2011-05-05
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 1953 petitioners relating to lot sizes for the rural residential zone in the Litchfield Council.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the following members be on the Council of Territory Cooperation or subcommittees:
1. the member for Fong Lim and the member for Braitling be coopted to the Council of Territory Cooperation to work on the Innovation, Development and Trade subcommittee; and
2. the member for Port Darwin and the member for Goyder be coopted for the Council of Territory Cooperation to work on the Animal Welfare Governance Committee as referred by parliament.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move –
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move –
1. Prayers
2. Petitions
3. Notices
4. Government Business – Notices
5. Government Business – Orders of the Day
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now be read a second time.
The purpose of the Commercial Arbitration (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011 is to repeal the Commercial Arbitration Act and provide a new procedural framework for the conduct of domestic commercial arbitrations. The bill updates existing uniform legislation. The equivalent bills have already been introduced in New South Wales and Tasmania, and the New South Wales bill was passed in June 2010. The remaining jurisdictions intend to introduce legislation into their parliaments during this year. As the legislation is uniform, my second reading speech substantially replicates those speeches made by my counterparts when they introduced their bills in the New South Wales and Tasmanian parliaments.
The bill facilitates the use of arbitration agreements to manage domestic commercial disputes and it will ensure that arbitration provides a cost-effective and efficient alternative to litigation in Australia. The current act is part of uniform domestic arbitration legislation across all states and territories. This uniform legislation has not kept pace with changes in international best practice and still reflects the old English arbitration acts of 1950, 1975 and 1979. This bill will provide for an up-to-date commercial arbitration system.
At the May 2010 meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, ministers agreed to update the uniform legislation. The updated law will be based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law, UNCITRAL, on International Commercial Arbitration. The UNCITRAL Model Law reflects the accepted world standard for arbitrating commercial disputes. Notably, the jurisdictions with which we compete for international arbitration work do not have different national and international arbitration laws, and nor should we. I also note the Commonwealth government passed the International Arbitration Amendment Act in 2010 to increase effectiveness, efficiency, and affordability in international commercial arbitration.
There are a number of good reasons for adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law as the basis for the domestic law. First, the UNCITRAL Model Law has legitimacy and familiarity worldwide. It has provided an effective framework for the conduct of international arbitrations in many jurisdictions, including Australia, for over 24 years. It provides a well-understood procedural framework to deal with issues such as the appointment of arbitrators, jurisdiction of arbitrators, conduct of arbitral proceedings, and the makings of awards and, therefore, is easily adapted to the conduct of domestic arbitrations. Indeed, jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Singapore have based their domestic arbitration legislation on the UNCITRAL Model Law and it has proven appropriate.
Second, basing domestic commercial arbitration legislation on the UNCITRAL Model Law creates national consistency in the regulation and conduct of international and domestic commercial arbitration. The Commonwealth International Arbitration Amendment Act 2010 gives effect to the model law in relation to international arbitrations. Many businesses, including legal ones, operate domestically and internationally, and one set of procedures for managing commercial disputes makes sense.
Third, practitioners and courts will be able to draw on case law and practices in the Commonwealth and overseas to inform the interpretation and application of the provisions.
At the April 2009 meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, it was agreed that the UNCITRAL Model Law could form the basis for the reform of domestic arbitration. Following that meeting, a draft bill was sent out for targeted consultation with stakeholders in each of the states and territories. Feedback was sought, in particular, on the appropriateness, adequacy, and desirability of additions and amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law tailored to domestic dispute management and related matters.
The bill before the Assembly today is based on the text and the spirit of the UNCITRAL Model Law. This delivers consistency with the Commonwealth’s international arbitration law and the legitimacy and familiarity of internationally accepted practice. However, the UNCITRAL Model Law does not provide a complete solution to the regulation of domestic commercial arbitration. The bill, therefore, supplements the model law to provide appropriately for domestic dispute management.
At the April 2009 standing committee meeting, ministers agreed on two principles to guide the drafting of the uniform legislation. They were:
that the bill should give effect to the overriding purpose of commercial arbitration; namely, to provide a quicker, cheaper, and less formal method of finally resolving disputes than litigation; and
that the bill should deliver a nationally harmonised system for international and domestic arbitration, noting the Commonwealth’s review of the International Arbitration Act 1974.
The purpose of the law also agreed to by ministers is found in section 1C of the bill, the paramount object provision being ‘to facilitate the fair and final resolution of commercial disputes by impartial arbitral tribunals without unnecessary delay or expense’. Stakeholders advocated for and endorsed the inclusion of a paramount object clause, noting the absence of such a provision as a weakness in the present uniform commercial arbitration acts.
I turn now to the details of the commercial arbitration framework established by the provisions of the bill. Part 1 of the bill applies the bill to domestic commercial arbitration and clarifies that it is not a domestic arbitration if it is an international arbitration for the purposes of the Commonwealth act.
Part 2 of the bill defines an arbitration agreement and requires the court before which an action is brought to refer that matter to arbitration if it is the subject of an arbitration agreement, and a party so requests.
Part 3 deals with the composition of arbitral tribunals and provides flexibility and autonomy to parties in selecting the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal to decide their dispute. It enables parties not only to agree on the number of arbitrators, but the process by which they will be selected and how they may be challenged. It also provides a default position should the parties not be able to reach agreement.
Clause 12 sets out the grounds on which the appointment of an arbitrator may be challenged and obliges proposed arbitrators to disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence.
The jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals is dealt with in Part 4, which makes it clear that an arbitral tribunal is competent to determine whether it has jurisdiction in a dispute, but also enables a party to seek a ruling on a matter from the court where a tribunal determines that is has jurisdiction.
Interim measures are dealt with in Part 4A of the bill. It provides power to arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures for purposes such as maintenance of the status quo and the preservation of assets and evidence. The bill also contains power to grant enumerated interim and procedural orders in addition to those contained in the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Arbitral tribunals are granted the flexibility, unless the parties otherwise agree, to conduct an arbitration on a stop-clock basis in which the time allocated to each party in the hearing is recorded progressively and strictly enforced. This can enable arbitral tribunals to conduct arbitrations in a manner that is proportionate to the amount of money involved, and the complexity of the issues in the matter.
Similarly, clause 33B contained in Part 6 of the bill enables an arbitral tribunal to limit the costs of arbitration, or any part of the arbitral proceedings, to a specified amount, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. This gives arbitral tribunals the flexibility to cap costs on the basis of proportionality - another mechanism to ensure that arbitrations can be conducted in a proportionate manner to the money and complexity of the issues involved.
Part 4A, Division 4 also provides for the recognition and enforcement of interim measures issued under a law of the Northern Territory, or of a state or another territory in certain circumstances. The grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of an interim measure are also contained in Part 4A.
The conduct of arbitral proceedings is dealt with in Part 5 of the bill, which provides that parties must be given a fair hearing and they are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by an arbitral tribunal or, in the absence of agreement, for the arbitral tribunal to conduct the arbitration as it considers appropriate. This ensures that parties in arbitral tribunals are granted flexibility to adapt the conduct of proceedings to the particular dispute before them.
Part 5 includes some provisions additional to those in the model law to ensure that arbitrations can be conducted efficiently and cost-effectively. Clause 24B imposes a duty on parties to do all things necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of arbitral proceedings. Clause 25 provides the powers of an arbitral tribunal in the event of the default of one of the parties. Additional powers to those contained in the UNCITRAL model are provided by clause 25 to ensure that arbitral tribunals have sufficient powers to deal with delay by parties or failure to comply with a direction of the tribunal.
Clause 27A enables parties, with the consent of the arbitral tribunal, to make an application to the court to issue a subpoena requiring a person to attend arbitral proceedings or to produce documents. Clause 27D provides that an arbitrator can act as a mediator, conciliator, or other non-arbitral intermediary if the parties so agree, to provide further flexibility for parties to agree on how their disputes are to be determined. If, however, a mediation or conciliation is not successful, an arbitrator is prevented from resuming as an arbitrator without the written consent of all parties.
Part 5 also provides an optional confidentiality regime. Confidentiality is viewed as one of the key benefits of arbitration for parties dealing with sensitive commercial topics. These provisions are drafted consistently with those of the Commonwealth act, and provide a default position if no alternative confidentiality regime is not agreed upon by the parties. As parties often assume that arbitration is both private and confidential, the provisions apply on an opt-out basis to cover situations in which an arbitration agreement does not cover confidentiality.
Part 6 of the bill covers the making of awards and the determination of proceedings. The UNCITRAL Model Law has been supplemented by additional provisions to deal with the issue of cost and the awarding of interest. As stakeholders overwhelmingly suggested that harmonised treatment of cost and interest across international and domestic legislation was desirable, these are dealt with consistently with the Commonwealth act.
Recourse against award is dealt with in Part 7 of the bill which outlines the circumstances in which an application can be made for the setting aside of an award, or grounds upon which parties can appeal an award if parties have agreed to allow appeals under the optional provision.
Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is dealt with in Part 8 of the bill which allows for the recognition of awards irrespective of the state or territory in which it was made, and which outlines the grounds on which enforcement can be refused.
The bill will ensure that the Northern Territory’s domestic arbitration laws reflect accepted international practice for resolving commercial disputes and it will provide businesses with a cost-effective and efficient alternative to litigation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement which substantially replicates the New South Wales explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce a comprehensive package of amendments to support the government’s new era in Corrections framework, and which are designed to contribute to decreasing prison numbers and recidivism in the Territory.
It is widely known that the Territory has the highest recidivism rate in Australia, currently at 47.9% compared to a national average of 37.6%. Recidivism means the percentage of prisoners who are released from Correctional Services and who return within two years following a further sentencing episode. The government is committed to cutting the Territory’s recidivism rate to align with the national average.
The Territory’s prison population has also grown steadily over the last 20 years with an imprisonment rate greater than other Australian jurisdictions. The Territory’s prisons are at capacity and the rate of incarceration is unacceptable. To assist in achieving the outcomes in a new era in Corrections or reduced imprisonment and reoffending rates, the centrepiece of the bill is the two new tougher sentencing orders targeting offending behaviour, the community based order and the community custody order.
The introduction of a new sentencing option, called the community based order, aims to provide supervision in the community and mandate programs, treatment, or training with the option for a court to order electronic monitoring and community work. The introduction of a new sentencing option called the community custody order is deemed imprisonment in the community for a term of up to 12 months, and mandates intensive supervision by Community Corrections, community work, and programs, treatment or training.
Other elements of the bill include the introduction of electronic monitoring and a form of home detention for bail and parole. The new orders also provide for the support and supervision of offenders in the community rather than in actual prison. They are largely modelled on Victorian provisions, although Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia have similar sentencing options.
The community based order is a non-custodial sentencing option and is targeted at lower end offenders. The order will be available to the court to impose on offenders for up to two years, whether or not a conviction is recorded in relation to the offence. A community based order is not available to impose on offenders convicted of sexual or violent offences.
While on a community based order, an offender must comply with certain statutory conditions, including being subject to ongoing supervision of probation officers charged with supervising them. The court may additionally order a number of other conditions, including that an offender undertake prescribed programs, undergo assessment and treatment for misuse of alcohol or drugs, psychological and psychiatric treatment, perform community work, or be subject to electronic monitoring.
If an offender breaches his or her community based order, the court may vary the order, confirm it, or revoke the order and re-sentence the offender while taking into account the extent of the offender’s compliance with the order.
The community custody order is a custodial sentencing option available where an offender receives a custodial sentence of up to 12 months and the court orders it to be served by way of community custody order. It is deemed imprisonment and, like the community based order, is not available to impose on offenders convicted of sexual or violent offences.
The community custody order has some similar features to the community based order, but the level of supervision is more intensive. The offender must report to a place for 12 hours per week to perform a minimum of eight hours of community work. The balance of the time is to be spent undergoing counselling or treatment for a specified psychological, psychiatric problem, or for misuse of drugs or alcohol. This number of hours can be increased by the Director of Correctional Services to 20 hours per week and can comprise further community work hours, or a combination of community work hours or programs targeting employment skills. The director may direct the offender undertake the further hours if it is appropriate to do so in light of the offender’s circumstances, such as whether, from time to time, the offender is employed or not.
Under the community custody order, the offender must also report to, or receive visits from, a probation officer at least twice a week.
Another key difference compared to the community based order is the consequences of breach. If the offender breaches the community custody order and the breach was by committing an offence while on the order, the court must revoke the order and, unless there are exceptional circumstances which would make it unjust to do so, sentence the offender to imprisonment for the unexpired portion of the term of imprisonment originally ordered. If the offender breaches any other condition of the order, the court may confirm, vary, or revoke the order and sentence the offender to imprisonment for the unexpired portion of the term of imprisonment originally ordered.
Common to both the community based order and the community custody order is the possibility for the offender to remain in the community and engage in employment or community work. Where an offender is not employed, some of the prescribed programs may assist in preparing for and seeking employment. Consideration will be given as to the suitability of an offender for these types of orders, and the suitable conditions of the orders in pre-sentence reports. Electronic monitoring of an offender on one of these orders is also an option to provide for a higher degree of monitoring and supervision.
Programs for both orders are being developed by both government and non-government providers and will be prescribed by regulation following passage of the bill. These include: the drink-driver education course; programs targeting road safety; alcohol rehabilitation; and programs addressing anger management and life skills.
