe that blah, blah, blah’. I have given a direction that her comments be confined to the bill and we try to avoid the personal attacks. There is no point of order.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. That same tactic, that same kind of innuendo has been used time and time again by the member for Araluen. Last sitting, I recall quite vividly she used the same tactics. It is not an accident …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. It is interesting. It must be the critical button that has been pressed …
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I would urge you to seek advice from the Clerk. I am not trying to be difficult here but I am offended by the imputation that the member for Araluen has made by way of innuendo that the member for Wanguri would condone domestic violence, sexual assault, against Aboriginal women by Aboriginal men. I see no reason for that to stand on the public record unless the member really wishes to impugn my character by having that on the record without any evidence. I would urge you to seek advice from the Clerk. I would be happy to accept your ruling after you have had advice from the Clerk.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Wanguri has, as is usually the case, twisted it. I simply raised the question that I did not know what his views were on these things. So he need not get hysterical; his blood pressure need not go through the roof. It was simply that I did not know his views on these matters.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: After taking some advice, I ask the member for Araluen to rephrase that.
Ms CARNEY: I will rephrase it, and I look forward to the Hansard tomorrow, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I will put it this way: I do not know the member for Wanguri’s views on physical and sexual violence.
Mr Henderson: I oppose it.
Ms CARNEY: I do not know, and I look forward to him telling me at a later time.
These are the sorts of things that I would have thought members of parliament in the execution of their duties could raise. I know the views of my colleagues on this side of the House; I do not know the views of individual members on that side of the House. I can make all sorts of assumptions. I reckon I know what a couple think, but I really do not know. I do not socialise with these people, nor would I want to, but I do not know their views. We tend only to talk about things of a political nature, but, clearly, they are a very sensitive bunch of people.
I wish their sensitivities would extend to Aboriginal women and children. I hope that the indignation shown by the member for Wanguri in relation to my views on what he thinks about physical and sexual violence extends to outrage for the violence committed in Aboriginal communities. I can, however, only assume that it does not because if he was truly outraged as I am outraged, as members on this side of the House are outraged, as I assume the member for Braitling is outraged, about the outrageously high numbers of Aboriginal women and children who are being beaten up every day and every night in many of our Aboriginal communities, then the member for Wanguri, as a minister of the Crown and, in particular, the minister for Police, might even want to do something about it.
I hope his indignation extends to the current situation in the Northern Territory. I can only assume it does not because if it did, he would have had a word …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 62, which states very clearly that:
- No member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against the Assembly or any member of the Assembly
or against any House or member of another Australian parliament or against any member of the judiciary,
or against any Northern Territory statute unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, nor shall a
member attribute directly or by innuendo to another member unbecoming conduct or motives; and all
offensive references …
All of us who are elected to this parliament are law abiding citizens. We all find it absolutely offensive that any person in the Territory would be subject to physical or sexual abuse. To apply innuendo that somehow in supporting this legislation, which the opposition also supports, that we support, or that I in particular, support physical or sexual violence against Aboriginal people, I find offensive. There is no need to go down this path. I would urge you to rule under Standing Order 62 that I find that by innuendo, these comments, this tirade of abuse from the member for Araluen offensive and unbecoming to this parliament. I would urge you to ask her to withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister cannot be recognised unless he is speaking from his post.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I can just make a ruling: this is robust debate and in the context, those comments are not within the scope of Standing Order 62. There is no point of order from the member for Wanguri.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I know that many Territorians and certainly women, Aboriginal women and non-Aboriginal women, are appalled by the high level of violence. They come to me. They go to people like the member for Braitling. I know the member for Macdonnell has had a number of representations, from Aboriginal people in particular, who are outraged by the high level of violence, who do say, ‘We do not want two systems of law in the Northern Territory’.
Why is it that a white man can go to court and submissions or evidence as to his lifestyle, I suppose, for want of a better description, cannot be taken into account by a court in the same way that customary law can be taken into account for Aboriginal people?
This is the Northern Territory in 2004. I would have thought that people like the member for Wanguri, and others, would have received representations in the way that we have that would be to the effect of not condoning two systems of law, of ensuring that a violent white man who goes to a court is treated in the same way that a violent Aboriginal man is, and therefore it follows that a white victim of violence be afforded the same level of protection as a black victim of violence.
The Northern Territory’s Attorney-General, and the likes of the member for Wanguri, can say whatever they like, but the facts speak for themselves. The Australian Labor Party government in the Territory favours a law, a system, whereby Aboriginal men are favoured above white men, and where violent Aboriginal men are put above …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the member for Araluen is alluding to some sort of racial discrimination being taken on by government. I find that offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. We do refer to Aboriginal people in this Chamber and we should be allowed to. However, the member for Araluen was referring to the collective Australian Labor Party in her comments.
Member for Araluen, though, I will caution you. You have been provocative, and some of your statements have been out of order. I ask you to refrain from personal comment and stick to the bill. Keep your remarks relevant.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope that the member for Wanguri proposes to contribute to this debate because, having said that I do not know what his views are, I look forward to hearing them. They might be similar to mine, but I come back to the point that I can only assume that they are not because, in August 2003, the government had an opportunity – the member for Wanguri was a part of that government at the time - to support a bill which would have removed customary law from section 5 of the Sentencing Act, and that was opposed.
That bill was opposed by every member of the Labor Party, every member of this government. Not one of them even had the courage to have a go at crossing the floor, have a go, presumably, of talking to their colleagues and saying: ‘Shouldn’t we get this right?’ So, based on that, based on the cross-Chamber comments made by the member for Wanguri, I can only assume that his views are fundamentally different from mine.
I said earlier that I am not prepared to sit by and just accept what government says. I get paid too much for that. There are people in my electorate who expect much more of me. I am very sorry that the member for Wanguri has such difficulty with that. It appears to me that he does not understand the parliamentary process or, if he understands it, then he deeply resents it, on the basis of his form …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, would you get back to the bill, please.
Ms CARNEY: … that members can come in here and debate legislation. I said at the beginning, and I have said throughout the last 30 or so minutes, that this bill deserves qualified support, given that the government is not going to eliminate customary law from consideration of the courts when sentencing. I am, at the end of the day, a realist, as are my colleagues. It would have been absurd for us to maintain our position in relation to customary law, and then in relation to this bill say we oppose the bill. That would be churlish, a word oft used by the member for Wanguri and some of his colleagues. I do not propose to be churlish with this type of legislation, and these types of issues. If members on the other side chose to do so, then that is a matter for them and their conscience.
I say to the Attorney-General that this - and I respect the fact that he has been pretty silent throughout this. He knows where I am coming from and, if we disagree, so be it …
Dr Toyne interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I did not hear what he just said. However, at least he has not been anywhere near offensive and childish as the member for Wanguri in the context of this debate. The Attorney-General knows well that this bill would obtain qualified support. It is worthy of qualified support in all of the circumstances. I am sorry …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I am sorry, member for Wanguri, was that an interjection, or was it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, speak to me.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting..
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, cease.
Mr Henderson: I did not say anything.
Madam SPEAKER: The member behind you then; I was speaking to the member behind. Just cease your interjections, thank you. Let us get this debate finished.
Ms CARNEY: I am appalled, Madam Speaker. I do not know what it is about this issue which is so difficult for the government. We have the member for Wanguri throwing absurd, inane comments. Now we have a minister of the Crown, an indigenous leader considered by some, a member of this parliament for some years, the member for Arnhem, having a great chuckle ...
Mr Ah Kit: Because you are a joke.
Ms CARNEY: It is not often I am lost for words, minister, but …
Mr Ah Kit: You are a joke.
Ms CARNEY: … I almost am. I find that astonishing and, perhaps, a bit upsetting. However, as I said earlier, it is a matter for you and your conscience.
The member for Wanguri has necessitated me spending much more time on this than I anticipated. I had a couple of pages of notes; I intended to quote from what I said in August 2003. However, the behaviour of the member for Wanguri demonstrated in the context of this very serious debate that he does not take it seriously and that he is prepared to take cheap political shots. We are not; it is as simple as that.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude in the way that I started; that is, this bill improves the present situation and is worthy of qualified support.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I support the bill despite the diatribe we heard for the last 20 minutes.
Aboriginal customary law has been maintained for many thousands of years across the Territory. In many of our indigenous communities it remains a strong element of daily life. The Martin government has committed to formally recognising aspects of customary law where possible, and where it is not in obvious conflict with the statutory or common law of the Northern Territory.
This bill will implement the second part of the government’s response to recommendation 5 of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee’s inquiry into Aboriginal customary law. It will ensure that courts will fully and appropriately test evidence about customary law issues that may affect a court’s sentencing of an offender. Customary law evidence has, at least since the 1950s, been informally presented to Northern Territory courts as a mitigating factor for courts to consider in sentencing indigenous offenders.
This bill formalises what has been an informal ad hoc process. However, it must be borne in mind that we are not talking about the reliance on Aboriginal customary law as a defence to a sexual offence. It is interesting that the member for Araluen, after standing in here for 20 minutes, hand on the heart, and professing that she has the only mandate in terms of the violence that is committed against Aboriginal women and children decides to leave the Chamber. No, we are not talking about …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You know standing orders and I should not have to point them out to you about reflecting on the presence or absence of a member in this Chamber. So you withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw the comment about her presence.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I said I withdraw, member for Drysdale.
This is an issue that is not just solely the heart of the CLP. For many years - and I will get to that - indigenous women and children have been let down by the previous CLP government in this.
This bill and this amendment is actually going to be addressing something that has been missing for a long time. What we are talking about is how a sentencing judge is to go about the complex exercise of identifying the surrounding facts and circumstances that shed light on, and are relevant to, the commission of the offence and how it should be punished. This bill will enable a judge to carry out the sentencing task without having to operate in a virtual vacuum when it comes to expert guidance in relation to Aboriginal customary law matters. It is aimed at ensuring that the quality and reliability of the information provided to, and acted upon, by the sentencing judge is such that the interest of the victim, the offender and the community are all safeguarded.
Madam Speaker, as I have said, the exercise of inquiring into and taking evidence about Aboriginal customary law is not something new in the Territory. It has been happening in land claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act for decades. The way it works in the land claims is that the claimants have their own consultant anthropologist, or anthropologists, often working in conjunction with senior traditional informants who are experts in their own right; the Northern Territory government has its own consultant anthropologist; and the Land Commissioner also has a consultant anthropologist who assists him in assessing the evidence and submissions put to him on customary law matters by all parties. It would be inconceivable in a land claim for the Land Commissioner to proceed to determine a claim on the basis of expert anthropological evidence and commentary coming only from anthropologists retained on behalf of the claimants. This bill will mean it is no different in sentencing hearings in the Supreme Court.
This formal way of presentation of evidence of a customary law nature is fair. Fair to the victim of the crime, fair to the perpetrator, and fair to the community where the customary law is practiced or respected. Formalising the way information about any relevant customary law is presented to court means that any party to criminal proceedings who wishes to present aspects of customary law has to give formal notice to the other party and to provide the information as oral evidence in court or by affidavit or by statutory declaration.
The Pascoe case involved people who are my constituents. I was provided with a briefing from authoritative community spokespersons in relation to the reality of the Aboriginal customary law rules and guidelines that apply to the fact situation dealt with by the court. I do not propose to go into all the details of that case except to make one critically important point: neither the prosecution, nor the sentencing judge sought or obtained any report from any appropriately qualified independent expert regarding the substance and details of the customary law rules and guidelines that applied.
This brings me to the point that I was making earlier. In this Chamber we have members who were members of the legal fraternity for many years before becoming members of parliament. They worked at the coalface of criminal law in the courts and would have seen different cases of violence against indigenous women. Not once was there an outcry to have this changed, mandated and put in legislation. Nor, through those defence arguments where customary law rights were raised as a defence, did anyone bother putting the views of those women and that the prosecution should have been testing or validating the arguments raised by the defence.
It is hypocritical for members to say that it is the mandate of the CLP to support the rights of Aboriginal women when they have had 26 years to do something to fix it. Your hypocrisy stinks. Do not come in here …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder if the words ‘hypocrite’ and ‘hypocrisy’ is allowable or disallowable. It has been on both sides of the fence.
Madam SPEAKER: In the context in which it was given, it is not personal, so I will allow the comment.
Mr Dunham: Thank you, it is a word I like to use myself.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will withdraw ‘stinks’ but I do not think I will withdraw ‘hypocrisy’. Unlike the member for Araluen, I get around my electorate, and not just my electorate; I have been into the electorate of the member for Macdonnell as well as the various electorates of bush members and talked to many women in relation to this issue. The member for Araluen should choke on the hypocrisy of what she said for the last 20 minutes.
Madam Speaker, this bill will ensure that when presented, customary law evidence will be tested by the court to the benefit of all. For that reason, I heartily commend the bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I confess that I have struggled with these issues over the years, and even until quite recently, I had some sympathy for the position being put by government in this bill. However, having considered the issue of mitigation of sentencing, I am concerned about the use of traditional law for mitigating purposes.
The essence of this whole argument can be summed up in the opening sentence of the second last paragraph of the second reading speech of the Attorney-General, who said:
- 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.
Good! What it does is tidies up what lawyers and other people in this place have seen all too often in the courtroom in the case of some sort of payback, which is often used as an excuse for a stabbing, and that payback somehow mitigates from the seriousness of the stabbing for which a person has been found guilty.
It is very attractive to say if there is a customary law element to this, then we should allow a certain amount of mitigation to occur in the sentencing process because we understand that a person has, in some fashion or another, done what they have done lawfully under traditional law.
Let us discuss the nature of what we are talking about: criminal law. That is what you are sent to gaol for. You are not sent to gaol for non-criminal matters such as breach of contract or negligence, unless it is criminal negligence. Criminal law sets a very low benchmark in our community, which is basically what we consider the lowest possible standards a community will tolerate from its citizens before we start to actively consider removing those people from society. That is why we send people to gaol ultimately. We even do that for simple offences such as people not paying their fines; they go to gaol. That is the nature of criminal law. It sets the lowest standard.
Beyond that there is the tort of negligence, breach of contract, all manner of other types of other legal frameworks within which the law of the Northern Territory and the former CLP government was happy to acknowledge the existence of customary law. For example, traditional marriage is recognised inasmuch as that, should a person die as a result of a motor vehicle accident, and that car is properly insured under the third party personal insurance, under our Northern Territory legislation, as a recognition of traditional law, wives, plural, are allowed to be recipients of that income. It also washes over into succession law and those sorts of things.
So there are whole bunch of acts which recognise to a degree, greater or less, the existence of customary law. The issue actually here is: what is the bottom level that we are prepared to allow. Now, the current situation is that, as the member for Arafura quite correctly points out, often the courts will hear blind evidence of customary practices, and often the courts would not be any the wiser whether those customary practices are allowable or not.
However, the bill, quite rightly if you are going to argue customary law in mitigation, demands that some higher level of evidence be offered to support any assertion that customary law is being practised, and I support that. I agree with the shadow Attorney-General on this matter that the problem is that it simply does not go far enough. What it does by inference is acknowledge that certain things like stabbing people in the thighs may still, in some way, be mitigation for the purposes of sentencing.
Mitigation, in its very nature, is suggestive of things being less serious. If we were to say that there is a maximum sentence for every offence, and there was actually a minimum sentence for every offence, we could call that mandatory sentencing if you like. But if we apply maximum sentences and we would expect the courts to apply maximum sentences in all findings of it guilt, then clearly that would be an unwelcome outcome. The courts are allowed to turn their minds to different levels of offences in sentencing, and so you plead mitigation. You go into court and say: ‘Well, I did smash that window, but in actual fact the person had just called my wife an unspeakable name and, in a rage, I threw a brick. I knew that it was the wrong thing to do and it was not quite provocation under the Criminal Code so, yes, I am guilty of it. But gee whiz, I was very angry at the time and that person’s window deserved it’. The court will quite rightly say, well, there is a certain element of mitigation in there, and I will not send you to gaol for the mandatory - from memory off the top of my head for a straight criminal damage - two years. You will get fined, the facts proved without proceeding to conviction; there is a whole raft of possibilities available to a court.
What are we doing in this instance? We are saying that, if a crime of violence occurs, that that crime of violence, if the person is found guilty of stabbing another person, we are going to allow that person because they are an Aboriginal person to claim that I stabbed that person in the leg because it was part of my traditional law. However, we then come to the point of what is the lowest standard that we are prepared to accept as a parliament regarding what the bottom line is, and if we are not going to allow our expectations to drop any lower.
As much as I have wrestled with this issue, and even up until recently I have still been wrestling with this particular issue, finally you have to come to the point where you have to say the use of customary law to commit criminal offences and use that as mitigation, I do not think carries ultimate weight. There are two reasons for these. The first one has been alluded to by the shadow Attorney-General in terms of women and children being victims of crime – the law that we have has been developed, not over 30 000 years, but certainly over the last 1000 years from England, in trespass on the person and those sorts of things, and criminal trespass on the person, for a very good reason. And especially in the last 100 years, we have been developing standards where we said these things are just not good enough. We are not going to accept certain base behaviours in our community.
Women and children are often the victims of these offences and, often, the only respite they can get, sadly, is when the person who is convicted of the offence is taken away from the community. In many of these communities the population is – what? – 300 or 400 people, which means that when that person is released they come back into the community. If they have argued - after an assault on a woman, for arguments sake; perhaps even a wife - that it was under some sort of customary law and the argument was successful and mitigation was granted, the offender will be back in the community quicker. That is something that is of concern.
The second principle which I turn my mind to is this: if a person, even under legitimate customary law, is stabbed in the back of the leg, and the person who stabs them is convicted - or I should bring it back a bit. That person who was stabbed in the back of the leg feels aggrieved and was an Aboriginal, but they say: ‘Look, I do not want to subordinate myself to customary law; I want to turn to the law of the community in general …’ - which is non-customary law; the stuff that you and I and the courts do in the Northern Territory - ‘… and I want to feel the full cover and respect under that law’. We, as the dominant legal system, come up with certain standards and say to people out there in the community that these are the standards …
Mr Kiely: Oh, there we go!
Mr ELFERINK: Just as an aside, now the power has gone, I will be curious to know how long before the minister for power can guarantee that will be going on? If Mr Wood is to be believed, then perhaps it could be days.
However, I will continue in the dark. If a person turns to our legal system and says: ‘I want the full protection of your legal system,’ the implication in this legislation is that when the person who has stabbed that person and seeks the protection of the legal system and goes to court and they are ultimately convicted, the offender then says: ‘I want to rely on customary law as my source of protection in mitigation and being sentenced’. Because the victim in this instance is a person who has been subjected to customary law, that means they get a second class reliance on a legal system which for me - because I am not subjected to customary law - would be a first class or a normal reliance on that legal system.
I find that that particular position means that I cannot bring myself, as a member of this House, to lower the standards one step further. It is something that I have wrestled with, but there has to be a line drawn in the sand on this stuff. Because a person is Aboriginal they should not, as a victim, be delivered of a second class standard of sentencing when a person who has stabbed them is relying on a legal system which can only be alluded to, and can only be suggested of. The determinants are quite vague and insufficient in particular and individual cases to satisfy me that it is sufficient to say it is something that can be effectively relied upon.
Because of that, I cannot bring myself to say that there are two standards of Territorians under law. To allow this to percolate through for the purposes of sentencing, as tempting as it may seem, it means that there will be people out there who get second class outcomes. That is the shame of recognising customary law in this fashion.
However, that is not to deny customary law because there are rafts of other relationships amongst Aboriginal people which easily fit within the parameters of our legal system. I have spoken at length on this in the past and I do not intend to revisit here today. Suffice to say that fully 90% of custom could be recognised within our current legal systems. We have even tinkered with our legislation to adjust our laws for other purposes, relationships, recognition of certain other elements of law, which is good, but we just cannot afford to go below the standard that the criminal law sets.
It is for those reasons that I am reluctant to say that this bill does enough. It steps in the right direction which is why it has the support of members opposite, but the fact is that it is still does not provide protection for people who live in my electorate. These are the victims who live in the communities that I see everyday. When one of those people does turn to the western legal system, they have every right to be protected by it like any other citizen in the Northern Territory. To suggest otherwise, is not conducive to an equitable result under the law.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is quite interesting that we are having this debate parliament because I cannot recall before when we have actually discussed customary law and what happens in courts so openly. Members will be aware that I frequently championed the rights of, and the need to protect, young indigenous girls and women in our court system. I guess this amendment has been prompted by the fact that I have amendments sitting on the books at the moment. It is true that my amendment has caused some concern throughout the legal profession, so I appreciate the fact that this minister has addressed that and tried to come up with a solution, but still maintaining the main purpose of my act which was to protect girls, particularly at the sentencing stage in sexual assault.
We are all concerned that family and domestic violence is recognised as a major issue in Aboriginal communities. It is difficult because when it comes to court action the evidence can be skewed by customary law whether it is a mitigating or aggravating factor. It is always very difficult for young girls and women to go to the police to lodge a complaint, and for them to go through the whole court process. It is an extremely trying and difficult thing for them to do. It is even more and more disappointing and sickening for them when they realise that customary law is being used, not in its proper sense, against them as an excuse for what the perpetrator has done.
I am aware customary law is complex. I do not profess to be an expert on it. I have only listened to many people and their views. However, it seems to me that it follows that only partial representation of aspects of customary law in the court situation, this partial representation, is open to criticism. Many of the people in that situation have said that the customary law that is often presented is very selective but because of the current situation it cannot be challenged. We have seen that in a number of situations in recent court cases and it has received much public attention. I believe that it is a bold step on the government’s part to take this step when I know that, in many cases, they have not been seen to address this as strongly as we would wish.
It is also refreshing to see the member for Arafura stand up and speak up for her people with a lot of passion. I have had many discussions with her and I think she agrees with me that sometimes customary law evidence that is presented is skewed, not always accurate, and there is often no chance to challenge it.
In particular, often women in a community will state the attitudes of certain sectors of their community which do not necessarily represent the collective beliefs of the community. I refer to the fact that some of the grannies have said to me that some of the things that are being presented by the men are not true and not accepted as true customary law.
It is a complex law, but in our current sentencing process there is little opportunity for alternate views to be raised. The government bill aims to remove this restriction by allowing parties to present other views or opinions. That is the substance of what I was really trying to achieve: that when we get to this end point, the prosecutor is not suddenly hijacked by the presentation of customary law that they cannot refute because they are not aware that it is going to be raised.
This can only strengthen the legal system, ensuring everyone, defendant and victim alike, is assured that customary law evidence will be fairly presented. Is not that what we are all about, having a fair and just system? Equally, we are not suggesting that this is a way that secret or sacred information should be made public. It is merely allowing the relevant people the opportunity to present other information. After all, what is at stake is not just the rights of the defendant, which we hear too often, but the rights of the victim and the fact that we want our court system to be fair and just.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have done a lot of consultation since the government came to me with this proposition. I wrote to many of the organisations that I had previously. I am aware that some of those organisations did not support what I had proposed, so I asked them to consider what was being proposed now. I will read one of the comments that came back:
- In my view, the advantage of the bill is that by providing for the formal introduction of evidence of customary
law to the court, the court is able to balance human rights standards with customary law issues on a case by
case basis. This balancing act takes place after the court has heard the evidence called by the parties, the
cross-examination of witnesses called by the parties, and the submission of the parties.
That was from someone who did not agree with my bill but now agrees that the government’s bill will be a fair and balanced approach, so I am pleased to see that.
There are, however, other solutions and members would be aware that when this bill was introduced, I moved to postpone debate on my own bill. I took that action because I wanted to see how the government’s bill works when it is implemented. The only way we can really assess the impact of this is to see it in practice, and we will all be looking closely and consulting with people on it.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this may seem like a straight-forward amendment, but from some of the comments that have been made by the opposition, it is not so simple. I hope that people in Aboriginal communities do not see it as an attack on, or interference with, customary law. That was never the intent of what we were trying to do.
We have seen instances where the government has acted in what they thought was good faith only to have uproar from some of our very respected Aboriginal leaders, and I can think of that coming through the Northern Land Council in one instance, but I do not see the bill that way. It is the duty of government now to explain the bill to communities, to elders and women. Most of all, we need to get that message through to the women and the girls that this is now in place and will help them when they are actually in the court.
This is the next step that the government needs to concentrate on; that we get that message out in communities so that these women will have the confidence, when they do appear in court, that the court will be there to protect them. I ask the minister not just to have a poster or anything like that, but to make sure that this is an item addressed in your Family Violence campaign.
We already have a problem with negative views of the legal system by indigenous people and we have seen that in many cases. It is vital that the government sells this bill in the right way so that women and girls believe their rights will be protected and their voices will be heard in the legal system. That is part of the trouble; they have not had the confidence or belief that the legal system will protect them. At the same time, Aboriginal elders and leaders should also be assured the bill is not seeking to interfere with customary law, and I stress that. It has never been my purpose to interfere with customary law, just to ensure that it does not interfere with the rights of young girls.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, having said that, I will support the bill. I call on the government to take one step further. The bill only concerns sentencing procedures, and we have heard this from the member for Araluen. What about situations during court proceedings when the defence intends to introduce customary law in defending certain behaviours or attitudes? At the moment, the defence is not required to tell the prosecution about the evidence; the onus lies only with the prosecution. It does seem somewhat of a contradiction if we allow both parties to be aware of any customary law evidence during the sentencing phase but not during the criminal proceedings. I ask the government to consider amending the Criminal Code to allow the prosecution to give notice and be supplied with any matters the defence intends to rely upon with regard to customary law and vice versa.
I would also ask the minister if he could clarify for me the circumstances in minor offences where customary law is a main factor. For example, a situation where a person who may be unlicensed but is under a cultural obligation to drive a vehicle because he is in an avoidance relationship with another person. This bill does not make it mandatory for the other party to have to test the customary law evidence in cases of minor offences. Perhaps the minister might like to clarify for me exactly what this bill will apply to.
In closing, I would also like to state that the broader issue of violence and mistreatment against women and girls in Aboriginal communities remains an ongoing matter and an ongoing concern. I am supportive of the government which taken this step today. This bill goes some way towards giving people a fair go in courts, but experience shows prevention will always be the preferred course of action. I would hope that the issue of violence and mistreatment against Aboriginal girls remains high on the government’s agenda and that we do see programs and support for them.
I trust the amendment will give confidence to women and girls to report offences and have faith in our system. I trust it will give them the confidence to proceed with the matter in court and know that they are going to get at least a fair hearing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I only wish to say a few words on this issue. I concur with the member for Braitling. I believe she has covered most of the issues that need to be covered. I also believe it is a very complex issue. I sometimes feel that perhaps I am not qualified to speak on such matters because you are dealing with someone else’s laws.
However, I do have an affiliation with Aboriginal people, and sometimes, when I need advice I turn to the person I am married to, who is an Aboriginal. I asked her the question, in the cases of violent crime, such as murder, and bashings and rape, should customary law be used as a defence, and she just said straight out, ‘No’. She believes, as I believe, that human rights, in certain cases, overrides customary law. I also agree with the member for Macdonnell, who says there are many other areas where customary laws should be taken into account. However, the protection of human rights, whether it is men, women or children, should be paramount and I do not believe that customary law should be an excuse to violently step on those people’s human rights.
I have long memories of my time as a young person at Daly River seeing women bashed up, and bashed up badly. It always stayed in my mind that this should not have been happening. It happened in the days when domestic violence was not a word that we even knew. It was just one of those things that occurred. I suppose we took it as violence, and it was something that was usually associated with alcohol. Thankfully, we are starting to at least address some of those issues. We have a long way to go, and I believe part of this debate today will highlight some of the difficulties we have in that area.
I support the bill, simply because it does allow people who use customary law as a defence to at least have that defence challenged.
There are times when customary law has been used as an excuse to abuse other people. Again, I remember my time at Daly River where there was a process called ‘Sunday business’. ‘Sunday business’ was where the men could place a bull-roarer, as it is called – it is a wooden object the shape of a penis - anywhere they liked. If a woman was to see that, then they, basically, could do what they liked with that woman. Whilst there may have been some customary law as to its proper use, the belief was that it was being used and placed in places where women could not avoid seeing it and, therefore, it was being used inappropriately and more for the benefit of the men, rather than anything to do with traditional customary law. They did try to revitalise that some years later and, once again, thankfully, it was stamped out.