Approximately 25% of the prison population is made up of driving offenders who serve an average of 75 days. This provides limited opportunity to access treatment or training programs targeting alcohol misuse and bad driving behaviour. Driving offenders are almost always disqualified from obtaining a licence and, when released from prison, are placed at risk of quickly committing a further driving offence, particularly if they are placed in a situation where there is no alternative for them but to drive while disqualified from doing so. This further contributes to the revolving door of recidivism. What this cohort of offender needs is intervention, supportive training, and rehabilitation targeting their offending behaviour such as treatment for alcohol misuse. Under the new era in Corrections, this cohort will be able to be diverted from prisons to an appropriate residential treatment and training centre.
To support this, the bill also contains provisions allowing a court order that an offender be given a licence to drive while supervised while undertaking practical training as part of a program targeting the rehabilitation of drink- or drug-driving and road safety. These provisions are necessary to overcome the legal problem that if an offender is driving on a road, even during training, the offender is technically committing the offence of driving whilst disqualified. The provisions also enable the offender to continue to drive while supervised and on the order, to obtain further practical experience and to meet the requirement in the Motor Vehicles Act that a learner undertake practical training for a continuous period of six months.
The bill also contains provisions to enable a court, in its discretion and taking into account a number of factors such as community safety and the rehabilitation of the offender, to remove mandatory licence disqualification or suspensions and demerit points to allow an offender who has completed a community based order or a community custody order and specified programs to obtain a driver’s licence, alcohol interlock licence, or learner’s licence.
Some offenders will have outstanding fines being enforced by the Fines Recovery Unit, or may have had their licence suspended under the regime in the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act. While on the programs as part of their community based order or community custody order, offenders will be assisted and encouraged through programs to enter into time to pay plans under the act and, thereby, be able to get their licence.
The amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act made by this bill will be beneficial to offenders who engage effectively in programs and demonstrate their rehabilitation and willingness to change. It will not permit every driving offender to get their licence back. Not only does the offender need to successfully complete the prescribed program targeting drug or alcohol misuse or road safety, he or she also needs to complete a community based order or community custody order.
If the offender breaches their community based order or community custody order, the court may revoke the order granting them the ability to apply for a licence and lifting their disqualifications and suspensions. This means that even after the order has expired, if it is discovered the offender breached the community based order or community custody order while it was enforced, the offender’s licence may be revoked, their pre-existing disqualifications reinstated, and their pre-existing demerit points reactivated. If the offender breached his or her community custody order by committing an offence, the court has no choice but to revoke the order.
The bill makes a number of other amendments as part of the new era in Corrections package: the introduction of electronic and voice recognition monitoring for bail and parole; and amendments to the monitoring powers for surveillance officers who are probation officers, so they will be able to monitor compliance with the conditions of the new orders.
The bill also amends the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to include in the definition of ‘worker’, adults on community work orders and adults on community based orders or community custody orders who are subject to a community work condition.
The bill also makes a number of amendments to the Youth Justice Act to clarify that the new sentencing options are not available to youths unless they are being tried as adults in the Supreme Court for indictable offences. The development of an alternative approach is required to address juvenile offending, and this will be considered as part of a separate review of the Youth Justice Act.
Finally, the bill also makes a number of minor amendments of a statute law revision nature as listed in the schedules to the bill. The amendments in this bill will be supported by significant government investment in resources for the new era in Corrections, including a significant investment in additional resources for Community Corrections to manage the new orders, provide rigorous assessment to inform court decisions, and to provide enhanced monitoring and supervision functions.
The additional officers will be stationed across the Territory in each of the regional centres, the growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu and Lajamanu, in Nhulunbuy, and on Groote Eylandt. The first 18 Community Corrections officers will be recruited this financial year.
There will be an additional 45 beds in supported accommodation for alcohol and drug treatment services in Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin; improved integration and post-release support; the introduction of travel and community work crews in Alice Springs and Darwin; and the establishment of an intensive driver offending program supported by residential treatment and training centres.
The new era in Corrections legislation is further supported by new infrastructure, including the construction of a Corrections precinct in Darwin, a prisoner work camp in Tennant Creek, and a prison farm and work camp in Katherine.
This bill represents a significant part of a comprehensive package of innovations in managing and rehabilitating offenders. The new era in Corrections package also includes non-legislative components such as post-release from prison reintegration, support and accommodation, and the expansion of the Elders Visiting Program.
This bill represents a significant step towards making the Territory a safer community by mandating supervision and support for the rehabilitation of offenders. Without this intervention, the rate of recidivism will continue to rise to unsustainable levels.
The government consulted with a number of stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including the legal profession and the judiciary. I thank those stakeholders for their valuable insight and contribution to the development of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 30 March 2011.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, my thanks to the minister for the excellent briefings we received from her departmental staff. The briefings clearly demonstrated there are some major points of difference in the policy of the government and that of the Country Liberal Party.
What this bill lacks is a requirement for those in our community who consume liquor to be accountable, responsible, and understand that there are consequences for their actions and behaviour. Unfortunately, the bill does not have any real consequences or deterrents, as it allows those in our community who choose to conduct themselves in a manner that is contrary to the standards of the community in which they live or visit, to continue the behaviour without being called to account. The only penalty for these people who will be breaching the various orders this legislation brings to this House is that, under this proposed legislation, these people will be placed on, for instance, a banned drinkers register for ever-increasing periods of time, or remain under a general alcohol prohibition order, which just keeps going and going and going. There are no real teeth.
The minister has and will, no doubt, continue to tell us that the proposed legislation has a requirement for the people I have just mentioned to undergo mandatory treatment. The problem is there are no serious consequences for those who choose not to undertake the mandatory treatment.
I acknowledge the great work the Menzies School of Health Research does, and also the authors of a number of other reports that have recently been brought forward on alcohol issues in the Northern Territory. The most recent report into alcohol problems in Northern Australia is a report by Sara Hudson, called Alcohol Restrictions in Indigenous Communities and Frontier Towns of 6 April 2011. I draw attention to a number of statements in that report in relation to the sentiments of the government policies on alcohol-related matters. The first point in the executive summary on page 8 says that controls of alcohol supply help mitigate the harms that alcohol causes, but they will not solve the alcohol problem. I will refer to a couple of these statements as we work through the presentation.
The CLP is about tackling the actual problem and providing meaningful and ongoing rehabilitation. That is where we differ from the government. They have what is known as a therapeutic jurisprudence attitude towards the issues. We actually want to deal with the people who are creating the problem and give them some meaningful and ongoing rehabilitation.
In the executive summary on page viii, the final sentence reads:
We will be recommending to government other ways that might help to fix that particular problem.
On page 5 of the report it said:
The Country Liberals’ policy in relation to our habitual drunk legislation is there are some real consequences. Those people who are the core problem will be required, under mandatory laws, if they do not undertake rehabilitation in a voluntary capacity, to undertake rehabilitation. That fixes part of that problem I just mentioned.
Further on page 5, the report reads:
This reflects the lack of real consequences for people to continue to indulge in behaviours that are not only harmful to themselves, but also the communities in which they live or visit. I reiterate the Country Liberal Party policy on habitual drunks actually creates the deterrent and gives them some meaningful rehabilitation.
The government is focused predominantly on the supply issue, rather than dealing with the demand issue. People who are addicted to any drug, irrespective of whether they are on a banned register, will go out of their way to obtain their drug of choice. In trying to reduce the supply without seriously tackling the demand issue, you simply create sly grog markets. The member for Macdonnell has told us in this House she has been aware, and has passed on information, about sly grog operations in Alice Springs. There have been sly grog operations in Palmerston recently. Those who are on whatever register the government comes up with will, if they chose to, get their drug of choice. Other ways they gain access is to unlawfully gain access.
We have enough problems in our community with people on illegal drugs gaining access to drugs. For the life of me, I cannot see how putting someone on a banned register is going to prevent them - if they really are addicted, if they really want to do that, they will get into it. Recently, someone believed to be addicted to drugs, tried to kick in the back door of my office while I had people inside. I had to go outside and deal with someone who was literally kicking in the back door of my office to get access either to cash, or perhaps they thought it was the back door of the pharmacy located next door to my office. These people, being addicted in such a terrible way, often try to remove liquor from those who have purchased it legally. They humbug them, they harass them, they intimidate people and they threaten them, either physically or mentally. They assault spouses, families, partners and friends. They will do all these things - and they are doing them as we speak.
I have had numerous people talk to me, especially when I visit shopping centres on Saturday mornings. The stories of people being humbugged are ongoing and, in some cases, quite distressing. My colleagues on this side of the House relate anecdotal evidence in relation to things happening in their electorates, things that are being reported to their electorate offices, and stories they are hearing when they doorknock and talk to people.
What I am really surprised about is those opposite do not seem to be hearing the same stories or, if they are, they are not letting on. I would be very surprised if members of the government are not hearing the same stories. Yet, what we do not see reflected in this bill is real issues, real consequences, that will go to resolving not only the supply problem, but the demand problem.
I refer to a media release issued by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General on 10 December 2010. I quote from the second paragraph:
The fourth paragraph said:
When you go through to the sixth paragraph it said:
The government makes great light of the fact that it reduces the amount of alcohol. I have listened to the minister say on numerous occasions that to tackle alcohol-related assaults and crime you have to reduce the amount of alcohol in the community. Well, congratulations to the government; in 2009, we reduced it by 8.5%. The problem is the Northern Territory Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics issued on 31 March 2010 show that, in 2008, offences against the person were 597 and, in 2009-10, the very year we had a reduction of 8.5% in Katherine, we have gone from 597 up to 768.
What we are seeing is a reduction in alcohol available - pure alcohol consumed - yet we have seen a massive – about 28% - rise in assaults against the person. I do not know how we equate the statements from the government saying: ‘This is fabulous; we reduce all this alcohol and everything is going to be magically fixed’. The figures do not stack up for that.
The actual percentage increase in offences against the person is 28.64%. I find that rather amazing when the government is making claims everything is fixed and on track. I quote from another media release by the Minister for Alcohol Policy dated 22 February 2011 titled ‘New Figures Show Alcohol Reforms on Track’. Having just quoted those figures, I do not know what track they are on but it is not the track I would like to see us on. On page 2 of this media release it said:
And it goes through:
dropped by 1% in Darwin …
The figures are all over the place. Again, the Justice figures are very clear - 28.64% increase in assaults and crimes against the person. After that, it said:
In the next paragraph it said:
I go now to the recorded crime June quarter figures which are issued by the Department of Justice Research and Statistics Unit. I am referring to the Northern Territory key findings. It is an appalling state when it is saying: ‘Everything is on its way down; isn’t it wonderful?’, yet assaults in the Northern Territory overall are up 73%, in Darwin are up 52%, in Palmerston are up a whopping 128% and, where we have an 8% drop in wholesale alcohol supplied in Alice Springs there is a whopping 87% increase in assaults. This is on top of what the government continues to call ‘tough new laws’. Since 2001 when it took over, we have seen these figures heading north at a great rate of knots - all despite tough new laws and a reduced amount of alcohol being purchased in these towns. I will come to that later in relation to these purchases.
There is anecdotal evidence that many ordinary folk who go to the supermarket - or used to go to the supermarket - to buy a few drinks to take home for consumption in a responsible manner, were being humbugged and harassed so much these people are now choosing to purchase their alcohol in other ways - especially in Alice Springs. I was there on the weekend and I canvassed many people who were at the Alice Springs Cup which, I must say, was a great event. I asked them about their purchasing habits. Many of them now have shifted from going to their local supermarket outlets where there are great congregations of people who humbug and harass them to give them some alcohol, money, or even cigarettes and things like that, to where they are now buying online and having it delivered to their home, a place of employment, or their business.
I wonder whether these percentages we are seeing are simply a shift in the actual amount of alcohol consumed, or whether people are purchasing from interstate and having their alcohol delivered. We do not capture those figures of goods purchased interstate and delivered to the doorstep in the Northern Territory.
When you look at those figures - which I repeat for the Northern Territory since 2004-05 and 2009-10, which are the latest figures we have: NT 73%, Darwin 52%, Palmerston 128%, and Alice Springs 87% - they are shocking figures. In Darwin, recorded figures for the six-year data show from 2004-05 to 2009-10 it is 52%. In Alice Springs, from the recorded crime June quarter 2010 figures, key findings over the six-year data - there it is, plain to see: 87%. It is quite interesting that the government continues to say its strategy is working. When you look at the figures it is a whole different story.
I refer to another media release issued on 24 February 2011 by the Chief Minister. It is titled: ‘Banning notices getting drunks off our streets’. Well, it is an interesting concept. I go to the second page of this media release:
turning off the tap to problem drinkers by banning them from purchasing takeaway alcohol ...
The second dot point said:
introducing mandatory rehabilitation treatment for problem drinkers …
I would like to reiterate something I said a bit earlier; that is, there are no real teeth in this proposed legislation. What happens is you are required to undertake treatment - there are orders - and that is fine. The problem is, if you breach those orders or you choose not to go, there are no consequences, except the fact that you are going to stay on a list. So, until these people who are, unfortunately, addicted to alcohol, understand there is a requirement for them to go, it is not going to change too much ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, could I interrupt you to acknowledge our visitors, thank you.
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Leanyer Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Sheree Grossman and Ms Emma Cook. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STYLES: It is fabulous to see our young people coming to parliament to find out about all the great things that happen here.
The third dot point is:
rolling out a new Territory-wide Banned Drinker Register in all takeaway retail outlets ...
The fourth point is:
expanding and enhancing rehabilitation and treatment options for problem drinkers.
That is interesting. In Budget Paper No 1, the minister’s budget speech, on page 7, paragraph 5, line 1, it said:
Great! That is an excellent thing to aspire to. However, if you go to Budget Paper No 3, you find, between the financial year 2010-11 and the budget year 2011-12, there is only $2.546m extra in the budget for these services. We are minus a few million already, so I do not know where the minister gets her $5.2m from. When she replies and wraps up this debate it would be nice to know. Perhaps she could enlighten us as to where that comes from.