I believe there are occasions where the customary law must be challenged. Other speakers have said the same. When you have spoken to the women, they will tell you that that is not true. I believe there are times when men have used customary law outside of what it was meant for. Allowing the courts to challenge that is a good process to put in place. Whether customary law should be a defence at all in violent crimes and rape is another matter that could be debated. However, my understanding is that cannot happen because of the Racial Discrimination Act. Maybe that debate would be purely theoretical under our existing laws. As I said, my wife was very clear. She believes that customary law should not be a defence against that type of crime, and I agree with her.
I note, and I would be interested in the minister’s response, that I sent a letter to the Northern Land Council on 17 November 2004. They said at that time that they had only had limited time to obtain legal advice. Today, I received a memorandum of advice from Mr Ron Levy, Principal Legal Officer of the Northern Land Council, from John Basten QC regarding the matters which we are discussing today. I have not had time to go through that, nor am I am a lawyer, so I would just be interested in what the minister has to say about those matters that were raised by the Northern Land Council. The Northern Land Council had asked for a deferment. That is in the letter that was put on my desk about an hour ago. They did ask for the debate to be deferred, so I would be interested in the government’s comments: if they are not going to defer the debate, why they are not; and if they have any comments on the legal advice that the Northern Land Council received.
Madam Speaker, I have said I will support the bill. If it protects women and children - and men and young boys also - then all the better for it. This whole issue of customary law will continue to be a complex and difficult issue for governments to deal with. I hope that there will be more debate about this issue so that we can all become more educated on where we should end up going with this particular matter.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, firstly, I thank the opposition for their qualified support - support of any kind is always welcome - the support of the two Independents, and the contribution particularly of the member for Arafura from our ranks. These are issues that are of a great moment, and it is not unexpected that there would be some passion in the debate. However, it is very important if we are debating these matters to keep the debate above the personal level. I still get disappointed when the debate strays away from the actual matters that are involved in the bill and the actual content of the bill. Nevertheless, the support that has been expressed today is welcome.
Rather that deal with the contributions to debate speaker by speaker, I intend to go through the key issues as I understand them that have been brought forward today. There are quite a few speakers who were making essentially the same points so it is probably more efficient to deal with them first.
The first point to be made here is that this legislation in front of us simply establishes a procedure, a process, by which customary law would be handled during the sentencing part of the hearing of the matter. It does not, in any way, apply to the actual hearing leading up to a finding of a guilt or innocence. The hearing of the matter will be a hearing of charges laid under the Territory Criminal Code and, therefore, we are not talking about two sets of laws. We are talking about a one set of laws: the Northern Territory Criminal Code under which the charges have been laid and the hearing is heard. A finding of guilt or innocence according to those charges will be made in a court. This bill now says something of what will happen following if that finding is of guilt.
The second thing I want to say about this is that by introducing this process of testing evidence regarding customary law into the sentencing process it has a wider context. The pre-sentence report, prepared as a result of that part of the hearing, could consider quite a number of factors: the age of the offender; the social history and background of the offender; medical and psychiatric history of the offender; the offender’s educational background; the offender’s employment history; and circumstances of other offences of which the offender had been found guilty or which are known to the court; the extent to which the offender is complying with the sentence currently imposed on the offender; the offender’s financial circumstances; and any special needs of the offender; and any courses, programs, treatment, therapy or other assistance that could be available to the offender and from which the offender may benefit.
Members can see that the process of preparing to set a sentence on the offender once found guilty has a wide context. The courts must, of necessity, consider case by case a whole range of factors that could have not only led to the offending behaviour of the person but their prospects for rehabilitation and the particular impact that the crime had on the victim.
This bill seeks to deal with comments from previous court cases such as Mamarika and Munungurr, where comments were made by the court about the need to test more rigorously customary law claims that were introduced at the sentencing stage of the hearing. There have certainly been cases where an informal submission has been made at the sentencing part of the hearing, normally it would be the defence, in an attempt to influence the severity of the sentence or otherwise. The courts have commented that that needs to be formalised and made more rigorous so that there is a chance for both sides appearing within the hearing, first of all, to expect that evidence to be handled under the hearing, and secondly, to have some chance to contest its veracity.
What has been almost studiously ignored in this whole debate certainly is that we have looked for a balance point between the potential for customary law claims to aggravate a sentence and mitigate it. All I have heard from members through the debate is the use of customary law claims to mitigate the outcome for an offender found guilty. That is not the intent of this legislation.
There are two sides to a hearing. There is the prosecution; there is the defence. Both the prosecution and defence can proffer a customary law argument at the point at which the court is deciding the level of sentence that is appropriate to a case. In the case of a prosecution, the prosecution may well seek a harder sentencing outcome by arguing that in some circumstances, customary law would actually preclude the behaviour of the offender. For example, with avoidance relationships, the fact that an offender approached, let alone effected a criminal act on a person with which they had an avoidance relationship makes that a much more serious activity in the eyes of the community.
Yes, there are situations where the defence may seek a mitigated outcome by claiming that there was some justification under customary law for the behaviour of the offender, but there is equally the potential for customary law to be interceded into sentencing process with the effect that it leads to a more severe sentencing outcome.
There have been some points made about the currency of this process to the various parts of the Criminal Code. How severe or how trivial might an offence be which could bring on this process? There is no limitation within this legislation as to which offences would be the subject of a court hearing and precipitate this procedure for handling the customary law evidence.
All this is saying is that if either the defence or prosecution want to bring a customary law claim into the determination of a sentence, they have to follow this procedure, which guarantees that there will be some testing of the veracity of the claims.
Another point that has probably been missed in this debate is that customary law is not individually held. It is collectively held. If a person is going to make a claim about their rights to take some action under customary law or, in fact, if the community is going to make a claim about the inappropriateness of that person’s action according to customary law, that evidence really has to be tendered with a wider knowledge of the co-holders of customary arrangements than just simply the offender or their advocate, or the victim or their advocate. This is a collectively held system of living and needs to be tested in a wider context than just the claims of one individual to whatever end they are seeking at sentencing.
That leads me to the wider context in which we are seeking to place this reform. We are pursuing day by day community justice initiatives aimed at things such as concerns raised by the member for Araluen about the levels of violence. I totally agree with her that there is an urgent need to take account of the unacceptable levels of violence throughout the Territory community. We have to do something urgently about that.
One of the key things that we have to do is to mobilise participation by the wider community. By taking the line that we have on this of not precluding customary law evidence in court hearings, by insisting that the collective holders of that customary law verify any claim made, we are taking an important step in involving the wider community in the flow-on of offending behaviour. That, to me, is a very important step alongside the community-based initiatives that we are pursuing, which have exactly the same aim. That is to engage people and the traditional authorities under customary law alongside the statutory response authorities that exist in the wider law to get maximum purchase on community attitude and community behaviour, with the aim of reducing the levels of violence and protecting the most vulnerable people in those communities.
I believe this reform today is consistent with the aims that we are expressing through the community justice groups, the involvement of circle sentencing processes in our courts, and many other community-based initiatives that we are developing in conjunction with the government’s plan for Building Safer Communities across the Territory over the next five years. I believe it is important to understand that as the context of this as a matter of policy direction.
In terms of the member for Nelson raising the matter of the Racial Discrimination Act, certainly, the NLC had sought and obtained a legal opinion about how the proposal sits with the Racial Discrimination Act. We have done the same, and both our agency and Ms Sally Gearin has looked at the proposal as regards the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. Sally Gearin says:
- The amending bill does not offend against the Racial Discrimination Act, Commonwealth, nor the
Anti-Discrimination Act Northern Territory as it does not require the courts to treat Aboriginal people
less favourably on the basis of their race, religious belief or activity. Rather, it sets out a process for the
receipt of evidence on sentencing where an aspect of Aboriginal customary law, or views expressed by
members of an Aboriginal community, are to be presented. The process is therefore no different or more
onerous than for any other convicted person’s requirements on the submission of matters for consideration
on sentencing.
That is independence advice that I certainly welcome.
Equally, the NLC has produced legal advice that is at odds with that. John Basten QC:
- I conclude that the amendment act would be inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act. It varies a
practice in relation to the provision of information to a court with respect to sentencing, restitution and
compensation orders in an manner which does not have a general operation but operates only in relation
to certain aspects of Aboriginal customary law.
I believe it is a matter of two opinions, two different endpoints. We believe that the advice that we have is reliable. We believe that, if there is any discriminatory element at all in the provisions that have been brought in by this bill today, it is probably in the positive in terms of the continuation of customary law as a contemporary force within the Northern Territory community and within our indigenous communities. To take the alternative route of excluding customary law matters from our courts is to really condemn customary law to a further level of irrelevance from the wider operation of our community. We do not believe that that is helpful, and in many ways that would be very clearly a discriminatory act against the Racial Discrimination Act and our own Anti-Discrimination Act.
On the balance of things, with these complex issues, it sometimes is a matter of professional judgment. We believe the existence of a strong legal opinion which is giving us some comfort about how these provisions will sit against the anti-discrimination legislation is sufficient reason to proceed. I make the same undertaking that I always make presenting legislation in this House, that we will watch how it beds down. We will certainly respond to any difficulties with its operation, but we are confident that we have a fair and balanced reform. It will contribute, along with many other things that we are doing, to give indigenous people support and a security of place within our broader process in the community and make its own beneficial contribution to that.
Madam Speaker, that covers my main points. I again thank members for their support today, and we will move ahead.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Northern Territory Electoral Commission Annual Report 2003-04
Note Paper - Northern Territory Electoral Commission Annual Report 2003-04
Continued from 14 October 2004.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this afternoon I brief members of the House on the key elements of the first Northern Territory Electoral Commission Annual Report 2003-04. The establishment of an independent Electoral Commission for the Territory was an election commitment and an important initiative of my government. The work of the Electoral Commission is to provide an electoral service to the citizens and the government of the Territory that is professional, fair and impartial, and is undertaken in accordance with legislative provisions.
Last financial year, my government engaged consultants Minter Ellison Consulting to review the Northern Territory electoral system. The consultants undertook public consultation with the issue of a discussion paper and the conduct of public forums. In addition, the consultants sought the views of a number of electoral experts on best practice electoral administration. The review issued a draft report in June 2003, with over 100 recommendations, the majority of which were accepted. These recommendations were carried into a new Electoral Bill which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly in February 2004, and the Electoral Act was assented to in March 2004.
The Electoral Act enabled the establishment of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission on 15 March 2004. Transitional arrangements provided for the Electoral Office to cease operations on 14 March. The new act set out the functions and operations of the commission and prescribed electoral administrative procedures. In addition, the act provided for a number of new functions including promotions of public awareness of electoral matters and the conducting and promotion of electoral research. The act also requires the commission to administer the registration of political parties and financial disclosure of political parties, entities and candidates, and the formation of an augmented redistribution committee to review objections to the proposed electoral boundaries.
The report notes the activities of the Electoral Commission including the conducts of the Katherine by-election, as well as elections for the Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs Municipal Councils and the Litchfield Shire. A number of elections were also conducted for community government councils. The commission also provided support to the Electoral Redistribution Committee following its formation in March 2004. Through participation in the Electoral Council of Australia and with joint roll partner, the Australian Electoral Commission, the commission was involved in electoral roll management enhancement initiatives. In all, there were 29 000 enrolment forms processed for the year, an increase of 40% from the year before.
I commend the dedication of the staff who have worked so hard this year, in particular, Barry Hamilton, the Acting Electoral Commission Chief Executive.
Also, while talking to the annual report, I wish the man who was to be our Electoral Commissioner, Kerry Heisner, all the best for his future. He won the position as Electoral Commissioner; he has a fine record in the area. As we know, the United Nations asked him to go to Iraq for three months, which he did. However, he became very ill, to such an extent that he will not be able to take up the job. This is a real loss for the Territory. We certainly wish him well for his future, for a recovery. With a fair bit of sadness we are readvertising the position.
I thank again Barry Hamilton for doing an excellent and professional job and I thank him for the time he has put in to electoral matters in the Territory.
It is with a lot of pride we should look at the first independent NT Electoral Commission Annual Report which is this 2003-04 year.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister may want to talk to her speech writer a little bit about lifting paragraph after paragraph out of other people’s work because once again we find the minister, in this instance the Chief Minister, quoting word for word ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, get to your reply, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am referring word for word to the actual report, and frankly, it is enormous laziness not on the part of the Chief Minister but on one of her staff members up there, that a large slice of her speech is lifted straight out of Barry Hamilton’s Electoral Commissioner’s Report in the front cover of the report. This government has been caught out several times like this and I had thought that they had gotten over this problem but clearly they have not.
I do want to pick up where the Chief Minister left off. I would like to congratulate Barry Hamilton for an excellent job and for being independent for many years. Of course, one of the risks you run when you claim that you need to introduce something like an independent electoral commissioner, is that somehow the Electoral Commissioner was not independent at some time prior to that. The structure of the system saw that the Electoral Commissioner was part of the Chief Minister’s department in the past. But there was never any suggestion whatsoever, that I am aware of, that Mr Hamilton was entirely less than independent for the years that he ran the electoral commission.
The establishment of the new legislation basically created another body, named independent, and this body now, as part of the legislation, has to report on an annual basis, and that is what we are debating here: the annual report. As usual, Mr Barry Hamilton has provided us with a top level service. It is very readable and very understandable as far as the report is concerned. It outlines very succinctly in a couple of pages what he has done in the last year, outlines the financials, the structure of his department and he has submitted it in accordance with the act to the parliament for discussion.
I also wish to pass on my best wishes to Mr Kerry Heisner. It is never good if a person has to retire because of injury or illness, and we all read in the newspaper that Mr Heisner was suffering an illness, and I wish him the very best.
However, it does bring me to one of the issues that we have to raise in relation to an independent electoral commission. That is, that the structure which has been replicated to a large degree by the government from what used to be the old structure - it was just organised differently - leaves members on this side of the House with a certain concern. The concern is this: although the report refers to an independent electoral commission, the processes of electing a new electoral commissioner are not as transparent as the Chief Minister would have us believe.
The Electoral Commissioner of this system as it currently stands is appointed and that appointment is done without reference to the opposition. When it comes to electing the Attorney-General, the opposition is consulted. Government comes to the opposition and says, ‘This is the person we are looking at, and we think they are a fine person’, and the opposition gets to look at their credentials and say, ‘Mmm, gee whiz, that would be a good thing. We have no major problem with that person being selected as the Attorney-General’. However, the process ...
Ms Martin: You mean the Auditor-General; I appoint the Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK: Auditor-General, I apologise. Thank you, Chief Minister. The process of selecting the Auditor-General is therefore free and open and there is no suggestion of anything untoward. It is well accepted that that is the process we go through.