When you look at the heading of these dot points which says ‘Other powers include’, if this is what the government proposes as tough new laws, I do not know what its definition of ‘soft’ is going to be. Maybe it will give people warm chocolate and tuck them in at night, because we do not see these are what the government might call ‘tough new laws’.
When you look at those who are addicted to illegal drugs, they get their drugs. We even read reports that people have access to drugs in prisons. If you are not going to keep illegal drugs out of prisons, how on earth are we going to expect that legal drugs are not going to fall into the hands of people on a banned drinker register, unless those people are aware there are some serious consequences for doing so? We do not see any fines in the government’s legislation; we do not see any periods of incarceration. These people can continue to behave very poorly in our community. They can snub their nose at the community, and do whatever they like. They continue to do so because they can choose not to participate in rehabilitation. They will get their drug of choice.
Those of us – and I speak of my former life as a police officer – who have worked at the coalface and dealt with this over many years understand that, even with illegal drugs, people will get it. If they cannot get their drug of choice, they will try to break into places. We need the rehabilitation to be serious and ongoing.
The government still maintains that putting people on a banned register is going to turn them off tap. The ID system relates to takeaway liquor outlets and sales. It does not relate to on-premise consumption. If staff of those premises are unaware that a person is on the banned drinker register, these people can still get their alcohol. This has not worked in Alice Springs. I repeat the anecdotal evidence that police are still locking up the same people for protective custody, as they were before the bans and restrictions came into effect.
The banned drinker register and the ID card system effectively create a licence to drink. To get a drink anywhere you are going to have to produce some sort of a licence. Some people in the community do not have drivers’ licences, and that is another issue we will deal with at a later stage. There are some problems with some of the forms of identification.
Instead of tackling those with a problem, the government intends to penalise the entire community. I refer again to Sara Hudson’s report on page 9 where she states:
That is, the Northern Territory intervention.
It is the first line of that quote that is relevant and reflected throughout the report: ‘The enforcement of restrictions is critical’. If you are going to have restrictions, you need to enforce them. To enforce restrictions, they have to be effective enforcements. They need to have some teeth and serious consequences for those who choose to flaunt what the community expects. Herein lies the problem of the banned drinker register: there is no real enforcement option.
For the people who receive their first banning alcohol and treatment notice, more commonly known as a BAT notice, if they breach the notice their penalty is to receive another notice for a longer period of time. If they breach that order, then they receive another notice for an even longer period of time, and so on. When they run out of those, they go on to a general alcohol prohibition order and, if they do not undergo any treatment, they stay on that - one assumes forever or until they pass from this earth. Well, if they can still access their alcohol and are still enjoying the lifestyle they choose, why are they going to do this? These people have serious addiction problems. We have enough trouble with people addicted to illegal drugs not seeking rehabilitation or assistance for their addiction.
The government says a tribunal can mandate these people to have treatment. The problem is there is no penalty or serious consequence for people who choose not to go, except they stay on the banned drinker register for a period of time under the BAT notice or a GAP order. Provided you do not come to the attention of the police for any street offences or criminal activity whilst under the influence of alcohol, then you can continue to consume liquor - either purchased and given to you by some other person or taken from the centre of a communal drinking group. Those government and non-government agencies in the community that have to deal with the ongoing problem of communal drinking understand these people will get their alcohol from the centre of a group. To gather evidence to try to ascertain who supplied what to whom and when is going to be a very time- and resource-consuming exercise.
The current resources the community has are already stretched beyond capacity, so what hope is there for increasing their workload and seeing positive results? I sincerely hope they can carry that and I wish them well. However, what extra resources have been allocated for this increased workload? I am sure the Northern Territory Police Association would love to know what extra staffing and resources have been allocated to deal with this particular issue.
On the secondary supply issue, if people who have a serious addiction cannot get their liquor they will put pressure on those around them to purchase it on their behalf - friends, relatives, tourists or people from the community. In many cases, this may be male or female partners or other family members who have some form of identification.
The consequence of secondary supply to a person who is on the government banned drinker register is they also will be placed on a banned drinker register. If they continue drinking, then they get a second notice saying they are banned for a longer period. If there are real mandatory consequences that force people to undertake meaningful rehabilitation, then we may see some results, otherwise people will just get one banning order after another for an increased period of time.
One of the absurd things that may happen is I might have to stop inviting people over for a barbecue, set up boom gates on my driveway, and interrogate all my visitors and invitees to ensure they are not on a banned drinker register of some kind. Then, I will have to keep an eye out for the grog squad in case they turn up at my house ...
Mr Bohlin: The Australia card.
Mr STYLES: There you go: the Australia card by stealth.
Mr McCarthy: Only if you are selling alcohol.
Mr STYLES: No, no, no. I pick up on the interjection. If I provide alcohol to a person I know is on the banned alcohol list, I am in trouble. This may sound flippant, but what happens if someone comes to your home and leaves at a later time having consumed some liquor from your home and, for any reason, that person ends up in police custody or - God forbid! - has some form of accident or is killed? What happens to me? What happens to the person who supplied that person with alcohol under the proposed legislation? Is the coroner going to say they should have known; they should have done this?
It is really putting an onus on people other than those who actually have the problem. It is about where you put the onus. Do you put it on everyone in the community, or do you put it on the people who have the problem?
Some of the practical applications to the proposed legislation are from a policing perspective, where the issues the police are going to have will be in gathering evidence in relation to secondary supply, where there is no accountability, responsibility, or consequences. Police can issue BAT orders again and again with no real serious consequences. Of particular interest is the example in Alice Springs where police are still locking up the same people for protective custody as before the bans and restrictions came into place.
In Western Australia, for instance in Fitzroy Crossing, when restrictions and bans came into effect a couple of years ago, the first 12 months saw a 36% reduction in alcohol-related emergency admissions to the Fitzroy Crossing Hospital. Fabulous result. However, in the second year of those restrictions, there was an increase in the number of alcohol-related emergency admissions. So, they realised it was not working too well and things were going back to where they were. While they put bans and restrictions in place in Halls Creek, emergency presentations at the Halls Creek emergency department declined 40%. The problem was that alcohol-related presentations by Halls Creek residents to other emergency departments in the Kimberley region - namely Derby, Broome, Fitzroy Crossing, Wyndham and Kununurra - demonstrate the problem was not resolved, it was simply moved. They moved it from Halls Creek and those people who wanted to continue to consume alcohol went to other towns where there were no restrictions and created a problem there and were, obviously, clogging up the hospitals.
We have the same problem in the Territory where you ban grog here, and people go elsewhere. It looks great for the place where you ban it, and is terrific. The problem is we are not resolving the problem. We have to do something to help these people with this terrible addiction; that is, meaningful consequences and mandatory rehabilitation in some form.
There are no consequences for failure to comply except more banning notices for even longer periods. Positive aspects of rehabilitation, practical job training, job preparation for participation in regional, rural, and remote locations and service industries is what we need. I have not seen anything from the government that shows they are serious about doing that.
I refer to another Northern Territory government media release titled ‘Tackling Alcohol-related Crime and Antisocial Behaviour’ dated 1 September 2010. When we talk about making mandatory treatment orders from the tribunal, we have in that media release issued by the Minister for Alcohol Policy under the heading Increased Rehabilitation Services:
In September there were 300. We do not know which are treatment beds and which are sobering-up shelter beds. They just seem to lump them altogether to have that.
I go to another media release dated 14 April 2011 titled ‘Rehabilitating Problem Drinkers Back into Society’ by the Treasurer. Paragraph 2 said:
I go back to Alice Springs where police are still locking up the same people; that has not resolved the issue there. When you look at the harm problem drinkers are doing to their families, their communities, and themselves, you have to go back to the statistics of the Northern Territory where, over the period I quoted earlier, increases in the Northern Territory overall of assaults, etcetera: 73% in the Northern Territory overall, in Darwin 52% up, Palmerston 120% up, and Alice Springs 87% up. That is with tough new laws and restrictions, and all sorts of things.
The same media release talked about:
Well, it has not worked in Alice Springs, so I am interested to know, when the minister wraps this debate up, what they plan to do about that.
The other interesting thing in this media release is where the Treasurer said they have:
We have gone, in a matter of six or seven months, from 300 beds to 400. I do not recall seeing or hearing about any great increase in bed numbers. Fair go! It would be nice to hear the minister explain where the extra 100 beds are - that is a 25% increase, which is substantial. We have not seen where the money for that came from or, in fact, whether they are real.
The next Northern Territory government media release, also in relation to the numbers, was issued on 3 May. It was from the Minister for Health. It was titled, ‘Record Health Funding for Quality Health Services’. In the last part of that - in fact, under the last heading in that media release, Community Services, the third dot point says:
as part of $70.6m committed to public health services, $31.1m is provided for alcohol and other drug services, including over 396 rehabilitation and sobering-up shelter beds ...
Again, the Minister for Health has confirmed there are an extra 96 at least, and the Treasurer says an extra 100. We accept they have rounded that up. But where are they and what are they? Rehabilitation beds are totally different animals to sobering-up shelter beds. This is the question I pose to the government: tell us exactly how many rehabilitation beds and how many sobering-up shelter beds it has. It will be interesting.
We go back to the cost of these beds. On page 7 of Budget Paper No 1, the government says it is going to invest:
The increase on page 133 of Budget Paper No 3, under the output group Public Health Services, in the line Alcohol and Other Drug Services, the increase is only $2.546m, not the $5.2m as page 7 of Budget Paper No 1 states. So, there are a couple of little issues there. I do not know where the magical numbers come from, but they do not seem to add up. I am hoping the minister can help me with my arithmetic and show me where the numbers add up. I would be grateful if she could do that.
Whilst the government wishes to be seen to be doing something to tackle this problem in our community, it appears to be out of step with community sentiments. The anecdotal evidence I am sure all of us get, but the government does not seem to want to acknowledge, is people are constantly telling me they are tired of walking in human faeces. They are sick to death of the humbugging, the harassment, the threats, the intimidation, and real violence for money and cigarettes. The women are sick of the threats made to them and the intimidation by groups of people who are hanging around looking for cigarettes, money, alcohol, or whatever. They are sick of people defecating in alfresco restaurants, under shop awnings, in front of shopping centre doors, in alcoves in shopping centres, and rear door alcoves of businesses.
It is also expressed to me and my colleagues that they are sick to death of the sexual assaults and even fires, deaths on roads, maiming, and injuring that have occurred through alcohol abuse. They also mention waiting times at accident and emergency centres, where families and other members in the community are forced to wait longer times while the aftermath of alcohol-related fights and violence is dealt with.
We need real rehabilitation for those who do not care and are not concerned about going to mandatory rehabilitation. Most of the people taken into protective custody in the community are reasonable people when they are sober. Whilst they are in some type of care or rehabilitation, these people are not committing crimes; there is less violence, less crime, less anguish, fewer problems for the person, their family, and the community in which they live or are visiting.
The community expectations of a healthy environment are not being met with the amount of defecating in public places, parks, and other amenities. People have just had enough. This may be an addiction issue, but it is only part of the problem. When individual rights take over and override the rights of other people in the community and their ability to go about their daily lives without being harassed, threatened, intimidated, or assaulted physically or sexually, as a parliament and as a government we are required to act.
The ALP runs this current strategy Enough is Enough, and people want action, because the majority is tired of it. They want something real done. They do not want empty promises, rhetoric, or spin that is not going to deal with the problem.
It is a social experiment that has not worked, because we have seen the results of increasing crime, assaults, etcetera. Those who are seriously addicted, in the absence of consequences, do not appear to care or choose to go into rehabilitation. Prohibition does not work - consequences do. There is also an important aspect regarding education about responsible drinking.
Madam Deputy Speaker …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and member for Port Darwin.
I refer to an ABC news bulletin titled, ‘NT Alcohol Policy Dispute Heats Up’. It said:
I actually agree with the Chief Minister; I do not think it is the way to tackle problem drinkers. Further it said:
When you look at the reduced availability in Katherine - the figures that were quoted earlier - it is clear that does not work. In any attempt to increase the prices as a way of controlling that, you penalise the whole community for the actions of a minority, which I am told is about 800 people. Pensioners have approached me, as the shadow for Seniors, saying they are sick to death of paying more because four litres casks were taken off ...
Mr Elferink: Having to make more trips.
Mr STYLES: That is right. I spoke to a friend of mine recently, who lives out on a community. He went to Katherine to do the shopping for many people in his community. He is employed out there, and they wanted to have a dinner. He was asked to buy some wine, so he went into the shop, and they would only give him one cask. He went back to the community where they were expecting this nice dinner, and he had one cask of wine. He was amazed that, as a responsible person and a resident of the Northern Territory, he could not buy an amount of alcohol to take back so they could have a nice staff dinner. There are a few people who are a little concerned.
The pensioners who have spoken to me said they are on low incomes and they should not be forced to pay more for alcohol when they have been paying taxes all their lives. To keep the minority of these people going is, in fact, contributing to the situation we find ourselves in now. Families and others who are paying more for power, water, rent, medical insurance, school fees, educating their children so they can keep the country going to pay more taxes, are struggling.
The majority of people in the community are responsible drinkers and they would like not to pay minimum floor prices or be forced to buy smaller casks. These people are going interstate; they are getting online and are purchasing from interstate. That is the reality of it. We do not know how much is coming into the Territory from those sources, which is growing by the day.
I can hear people on the fifth floor asking the question now: ‘How much is all this going to cost?’ Currently, it is costing $642m per year. We have heard that from the Treasurer. With our policies you could save quite a bit of that. Even if you saved 20%, you are still looking at in excess of $120m a year that you could put into some real rehabilitation, building some decent facilities to encourage these people to get off alcohol.
What cost to the community in the social capital? The savings that can be made by having these people not involved as clients of police, ambulance, acute and long-term medical care, accident and emergency, intensive care, court, legal aid, incarceration, versus the cost of rehabilitation and education - problems with alcohol to break their drug addiction, for real job training, lifting self-worth and breaking out of the cycle of alcohol abuse. The banned drinker register is like locks, and locks are designed to keep honest people out of your home. The banned drinker register, in our view and experience, is just a one-stop shop for people who are addicted. It is not going to stop them from obtaining and drinking the drug of their choice.
Rehabilitation is either voluntary or mandatory. Education from early intervention – that is, school nurses, school-based police officers and the like - all went to help prepare young people with the tools they would need to say no to alcohol.
The Alice Springs experience - I reiterate this because it is very relevant and shows what the government is doing – has some serious policy failures. The Alice Springs experience is the police are still apprehending the same people for protective custody as they did before the alcohol management plan and the requirement to provide identification.
Anecdotal evidence is because people get humbugged at liquor outlets and the car parks at shopping centres, they have shifted their purchasing habits from local premises to the Internet and interstate suppliers. We are missing out on tax dollars. We do not capture the statistics.
Regarding secondary supply, police do not know who is getting what alcohol delivered where. You can get a truck load of alcohol simply dropped off at the side of the road. You can say: ‘I want that; please deliver that to the 34 km peg’ on whatever highway or road you live on, and they will drive the truck there and, with a little crane attached to the truck, simply lift off whatever pallets of alcohol you order and put it on the side of the road. You just sit there and drink it. That is happening around the Territory as we speak.
Irrespective of whether people are required to fax a driver’s licence, it is very difficult to know who is using whose driver’s licence to order what supplies from home and where. Just go back to wine clubs, direct cellar sales, Australia Post, all the transport companies. If we try to stop that, then we have issues of free trade across borders and issues with the Australian Constitution. I would like to hear from the government in relation to how it sees that working.
We see alcohol decrease and then we see increases in violent crimes which demonstrates the government’s strategies are not working. The presence of real consequences, in many cases, increases self-policing. So, when people know there are some serious consequences they take responsibility for their actions, they become accountable, and they are aware that there are consequences for their bad behaviour if they choose to continue.
People who have a chronic addiction do not care. BAT orders and fines will not matter, because many of these people who find themselves addicted to alcohol and in those situations will not be paying their fines anyway. When you look at what the Fines Recovery Unit has waiting to go into the bank, it is a very substantial amount of money. The government cannot impose fines on these people, so it means they will eventually be incarcerated for public drunkenness. If you are going to do that, then we are just going to increase the number of people being locked up for non-payment of fines.
Ten years ago, there were 11 000 people per annum taken into protective custody. That figure is now 55 000 a year - and this is despite Night Patrols. Speaking about Night Patrols, I go back to Sara Hudson’s report, on page 7 where it says:
She says that is right across northern Australia, not just the Northern Territory, but across the top end of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
It would be interesting to check the statistics before and after the Northern Territory intervention regarding urban drift. You have bus transit officers – behaviour on buses is still appalling. I know a gentleman who is my bus spy. He rides around on buses …
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: Still have them out there, spying on what is going on, on the buses. He comes back to me with appalling stories of what bus drivers have to put up with and what other people - normal taxpaying people who act responsibly - have to put up with.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have highlighted a number of problems. I sincerely hope the government listens and takes note of those, and we see some real amendments to this legislation that will give it some teeth which will be of benefit to the people of the Northern Territory - the taxpayers who keep the system going for all of us - so we can enjoy the fantastic lifestyle we should be enjoying in the Northern Territory ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the government’s bill because I believe it is trying to do something. I want to put it in very simple terms; alcoholics are sick people, and alcohol is the biggest troublemaker we have. When you look at kids not going to school, domestic violence, child abuse, it is all related to one thing, and we say alcohol is the troublemaker in Aboriginal communities.
Husband and wife are normally very calm, well disposed to each other in a home environment, and community atmosphere is very good if there is no alcohol inside the community. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would know that coming from a remote Aboriginal community, as will many members on the opposite side. There are days and days, if not weeks and weeks, we live in our community in harmony. Then, one day - normally it is pay day, Thursday, Friday, Saturday - there is an increase of alcohol consumption and alcohol coming into the community through grog runners and, all of a sudden, we have this huge problem. It is the biggest contributor to many things in our society. Our society has just been normalised through one thing, and that is alcohol. This bill is taking steps to improve how society operates, and how Indigenous people operate within the realms of coming into hub towns like Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs.
What I see, not just in Alice Springs but in other places like Darwin, tells me it is not just a black issue. It is an issue across our Territory population, amongst all Territorians. It is up to us, as people who have been duly elected to this House, to be sensible in the way we legislate, and this comparison of how we encourage business to operate in the Territory - and that is all our pubs - but, at the same time, bringing in something that looks after our Territorians who are consuming alcohol.
This is a great opportunity for us all to have input into the minister’s bill. Later on, the minister might take into consideration, through other programs, some of our suggestions. There are many programs the minister for Education, the Minister for Health, and the Minister for Central Australia look after. It all comes into dealing with the community antisocial behaviour we have, and what we see in a town like Alice Springs. Yes, as the member for Sanderson has explained, people outside Coles and Woolies and the supermarkets, all hang around asking for that dollar: ‘Can you give me $1?’ We know that dollar is not for a pie, it is actually what we call chucking-chucking, because they are $1 or $2 short to buy a cask. It is up to us not to be cruel, but to be kind and have that hard love, and say: ‘No, I am not going to give you that $1 because you are short of $1 to buy a cask; I am going to buy you a pie so you can have something to eat’.
People in my family also stand around at Coles and Woolies. When they ask me for $4 or $2, I know they want it for chucking-chucking for grog, so I will say: ‘You come with me to Woolies and Coles and I will buy you bread and chicken. I am no longer going to give you that $2 or the $4 in order to perpetuate the problem you have. You are actually sick’. As family members, as human beings in this society in the Northern Territory, that tough love is required when we are approached for $1 or $2, to say: ‘I will not give you the $2 because I know you are $2 short of buying a cask, but I will buy you a pie’. You will automatically see they will say no to the pie, because they did not really want the $2 for the pie, or the $7 for the chicken and bread; it is just another way of collecting. It is like the church offering, I guess. They put their little T-shirts out on the street and they sit there and beg. You can put money into the shirt and it is accumulating money for something that is really bad for their health.
Even with passers-by, we have to have some form of education strategy so we educate our tourists and people who walk in our streets to be very cautious that they are not throwing the $20 or the $7 into the hats and the T-shirts when people are playing music in our streets, because we are actually perpetuating the problem of their sickness, which it is alcoholism. Let us stop and say to these people: ‘I am not going to put the $5 in your hat, but I will go to the shop nearby and buy you a cake and coffee, or chicken sandwich’. I believe we need that kind of education strategy.
If we can educate all Territorians to have in the back of their minds as they walk along, not to put the money in, but offer them a sandwich and a drink, we will do justice to the Territory. That is up to each and every one of us. We sometimes feel guilty when we walk past and someone is sitting on a seat and we think: ‘Oh, poor bugger, we will chuck $3 in’. We do not know that $3 is actually going towards a bottle of rum or cask, or whatever. We need to put that message out to everyone in our streets in the Northern Territory to not put the money in, but to buy them a pie and a drink. That is doing more for that person sitting in the street than putting the $3 in to perpetuate this nonsense of the rut they have themselves into, drinking.
I go back to the town camps. All I have seen in this bill is going on a journey of correcting many of bad things that are happening. I congratulate the minister for bringing this forward. We need to normalise the behaviour in town camps and say: ‘You cannot drink in a Territory Housing property in a town camp, just as you cannot drink in Territory Housing at 51 Paterson Crescent, or in a flat in Lyndavale Drive’. It has to be normalised so you have one standard of living, one standard of entry, and one standard of behaviour in all our towns. When people are moving in and out of our remote communities, they will know that we all live with one standard and we will not tolerate anything less - not even if you are Aboriginal or Chinese.
I have spoken in this House about a German bloke who lives underneath the bridge because he is allowed to live underneath the bridge. Since I spoke of that in parliament, he has moved to a town camp. He is just moving from one place to another. We say to our people that you cannot do this kind of stuff.
Alcohol is a major factor in many bad things that have happened in a person’s life - truancy in children, domestic violence, houses not being kept up to Territory Housing standard, and the way people behave in the street in general. If we can cut that down by putting in the back of the minds of everyday ordinary Territorians, that go for lunch, go for smoko in the street, not to do this thing and perpetuate the problem, we will really improve the standards of how we expect people to act in our towns. Minister, I congratulate you for bringing this bill forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am going to talk more specifically about the objects of this bill, and I might talk about some wider matters later. It is a common theme in the Northern Territory that this issue is about 800 people who are a problem. Generally, there is a hint that most of those are Aboriginal. This is a real myth. People have to look at the facts: alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory is not high simply because Aboriginal people drink. It is because the culture of the Northern Territory is about alcohol. It has been about alcohol ever since I came to the Northern Territory, and I do not think it has changed.
In fact, it is far worse because there is promotion of alcohol as there never was when I came here in the 1970s. The most promotion you ever had was the ‘Two Miles to Swan’ signs on the Stuart Highway before you came into each town. There was no electronic and smart advertising as there is today. I will talk a bit about that later.
I get annoyed when we get into this camp of ‘it is them, not us’. We should reflect on our own society because we are just trying to hide the fact that much of our domestic violence, much of our alcohol over-consumption when driving, is not Indigenous. Much of it is non-Indigenous - or I probably should say non-Aboriginal. I went to the Larrakia training centre the other day and they said: ‘We are Aboriginal, the rest of us are Indigenous’. I digress, Madam Speaker.
In relation to this bill, I have put much thought into what the government is trying to put forward. I appreciate them putting forward these changes and I congratulate them for trying. A problem we have in the parliament when it comes to these difficult issues is it is easy to knock, and it is not always easy to do. The issue of excessive alcohol consumption and the economic and social effects it has on our society is an area that should rise above party politics. It is a major problem for the Northern Territory. We should recognise that and work together towards finding a solution. That does not mean one does not criticise what has been put forward.
I have come to the conclusion, even though not everything I would have liked is in there, I would rather give the government a chance to have a go, to see if what it says actually does happen. I cannot say it will not happen. I might have my doubts, but I would prefer, for the sake of working together to find a solution, I am willing to allow this legislation to pass and to see what happens. The government will need to come back to this parliament and report on what changes have occurred since this legislation was brought in.
My concerns are similar to the member for Sanderson in one particular aspect. I did not agree with everything the member for Sanderson said. However, in relation to those people who have been given numerous opportunities to turn their lives around, where it is seen they are simply incapable of turning their lives around because of alcohol or other drugs – it is only alcohol we are referring too here - there needs to be some stick. And not done in the sense of put people in prison as if they had done something criminal, but done for a compassionate reason. Many people will say you should not lock someone up for drunkenness or alcohol matters, that that is depriving people of their liberty.
The reasons why something was done could be put clearly to the public. It could be suggested there would be opportunities for people to voluntarily change their lives and the greater community also has rights. Those rights are to live a life not humbugged by people, or not have people sitting on the lawns at the back of their premises defecating, urinating and swearing. It is a two-way street: the community has some rights for peace and, on the other hand, the people who are the cause of this need to be helped. We are helping the community by trying to remove this nuisance factor but, at the same time, we are saying these are human beings and, with a compassionate approach we are going to have involuntary rehabilitation which will include medical facilities, medical help and care, a garden, workshops and numeracy and literacy. These things will cost money and the opposition is looking at something similar. I could introduce legislation or amendments to say this is what we have to have. At the present time, we do not have those facilities.
This is the way we may have to go if things do not change. I will be talking to people I know in Darwin who are continually confronted by people whose behaviour is not acceptable. We have to realise there are certain norms all people need to have. Whether it is hooning in the main street in a fast car or defecating on someone’s back porch, there are norms that need to be upheld otherwise society slips into lack of respect, which leads to lack of respect for authority and does not do our society any good.
The other issue is in relation to the swipe cards. I laugh a little when I deal with this issue. My personal feeling is you are going to have a great deal of difficulty making it work. The normal drinkers are not going to be affected. They might get a little upset if they have to swipe their card, but if they have not done anything wrong such as cause any alcohol-related offences and they do not have a banning notice because of their behaviour, they have nothing to worry about.
The history of this is interesting. The government introduced it into Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy and then moved into Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek - you have to show your licence when you want to purchase …
Mr McCarthy: Not yet.
Mr WOOD: Not in Tennant Creek?
Mr McCarthy: It is coming.
Mr WOOD: It is coming. One of the criticisms from our Alice Springs colleagues was if it is good enough for Alice, why is it not good enough for Darwin. Then, when it is decided to introduce it to Darwin, Palmerston, and the rural area, the word is it does not work in Alice Springs. It is a bit like on one hand we do something and, then, when we do something to satisfy the criticism, it is criticised again.
Let us give it a go. It will be harder in the Darwin regions simply because there are far more liquor outlets and far more places people can go where they will not be recognised. I am not saying they will not be banned, but there are more relations and friends who can disappear into the ether to obtain the supply.