However, in the case of Mr Heisner, the opposition was not asked at all as to whether they thought this person was an appropriate selection. As we have heard already in this place from the member for Drysdale, there would have been question marks hanging over the top of Mr Heisner and he was simply appointed.
The opposition puts on the record its concerns about this process. The opposition would appreciate being able to examine a candidate for the position so that the word ‘independent’ can carry a complete and fulsome flavour with it rather than having the suggestion, which the Chief Minister whilst in opposition would often make, hanging over a particular individual, that they are either too close to government or too close to a department.
The independence that the Chief Minister says her electoral commission has should extend to the selection process; and the opposition places on the record a request, if you like, that the process is open and accountable and honest, as promised by the Chief Minister, and that the opposition is approached in relation to the selection of the successful candidate similar to the process with the Auditor-General so that we can be assured that we have a person who is truly, in the words of the Chief Minister, independent.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the member for Macdonnell’s comment where he said that in the appointment of the electoral commissioner the opposition was given no say. The opposition was consulted, like yourself as an Independent and the member for Nelson as an Independent, and that was the legislation that was passed in this House. It is simply inaccurate to say that there was no …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister has already spoken and in the rules of this debate, there is only one bite of the cherry. This matter was introduced by minister Henderson so he has the reply, not the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: If you wish to, you can seek leave to close the debate.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to close the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to make the comment that the member for Macdonnell was inaccurate about the case. The appointment of the electoral commissioner was consulted with both the opposition and the…
Mr Elferink: No, it wasn’t. You told opposition who it was going to be once you made the selection. That is wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the member for Macdonnell should listen because he is making assertions that are simply wrong. A recommendation came from an independent team to government, a recommendation of senior public servants at CEO level. They did the interviews. They made the assessment and recommendation. I took that recommendation to the opposition and the independent members. That is a fact.
If the member for Macdonnell was not apprised of that, I am very sorry for him, but that is the case. It is important that he does not come into this place and make up the legislation and the process.
I am proud of the fact that we have an independent electoral commission now. There is no way that you could say it was independent when it was within the Department of the Chief Minister. That is not independent. The Electoral Commission now is independent.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2004 – Members of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council or Ministers of the Territory
Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2004 – Members of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council or Ministers of the Territory
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2004, Members of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council or Ministers of the Territory.
MOTION
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2004 – Members of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council or Ministers of the Territory
Print Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2004 – Members of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council or Ministers of the Territory
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2004 – Members of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council or Ministers of the Territory
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
I welcome this report into the House. It completes a very transparent process whereby Territorians, including members of the House, are given the opportunity to have input into remuneration for members of the Assembly.
Advertisements were placed in Territory papers calling for public submissions, and letters were sent to members and the Department of the Legislative Assembly inviting submissions. There were four written submissions received.
The report provides for the Opposition Leader to allocate trips within the Territory from a pool of shadow ministers to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The new determination also ensures that there is no duplication in reimbursement when two or more members are travelling together. The tribunal has also determined that where members need to conduct interstate travel, they may redeem frequent flyer points, whereas previously this was only available for travel in the Territory.
Telephone credit cards have been withdrawn as no longer being required. An increase in office holder salary of 3.74% has been made in line with the annual rate of general community wage increase in the Northern Territory, as shown in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Wage Cost Index.
Madam Speaker, my thanks again to the tribunal chair, Otto Alder, for his work. Government accepts the determination. I commend the report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2004-05
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2004-05
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I present the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2004-05. The mid-year report is a means of updating financial information for the budget year and forward estimates. It meets the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act and the Territory’s mid-year reporting obligations under the Uniform Presentation Framework Agreement. The budget and forward estimates have been updated to reflect decisions taken by government since budget time, the outcome of the 2003-04 financial year, the effect of the Commonwealth government’s pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook Report, and updated Territory revenue estimates. The Territory’s contribution to the Darwin City Waterfront Project is not included as financial close and finalisation of the structure of the Territory’s payments have not yet occurred.
Highlights include an improvement in key financial measures in all years; performance against fiscal strategy targets are on track; and economic indicators are consistent with budget estimates. The only change to economic assumptions in the mid-year report is an upward revision to forecast population growth in 2004-05.
Gross state product, or economic activity in 2004-05, was forecast to increase by 5.8%. This is unchanged from the time of the budget. This follows the recently released ABS growth estimate of 0.4% in 2003-04, which was influenced significantly by falling oil production at Laminaria/Corallina. The onshore economy will continue to be the driver of growth in 2004-05, as employment and population growth strengthen, and the recovery under way in recent years broadens across a range of industries. The offshore economy will also have a positive impact on growth as a full year of condensate production from the Bayu-Undan fields more than offsets falling oil production from Laminaria/Corallina.
State Final Demand, another broad measure of economic activity, is forecast to increase by 1.9% in 2004-05, unchanged from the time of the budget. Like Gross State Product, Territory State Final Demand has been volatile in recent years, largely due to the huge impact of oil and gas, and railway investment. 2004-05 investment is forecast to fall marginally, but to remain at a very high level supported by increased public sector expenditure.
Employment growth is forecast to strengthen to 2.9 % in 2004-05. This is unchanged from the time of the budget, despite weaker than expected ABS employment data over the past six months. ABS acknowledges that high sample variability and other methodological difficulties with Northern Territory labour force statistics result in estimates for the Territory that are less reliable than national estimates for those of other jurisdictions. Recent ABS labour force statistics in the Northern Territory suggesting a weak labour market are not supported by other economic indicators. Many of these indicators suggest labour and skill shortages and significantly stronger demand for labour.
Territory population growth started to recover in mid-2003, with annual growth of 0.4% to December 2003, slightly stronger than the 0.3% estimated at the time of the budget. Growth is forecast to strengthen to 0.5% to December 2004. The more positive outlook associated with an improvement in nett interstate migration, increased employment opportunities associated with the strengthening onshore economy, and the improving global economic conditions should continue to have a positive impact on the volatile nett interstate migration component of population growth.
The 2004-05 mid-year report forecasts demonstrate that the government’s responsible fiscal management continues to result in improved fiscal performance. The cash outcome for the general government sector for 2004-05 and the forward years remains unchanged from the time of the budget. However, the main elements within the cash flow statement have changed. Operating receipts for 2004-05 have increased since the May budget by $60m due to the additional GST revenue of $37m, increased specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth of $5m, and an upward revision to payroll tax receipts and conveyancing duty of $16m as a result of greater economic activity.
For 2004-05, the revised Territory GST revenue was $1729m; $37m higher than budget time. The increase is primarily due to a higher than expected national GST pool size, as presented in the Commonwealth pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook Report released in September. If realised, this will translate to an additional $32m in GST revenue in 2004-05. Additionally, the increase in the Territory’s population growth estimate by 0.2% will translate to an additional $5m in GST revenue in 2004-05.
Payments have also increased by $59m, primarily due to the carry over of $28m from 2003-04, largely due to late specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth and additional capital spending of $24m on roads, East Arm Port and various health, education and justice projects.
I turn now to the accrual estimates. The nett operating balance shows an improvement of $15m in 2004-05. Members are aware the operating statement does not include capital-related costs. Thus, the improvement in the operating balance is due to some of the additional revenue reserved in 2004-05 being used for capital rather than operating expenses. The fiscal balance takes into account capital funding which remains relatively unchanged. In forward years, the nett operating balance improves by $5m in each of 2005-06 and 2006-07, and $6m in 2007-08 since the May 2004 budget. The fiscal balance remains largely unchanged in the forward years.
Non-financial public sector nett worth has improved by $227m since budget time. This is a result of the improved outcomes for 2003-04, and relates predominantly to the increase in the Territory’s asset values offset by a slight decrease in liabilities. Nett debt has also improved slightly due to the improved cash outcome in 2003-04. Interest expenses as a proportion of revenue have reduced significantly since 2001-02.
The Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act requires the mid-year report to provide updated information to allow an assessment of the government’s fiscal strategy. The four key principles set out in the 2004-05 Budget Papers were sustainable service provision, infrastructure for economic and community development, a competitive tax environment, and prudent management of liabilities.
In regards to sustainable service provision, the improvement on original budget estimates is $15m in 2004-05, $5m in each of 2005-06 and 2006-07, and $6m in 2007-08. This, together with a forecast nett operating surplus of $1m by 2007-08, indicates that the Territory will achieve the target of an operating balance by 2012-13.
In regards to the infrastructure for economic and community development, after peaking in 2005-06, the nett borrowing position will begin trending downwards indicating the Territory is still on track to achieve the target of a balanced position by 2012-13. Whilst updated state tax data for 2004-05 is not yet available - I note we are the first jurisdiction to table a mid-year report - the 2003-04 outcomes show a continuation of higher revenue from property sales. Importantly though, the Territory’s increases are considerably lower than the states. Increased activity in the property market is expected to continue in 2004-05 and has caused Territory taxation revenue per capita to rise. This is expected to be mirrored by the states. The Territory’s relative tax position compared to the states is not expected to change. This, together with the fact that the Territory has the second lowest taxation revenue per capita of any jurisdiction, confirms the Territory’s competitive tax environment.
The government continues to provide effective management of the Territory’s liabilities. In the mid-year report, the Territory nett debt and nett debt plus employee liabilities as a proportion of total revenue has declined moderately, but more than projected in May. This is a continued result of minimal cash deficits, a smaller increase in employee liabilities, and higher revenue growth. After peaking at 134% in 2001-02, the ratio of nett debt and employee liabilities to revenue has reduced to 118% and is forecast to continue declining over the budget and forward estimates period to 110% in 2007-08.
The mid-year report provides further evidence that the government is adhering to its fiscal strategy principles. By managing its finances responsibly, the government has been able to boost spending in key areas while keeping to its fiscal principles. I commend the 2004-05 mid-year report to the House.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that leave be granted to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, last night I commenced my report on my overseas trip. I would like to continue further what transpired when I was overseas in India.
Before I go onto that, I would like to just make comment about what the member for Wanguri decided to quote this afternoon at Question Time, and he did that in the most disrespectful way. In quoting a paragraph from my adjournment last night, he quoted it completely out of context. That is a perversion of any truth that is in my report. My report in fact stated that there are two types of call centres and that some call centres may be beneficial to Australia while others may not. For the minister to twist it completely is just reprehensible. I seriously suggest to the minister that he owes me an apology if nothing else. To have him read that out of context over the radio is something that is well below any sense of decency.
Madam Speaker, while I was in India I was invited to tour a school in New Delhi and meet with departmental officers who were involved with early childhood education. I was very keen to explore early childhood education in India and also in Malaysia because of the language mix in those countries. India has Hindi as its main language but each different caste, and each different state and region has their own dialects or vernacular. In a place like New Delhi you have children going to school from various backgrounds and they might come to the school with various dialects. They start school at an early age, four, at preschool level. They have a different system of labelling levels of school; they are not called Preschool, Transition, Year One and so on. They are Primary 1, Primary 2 and so on. When the children go to school, they are all speaking their own mother dialects and mother tongue. When they start school they are taught only in English.
The same applies to school children in Malaysia. They believe that children should go to school to non-compulsory early child school at about four years of age. They reckon anything less than that is probably too early and the kids are probably not quite ready for formal schooling. When they go to school in Malaysia, they might be speaking different dialects, such as Cantonese, Mandarin, and Hokkien. There could be Tamil children, Hindi children, there could be Malay children, all attending the same class. To have a teacher who is multilingual would almost be impossible. So the teacher teaches those children only in English and, very rapidly within the first few days of school, the kids learn what they call ‘survival words’ like ‘food’, ‘rest’, ‘play’, ‘playground’, ‘toilet’; words allow them to get on with their daily survival, I suppose you could call it. However, they say that within six months, they have enough scope to develop a vocabulary so that they can actually get on in school.
I prepared some notes, which I will eventually complete and table in the Legislative Assembly.
This experience showed me that no matter what language a child speaks initially, get them to attend school regularly, and that means every day, and they will learn the language that they are taught in. They go home, they speak to their parents or friends in the language with which they are most comfortable, and I would assume that in early childhood, they would all revert back to their own vernacular.
You look at children going through school in places like India and Malaysia. By the time they are in secondary school, they are speaking fluent English and by the time they finish high school, they are ready to go to university. In India, many universities are taught in English only. In Malaysia, there are universities that teach in Bahasa, others in English, and others in Chinese. They graduate from university and they are employable all over the world.
It is interesting when you look at a place like India where some schools are extremely rich and well resourced. I went to one school that had in their computer laboratory a computer for every child in the class. They have three laboratories, one for each level of school: primary, middle and secondary. They go to the computer laboratory and every child sits in front of a computer. The kids in early childhood, as young as five and six years old, play with computer programs that are essentially games which teach them the alphabet and arithmetic. When they get the correct result, a clown juggling balls floats across the screen as a bit of a reward and the music comes along saying ‘Da da, da da! Well done’, and so, through play, these children actually learn their basic literacy and numeracy. At a well resourced school, they can do that. I suppose there are other schools which do not have the resources.
When I was speaking to the principal of the school, she told me that school starts at 7 am and they go through until about 1.30 pm. When the day school finishes in the afternoon, from 2 pm to 4.30 pm they run what they call a ‘paupers school’. This is a rich school and it services children from wealthy families. They also have many children living in slums surrounding the school and the paupers program was designed to allow children from the slums to attend and at least have some exposure to education because not everyone in India has access education. They do an afternoon class because many of the children living in the slums have to work with their families through the day and would not be able to get to a normal school. So they spend a few hours in the afternoon of each day to at least get some education. Interestingly, even with the limited number of hours of school each day, within a few years many of these kids strive to be in the day school and get full-time education. Because of the resources of the school, many of these children from the paupers group are provided with scholarships.
In Malaysia, I spoke to the Director of Early Childhood Schools. In Penang, and also in Taiping, they bring the children in, and because there is a policy of teaching mainly in Bahasa Melayu, the language of the country, they will teach English as one subject, and teach mathematics and science in English. When you put the two lots of subjects together, essentially, each child attending a state school would spend half the time learning subjects in Bahasa Melayu and the other half of the class will be in English. If you happen to be a Chinese or an Indian child, your own language is left up to your family to teach and for you to grow up speaking. It seems that this system works, and works well. By the time a child has reached the end of primary school, they are fluent in their own native tongue, in Bahasa Melayu, and in English. They continue into secondary school, again, having the non-technical subjects taught in Bahasa Melayu, and the technical subjects of science and maths taught in English. On top of that, they have English language as a separate language subject.