As the member for Sanderson said, when you have people with a serious alcohol problem they will do everything they can to obtain alcohol. One thing I was told in Alice Springs in relation to this was the danger will be - and the law enforcement people recognise this – if you dry up the alcohol supply, there are going to be more break-ins to people’s premises. We have to take that into consideration as a likely outcome. I have spoken to the police about this issue. The lady I was speaking to said the police support it because at least it gives them something to ban; they can do something for those people they are picking up all the time, because police can give a banning notice. It gives them some teeth. Whether that works, let us see what happens. That is why I am saying let us try it out.
I was concerned if you go to the tribunal and, if you do not carry out the requirements of the tribunal, there is no real penalty except you will still be banned from drinking alcohol. I felt that could be strengthened, and I still think it is something the government should consider after reviewing how this legislation is going. After going to the tribunal, if you do not take up the request by the tribunal to have rehabilitation - and that could be once or twice - then you are sent to the SMART Court. Then, the SMART Court, which has more power, can make a decision as to whether you should go to involuntary rehabilitation.
Regarding involuntary rehabilitation, I would not support going to prison. We need a special facility that is not attached to prisons. It is there for a specific purpose; it is built for that specific purpose. It is built, not with an idea of punishment, but with an idea of rehabilitation and compassion. That is what we need.
The government is saying the police will crack down on some of the behaviour that annoys all of us. People have been in contact with me. I have been in touch with the commissioner and he said it is certainly an area they are putting more emphasis on. I have rung the people from the Darwin CBD who rang me, and they said so far there has not been a great change. However, the legislation has not come in yet; let us see what effect it has.
If you are asking police to do all this work, they are going to need more resources - there is no doubt about it. The problem with picking up people for minor offences is there will be far more paperwork. When there is more paperwork there are fewer police on the beat. There have to be ways around ensuring, if you want to enforce some of these provisions in the act, there will be the financial and the structural changes to allow this to occur - otherwise the police will be snowed under with paperwork and you will have fewer people on the beat.
In relation to this bill - and I would like to speak on the SMART bill when it comes up and, maybe, add a few more things to that as well - I will not necessarily vote on this bill. I say that not because I am scared of supporting it or not, but I am sending out a signal that, whilst I think it is good, it could be tougher. I have been told the other side of that debate is that the police are going to act more firmly on the people we are talking about; they will have the benefit of banning people. The government says that will make people think twice. I have my doubts. As I said before, we can think we have the simple solutions to a difficult problem. I am willing to give the government a go on this and see what happens. I ask the Treasurer to come back with figures showing us what change is occurring with this new legislation.
In the budget paper under Department of Justice Alcohol Reform Program, page 92, the government is estimating that in Budget 2011-12 there will be 2300 alcohol bans issued; there will be 150 treatment orders completed; the number of attempts to purchase alcohol denied will be 5000; the number of applications received by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal will be 600; and the number of referrals received by the SMART Court will be 375. That is an estimate. I am not sure what the scientific basis of those figures is, but there must be something that backs them up. Those figures have been put in the budget. That is a start when it comes to seeing whether the legislation is working. These are the types of figures we need to know.
The path of turning people’s culture around in relation to heavy drinking, or the misuse of alcohol, will not be short and it will not be easy. I believe we have to persevere and do something about it. When people are talking about the cost of alcohol, or the effect on society, or how people are a bit put out by some of the restrictions - I heard the member for Sanderson talking about how he could only buy one cask of wine and you must remember in most licensed facilities in communities that is exactly what happens. You cannot buy unlimited alcohol at Oenpelli, Gunbalanya, or Nguiu. There are restrictions in our community already on how much alcohol people can buy. It is not uncommon. I do not believe you can say it is abnormal, because it already applies, and has applied for many years in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I am willing to hear what other people have to say on this particular bill. I will also expand on some of those issues in relation to the bill that deals with the SMART Court.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support these very important pieces of legislation we will be debating this afternoon. Putting aside the politics, each and every one of us in this parliament understands alcohol abuse and crime, antisocial behaviour, the misery, domestic violence, the neglect of children is way too high in the Northern Territory. At the root of so much of this dysfunction is the abuse of alcohol. This government - me as Chief Minister, my ministers, and all of us on this side of the House - are absolutely committed to turning this around and we are looking for support from this parliament to tackle, head on, the abuse of alcohol in this community.
These pieces of legislation have broad community support. I say this in a spirit of not seeking to politicise this in debate this afternoon because it is too important. Look at the support this legislation has from the Australian Medical Association, the representatives for doctors who are at the front end of so much of this tragedy seen in our hospitals day after day; from St John Ambulance; from academic research groups such as the Menzies School of Health Research; from industry; the AHA; the police very strongly; from NTCOSS, the peak body on behalf of the Council of Social Services; and non-government organisations which work hard to pick up the pieces for disadvantaged families and individuals throughout the Northern Territory.
In this debate I am saying to the opposition and all honourable members we are looking at introducing this legislation backed up by significant financial commitments on the basis of significant consultation, strong support from those organisations I just mentioned, and wanting to see better outcomes for our community and for the people caught up in the tragedy of alcohol addiction.
I understand the opposition has problems with key planks in this legislation. I also understand the opposition has yet to finalise its policy on alcohol reduction in the Northern Territory. The latest comments from the shadow Health minister a few days ago were: ‘We will conclude our policy position on this in time for the lead-up to the next election’. The reality is, as of this afternoon whilst we are debating this legislation, the opposition does not have a cohesive policy position alternate to what we are debating this afternoon.
I say to the opposition that every day the clock ticks over and we do not introduce significant reforms is another day where we will see the tragedy of the abuse of alcohol played out throughout our community. Even if you do not necessarily support all of the measures here today, I cannot see why you would not say: ‘Give it a go, we will see how it works’. We are 15 months out to the next election and if we do not see significant improvements and change then more needs to be done and we will be in the policy realm of putting alternate policies to the people of the Northern Territory.
This issue is too important to play petty politics with. In the absence of any specific and cohesive finalised policy from the opposition, as announced by the shadow Health minister a couple of days ago, I urge the opposition to give this a go because, if we do not, then more of the same will be more of the tragedy we see around the Territory every single day. We all know alcohol causes 60% of all violent crime. Although there might be a different take on this, we all agree that for problem drinkers, mandated rehabilitation is something we have to step into. And we are stepping into this with this legislation today. We all know we have to increase and improve access to alcohol rehabilitation across the Territory. That is why we are committed to $34m additional over five years for alcohol rehabilitation, $3.2m to implement the banned drinkers register, and $1.5m for police to enforce it.
The tragedy of all of this is the significant financial contributions we have to make. The CLP’s position is to oppose the banned drinkers register, and that is fine if they want to have a platform to oppose that. I challenge them again to articulate because, for the life of me, I do not see if you do not have a register that identifies who is banned from purchasing alcohol, how you can enforce any ban on people purchasing alcohol. The first thing we have to do for people who have significant problems with alcohol is to make it very hard for them to access it.
I believe a banned drinkers register should be in place for Alice Springs. I have bought grog in Alice Springs when I have been there, going to friends houses for dinner parties, picking up a bottle of wine, picking up a six-pack of beer. It takes five seconds, it is not an inconvenience, and I do not see people in Alice Springs objecting in droves at the bottle shop when I have been there.
We know where we have alcohol management plans in place. There is the club on the Tiwi Islands and, when people play up on the Tiwi Islands and get banned from the club, the member for Arafura is the first one to cut crook at the fact that people come over to Darwin and access grog in Darwin and live in the long grass and play up over here. So, unless we have a Territory-wide register that enables licensees to say: ‘You are banned, I cannot sell to you’, people will continue to easily access alcohol who should not be accessing alcohol.
Even Tony Abbott said in Alice Springs on 29 April:
We know there is no silver bullet cure to this. We know this is not going to be the magic wand that cleans up the problem across the Territory overnight. However, we are very confident it will make a significant difference, and that is supported by Tony Abbott. Tony Abbott, basically, has said in Alice Springs: ‘… it can make a difference and it has made a difference and that is why I say these restrictions are important’.
Despite comments I make from time to time about Tony Abbott, the federal Leader of the Opposition, he understands that alcohol is not the issue to be playing politics with. It is too important, in restricting access to alcohol, to play politics with. I urge the opposition, in light of the fact that they do not have fully determined policy yet, to give this a go; their leader in the federal parliament is saying it should be given a go.
In further questioning of Tony Abbott on ABC Alice Springs on 29 April, where the reporter said:
Abbott said:
He certainly was not supporting the positions that have been put forward to date by the opposition.
Regarding improvements in rehabilitation, the grant funding that is available in the budget for innovative regionally-based alcohol rehabilitation programs are in place. With the alcohol tribunals and the SMART Court, this is a comprehensive plan. It is comprehensively and overwhelmingly supported by august bodies such as the Australian Medical Association.
I was at Royal Darwin Hospital recently in the emergency department talking to emergency clinicians and nurses. I get out there from time to time and say thank you to people, because they do an amazing job. They were very supportive of what we are doing. I will not name the clinician directly in debate here tonight, but he was very supportive of this. He said the trauma they see on a nightly basis that they have to patch up is human tragedy on an enormous scale and something needs to be done. Again, strong support from the AMA.
We have four former police officers sitting in this parliament on the other side and, as minister for Police, I know there is very strong support for this from police. Police are the front line picking people up night after night across the Northern Territory, attending domestic violence disputes, entering into violent situations that are alcohol affected. They are very supportive of this. Even the AHA, the industry group that profits from the sale of alcohol - this will reduce alcohol sales and the very industry that profits from the sales of alcohol acknowledges they have a social responsibility and they can see they need to support this. The Australian Nursing Federation, St John Ambulance and NTCOSS support this.
I say to the opposition, let us have the debate here today. You have an opportunity to put your concerns about these issues on the table and we will do our best to look at those concerns. In the absence of anything that is a coherent, complete, determined, comprehensive policy from the opposition - they say it will be ready for the next election, that is fine - we should give this a go. That is where the member for Nelson is at. I have had long discussions with the member for Nelson. He made his contribution. He likes much of what is in here. He thinks we need to go further in some other areas, but his position is: let us give this a go; we need to do something. This is a very significant something. Let us give this a go, and let us evaluate where we are six or eight months down the track.
I commend the minister for the enormous amount of work that has gone into this. There has been comprehensive community consultation. There is comprehensive support from all the peak body groups that are around service delivery and picking up the pieces in regard to alcohol. The Menzies School of Health Research, one of the most esteemed health research bodies in the nation, supports this. I urge this House to support this legislation this evening. In six or eight month’s time after this has commenced, if it is not making a significant difference I am sure we will have the debate again.
Madam Speaker, I commend the three bills before the House this afternoon.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I respond to the new alcohol reforms the government is putting forward. I listened with great interest to the response of the Chief Minister. As one of the members of parliament representing Alice Springs, I feel more than qualified to respond to the reforms the government is putting forward.
Unlike the government, we have three members of parliament who live in Alice Springs, as opposed to their one. That is a significant fact because Alice Springs has been subjected to rather strict and ongoing alcohol reforms for many years - since at least 2005 or 2006, and even before then. In the last five years they have been quite intense. I have experienced firsthand what the alcohol restrictions are, and have been, in the Territory up to this date. I feel qualified, because of my experience, to give my opinion about what the government is proposing for the future alcohol reforms in the Northern Territory.
Alcohol is a massive problem. We have all stated it many times in this room. It is a huge problem. It is probably the most profound problem facing the people of the Northern Territory. It is the root of all evil, and has cost individuals and communities a great deal - not just in money, but in lost generations.
The Four Corners program on Monday night about the North Queensland community of Aurukun described a period in their history in which alcohol, basically, wiped out the social fabric of that Aboriginal community. It described how it has taken years to start the repair, the mending, the rebuilding process of that community from the damage alcohol has done to it. When I saw that program the other night, it certainly rang a bell in the similarities between what Aurukun faced over the last 20 to 30 years and what many Aboriginal communities and, indeed, mainstream communities throughout the Northern Territory have faced over the last 20 to 30 years.
We get to 2011, and the Labor Northern Territory government is desperate to find a solution to the problem, as we all are. We all are desperate; this is a very serious problem affecting each and every one of us who live, who chose to raise our children, and who hope to build a future in the Northern Territory - whether it be in business or whatever you choose to do. It always seems to come back to alcohol and the impact of alcohol on our lives and the way we go about our business from day to day. I am telling you the same old story. I read somewhere today that was a title of a section in a report, something to that effect: the same old story, here we go again, we all know it.
One of the observations I have made about the alcohol reforms imposed on Alice Springs over the last five to 10 years is the need for consistency. Whatever you do, it has to be consistent. I do not think this government has been particularly consistent in how it has gone about imposing reforms in Alice Springs. Nor has it been at all consistent in how it has enforced alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs and alcohol reforms.
The example that comes to mind is the dry towns legislation. In 2007, the Northern Territory government brought forward this legislation which used Alice Springs as the guinea pig once again. I can remember being extremely excited about the dry town legislation. At the time, I was an alderman; I may have even been Deputy Mayor. I can remember the Alice Springs Town Council was well and truly in the mix of how it would be implemented. We were being consulted. We were front-runners in how the dry town legislation was going to be implemented in Alice Springs. We were extremely hopeful.
I can remember the Mayor at the time, Fran Kilgariff, was interviewed by John Laws. I heard a replay of a section of that interview not so long ago. Fran was talking to John Laws and was tremendously excited about this dry town legislation because we really believed, at the time, that it could be a solution to the growing tide of alcohol and the alcohol problems affecting the town. We were desperate to find a solution, as is the Northern Territory government at the moment desperate to find a solution.