I find that interesting when I compare that to our indigenous youth in the Northern Territory and you ask: why are we not able to get the same sort of results? Is it because we are not teaching the kids properly? Is it because we are not using multiple languages in the class? Is it because we are not getting the children to turn up to classes every day? It is a combination of those things. The thing to do now is to try to work out a mechanism which will encourage children to go to school every day, make sure they turn up to school every day, and I believe that is probably the key to it all. Get them to school every day, get them exposed to the instruction, making it not only meaningful but interesting more than anything else.
This is where I find the new technology that is coming through called MARVIN - we have all heard about MARVIN, which is designed in Alice Springs. It has now won national and international awards, and the young man who designed it, J Easterby-Wood, has received many accolades for his discovery - if you can combine that into a class structure, it will make a huge impact on how children will be engaged with education.
The program that was started under the previous government, and now strongly pushed by this government with the help of the federal government, of building swimming pools in communities, encouraging kids to go to school with the ‘no school no pool’ policy, will be another way of providing kids with incentive to turn up to school every day.
I believe that is really the main issue. Get the kids to go to school every day, and teach them without deviating from the syllabus, making sure that they get the information provided to them, make it interesting so that they can interact with the computers or with the teachers and, somehow, ensure that parents in those communities value the education that is being provided, and make sure that their children then attend school every day. If we do that, we will seriously make inroads into the literacy and numeracy deficit that is so evident amongst many remote indigenous youths.
As for children of secondary school age who are living out in the bush and who are not getting the education, it is important not to force them into classrooms where they sit with kids half their age; that can be a real shame job. We should be able to design classes where children of secondary school age can actually study, separated from the younger children, and provided with accelerated literacy and numeracy classes. The technique of accelerated learning is a very useful method. Many children learn very quickly using the scaffolding technique, and I encourage the government to pick that up and spread the accelerated literacy and numeracy program far and wide. It should not be kept as a trial. A trial has been proven to be successful, and it should now be used throughout every community.
There is every opportunity for all our kids to be just as well educated as you and I. We should be pushing as hard as we possibly can so that we can all share in the benefits that the Territory will bring to us in the coming future.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is the fourth time that I have had the pleasure of standing in this Chamber and thanking a range of colourful and friendly people who have helped me throughout the year to faithfully serve the community of Sanderson. It is not lost on me that this is the final time in this parliamentary session that I will have this opportunity to thank all those members of the Sanderson community, all the staff of the ministerial offices and, indeed, all the people in the government departments, particularly in the Legislative Assembly, who have made it truly a great pleasure this year, once again, to faithfully serve the people of Sanderson.
As with all members of the Legislative Assembly, I keep in contact with my community members through a newsletter. I put out a newsletter every quarter. Every quarter, because it is an A3 and it is not machine folded, we have a range of volunteers who come into the office to help us fold the newsletter manually. Without them, I just could not get this quality newsletter out to the community.
I would particularly like to thank Teng Murray and her husband, Michael, for the help that they give in doing that. We have a whole range of people of Timorese and Chinese extraction who come in to help. Just about every month we put out different newsletters and pieces of correspondence that they all help with. There is Ligia Vung and her sons, George and Lino, Taek Fung Lay, Tsi Leong Lay, Fuc Sang, Lily Korkoka, Jia Zhan Duan, and Kue Tjing Mu. You can see that the spirit in our office is great and very colourful and multicultural. There is also Barbara Baggley, Terrie Domingo and Cynthia Bader. It is just a great group who are always hard working. Without any problems, you can ask these people to assist and they offer to assist. I am always happy to have them in the office. We sit around and get the work done. We get a meal from across the way from Fonnie who has the Hot Wok restaurant. They always serve us great food and that keeps everyone going; although I must admit that these group of volunteers are also partial to a drop of Red Rooster or Kentucky Fried Chicken, and we are partial to giving it to them. I really thank them for their assistance and the happiness they bring to the office. I just cannot speak highly enough of them.
The office, being in Northlakes, is located centrally in my electorate. Because it is on McMillans Road, there are many groups which come in and use the office and the community rooms on a weekly basis. We have people from the Filipino Australia Association of the NT who come in, and I would like to send a big G’day to them because they are a great community. As people might know, my electoral officer Therla Fowlestone is of Filipino extraction. We have a lot of Tagalog and a lot of work with the Filipino community in our office, and I am really happy to be a supporter of the members of the Filipino community.
We have the Hakka Association come in on an ad hoc basis. Henry Yap and George Mu come in and use the offices and are very supportive of the community. We get behind them and help them in their efforts to help the community. I am glad to be able to assist wherever I can.
The RSPCA uses our office. The RSPCA is a worthwhile community group always looking for support, and we in the Sanderson office are happy to help them.
The Sri Lankan Australia Friendship Association meets regularly; the Australia China Friendship Association; and the Enrolled Nurse Special Interest Group comes in. We have the Sing Song Signers, the Asia Pacific Community Group, and the Africa Australia Friendship Association. The English for Beginners has English classes in our office on a Tuesday morning; Teng Murray runs them for Timorese-Chinese migrants. That is a marvellous thing that happens out of our office. All these community groups make up the rich tapestry of the electorate of Sanderson. I am really happy to be able to get in there and work with them. I support them all the way and I am happy to have been able to work with them during 2004.
The electorate of Sanderson is also well serviced by quite a number of clubs. I daresay it would be the club capital of the Territory because of its proximity to Marrara sporting precinct and there are many clubs down that way, particularly Darwin Golf Club, which I have mentioned time and time again in this place in adjournment debates. They have had a good year. They have a new general manager. They have had their AGM just recently. I believe the golf club is going places. They have always had my support. They are a great club, they are a great community focussed club, and they work well with the community. I know that right now they are looking to build on their relationship with the people who live around the perimeters of the golf course. They understand that as a golf club, they are part of the Northlakes community. The people who live in Northlakes, although not all of them are members, are certainly most welcome to participate in the golf club social functions and to interact; and it is great that they really do strive to communicate with the residents of Marrara east and west.
There is the Darwin Football Club and congratulations to them, they had a win the other night, and that was a fabulous effort by them. The Darwin Football Club and the PINT Club are two clubs that are very close to my heart. I am the patron of the PINT Club. It was good to work with the other patron, the member for Arnhem, to see about getting a close partnership going between Darwin Football Club and the PINT Club, and this is working. Members of both clubs are getting on well. Darwin Football Club does not have its own club house and the PINT Club has said, ‘Come down, share our facilities, use our facilities, try it out’. It is not a merger by any means. Both clubs are very separate in their organisations and committees, but both are working together and it is quite a good relationship. Darwin Football Club has many members, and because they are members the Darwin Football Club pays for their membership to the PINT Club. So there are more members building up the base; and it is working quite well for both clubs.
I mentioned the Darwin Golf Club and there is the Women’s Golf NT. They had a big tournament this year and I was happy to sponsor one of the holes. They now meet regularly in our office, and they are a great bunch of women. The members of the committee from all the golf clubs around the place get in there, and they are progressing women’s golf in the Territory and that is great to see.
Squash NT meets there and one of my favourites, the North Darwin RSL Club Sub-branch, of which I am a patron, meet as well. They are a battler of a club. They could do with some more amenities, but their club house is nice and open with lots of fresh air. They have a green there with synthetic turf laid on it. They do a wonderful job for the community. I would like to see more people there and I am sure they will. They are working on it; they are going to stick around for a long, long time. They can always do with assistance, and they get many volunteers and I am happy to help them out wherever I can.
I have three schools in the electorate: Sanderson High School, Anula Primary School and Wulagi Primary School. The school councils which assist in the running of these schools are very active. They are great. They are all made up of volunteers, and when you sit down in the school council with them and you hear them talk, you hear their plans and their aspirations, and setting the directions for the schools, they really do care. They have a genuine feel for the futures of not only their own children, but for all those children who attend the school. There have been some tough times for some of the schools. There have been some incidences around Anula Primary School of late, but they will see their way through. I cannot speak highly enough of the three principals, Mrs Wilkowski, Mrs Perrin and Mrs Garrigan, and their staff.
I was fortunate the other week to host morning tea for teachers at those schools. Although I hosted it, it was really a thank you and recognition of the work that the teachers do and a show of appreciation and recognition that I, as a representative for the people of Sanderson, for the work that they do for the people of Sanderson.
As I said, I could not do my job effectively, or efficiently, or as enjoyably, as I do without the support of the professionals in the different departments, and particularly here in the Legislative Assembly. Sitting before us is the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk; there are the committee secretariat people such as Terry Hanley and the group which supports the Public Accounts Committee; Pat Hancock; Graham Gadd; Steve Stokes; and Sam Mannette. There are so many names that if I start trying to roll them off individually, I will miss some of them, so I will say a blanket heart-felt thank you for the work you have done.
I worked with many of these people prior to entering the political arena. I know what professionals they are, and they demonstrate it time and time again. The level of commitment and service to all members in this House is fantastic. They do not play favourites or anything of that nature; they are truly professional. I thank them and I appreciate that. I am sure that as the night goes on and as the days go by, all members in this House will also thank this group of people.
To all the members of the ministerial staff on the fifth floor, I cannot do my job effectively without your assistance. As a local MLA, you do not approach government departments directly. That is not right and is a breach of convention. I do not do that, but I do seek assistance from ministerial staff who are quick to respond to issues. I would particularly like to thank them for all their hard work and dedication. It is not so much a matter of assisting me as assisting the people of Sanderson, so on behalf of the people of Sanderson I thank all those on the fifth floor for the work they have done to help us get through.
There is another network of unsung heroes, and that is the electorate officers around the place, particularly in the northern suburbs of Darwin. There is Judy Herring, Debbie Rowland, Jana Neve, Warren Martin, Steve Brennan, Jessica Horne, Christine Gray, Phil Powling, Francine Quong; the list goes on. These electorate officers do fantastic jobs because, as a local member, you will be out of the office, on committees, travelling or doing other work making representations somewhere, and it is impossible for a local member to be on deck all the time. It is through the hard work of these electorate officers and the way that they discuss issues between themselves that many issues can be resolved in a timely manner, quickly and efficiently with the best result for the constituents of our electorates.
I would particularly like to say a big thank you to Therla Fowlestone for the work she has done. I believe we work as a good team and serve our community well. I am positive that I could not get all good results that I do consistently without having a good team member in the office. I am very comfortable with her abilities and I know that the people of Sanderson are very comfortable working with Therla. To Therla and husband, Tony, and their family, a big thank you because Therla does put in. Time and again, she puts in more hours than what she is paid for, which is, sadly, the way that all of us are. It is not only us; I know there are many public servants who put in far more hours than they are paid for. On behalf of the people of Sanderson, I would like to thank them for their efforts as well.
Finally, as with all members - most members, I should say – I should not generalise so much – I could not do half the things I do without the support of my own family. I put on record my thanks to my wife, Marie, and our children for allowing me to do what I enjoy. Without their support, I could not do it. I dare say not many more of us could really go on with this job unless we had good, strong support in our own homes. To my family, I place on the record a big thank you for their efforts over 2004. I look forward next year to working hard. It is an election year and everyone will be working hard.
I would like, because I have been reminded, to make special recognition of my poor dog, Wags, who happened to turn up his tail the other day. He was a great family pet. Unfortunately, he has moved on to the big kennel and I will start 2005 without him, which is a bit sad, but life goes on.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what a year it has been. The last 12 months have gone so fast that it is really amazing that we are standing here tonight, and another electorate Christmas adjournment is about to commence. However, there has been much work in the Wanguri electorate over the last 12 months, and I would like to say thank you to many people in the electorate in the lead up to Christmas and wish everybody all the best for Christmas.
I would like first to talk about the schools in and around my electorate. All of us as local members know that the schools are at the heart of all our electorates, and there are some wonderful people associated with every school in the Northern Territory. Wanguri is no different. This year, the school has seen the departure of a great principal, Marie Bredhauer, who implemented some significant changes at the school, and the arrival of Jenny Robinson who, again, is doing great work as the Acting Principal at the moment. Jenny, you really are a breath of fresh air in the school and making your mark in the community.
One of the big initiatives this year has been the school’s biodiversity garden. It has been going for a while, but now Wanguri is the proud parent to a bush tucker garden, which was created as a memorial for the late Mr Jimmy Clarke who was heavily involved with the school since 1976. Just last week, the school, along with the help of Mitre 10 and Greening Australia – so thanks to Mitre 10 and Greening Australia – planted more plants in the garden. It now looks vibrant and fantastic; a real learning treat for the students of indigenous history and culture.
The school has also started a bike workshop, where students are taught how to build bikes out of old spare parts - part of their boys program at school - and them sell them to raise money for the school. I know the boys at the school have really taken to that program. These are just two of the new initiatives the school has introduced over the past year, as well as their inaugural Fathers Day Breakfast, the Number and Bubbles Fair, National Teachers Day events, car boot sales, and preschool art exhibition. Winning an environment award for the plastic bag program and getting budget allocations for much needed improvements around the school will only help the school blossom in 2005.
I would like to thank the principal, Jenny Robinson, teachers, staff, parents, students, and the school council for all their hard work they have done over the past year to really get Wanguri school back on the tracks, and particularly the school council chair, Julie Donohue, and her team. It has been a pleasure working with you. I look forward to working with you again next year.
Leanyer Primary School has had a huge year in 2004, a school year packed with events as it achieved 21 years of age, celebrated on 17 September by kicking off with a much anticipated opening of the Gather and Goss garden, which has been a dream of art teacher, Margaret Ferguson, for many years. The garden is an excellent initiative by the school and students will be enjoying it for many years to come. The day was packed tight with displays, performances, cutting of the cake, and then the following evening a bush dance was held in the school’s honour, which was a great evening of song and dance. It was great to be there. Parents, students, many students from years gone by, and even our administrator, His Honour Ted Egan, and partner, Nerys. Ted even got up and sang a song that night, so it was a fabulous evening.
The Leawanala School Band has gone from strength to strength, and has built a very strong reputation with the community with their outstanding commitments and talents, proven with each performance. I would like to congratulate the organiser of the band, Assistant Principal, Daryl Trainor, and I hope the students can continue with their hard work in 2005. Daryl really is passionately committed to the music programs at Leanyer school, and Daryl, I have enjoyed working with you this year. We had a couple of wins and hope to build on that next year.
Congratulations to senior teacher Ms Sally Bruyn on her recent award for life membership of School Sports NT on Friday, 19 November - an excellent reward in recognition of Sally’s long and valuable contribution to school sport in the Northern Territory for more than 20 years.
Just quickly, I would like to place on record my appreciation for the many officers involved with the asbestos matter at Leanyer school just a few weeks ago. It is appropriate to do that, as my colleague, the education minister and work health minister, launched the asbestos awareness campaign today. The professionalism of DEET, DCIS, WorkSafe, along with Henry Gray and the staff at the school, saw what could have been quite a stressful time for parents managed very well. Everybody did a great job.
Thanks to this government, Leanyer is so much closer to getting their basketball courts under cover, with $60 000 in the budget this year adding to the already outstanding fundraising efforts of the SRC and school council. I would like to thank Henry Gray for his fantastic team of staff and teachers, the school council members, the active SRC members and students who contribute so much to the school on a daily basis. Denise Phelps, the chair of the school council, you are doing a great job. It is a very vibrant school council, and I enjoy working with you, Denise.
Before I move on to other schools in the electorate, I extend my sincere good wishes to Joshua Liddle, a Transition student at Leanyer. Members of the House will remember the brave face behind the story regarding Joshua’s extremely challenging life. Joshua is currently recovering following surgery in Adelaide to amputate his left foot. Joshua was born with a condition known as amniotic band syndrome, an amputation of the limbs during pregnancy. Joshua has lost his right arm just above his elbow, lost the right finger, left hand, and big toe on his right foot, and has had numerous operations to correct severe deformities of his left leg. He is a very brave little boy. I am looking forward to catching up with Joshua and his family on their return from Adelaide.
I congratulate Henry Gray and the Leanyer school community, and Joshua’s fantastic teacher, Mrs Kaye Cowley for organising the successful media campaign which was widely supported by Territorians. More than $15 000 was raised by our generous community and donated to the family to help Joshua’s family be with him in Adelaide, and support him back in Darwin. For everybody who donated to a very genuine and great family, my heartfelt thanks. Also thanks to our firies who often jump in and support many people with problems in our community. They gave Joshua a fantastic send-off by giving him a lift from the hospital to the airport via Leanyer school in a fire truck. To the firies: good on you!
Holy Spirit, in the Wanguri electorate, is a long-established Catholic primary school and has always held itself with excellent integrity and provided education to students for a long time. Principal Gill Webb and all of the teachers at Holy Spirit, again, had another fantastic year. The fete, an annual event, is probably the best fete - I will get into trouble with my colleagues, but every year it is a fabulous event - I believe it is the best fete in the northern suburbs. There was a strong introduction of IT this year with inclusion of interactive whiteboards in the classrooms. The performing arts have been an outstanding area for Holy Spirit in 2004 as the school participated in the Eisteddfod, the Wakakirri Festival, and within the Catholic Schools Performing Arts Concert. The fun run was also organised to raise money for the less fortunate. Holy Spirit has raised over $3000 in ice cup sales alone this year, with the money going to the missions and the children in East Timor. A fabulous effort from the kids at Holy Spirit with $3000 to children in East Timor. Well done.
Harmony Day was a particular highlight for me as each class explored a different nationality and understood the meaning of the day. It was great to get around all the classrooms and see each of the classes adopting a different country and coming to understand the culture, the language, and the various social aspects of those countries. To the Parents and Friends Committee president, Peter Dixon, thank you for your hard work and the committee’s hard work, in supporting the school this year.
St Andrew’s Lutheran School, in my electorate in Leanyer, is a small school but a great school. Principal Tom Leach and all the teachers there do a great job. Literacy is a priority of the school and this can be seen with the introduction of the early years’ literacy program this year, which involved professional development for the teachers and new courses purchased.
Virginia Gardiner started at the school at the beginning of the year bringing her aerobic expertise with her. She trained five students to form a successful aerobic team which won the NT Aerobics Championships and were also invited to attend the National Aerobics Championships in Sydney. So, Virginia, it is great to see you and a great start to your time at St Andrew’s.
The school has wonderful parental involvement, not only within the classrooms but on the Parents and Friends Association, and help maintain the school’s buildings and grounds. I think it was the first school in the Territory that was designed and built by Troppo Architects. It is a fabulous school and an expression of tropical achitecture. To the Chair of the PFA, Michael Tait, thank you and your team for another great year at St Andrew’s. St Andrew’s celebrated its cultural diversity with an indigenous cultural day and international food fare this year as well.
Henbury School in my electorate is a very special place for me. I always enjoy visiting the teachers and the students at Henbury who care for our kids with disabilities. Michael Jones, the principal, I think, started this year - it might have been just over a year ago – and is doing a fantastic job as principal there. I always enjoy catching up with you and Michael, keep up the good work. The Sensory Garden was created this year to encourage students to use all five senses – sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing - in the garden using different plants and flowers. I am very proud of this initiative and it certainly gives the kids a great and different experience. For the first time ever, two students received school-based apprenticeships and it is great to see kids with a disability in Henbury School actually embarking on apprenticeships. It is absolutely fabulous and really pleasing to see.
Also it is the first time the school has joined with Darwin High for VET funding. Again the focus now on the school of seeing very meaningful outcomes and the ability for students to get into the workplace post their time at Henbury School is a great focus and starting to bring its own rewards. There were 43 students in 2004, set to increase numbers in 2005, and nine teachers. Many successful grants have been put to great work at the school over the year and I am pleased to say I champion every application that Henbury puts in. Students are working towards there NTCE at Casuarina Secondary College as well. Student Creations has turned the art department into a viable enterprise program for students and the school and sales are only increasing. I support the school every year for my local electorate Christmas cards, always designed by students at Henbury and I am pleased to be sending them out to my constituents again this year.
The school in 2004 became a successful applicant to be part of the accelerated literacy program with Sanderson High School. I know in talking to Michael just a few weeks ago just how successful that accelerated literacy program is. I know my colleague, the education minister, is very excited about it and the fact that it is deployed at Henbury is magnificent.
Seven students received gold awards from the Duke of Edinburgh Program as well this year. So to Michael, the principal, and Lyn Strathie, the Chair of the School Council, you are doing a magnificent job and it is a great and very special school.
Dripstone High School is in my colleague, the member for Casuarina’s electorate, is a major feeder school for kids at Wanguri and Leanyer. Dripstone is always busy with events and activities. To help the enthusiasm levels this year, the school also locked down a new principal, Lyn Elphinstone, who is doing a great job. Lyn, it is great to have you there at Dripstone. The biggest day on the school’s calendar is Dripstone Day which is filled with community and cultural activities that culminates in a talent quest, swimming and athletics carnivals and charity raisers. They have Crop and Colour every year at Dripstone. My colleague, the member for Casuarina, had his head shaved a couple of years ago. I was very fortunate to be in Sabah this year and to escape that particular invitation. I am sure it will be coming next year and Greg Cilento does a great job organising that event every year.
Unfortunately, I could not attend the presentation awards and Year 12 Graduation last week as I was in Indonesia. I heard it was a great night. It is a night I do not normally miss. To all of those Year 12’s graduating, congratulations. I know the Laptops for Teachers Program was very well received at Dripstone High School and all the teachers have appreciated receiving those laptops to help them prepare curriculum for the classroom.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, to all of the schools in and around my electorate, congratulations on a very busy 12 months. I am looking forward to the Christmas concerts at the end of the year and catching up with all the principals and teachers over the next couple of weeks. I will continue with my electorate Christmas adjournment tomorrow night.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, first let me wish all honourable members a merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year.
I also extend my thanks to the Legislative Assembly staff, to the Clerk, and particularly to Ms Pat Hancock, the Secretary of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community. This is my first year working on this committee and Pat has done a fantastic job. I also thank Liz McFarlane who has been working on that committee. It has been an interesting journey this year looking at various things to do with substance abuse and I know that all honourable members of that committee would agree with me that it has been hard work that Pat has put in.
I would just like to say on a personal level with Pat that she does a tremendous amount of work. She is a constituent of mine. She does a lot of work for breast cancer awareness, particularly with Dragons Abreast. Members would be interested to know that she has been involved in raising money for breast cancer research and Dragon’s Abreast with their new calendar. Pat is one of the models – Miss October, I think. It is worth buying one of those calendars for $22. You can buy one from Speaker’s Corner or you can buy one from my office if you are interested as well. Thank you very much, Pat, for all your hard work.
In my electorate, I would particularly like to thank Warren Martin, my new electorate officer. It is a very hard job being an electorate officer. The person you are looking for has to be totally dedicated to the member and to your constituents, and you can add the political party to that group as well. Warren has been putting in a fantastic effort. I thank him and his family for all his efforts including on the weekends as well.
I would like to thank my past electorate officer who, sadly, moved on. He was promoted to a higher job in Emergency Services. My thanks to Chris Draffin. I wish him all the best in his new job and I hope that he does not get called out for too many cyclones this season. I know that he will be very well prepared if he has to.
I would particularly like to thank all members of the Nightcliff Branch of the Labor Party. I like to think that this is probably one of the most active branches in the Northern Territory. We have a fantastic president in Helen and treasurer in Sally and I have tremendous supporters with Bob Corry, Jack, and Bill McMahon. I thank them particularly for their hard work.
This has been a year where the North Darwin Regional Business Association has really taken off and I am a committee member of that organisation. I would like to wish merry Christmas to Greg Sharam, Allan Anderson, Joan Miller and Christine Osborne and Mark Dickfos, all members of that committee, and to put on the record how much the government wants to work with this small group of businesses in the northern suburbs. It is interesting that over the past 18 months a small group would arise and start working in the community. I attended their Christmas meeting earlier this week. It was a very good evening and I congratulate them for that.
As patron of the Evergreens, which is a seniors group which started in Nightcliff, I was pleased that this year they celebrated their 15th anniversary. They are such an energetic group. They have bingo nights and bowling. I actually did a try-out bowls evening with them and I have never played lawn bowls. It was a great night. I wish them success for the coming years, and a safe and happy New Year. I look forward to attending their Christmas lunch next week.
I am also the patron of the Nightcliff Sports Club and I thank Pam Watson for her hard work as the president and thank all the members at that club.
I have many schools in my electorate. Nightcliff Primary School is the largest one and I believe it is one of the Territory’s best primary schools. All of my children have attended there, and I still have a daughter at the school. In recent years, Steve Marshall, as the principal of that school, has been absolutely fabulous. The school has gone from strength to strength, and parent, student and teacher involvement in the school is of the highest level. I thank Jill Finch, the assistant principal, and Greg Robson as well. In particular, this has been a hard year for Jill. She was quite unwell last term, but has come good this term, and I wish her all the best for the coming year. Nightcliff Primary School has a very active school council, and I would like to thank all council members including the chairman, Byron Olstad.
Nightcliff High School is a high school in my area. This is a high school which seems to have received a lot of negative publicity this year. I must say that it has been very unfortunate, because this is a school which has really tried to reform itself. It has been a school which, over a decade, has been rundown and then, about two years ago, we got a new principal who is determined to reform that school. They have been putting in place some very innovative programs, both in Year 8 and coming into Year 9, as well as looking at different ways of dealing with educational issues in the school system. I would have to say that the results have been quite good. Sure, there have been teething problems, particularly in the Year 8 Innov8 program. I had a son there this year, and he had a fabulous time during the year and seems to be doing very well.
This is a school which really needs the community to get behind it. There is nothing more important in a community than having an excellent high school and excellent schools in your area where you feel confident that your children can go to those schools and they will have good educational outcomes. I would be asking all honourable members to get behind this school to make sure that when we are considering making comments about a school like this, that we think, this is a school where people are sending their children, that we want the best outcomes for them. This is a good school which is working hard to improve itself.
Last week, I was very pleased to note that Nightcliff High School won the two highest awards for the Young Business Achievers for Territory schools. They were just so excited about that and I was very pleased to be at the presentation in Parliament House. I thank Paul Atkinson, the principal of the school, for all his hard work, Julie Kellem, and the person in charge of the Innov8 program, Keith Moylan, who has been working on that program this year. It has been a great program. I know that it will improve over the next few years. I also thank the members of the Nightcliff High School Council, particularly the chair, Rosemary Campbell.
Another school in my area is Essington School. This is the 15th year of Essington School. It is a fantastic school, and certainly offers a tremendous alternative for people who prefer the private sector. David Cannon, who has been the principal for many years, is full of energy and drive and he has made this into probably one of the best schools in Darwin. As I said, over 15 years, it has really improved. The president of the school board is John McLaren, and the vice-president is Phil Donohoe, and they have been a driving force also behind making sure that this is a very financial school with excellent facilities and programs at the school and Mrs Jill Kuhn is responsible for the music program and I thank her for all her hard work.
I also have in my electorate St Paul’s Catholic School, which is a very small school. It only has about 120 students in it, but it is a lovely little school. I offer my congratulations to Mary Cutjer, the principal of that school, and to all the teachers at that school. I wish them all Christmas blessings for this coming season.
A new school turned up in my electorate at the beginning of this year, the Milkwood Steiner School. This started with just a tiny number of students, I think about 25, and it is already growing. They will need new buildings by the beginning of next year. They are hunting around to find out whether they can get demountables. The parent involvement in this school is amazing. The parents get in and renovate the buildings, they paint things, make things, and they are constantly at the markets at Nightcliff to help with the fundraising. It is a fantastic school and they are lovely people who send their children there. The Steiner education system is very interesting. I congratulate them on starting this school. I was very pleased recently to be able hand over a cheque of $4400 to assist them with new airconditioners which have come from the Education department. Keep up the good work, Milkwood. It is a great school. I pass on my thanks to the president of the school council, Michael Wells, who is also doing a great job.
One of the features of the Nightcliff electorate is the large number of Greek residents. Being a member, one of the most great things - because I have lived in Nightcliff for a long time - has been becoming involved with the Greek community and going to so many Greek functions at the Greek school. The Greek school is just around the corner from my house but I had never actually been there until I became a candidate. It has been a privilege to get to know many Greek families in the Nightcliff area and to attend these functions. I must say, though, my Greek has not improved over the time and, sometimes – as I am sure honourable members would know - you go to these Greek functions and you actually do not have a lot of idea about what is going on but you just go with the flow and stand up when everyone else stands up and sit down when everyone else is sitting down.