We put to the side the fact there had been a 1 km drinking limit in Alice Springs for some time which had never been enforced. We seemed to put that to the side because we had this new thing called the dry town legislation. Of course, that created much enthusiasm in the community. It was brought in and people were being driven out of Alice Springs because they were not allowed to drink in Alice Springs. Over a short period of time the streets remained quite clean from the obvious signs of drinking alcohol. People were not being seen on the streets of Alice Springs consuming alcohol. They had, effectively, disappeared. We were getting statistics relating to how much alcohol the police were pouring out on a regular basis, and it was all looking very promising.
That did not last for long. We all know this story - it did not last for long at all. It probably lasted no more than six months, and people started to see the signs of alcohol consumption within the CBD of Alice Springs returning. People were behaving in, possibly, a much more clever way in how they consumed alcohol in town. They were putting alcohol into containers that were not labelled alcohol, they were hiding in the bushes in and around the CBD and had developed more devious ways of hiding the fact they were drinking in town. They had changed their behaviour. This is an important point when we are talking about alcohol reform.
As the member for Macdonnell mentioned earlier today, people who drink, people with a sickness called alcoholism, will drink at all costs. They will drink no matter what. They will find alcohol no matter what. These drunks who were frequenting the CBD of the Alice Springs in 2007 when the dry town legislation was brought in, changed their behaviour and were able to get around this dry town legislation. They resumed their position in the CBD and the police interest in enforcing the dry town legislation quickly fell away. The public, once again, became alarmed that this great answer to the alcohol problem in Alice Springs was looking like being a flop - and it has been a flop.
The reason I am telling you this story this afternoon is because, without very strong and consistent enforcement of any alcohol reforms, it will flop. We have plenty of evidence of that in Alice Springs. We had the 1 km non-drinking area, then it became the dry town legislation, and they both were a flop.
Recently, the government announced a restricted alcohol area in Alice Springs which is basically a re-branding of the dry town legislation. A similar intent was attached to this restricted alcohol area zoning; that was, that people within a certain geographical area of the CBD of Alice Springs could not drink. That included through Heavitree Gap, Gap Hotel - the various hot spots around town. There was some degree of excitement. Over the years, people have become extremely cynical in Alice Springs when it comes to these initiatives, but there was some degree of interest in what this government had put forward: another re-branding of the dry town. We were assured by the minister for alcohol reform this was a great thing. Once again, we see that is not enforced either. This is an example of the alcohol reforms we have had over the last 10 years that, basically, have tried to address the same issue and have been unsuccessful - for want of a better word.
We cannot talk about alcohol reforms without using the word ‘enforcement’. Simply speaking, if you do not enforce it, it does not work. How do you enforce alcohol reforms? For the most part, you need police. That is why the Country Liberals have been demanding more police in Alice Springs for many years. Without police on the ground to enforce any sort of alcohol reforms or restrictions, it simply does not happen.
Alice Springs has been subjected to reforms for some time, and most of those reforms have failed, in part, because (a) we have never had enough police in Alice Springs to enforce these reforms, and (b) they were tried - and that is a good thing - but they never really worked. They were not, and have not been, adequate to address the extreme problem we have in Alice Springs.
In future alcohol reforms throughout the Territory, the advice I give the government and all other interested stakeholders is please have a look at what has been happening in Alice Springs because, as I said, numerous times in my seven months of being a member of parliament, Alice Springs was the guinea pig. We are the guinea pigs in alcohol reform. We have been subjected to a whole range of reforms by this government. I guess, for them, it must be extremely exciting having a contained area they can impose these reforms on, because it is new ground.
The Chief Minister talked about how these reforms have the support of a whole range of organisations - organisations throughout the Territory are supporting their initiatives. The reason they are supporting these initiatives is because most people will try anything. The government has been very lucky because they have been able to use Alice Springs as the trial ground for many of these things. The Alice Springs community has not been particularly impressed, for the most part, to be used in this way. There is a lack of respect, to some extent, when you know because you live in Alice Springs you are treated in a certain way and, if you live in Darwin, you are treated in a slightly different way. But, hey, we have all heard for many years about the Berrimah Line, so that is all very constant with our understanding of how this government operates.
People in Alice Springs have weathered many a storm when it comes to alcohol restrictions and reforms. We are all sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for the next thing to happen; that is the way we live in Alice Springs. We accept it, to some extent, because we know there is a serious problem. We know this problem affects our lives every minute of every day. For people who live in certain parts of Alice Springs, such as the town camps and various suburbs of Alice Springs, things are very tough. We know alcohol restrictions have not worked in Alice Springs, because there has been no change in alcohol-related crime, and there has been no change in presentations for alcohol-related medical problems.
We know there has been a significant decrease in the amount of alcohol consumed in Alice Springs - around 18% since 2006, I believe the minister for alcohol reform mentioned a few months back. I have no doubt that is as accurate a figure as you are going to get. I have responded to that before, saying that, obviously, the people with the problem are not the ones who are drinking less. It is the people who choose to buy their alcohol through other means rather than through the local liquor outlets, and people who just could not be bothered drinking at all who are drinking less because of the fiasco you have to go through to buy alcohol in Alice Springs. For most people it is a right pain. I have heard the government talk about how you can get used to certain requirements of these alcohol reforms, to using your identification when you buy alcohol, and not being able to buy certain alcohol products before a certain time. Yes, you can get used to it, but it still remains a right pain in the neck.
For different sections of the population you could even argue that it is discriminatory. For example, elderly people who like a glass of sherry or port - we heard this argument five or six years ago. It is a pain in the neck. It is unfair on them. Old ladies having to get into their car - which is normally tucked away well and truly before 4 o’clock in the afternoon - after 6 pm to head down to the bottle shop to get their beloved bottle of port that they might run out of once a month. There is inconvenience attached.
I will be very curious to hear what the response to these alcohol reforms is throughout the Northern Territory. It is quite interesting, coming from Alice Springs, because you have heard it all before. We have been down this track many years ago. We understand what the issues are. To hear people outside of Alice Springs and Central Australia talk about how these restrictions are going to impact on their lives is quite amusing in one way, because you just feel like you know it all, and these poor people are playing catch-up with you. It is amusing but, by the same token, it is also incredibly sad.
Another example of alcohol restrictions that were imposed on Alice Springs some time ago was the identification system. This system was brought in during the time I was an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council. This whole system of identification, which was meant to be the salvation of the alcohol problem in Alice Springs, was a complete and utter flop. Everyone in Alice Springs, basically, will agree with that. It was brought in by the current Labor government in 2008. I can remember that the Alice Springs Town Council was consulted very thoroughly on what we thought of different systems.
I can remember the IDI system, which was the system chosen at the time - I am not sure what is actually being used at present. There were discussions around the cost of the machines and how it was going to be used throughout the takeaway liquor outlets in Alice Springs. The reason why it was a flop - and I find it quite bewildering why it is even being used currently - is the fact that it was attached to the court system. Once you are deemed as not being in a position to use alcohol, you were meant to be identified on the system as being not in a position to buy alcohol, and that was a mechanism that was attached to the court system. That was, effectively, never used. There were probably fewer than a dozen cases over three years that ever got to court.
So, it always comes back to enforcement and how it is used. You can set up all these things but, if you do not have the mechanisms and the police resources, legal resources, and judicial resources in place, then it is a waste of time and money.
In Alice Springs, we are still using an identification system regardless of this legislation on the table. I do not go to bottle shops these days much at all because I could not be bothered queuing up at 2 pm with the stream of interesting people who queue up at 2 pm to buy alcohol in Alice Springs. I just could not be bothered. The fact is this identification system is still being used. I have never seen anyone being rejected for the sale of alcohol the whole time it has been in use. I do not frequent liquor outlets on a regular basis, but I have never seen anyone being told they cannot purchase alcohol as a result of the identification system.
It remains to be seen exactly how this government intends to enforce the whole raft of requirements that are contained in these reforms because, if you do not match it with a substantial increase in police resources, there is no way the current level of police staffing can cope with these extra demands. There has been no commentary or discussion around this area of need, when you talk about imposing all these new regulations, requirements, bans, and so forth. How does the government intend to enforce it? That question needs to be answered. How does the government intend to enforce all these new reforms?
The Chief Minister said we should give it a go. He said we should have an open mind and see if it works. He said there is no guarantee and no magic wand. He is right - there is no guarantee. To some extent, I agree with him. These things have to be tried and trialled because there is no real precedence. We are breaking new ground in the Territory. As a resident of Alice Springs, I can say loudly and clearly that, honestly, who knows where this will lead? Who knows if these reforms will be successful? There really is very little precedence throughout Australia with what we are doing in the Territory. That is mainly because the problems in the Territory are not anywhere else in Australia - thank goodness. Perhaps parts of Queensland and Western Australia might rate fairly significantly against the Northern Territory problems, but I say we lead the field when it comes to the severity of our alcohol problem in the Northern Territory.
When you talk about alcohol restrictions, my colleagues, the members for Greatorex and Braitling, and I really are the local experts when it comes to how effective these reforms will be. We do not object to the sentiment of the reforms the government is putting forward. We think, in essence, they will do no harm. However, our philosophy is more of a stronger line. We feel the people of the Northern Territory have had enough. Enough is enough. We feel this set of reforms, although it will do no harm and possibly might do some good, will not be enough to fix the problem. In fact, after being subjected to, essentially, 10 years of alcohol reform in Alice Springs, I remain quite cynical. I personally believe these reforms will not make much difference at all, and that is based on what I have seen and experienced in Alice Springs.
All we are doing is trying to plug the leaky holes. These reforms will not address the problem, and they will certainly not ease the pressure on the government when it comes to resolving the crime and alcohol-related problems we see in our community. The Country Liberals have an habitual drunk policy which is far more hard-hitting. It is three strikes and you are out, and connected with that …
Ms Lawrie: Three strikes and you are in the lock-up.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Exactly. The Minister for Alcohol Policy is assisting my speech this afternoon and I thank her for that.
Ms Lawrie: You have no idea have you, Robyn? Oh my God, I feel sorry for you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: She is very right - three strikes and you are in meaningful rehabilitation. You are in rehabilitation that might set you straight for the rest of your life.
I will listen with great interest as to how the government intends to enforce these alcohol reforms, because enforcement is where they have failed in Alice Springs over the last 10 years. It is all very well to write these wonderful pieces of legislation and come up with all the answers, but I have to say, Minister for Alcohol Policy, you are probably not highly qualified to talk on the matter. I guess you are well intended, and theoretically it is all good on paper, but come and live in Alice Springs for a while and you might get a slightly different perspective. Most people are happy to try anything, but do not expect people to be deliriously positive and overwhelmingly excited by these reforms, particularly within Central Australia. We have been there, we have done it, we are jaded; we have had enough because nothing has changed.
But, let us go another round. We have 15 months to the next election, which should give us time to work out whether your reforms will be effective to any extent. Hopefully, the game will be on for the next election as to who has the stronger plan - a stronger policy with more affirmative action when it comes to helping these people, getting them off the street. You cannot help a drunk who lives and breathes alcohol, who goes home to alcohol, who goes to town and drinks alcohol, and hangs out with people who are drinking alcohol. At some point, you have to break the cycle; remove them from the equation, put them into rehabilitation, and give them a chance at changing their life.
I listen with interest as to how these reforms roll out. I invite the Minister for Alcohol Policy to a briefing with me and the members for Greatorex and Braitling - who are the experts on alcohol reform in the House - and we can let her know firsthand exactly what it is like to live with alcohol reforms.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, one of the things I am going to enjoy about this debate is that it goes to the very heart of two perspectives of how you look at the world, and how the world operates. Those two perspectives are in a condition of constant tension in our communities, not only in the Northern Territory, but nationally, and pretty much throughout the whole of the OECD, and even many non-OECD countries. It comes down to the way we think about ourselves as a community and how we consider ourselves as people.
It is important to understand this debate lies at the very heart of those two perspectives. For the purposes of this debate, we can talk about the left perspective and the right perspective. I am one who is on the right side of the argument. I mean that in both senses but, in actual fact, what I am referring to is the more conservative world view. In fact, I would even go as far to say, on a traditional use of the word ‘liberal’ my world view is very much a liberal world view ...
A member interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I will not rise to the bait.
The government argues a very simple argument. The simple argument the government chooses to run is we have a group of people who conduct themselves in a particular way. That group of people, who are in a substantial minority in our community, conduct themselves so poorly they then have a negative and deleterious effect upon the vast majority of us. We can see this behaviour expressed in our parks and gardens on a daily basis. The member for Fannie Bay is fully aware of the No 2s deposited all around the Fannie Bay shops. I see him nodding; he acknowledges that - as it occurs in Harriet Place and The Esplanade. These are the actions of a minority. Not every person in Darwin defecates in front of the Fannie Bay shops, Harriet Place, or on The Esplanade. In fact, very few people behave in this way.
This, then, takes us back to the perspectives we bring to this place. The government, being a good Labor government, sees society as an organism of which we are all part and, therefore, as part of that organism, we have to look at these individuals as part of the whole. To make the whole operate better and more healthily, we must then make every effort to change the way that small component of the whole organ works, so the whole organ will work better. That is at the essence of what the government is trying to do. It is saying: ‘All right, if you have a problem, we are going to ask everybody else in the community to assist in dealing with your problem’.
We do that in several ways. One of the ways is we tax people. Another way is we are, through these legislative instruments - and I want to talk about them more generically because the philosophical debate is consistent throughout all three. The essence of the government’s argument is the whole of the community must now lose an element of liberty so we may police that small handful. We do that through the introduction of scanning machines and all those sorts of things, so we can bring out...