They are wonderful occasions, and there have been some very special occasions this year, particularly the opening of the Olympic Games at the Greek school. It was a wonderful occasion and one where a huge group of Greek Territorians were present along with other Territorians. We all really enjoyed ourselves, and it was a great experience.
Mr Henderson: And their European soccer winner.
Mrs AAGAARD: Yes, of course, the soccer the member for Wanguri comments on which, of course, is very big with the Greek community and a wonderful thing.
Coming up very soon is the final Greek school presentation night where all of the children who attend the Greek school - which is every Saturday morning - get up and present a poem or a Christmas piece of prose in Greek and tell us stories about Greece and the history of Greece. It is a very interesting evening and a very pleasant one. I look forward to attending that.
I would also like to pass on my Christmas blessings to all of the ministers of religion in my area: to Rev Kate Fraser, to Rev Mark Dickins, to Father Peter Robinson and to Pastor John Vitale. These people work very hard in our community and are often not recognised for the hard work they do. I thank them for the work they have done in my community, with people who have perhaps been missed by the rest of the system. I look forward to working with them over the next year.
Somebody I would like to mention tonight is Tony Milhinhos. I have mentioned Tony in past adjournment speeches. Just last week, Tony was recognised as the Senior Territorian of the Year. I was very excited about this. Tony is the owner of Woolworths at Nightcliff, and he is a very generous person who has given a tremendous amount of money over many years - I believe more than $0.5m over the last decade - to various charities. Just in this last year, he has given over a $100 000 to three charities. He was particularly keen, if I was going to talk about him, that I mention Northern Territory Autism, because he has suddenly become very attached to this group. He has, in fact, given quite a considerable amount of money to them, not having known anything whatsoever about autism. He feels that - in his early 60s - it is a terrible thing that he has reached the age of early 60s and not known anything about autism, which is a very traumatic condition for a young person and their family. He is hoping to become quite involved in this association over the next few years. I congratulate him; he is a fantastic person and a tremendous Nightcliff resident. It has been lovely getting to know Tony over the last few years.
In addition I would like to mention the Melaleuca Refugee Association which has its office just above my office. What great work they do in the community for refugees coming to the Territory. I have had the pleasure of hosting some of these refugees in Parliament House, and I have another group coming next Tuesday. It is a wonderful opportunity for people who have come from war-torn countries where the idea of democracy is quite a difficult issue for them to come into a place like this and to realise that, in fact, you can have disagreements across a House and still actually run a government and have an opposition. It is great to be able to do that. I congratulate them on all their hard work.
Finally, I would just like to thank Mr Arun Ganesh Mahajani, who is Emeritus Consultant Surgeon to the Royal Darwin Hospital, for all of his hard work over many years. Dr Mahajani came into my office yesterday, but unfortunately I was not there and he has left me with a very nice letter telling me about all the achievements of his family. I congratulate him, especially on his medals at the Alice Springs Masters Games.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I too rise tonight to pay tribute and to extend my appreciation and thanks to a whole host of people who have played a very important role in supporting me. I begin by extending my very big thanks to everyone associated with this House, the staff of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Thank you very much for your support throughout the year. It is important that we acknowledge your contribution to us in providing a very professional service. I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a very peaceful and safe holiday period and a wonderful 2005.
I extend my appreciation to my parliamentary colleagues who have provided me with support and assistance over the last 12 months. We have been able to provide some very important initiatives in respect to the provision of services into my electorate, so thank you very much. Also to the opposition, not always do we agree on certain issues but pleased be assured that your contributions are appreciated and it is what democracy is all about, so thank you.
I forgot to mention previously in respect of the people associated in this House, and I want to pay tribute Rick Gray. Rick, as I understand it, has now retired. Rick has provided sterling service to all members of this House particularly in with the Legal and Constitutional Committee and played an important role in the statehood process. To you, Rick, and your family, thank you very much and we hope that whatever you do in your retirement, you have a very wonderful time.
I would now like to turn to matters relative to the electorate of Barkly. I do not intend to single out people as such because it would take me quite a period to do that and, perhaps by doing so, those I miss out I would be doing them a disservice. Let me begin by saying that as you travel throughout the Barkly you really begin to understand and appreciate the wonderful service and the wonderful commitment by a whole host of people. I refer to, in particular, the teachers who operate in very difficult circumstances, under sometimes very difficult conditions. You get the opportunity to meet them other than as teachers and you then really do appreciate the hard work they put in.
I want to make reference to the teachers at Robinson River and Borroloola, Kiana, Corella Creek, Epenarra, Canteen Creek, out at Marlinja, and also at Mungkarta, Elliott, Tara, Neutral Junction and of course Tennant Creek High School and Tennant Creek Primary School. To you all, thank you very much. The same applies to the council members of all those schools who put in hard work, and to the students in all the schools I have mentioned, thank you very much and I congratulate you all for working very hard and achieving results.
I want to pay tribute to the police. I have mentioned some of the communities previously in respect of education. Equally, there are police officers out there in the community and they play a very important role. I have previously said in this House that their role is not necessarily purely operational. They play an important role in enhancing and supporting our community efforts. To all the officers at Borroloola and Elliott, at Ali Curung, thank you very much; out at Avon Downs, Bob Maturna, who does a great job; and to all our officers and ACPOs in Tennant Creek.
Particularly this year, I want to pay a tribute to Superintendent Bruce Porter who has played a key role in bringing the community together. Bruce has now gone to Alice Springs to look after the southern region, I understand. He has been replaced by Superintendent Colin Smith, so welcome, Colin. We trust that everything will be well and that we will continue to work together in the interests of the community.
Also to Sergeant Richard Martin who plays a key liaison role between the community and the Barkly Region Safer Community Committee. Richard is involved in a whole host of other community activities. Thank you, Richard, because without people like yourself and your colleagues in the Barkly, I am absolutely certain that your efforts are appreciated by the community.
To all our nursing staff out in the communities, thank you very much. I acknowledge your contribution to the Barkly and to the Northern Territory.
I pay tribute to many of the public servants in Tennant Creek whom I have come to know over the last year, particularly those that have come into town. You, too, play a very important role and we appreciate your efforts.
As you travel around, you have the opportunity to visit pastoral properties around the place. They have a different focus but, nonetheless, their commitment to growing the economy in the Northern Territory is very important in terms of exports and jobs, so thank you. I trust that the bushfire situation will not be as bad as it has been in previous years, although over the last six to eight weeks it has got pretty bad, and I really do hope that we are able to curtail that. I would urge everyone to ensure that they take every necessary precaution to ensure that the countryside is protected in relation to bushfires.
Members would have heard yesterday about Bootu Creek and the mine which will be commencing at Bootu Creek which is north of Banka Banka. It has been a great pleasure working with the people associated with Bootu Creek over a very long time. I thank them for their commitment to the community, and to the Barkly. I know that they worked very hard with NLC to secure the appropriate compliances. I thank them for their commitment to provide jobs and to encourage local businesses and local indigenous businesses to get involved in the Bootu project. To Trevor Tennant and Duncan Beggs in particular, thank you very much. We look forward to an ongoing partnership that will hopefully provide a real economic boost to the whole region.
Giants Reef continues to play a very important role in our community. I have mentioned previously in this House that they have provided $60 000 to the Barkly Australian Football League, and also around $11 000 for Warrego School; so they play a very important role in supporting local community organisations. Most importantly, they are also involved in some exploration work which I honestly believe will come to fruition in new mines in our region. I thank you for your contribution.
To members of my branch, the Barkly Branch of the ALP, thank you very much for your support throughout the year, and in particular, Sharon Kinraid, Rob Trenery and Alf Chittock and a whole host of other people. As a local member, you would not exist unless you had the support of people like that who put in the long hours and who are there for you providing support as required. And believe me, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, there are occasions when, if it were not for people like that, I reckon you would end up going nuts or doing something equally drastic. Thank you very much to all those people.
Thanks to Gayle Dougall, my electorate officer – Gayle does a wonderful job. It is not an easy office to staff. We probably have in excess of a couple of hundred people who come into that office most days of the week. We have the only toilet in the main street and, of course, the only place where people can get a drink of water. It is not an easy task staffing that, as I say. So Gayle, thank you very much for your patience and your understanding, and your respect for people as they come in that door because that is very, very important.
Also, to my beautiful partner, Barb, thank you very much for all your support throughout the year. I know that you are extremely busy in your role as a General Manager of Anyinginyi Congress. You have done a wonderful job in getting that organisation back on its feet. So thank you and it is very much appreciated.
Thanks to all the indigenous organisations – Julalikari Council, Anyinginyi Congress, and also Papulu Appar Kari Language Centre. They may be indigenous organisations, but they are more than that. They provide relevant services to both indigenous and non-indigenous people, and they provide a very strong economic base upon which the town relies. Thank you very much for your stewardship and good management over the last few years.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I note that you made some references yesterday in your adjournment about the Airnorth situation. Whilst I certainly share your concerns, you should be assured that I believe the decision that we took regarding airlines servicing Tennant Creek will provide a real benefit not only to Tennant Creek, but to Katherine, and perhaps to other parts of the Northern Territory as well. For the first time, there is competition in the marketplace, and that is great. You obviously know what I am talking about, because I was able to brief you about some of the issues. I am confident that there will be an enhanced air service into Tennant Creek.
In conclusion, the Barkly is a very vibrant and very important electorate in respect to the ongoing economy, not only of itself but to the Northern Territory. To all those people who live in the Barkly, I wish you all a very safe and peaceful Christmas. Of course, if you are driving over that period, I trust that you will drive safely. To all the people whom I have been associated with throughout the year, who supported me: thank you very much and I wish you a very peaceful and prosperous 2005.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I contribute to the adjournment debate as the local member for the electorate of Arafura. I suppose the greatest source of satisfaction and meaning of why I am in this place is representing an electorate as great and as beautiful as I have in Arafura.
I was listening earlier to the member for Barkly who was saying, given the size of his electorate, it is hard to actually narrow your electorate down to one or two individuals. You could stand up for longer than the 15 minutes, and I am sure that other members in this House all share that: that there are so many people you wish you could thank. Not to mention that there are other people whose names you would not normally raise who would get offended. I also, like the member for Barkly, would say, of everyone, there are people in my constituency who give me a high level of support.
There are many women and real survivors and fighters out on the ground in my electorate whom I take a great deal of pride in, and I am privileged to be able to represent these women. When I leave this place and go out to that electorate and sit down with those women and see the hard yards that they are doing and what they are having to endure day in, day out, it puts back into perspective for me as to the reason and the meaning of why I chose to stand and be a representative for them. Therefore, whilst acknowledging that there are many constituents who are certainly deserving of my thanks and respect, I do want to take time to just mention a few.
Dwayne Baker is a young male leader who is coming up in the Jabiru region. He is the coordinator of the Kakadu youth YawkYawk Yawurrinj Group which continues to set new standards for bringing young people together - not just the young Bininj or Aboriginal kids in the Jabiru, Kakadu region, but it is also looks at a lot of the non-indigenous kids who live in that Jabiru region. They are saying to them this it is not just about being black; it is about black and white, moving, working and being together, setting the standards together for both black and white, and that youth can get beyond all the racial barriers and prejudices that older people have. They can see beyond that and work together in a peaceful, safe and mutually supportive way. That is certainly moving in a very positive way. I congratulate Dwayne because he has a young family. His wife, Freda, recently gave birth to their second child. They now have two children, and he balances a lot of the time that he spends with the youth groups out in Jabiru to also spend just as much time with his family. The commitment that he has to these kids and the youth is just fantastic.
The Kakadu Youth chairperson Louisa Bayne is a fantastic young indigenous woman. She is spending the week in Darwin in my ministerial office to have a look at the parliamentary processes and how I operate as a member. For Louisa, I hope that she enjoys the week that she gets to spend with me. I have certainly enjoyed having her and sitting down and chatting with her about the youth issues out there. I thank Andy Ralph and other committee members for the great work that they are doing to ensure a healthy future for the youth of Kakadu.
Jonathon and Sharon Nadji, Liam Maher, and all board members and staff are determined to turn Jabiluka Association into the economic development powerhouse that Bininj people of Katherine need to secure their long term economic future. I wish them well and am confident that under their leadership their dreams would be realised.
Other deserving special mention include Yvonne Margarula for her efforts for the Gunjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, and Corrine Warhurst for her considerable work in promoting and administering sports in the Jabiru Kakadu region. David Scholz continues to be a strong advocate for the integration of health and services in the region.
I will go from one part of West Arnhem to, I suppose my home island, the Tiwi Islands. The Tiwi people, too, have made substantial progress towards realising their dreams of economic independence. The first shipment of Tiwi timber to Asia was the highlight for my Tiwi people and I congratulate all concerned. I am especially pleased to see the development of so many trainees and apprenticeships amongst the Tiwi people. The Tiwi Islands Local Government deserves special commendation for their commitment to the training and education of our people.
There are many Tiwi striving to make a difference in their community but I wish to acknowledge Gawain Tipiloura. Gawain is another young leader who is coming up. He is the son of the late Stanley Tipiloura who was also a member for Arafura. Maralumpuwi and Kilpayu Purantatameri and my predecessor, the former member for Arafura, Maurice Rioli, for the strong leadership they continued to provide to Tiwi people. To Manny Rioli and all the board members at Pirlangimpi and the wisdom and guidance of course from leaders like Cyril Kalippa and the members of the Tiwi Land Council.
There are also many people at Maningrida who on a daily basis strive to make that large community and its many homelands better places to live. Maningrida is probably the second largest Aboriginal community in the Territory after Port Keats. However, I want to place on the record my respect for some of the people there. David Bond has given the best years of his life to Maningrida and homelands and despite living there for 25 years or more he is still as passionate as ever in his desire to see Maningrida reach its full economic and social potential. He is well supported by his partner, Helen Bond-Sharpe, who shares his passion particularly in the areas of education and training. Their work is well complemented by many others including people like Helen Williams and Deen Hereen whose work in the community government in this area will, I am sure, bear fruit for all who reside in the Maningrida region. Thanks for the support.
I need to also thank Ian Munro, Peter Danaja, Morris Geinbarraba and his wife Jackie, Gordon Machbirrbirr and his wife, Cindy, Felicity Douglas and there are so many others from whom I have had a lot of support at Maningrida. I thank Lyn Hollows and many of the teachers. The member for Barkly talked about the teachers and I could not agree more with his comments about the hard yards that teachers do there. But I would also like to mention the hard yards of Aboriginal health workers and the work that they do on the ground as well, and the nursing staff.