Ms Lawrie: There is no loss of liberty in that.
Mr ELFERINK: Why are you so insulted by this?
Ms Lawrie: Because you are wrong. There is no loss of liberty in the scanning machine, you idiot!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Actually there is. This is why I have to pick up on this interjection. Of course, there is a loss of liberty. People have to do something otherwise, under your rules, they will not be allowed to purchase liquor …
Ms Lawrie: They will do it.
Dr Burns: A bit like getting on an aeroplane.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. Okay, I draw honourable members to this particular issue. I ask honourable members to read the social contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau because the dynamic between the demands of the society people live in and people's liberties is a dynamic of tension. It creates a tension between the demands of that community. We have to suffer those problems when we get on an aeroplane because of the actions of a few morons. Unfortunately, those morons are so dangerous they kill people. In fact, so do the drunken morons. They kill each other from time to time in our parks and gardens and in Aboriginal communities. That is what this is about. That is precisely what this is about.
We have to ask ourselves, as a society, how much are we prepared to inflict on ourselves? And we do it. Conservative governments do it as well as Labor governments. The question is to what degree? This is when you hear the expression, when people talk about these sorts of things, as being an exertion of the nanny state: the state will look after you under all circumstances. Your liberty will be sold away for the price of a free set of false teeth. Your liberty to buy liquor will be diminished because you will now have to do more to buy that liquor than you would otherwise have done, which was the fair exchange of value.
We already, as a community, seriously and heavily police the supply and sale of liquor. The Liquor Act is at least as thick as the Criminal Code. Getting back to the debate, the fact is this government would then seek to inflict even further restrictions and laws upon the people of the Northern Territory to deal with this liquor problem in our community. Do I deny a liquor problem? No, I do not. In fact, I point one out nearly every parliament, in the adjournment debates, when I complain about drunks infesting our parks and gardens, defecating in our shops and conducting themselves, all in all, in a most unpleasant fashion.
However, that is exactly what the government, by these proposals, seeks to do: create a system by which the whole of the community needs to respond. So, they have to produce their driver’s licence, identification and such things, and that is an imposition upon them. Impositions like that have been inflicted also on the people of Alice Springs for some time. Those impositions are resented by people; people do not want to have to constantly change their behaviour because of the actions of a few.
I, too, share a belief that there is an organism called community, but I do not believe that it is part of a single conscious whole. Everybody in that community actually is a conscious individual and, so long as they do not suffer from a gross mental disorder, is capable of making rational choices. The problem is that humans are not always inclined to make rational choices. I suspect that, as a police officer, I would have had a very boring day at work if rational choices were the only sort of decisions that people make. People make bad choices. At our biological level, we are motivated by all sorts of things - tantalising our taste buds, satisfying our senses, sensual conduct, and those sorts of things which lead us to make poorer choices. One of those sensual conducts that people engage in is drug taking, both licit and illicit. They take legal drugs and illegal drugs.
How many members of this Chamber pop out occasionally for a quick smoke? How many members of this Chamber like a drink? How many members of this Chamber will drop an aspirin to avoid a headache? How many members of this Chamber have smoked dope in their past? How many members of this Chamber have dropped an ‘E’ in their past? I do not know. I suspect that some people will have done. Statistically, several people in this Chamber have smoked dope at some point in their life.
So, we make irrational choices. Many of those irrational choices are based in satisfying a sensual – and I do not mean that in the sexual sense – outcome. Some people in our community pursue that behaviour to an absurd degree. We have people who like to drink and who like to get drunk, and they pursue that to the gates of insanity.
We all know how bad heroin is. We have all seen pictures of heroin addicts lying in the gutter with a needle sticking in their arm as they go to that place where they are. But, in actual fact, so do alcoholics. There is no difference between the dero sitting in the park drinking a perfectly legal substance and a dero sitting in a park who is taking an illegal substance. They are both deros and they conduct themselves in a fashion which offends the general community. It is for that reason we have laws such as the Summary Offences Act.
As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we have seen and observed so many of the social experiments, which have been engaged in by both sides of politics. Indeed, the former CLP government changed the law to enable people to be locked up for being drunk, simply because we had so many drunks. The former CLP government was prepared to tax and lay an excise on the purchase of alcohol to fund an anti-alcohol program. The former CLP government had a Liquor Act, as the Northern Territory government has continued to have a Liquor Act. However, this Labor government has increased the level of responsibility on the community as a whole in response to a poorer and poorer alcohol outcome under their management.
In the year 1999-2000, the police annual report simply and clearly demonstrated that there were about 11 000 drunks, perhaps a fraction shy of 12 000 drunks, locked up in the Northern Territory. The last police annual report that I saw on this matter showed me that 35 000 - more than three times that amount - were apprehended. The Chief Minister has acknowledged that 55 000 incidents of drunks being locked up have occurred in the Northern Territory - a factor of five increase since this government came to power.
The Chief Minister says - and rightly to a degree but not completely - that it is due to more activity from the police, bigger population, all those sorts of things. Yes, I accept that. But, it is also because the drunks themselves have become more numerous. They have come in from remote Aboriginal communities, sadly, to our parks and gardens. They are more numerous, and they are prepared to drink more liquor - and they do drink more liquor. If you look at the last reports from the Department of Justice on the amount of alcohol consumed around the Northern Territory, they have consumed a substantially larger amount of liquor which is being sold in the Northern Territory than was under the last years of the CLP government.
This gets back to the issue of what do you do about it? The choice is you continue to pursue these programs where you seek these people to come to their own senses. We see that philosophy being played out by this government. It has every right to play out this philosophy, because it is the government. But, this is a government which seeks to introduce milder interventions to get people to change their behaviours. However, when you do that, what you are actually asking these people to do is to have a change of the way they view the world. What you are saying to these people is: ‘Okay, you have been picked up three times in three months for being drunk. We will whack you under one of these BAT orders, and you will be cut off’. The person is then banned. If you allow this legislation instrument to go through its paces and get to the point where you are dealing with the sticky end of this legislation, you might front the tribunal, and you will get BADT orders issued to you. Another acronym might be issued to you as well. But, in fact, what we are actually saying is: ‘Through that process we expect you to go through an intervention’.
The nature of that intervention will be a health intervention, not a custodial one. There is no sanction attached to the breach of these orders. There is no penalty other than the fact that you are banned for a little longer, or you continue receiving banning orders attached to this legislative instrument. The focus is a health focus, so there will be no custody involved. There will be no juridical intervention, and there will be no penalty attached to this sort of thing. It is my understanding the member for Sanderson will be trying to change that through the committee stages of this bill. However, I suspect the government will be resistant to those legislative changes because it is inconsistent with the philosophy it brings to this House in this legislative instrument.
We have to ask ourselves as a government what our primary responsibilities are. I argue that the primary responsibility for any government, particularly in a democracy, is to provide, above all else - before it does health, before it does education, before it does roads - a secure environment. That is what the people of the Northern Territory are pleading and calling for. They want a secure environment. They want to be able to walk out of their shop in Fannie Bay without treading into somebody else’s faecal matter. They want to be able to live their lives without being humbugged in the street by beggars and drunks. They want to be able to conduct the normal business of getting along in society in an orderly fashion. They want to enjoy a community where the normal social intercourse of that community goes unhindered by the actions of a few.
That is what I believe and know to be correct as the primary role of government. On a national level that talks about defence, on a state level - which is our level - that talks about policing; internal security. This is why the government is making an error with this legislation because written into the philosophy of these legislative instruments is a single assumption which is wrong. The assumption is the role of government is primarily a health intervention role. This bill is designed to achieve a health intervention before the government is prepared to address a security problem in the community. Will these people be removed from the community? The answer is no, they will not.
The government is engaged in a highly speculative assumption which is these people, once they have the tap turned off as the Treasurer likes to say, will cease to drink. No, I do not believe that is the case. I suspect some will have more difficulty in obtaining alcohol; however, we must remember we are dealing with people who are addicted to a drug and will go to extraordinary lengths to fill that addiction. One needs only to look at the illicit drugs in our community to see the lengths people will go to feed their addictions. They will lie, they will cheat, they will steal and, more importantly, there are people who will operate outside the law to provide and feed those addictions.
If you look at the illicit drug market, you will see we are constantly fighting a battle to keep our streets clean of these nasty illicit substances. If I remember correctly, watching the news today there has been some extraordinary amount of crystal meth, or ice, or some such substance seized by the Federal Police as they trumpet at their triumph of policing skills. I am sure it was a very good operation, and good on those police officers. What you have is a clear description of the lengths people will take to operate outside the law to provide addicts their drug of addiction.
You will not have to go to a Columbian drug lab to find liquor in our community to side-step the law to feed these people’s habits. I should know this because I have tried personally to be involved in the policing of prohibition - and I am talking about alcohol. In remote Aboriginal communities around the Northern Territory, vast amounts of Territory police resource are poured into stopping grog coming into these communities because that is what the parliament has asked to do. It has often been a fruitless and futile exercise, I can tell you. In fact, a cask of wine which used to sell years ago for $5 at Coles in Alice Springs was being traded out of the back of an HQ Holden at the front gates of Yuendumu for $50 a go.
The government asks us all to take this extra step to support a legislative instrument which will enforce orders with a health outcome, with no real description attached on how you are going to stop the illicit flow of alcohol to these people. The Attorney-General will, of course, stand up and say: ‘Oh, we have these penalties and people will be held accountable for selling alcohol to these poor health victims’. Well, piffle to that. Those penalties do not deter behaviour. If they did you would discover that Columbian drug labs would have to go into another business - perhaps pottery or something.
We are dealing with people with shortcomings and, in many instances, more substantial shortcomings than the average Joe. That being the case, I urge the government to stop playing with the community and seeing the community as a Petrie dish in which they can continue to play their social experiments. It is time - it is well over time - for us to stop trying to engineer community outcomes with a view to, ultimately, creating a system by which we can get these people – to what? - wake up to themselves, have a revelation, have a new and spiritual emotional wakening as a result of getting an order? No, it is time to start saying to these people: you are responsible for your conduct in the community in which you live ...
A member: Or visit.
Mr ELFERINK: That being the case – and when I said that I meant the whole of the Northern Territory, but I appreciate the interjection - this is why I feel it is no longer useful to continue trying to encourage people to feel better about themselves. The government is extraordinarily optimistic. I will say this for the Labor Party: as a general rule, they are more optimistic about the human condition than I am. They believe, or assume, or even hope, that through this process people will wake up one day – ee, ee, ee - and suddenly have a revelation like Saul on the way to Damascus: ‘Oh my goodness gracious’, and he falls off his horse! ‘I am Paul’. Well, that does happen, but one of the more common ways that occurs is not when people are encouraged and helped along; it is when people are confronted with the reality of the choices they make, and those choices are producing outcomes that are bad.
The problem with a welfare-based approach - which is, essentially, what this health-based approach is all about - is what we try to do in those processes is soften the outcome, soften the blows, soften the hit so it is not so hard. You were a poor person, you were a victim, you had a bad time as a kid, your left leg does not work properly, your upbringing was not what it should have been. Guess what? Many people in the community go through those problems, and most of them get on with life and deal with those problems and challenges when they come up. If a person who is confronted with the enormity of their problems suddenly realised, ‘Holy cow, it is this, gaol, insanity, or death; I might take changing my behaviour as an option’, they will be far more motivated by those things which confront than those things which give comfort.
So, I support a legislative instrument which, ultimately, does two things. First, it fulfils the principal role of a government; that is, to provide security for a community. This legislative instrument cannot achieve that outcome. I also support, in that instance, an intervention, but an intervention which is confronting to the point where people will change their behaviour. Therapy, I do not believe, is necessarily going to help someone who, deep down, is wondering where their next drink is going to come from. As a consequence, this is why I have been such an active proponent of the Country Liberals’ policy in relation to these matters. One, it provides security. By placing people into detention, into a treatment program for which they have no choice, it removes them from the streets and communities, the parks, the gardens, and places them into custody.
Most people, no matter how poor their life choices are, do not like custody because custody deprives them of their liberty. We are not talking about depriving the community of its liberty. We are talking about depriving those people who have an alcohol problem, and that problem extends to affecting the rest of the community. Those are the people we are dealing with. If a person chooses to buy two casks of wine and a bottle of Jack Daniels, and go home and get outrageously drunk in their lounge room and fall asleep on the lounge, I have no care or interest in that person, because that person has offended no one other than their own liver. However, if that person chooses to drive a motor vehicle, fly an aeroplane, or defecate at the Fannie Bay shops, I do have an interest, because it does diminish our community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us not particularly focus on the social experiment. Let us focus on taking the drunks out of commission, and the Country Liberals policy would achieve that. The second component, after you have dealt with the first priority of government, which is security, is to then bring a treatment program whilst they are in custody – which is why we talk about a three-month period - so these people are out of commission. They are out of the reach of those blackguards who would prey, if you like, on their addictions by providing liquor. We can control them in an environment - which I do not care if they like or not – which will go about confronting them with the shortcomings of their conduct in a way that does not give them comfort but, rather, says to them they are making the wrong choices, not only for themselves - which is their choice - but the community does not accept the decisions they make. Their decisions are offensive to the community and individuals in it. If they choose, through their alcoholism, to conduct themselves in such a fashion where it offends or harms others, that is when the state should intervene.
We, on this side of the House, believe this program of health before security will, ultimately, result in an abject failure for government. This could not place a more stark and obvious difference between the two political parties in the Northern Territory. The political party of the left would give us a police state in which you have to produce identification to do a lawful thing. It will introduce the nanny state, and tell you all of the things it is going to do for you, because it is good for you – ‘We know best’.