Gunbalanya made headlines this year with its Community Education Centre winning an award for its outstanding animated film, The Echidna and the Turtle. Esther Djayhgurrnga and her staff at the CEC continue to develop the potential of the young people there and only have optimism for the future. I would like in particular to mention Maree Timms who has been the senior teacher and acting principal of Gunbalanya CEC in the last part of this year. Injalak Arts continues to astonish the art world with the vibrancy of their creations. I wish to particularly acknowledge the art advisor there Anthony Murphy, who I have always had a lot of support from, and whose skills help facilitate the art production and who then very successfully markets the product to the world.
Jim Gorey, the CEO, with the able support of Bunug Galaminda, Jenny and others, continues to serve the people of Warruwi. To Bev McLeod, the sister-in-charge at the Warruwi Clinic; James, Jenny, Nancy and all the Aboriginal health workers and staff of Warruwi clinic, and Anne Hewitt and staff at the Warruwi school. Warruwi community’s prominent role in this year’s Darwin Festival was a highlight of the year for me, especially the wonderful performances of the rock band, the Northern Gentlemen, and rock duo Rupert and Renfrey Manmarulu.
Minjilang’s leadership group includes Mary and Daisy Yarrmirr. These progressive individuals always play a rejuvenating role for me when I visit them. Their inspirational leadership reminds me of why I am in politics. They give and they give and all they expect in return is a little bit of support. They are so representative of the strong women throughout my electorate. They make me feel strong and confident for the future of families of the Arafura electorate. I would also like to thank Margaret O’Brien, the CEO of the council, Shane Wauchope and all the staff who have worked hard all year.
Finally, I get to say thank you to all my hard working and loyal staff: Penny Carr in the ministerial office, Alicia Sherwood, Maria Paterakis, Maria Billias, Kerry Gardiner, Andrew Buick and Sue Moore. It has not been an easy transition over the last 12 months. I really enjoy my role as the member. Certainly, the last 12 months as a minister has been a learning process, and I thank all of the staff for the role that they have played. I thank Ron Greaves, who steered me through the transition period, which was not an easy task to begin with, and after that, David Money, who is my senior advisor, for his guidance. I am not the easiest person to work with and David can give testament to that. His guidance, advice and support has certainly been appreciated.
Thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly. In particular, I would like to name Elizabeth Clark, because every time I run into some sort of difficulty, I am constantly ringing or sending e-mails to Elizabeth. I place on record my thanks for her patience and support over the last 12 months. It has been great, not just with me but also with my electorate office. Sometimes, when I look back on some of the queries and complaints I have made, they have actually been quite small, but the staff of the Legislative Assembly have been very patient and will work through those issues. I thank all of the staff there.
I thank my fellow Caucus members and members opposite, and in particular, my shadow minister. We have a good 12 months coming up after that.
Of course, to Madam Speaker and the Clerks, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
Before I finish, I want to mention my loyal and hard working electorate officer, Francine Quong. I had better not forget Frankie, she would never forgive me. I thank her for being there for me over the last 12 months. It has not been easy for her and I thank her wholeheartedly and wish her all the best because she has gone to a new job.
Finally, I have to acknowledge two very special people in my life, and one that I am going to be going down and seeing very soon. They are two very special young women in my life. I am talking about my daughters, particularly my eldest daughter who went to Melbourne as a young 14 year old student to do her high school, completed her HSC and then went in to do her Bachelor of Social Science degree, majoring in psychology. It will be a proud moment for me on the 15th when I watch her graduate with her degree. That is a major achievement because, in our family, not many have been able to get through that. Cherise has watched me work in the area of Aboriginal health and she has seen a real priority for mental health. It is a proud moment for me to have her come back with her degree in psychology.
Dr TOYNE (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak tonight about my electorate of Stuart, which I have represented since 1996. 2004 has been a very challenging year for me as a local member as well as for the many communities in my electorate.
I would first like to thank the people of Stuart for their support over the year and all the previous years. There are a few people I would like to mention in particular, who are about to leave communities in my electorate, and who have made significant contributions to the communities they have served.
Margaret Reilly has been my electorate officer for many years and has moved on. I thank her for her dedication and hard work over the years. I would like to wish her all the best for her new chosen career.
John Lillis, who was the CEO of the Ampilatwatja Council, left during the middle of the year after a couple of years at this community. John really worked hard, together with the leaders and people of Ampilatwatja to keep this community really strong.
Shaun Heffernan, who is the current CEO of Kalkarindji/Daguragu Council, will be leaving in the near future. I would like to thank Shaun for the work he has undertaken over the years and the fantastic job that he has done for the people of Kalkaringi and Daguragu. He has a strong group of community leaders behind him and I believe, given some of the excellent outcomes and initiatives coming out of Kalkarindji today, Shaun has certainly held his head up high.
I would also like to make mention the community of Alpurrurulam which, as a result of the recent redistribution, will be moving into the electorate of Barkly at the next election. I know my colleague, the member for Barkly, will provide a very good service to this community. Over time, I have had many fond memories and established many good friendships at Alpurrurulam.
In saying this, I would also like to welcome a number of town camps around Alice Springs which will become part of the Stuart electorate at the next election. Stuart is a very dynamic and progressive electorate and, during this year, there have been some events and highlights I would like to mention as I reflect over the year.
There have been some very exciting sports and cultural weekends over this year, including the Yuendumu sports weekend held over August long weekend, the Nyirripi sports weekend and the Ampilatwatja sports weekend held on 18 and 19 September.
I also acknowledge the good work of some of the night patrols in my electorate, particularly the work that they put into working with the police and Alice Springs community during the Wizard Cup Challenge Match on 5 March 2004. The night patrols from Laramba, Yuelamu and Yuendumu were very active before, during and after the match, ensuring the event went smoothly.
I make special mention of the anniversaries of important organisations that were celebrated during the year. These organisations not only play a significant role in my electorate, but also in the Central Australian community. The Central Land Council put together a very exciting event to celebrate their 30th anniversary. Batchelor College also celebrated their 30th and Tangentyere Council celebrated 25 years with a very appropriate theme of ‘Handing on the Passion’.
There have been many highlights in my electorate over the year, and I would like to mention a few of them. The Indigenous Language Story Writing competition winners: first prize of $1000 was won by an old man from Kalkarindji, Ronnie Wave Hill, in the indigenous story writing section, plus he also won the CLC prize of $250 for his story River Mermaid. Dandy Danbayarri won second prize of $500 in the contemporary section. He also won the CLC prize of $150 for his story First Aeroplane at Wavehill. Warren Williams from Yuendumu also won a prize in the contemporary writers section entitled Travelling from Mt Theo to the Granites. It was a story told to him by his father many years ago.
In mentioning this competition, I would like to mention the sponsors for the Indigenous Languages Story Writing Competition, which were CLC, CAAMA, Imparja, IAD, Magabala Books, Allen & Unwin and NT DEET.
Moving to the Ampilatwatja Aherrenge Store. Workers at the store, Levina and Virginia Morton, assisted by Blair McFarland, have been awarded a grant of $5500 from the Remote Area Alcohol and Other Substance Strategy. This money is to run discos and other recreational activities during the Christmas holiday period within their community. This will provide a focus for Ampilatwatja young people with some much needed fun, recreational activities and an otherwise peaceful and quiet period.
The Daguragu Warnkurr Workers Club has been successfully operating for over five years. The club demonstrates that Aboriginal people have the capacity to manage alcohol-related enterprises responsibly and profitably. Daguragu Council only allows workers to drink at the club. This ensures that young people have work as their primary focus. Nutritious meals are also provided and the council actively monitors any problems with their drinking.
Harry Creek South Tourism Enterprise - Simon and Maria Thompson have worked very diligently on their property at Harry Creek South, which is about 50 km north of Alice Springs. They are developing an eco-friendly tourism venture. I have visited Simon and Maria’s place in October and was absolutely amazed at the beauty of the place and also the enormous capacity they have built into that facility to cater for small groups working in workshop mode, or backpackers wanting to have a really unique experience of the mulga woodlands. They have done it literally with their bare hands. I can certainly say that Simon is probably one of the best bower birds I have ever met. He has collected stuff from all over Central Australia – there is some amazing stuff there.
Book launches in the electorate: we had the Alyawarra Picture Dictionary launch at Ampilatwatja School on 13 October. The Katytetye, Alyawarra and Eastern Anmatjere colouring books was launched at the Batchelor Study Centre in Arplarra, Utopia on 11 November. I acknowledge the outstanding work of the Institute for Aboriginal Development through the IAD Press in supporting the writing and publishing activity of our communities. The published works will be important tools for both teaching and encouraging young people to keep their participation in their education.
I conclude by once again thanking those communities in my electorate and all those organisations and people I have worked with over the year. I wish them and their families a happy and safe Christmas and look forward to working with them in 2005.
I want to acknowledge the retirement of a very well-known Alice Springs personality, Rev Lindsay Faulkner. I pay tribute to Lindsay who, until recently, was the Uniting Church Minister for the Flynn Church in Alice Springs. Lindsay first arrived in Alice Springs in 1956 as a cook with the Griffiths House Hostel, a hostel for children who came in from remote communities. He said it was during this time, while he was a member of the Flynn Church congregation, he first realised his calling to become a minister. He went to Adelaide for six years of study with the intention of returning to Alice Springs. However, over the next 40 or so years, he travelled extensively through Australia and only made it back to Alice in 2000. Lindsay said it was a big gap of time, but he always felt he would come back to the place where it all began.
He was a great asset to the Alice Springs community during his four years there. He was not afraid to get involved in difficult community issues, whilst always remaining sensitive to any individual needing a little extra compassion or understanding.
Lindsay was particularly proud of the start of Lifeline in Alice Springs, of which he was the inaugural chairman. He saw a need and worked hard, including strong lobbying of government to get it established and open. It is now a stable and viable organisation with a large network of very loyal volunteers. Lindsay was also strongly behind the formation of the Interfaith Network in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks. Lindsay felt strongly that the events of 11 September must not be a trigger for division and hate. His practical response was to work with others to bring together different faiths represented in Alice Springs, including the Muslim leaders of the town. He felt this would provide a powerful symbol and an antidote to the spread of fear and mistrust.
Lindsay’s highlights from his service included being elected Moderator of the Northern Synod of the Uniting Church, which covers one-fifth of the continent.
Lindsay held his last service on Sunday, 31 October. I wish him well in retirement and trust he will visit Alice Springs many times.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE: I also want to tell the House of the achievements of Kunmanara Pukutiwara, an Anangu elder who died in Alice Springs on 10 November. This remarkable man was born just south of Uluru some time around 1930. As a young man, he went to at the newly-established community at Ermabella, where he worked as a shepherd and a shearer. Here he married his lifelong love, Topsy, and they started a lifetime of work together.
In 1981, they came to Uluru with a group of artists and coordinators, including his lifetime friend, Peter Yates, and set up a tent at the base of Uluru from which they demonstrated and sold their craft to tourists for over a fortnight. This was the humble beginning of what has now become Central Australia’s most respected art businesses, Maruku Arts and Crafts, based at Mutitjulu, with a retail outlet at Uluru Kata Tjuta Cultural Centre.
This old man remained on the government committee for 20 years holding the position of chairman many times. Steve Fox, the current director of Maruku says that Mr Pukutiwara was the greatest ambassador for Maruku Arts and Crafts that any centre could wish for. He could inspire people from the youngest visitors at the gallery to international dignitaries. He was always truly proud of the quality carved wooden art works that were created by more than 1000 artists that Maruku supports. Mr Pukutiwara and his wife, Topsy, travelled to Munich and Japan where they wooed the crowds with mesmerising songs and dances and demonstrations of their carving skills.
This senior man was also a member of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board from 1976 to 1978. As part of his genuine belief in sharing culture and knowledge Mr Pukutiwara was one of the main people involved in setting up the now famous Anangu Tours and proudly led their first tour in 1995. His daughter, Rene, and son-in-law, Richard Kulitja, now carry on that tradition. Indeed, Richard followed in his father-in-law’s footsteps and travelled to Washington earlier this year to pick up an international heritage and culture award for Anangu Tours. Rene is well known for her painting of one of the Qantas planes.
For all of his public achievements, Mr Pukutiwara is just as well known locally for his advocacy of the need to address petrol sniffing. Two of his sons are permanently disabled from sniffing and he and his wife were driven to speak publicly about this issue.
All his life he remained a humble man living in extreme poverty and using what money he had to support his family. His strong spirit shone through all circumstances and he remained to the end a person who could charm and inspire anyone he met. Our thoughts are with his family and his community and may the work he started continue, proudly showing Anangu Culture to the world.
Lastly, in the time remaining, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the career of Gail Turvey in the Department of Health and Community Services. Gail Turvey was born in Darwin and lived here most of here life. Gail commenced work in the retail industry but later began a hairdressing apprenticeship until her marriage in 1960. Gail commenced work in the then Health Department on 18 July 1971, undertaking a variety of positions such as Registration Clerk at Stores Division at Bishop Street which later relocated to Fannie Bay; receptionist for Nursing Administration; and also acting as Matron’s Secretary at the Old Darwin Hospital at Myilly Point. Gail did have a short period out of Darwin having been evacuated to Melbourne after Cyclone Tracy where she lived in a refugee camp, as she has called it.
On her return to Darwin, Gail worked in various positions such as Pharmacy Assistant, Assistant Travel Clerk, Registry Clerk, Switchboard Operator prior to taking the position of receptionist at General Services which she held until her retirement on 7 June 2004. Gail has had relatively poor eyesight for many years and when she still had her driver’s licence everyone in the department knew when not to travel along Dick Ward Drive to work. Gail drove at a steady 30 kph which in peak hour traffic ensured that many people had a long slow trip in the morning and afternoon following her VW Beetle.
Despite her poor eyesight, Gail could see a good looking fellow at 100 paces. She knew every fellow employed in the department and although they were all rated on a scale of one to 10, some scored a 100. Gail was always bright and cheerful as was her makeup: bright blue eye shadow, bright pink lipstick and very bright blusher on both cheeks.
Gail loved to socialise and a party would never be dull when she was in attendance. Many have spoken about her dancing ability at the old department social club gatherings. Gail’s unique personality, her friendship and cheerfulness will be greatly missed by her colleagues at the department. I wish her all the best in her retirement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016