On this side of the House, on the right, we are proud to stand up and say we believe in your liberty, as much as we can give it to you. We will not diminish your liberty as much as we possibly can, at least for the sake of the conduct of a few, but we will hold the few responsible. That is the stark difference between this government’s approach and the approach of the Country Liberal Party. It could not be more clear, it could not be more pronounced. The people of the Northern Territory will have a clear and unambiguous choice given to them at the next Northern Territory election so they might pass judgment on the welfare, ‘softly, softly, make them feel good about themselves’ approach of the Northern Territory government, or a policy that is going to see the drunks and the villains who occupy our public spaces and defecate in our public spaces taken out of commission.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for her clear and unambiguous way of describing our policy. Three strikes - you are in.
Ms Lawrie: No, I said three strikes and lock them up.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is pretty clear some restrictions on alcohol are necessary for a civil society to exist. That is pretty obvious. The great John Stuart Mill said the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. Of course, we have some common regulatory controls on alcohol already in this country and, indeed, in the Territory. That includes taxes on alcohol, taxes and levies, limits on the number or the types of trading hours for outlets, controls on the types of alcoholic beverages sold, and responsible beverage service requirements. We are well down the track to alcohol restrictions and they are necessary, to a degree, for a civil society to exist.
But here we are, 10 years down the track with this Labor government, and we are, once again, introducing tough new alcohol measures. It is beyond me why it has taken this government 10 years to do just this. If we go back to 2005, the then minister for Racing - yes, alcohol policy reform progress was with Syd Stirling. He said:
Well, that was Syd. He seemed to have got it. He said:
I do not know what has changed in six years, but it sounds like a lot. The government is now focusing on a whole-of-community approach. It is this whole-of-community approach which is actually going to the core of the problem. It is not a targeted approach. It has been articulated here today by a number of members on the opposition side exactly who we need to be targeting. Let us make no bones about it - we are targeting problematic Aboriginal drinking. There is no doubt about it.
There are enormous problems with alcoholism right across the country. It is not just confined to Aboriginal problematic drinkers. There are about 540 000 Aboriginal people in Australia, and 340 000 of those live perfectly normal, happy, successful lives; 130 000 have the same socioeconomic outcomes as non-Indigenous Australians who live on the outskirts of towns in the far western suburbs of Sydney in low socioeconomic housing and are on welfare. Those sorts of health issues and problems associated with drugs and alcohol are much the same. The remaining 70 000 are the ones living out in the remote parts of Australia; that is, most of those are living in the Northern Territory. This is the problem we are trying to tackle.
I have said on many occasions that there is one thing we should be doing as a Territory parliament; that is, punching above our weight when it comes to dealing with Indigenous affairs and Aboriginal issues, particularly Indigenous drinking issues which, of course, is directly related to Aboriginal health outcomes. This group of 70 000-odd Aboriginal people, of which a large majority live in the Northern Territory, are way overrepresented in nearly every single statistic, every indicator - whether it is employment, law and order, health, or education. It is just not good enough. It is the failure of Territory governments for a long time, of both persuasions, that we have not been able to rise above that. Jurisdictions from all around the country - those in Victoria and New South Wales - are saying: ‘Gee, look at the Territory. If only we could just copy that model. Why can we not do what the Northern Territory is doing?’. We are just not there. In fact, we are almost a bit of a laughing stock in so many areas.
Western Australia seems to be punching above its weight when it comes to getting tough on this problem. It is time to get tough. We are 10 years down the track, and the government brings in three bills that are proclaimed to be the toughest laws in the country. What has happened to the last 10 years? If we did this 10 years ago, imagine how far down the track we could possibly be now.
It is, essentially, a failure of the Northern Territory. We are all responsible for that. If we look at the 21st century, Labor certainly cannot evade responsibility and point the finger at the CLP and say: ‘You did nothing’. We have all been trying to do something, but no one has been able to accomplish it, hence we are not punching above our weight when it comes to this issue. We are not leading the way; we are not setting world’s best practice. We are not introducing the toughest alcohol laws the world has ever seen. People are not going to be looking at us saying: ‘Boy, you guys are really getting tough on this’. It is not happening; it is not the case.
It is a failure of not just this Northern Territory government, but Northern Territory governments. I say that with a bit of a heavy heart because I believe the CLP did some wonderful work in its 27 years. Maybe it did not do enough in some areas. However, the Northern Territory Labor Party has not done enough in this area either. It has wasted the 10 years it had when it comes to this issue.
There is much work to do when you are in government. I run into ministers in the corridor and they tell me how busy life is. I can only imagine how busy it is when you are in the hot seat, how much work there is to be done, and the stress and strain it must have on your families when you are away from home so often. There is, obviously, much to do, but there has not been an emphasis on leading the charge and punching above our weight when it comes to these issues. The alcohol measures need to be squarely focused on the problem drinker. As Syd Stirling said in 2005:
That flies in the face of the Menzies School of Health report or the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan also done by Menzies, Moving Beyond the Restrictions. There was an article on this recent report by Sara Hudson from the Centre for Independent Studies in the Northern Territory News on 6 April this year titled ‘Tough booze laws miss target’. I thought the report by Sara Hudson was quite interesting; it was well written. She raised some good concerns and points. There is a whole stack of things in there we could quite easily use as attack points for our argument.
At the end of the day, she is proposing it has to be a whole-of-community approach, and the reason we are not succeeding with our alcohol restrictions is because Aboriginal people resent the fact they are being singled out - it is a double standard as such. It suggests you cannot have this double standard approach; you have to have a whole-of-community approach so everyone has to be a part of it. The drinking we see in the streets is almost in defiance to the laws imposed by government.
The government has not really based any of its policies around this policy monograph by the Centre for Independent Studies. It has hung much of its argument off the Menzies School of Health report and the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan which was, I guess, just a review of the plan. It painted a pretty poor picture of what is taking place in Katherine too; it essentially tipped a bucket over the plan in Katherine. If you thought, member for Araluen, the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan was not really up to standard, then the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan has been a complete disaster.
Syd Stirling seemed to understand we need to have a targeted approach. That is the Country Liberals’ approach. Sometimes, as the member for Port Darwin suggested, both sides of the House could not be further apart on this issue. I used to think that. Sometimes, I think maybe we are not that far apart. Then, sometimes I think yes, we might be back to being poles apart again. We all want, at the end of the day, the same thing.
I just do not think you are prepared to go quite far enough. I do not understand why these bills do not result in a custodial sentence as such; why people are placed on a banning order, after banning order, after banning order - forever and a day. If you are directed to go to mandatory rehabilitation and you are asked to turn up on a particular day and you do not, then you just are placed on that banning order again for another 12 months. When is the end consequence going to come in? Where is the end consequence for that person who continually flouts the law and disregards any of these interventions? Where is that end consequence? Until we have that end consequence, we are not going to get a grip on this problem. We are not going to arrest the problem - for lack of a better word. That element on the streets, that problem we have with Aboriginal drinking, will continue.
That is why we oppose these bills; they just do not go far enough. We oppose them as they stand. We have some amendments we are going to raise in the committee stage. It clearly does not go far enough. I do not know why it does not. Surely, if we needed any more evidence - 10 years you had. You have been introducing policy after policy, tweaking policy after policy, amending policy after policy, repealing policy, and changing policy and legislation year after year, policy after policy, trying to get it right. The thing that scares me is if we do not get it right, then how long is it going to be, how many years are going to pass until we actually are able to get a grip on this problem?
We are determined, as a potential Country Liberal government, to develop a rock-solid, watertight alcohol policy. We will present that at the next Territory election. That is our word and our commitment. We will present a watertight, rock-solid alcohol policy that is being developed as we speak and will be announced as we get closer to the next Territory election. We know if we spend 10 years, as you have spent 10 years, that is 20 years that have passed. Imagine all the people, all the drunks, all the problems, all the health issues, all the money.
You say it is $642m today; what will it be in five years time? What will be the amount of money spent on alcohol problems in 10 years time? So $642m times 10, that is how much you have spent addressing this problem over the last 10 years - give or take probably a few million. Imagine the amount it will be over the next 10 years.
We are determined not to spend another 10 years dancing around this issue like a political windsock - whichever way the wind blows, whichever way the polls dictate is where we are going to go. If someone does not like it, ‘Gee we cannot do that in Darwin’. You do not have problems in Darwin? You do not have problems in the Top End? You do not have problems in Palmerston? But it does not suit your political agenda. ‘It is okay in Alice Springs; we will use it as a test case, as the guinea pigs of this whole thing’ has been your approach.
You have not stuck with anything. You have not stuck with it; you have just adjusted you policy to the polls and to the public sentiment over the course of the last 10 years. In fact, it has not really been 10 years, because you did not start taking alcohol policy seriously until quite a few years into your first term.
That is a commitment from a potential Country Liberals government: we will firm up a rock-solid alcohol policy which is being developed as we speak. We will announce that as we get closer to the next election. We will take it to the next election. If elected to government, we will introduce that and then we will stick with it. You have to stick with it to start getting real data and real results.
As you know, we already have our Defeating the Drunks policy, removing and rehabilitating street drunks - pretty simple. That included anyone picked up for public drunkenness three times in six months will be declared an habitual drunk - not ‘may’, will be declared an habitual drunk. An habitual drunk will be issued with a control order to keep them off the streets and require them to undergo alcohol rehabilitation. Breaching that control order will trigger an automatic prison sentence. This is backed up. We say prison but, essentially, it is rehabilitation. This will involve literacy and numeracy, and some life skills and work skills. People have to be able to have a meaningful contribution to life.
This is the answer. The answer is not just turning off the tap. You have all these supply measures. It is just staggering the amount of supply measures you have, yet your demand and rehabilitation measures fall well short of anything acceptable. Yet, you still sit there and say you spent $642m a year on addressing it. Alcohol rehabilitation, yes, it is very expensive. It is expensive to put clinicians into these places. It is expensive to build these facilities throughout the Northern Territory, whether you have a small one on a community, or you have a big one in a regional centre, or even in Darwin. It is expensive, but what is the cost? We are already spending $642m a year addressing the problem, paying for this sort of stuff. Surely, that money could be better spent literally building these facilities around the Territory and employing the right sort of people - real clinicians, real people.
I talk to John Boffa from Congress quite a lot, in his role at the PAAC. At first, John was a bit sceptical about our rehabilitation program. He said: ‘You have to stick with rehabilitation. If you do not stick with it, the success rate really is not that great. The success rate is not overly convincing. You have to stick with it’. He said it is very expensive. I said: ‘John, what if we were to pay for it? We are spending this much money anyway on the problem. What if we were able to save that money by spending the money on the facilities and keeping people in rehabilitation, and putting the right clinicians in there, and putting the right people and the right rehab stuff together?’ He said: ‘Oh gee, that might work, that will be pretty good’. I do not think anyone has ever said to him: ‘What if we are prepared to actually pay for it?’
All people say is: ‘It is too expensive. How can we do a hotchpotch job so it looks like we care about rehabilitation, looks like we are really trying to do it? We cannot commit hundreds of millions of dollars to it. We could not possibly do that’. But what if we were to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this sort of stuff? We are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars addressing the effects of alcohol; what about putting the hundreds of millions of dollars into real rehabilitation, real stuff that works? I have to say, guys like those from the PAAC and Congress and a whole raft of them, have been actively campaigning on alcohol issues for a long time,. They say: ‘That would be great, it might actually work. Gee that would be good, I am really pleased. Now you are talking’ ...
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Well, whatever. I do not know what that is supposed to mean. At the end of the day, I have my conversations with those guys. If they are happy to stick a knife and twist it behind my back, that is their problem, not mine. But they have not said anything untoward to my face, and I have had numerous conversations with those guys over the course of the last few years. That is what they are telling me; that it has to be real rehabilitation …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are in need of a quorum. Ring the bells.
Mr Giles: That is how committed they are. They do not even listen to the debate. They do not care about alcohol reform in the Territory.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. We have a quorum.
Mr CONLAN: This is the most important bill of the 21st century, and I thought you guys might show half an interest, to be honest ...
Ms Lawrie: It is fascinating.
Mr CONLAN: I know you do not like to hear it. The member for Karama does not like much at all. In fact, I wonder what it is like to have that much hate. What would it be like just to have that much hate and anger inside you? You just want to take her outside and open up the sunshine and say: ‘Please, it is not a bad world after all. It is actually a really nice world and the sun is shining and the birds are chirping ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: ‘Come on, just get with it. Get over all this hate and this anger deep inside you’. Maybe you and the member for Arafura could get together and go to a retreat or something over Christmas …
Members interjecting.
A member: A health farm!
Mr CONLAN: A health farm. There you go, that is what we need: a health spa, have a manicure, have a pedicure, have an eyebrow tint, or something, and have a makeover …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex! Order! Resume your seat, please. Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51 about interruptions. Member for Greatorex, I remind you of Standing Order 67 around digression from subject. We have a bill before the House. Resume on that topic, please.
Mr CONLAN: Anyway, a makeover would be good. That was a good one; that was the best one. Anyway, that is where we are.
It is about real rehabilitation and investing in rehabilitation and doing it properly, not token stuff with ‘may’. It is about actually getting in and doing it properly and spending the money. We are prepared to do that, but we are also prepared to get tough on the offenders on the streets. So, our policy we are developing as we speak is pretty comprehensive, as I say, and we will be bringing that to the election in 2012.
It is also worth pointing out, how can you believe any commitment by this government when it comes to alcohol strategies, alcohol management plans, or whatever it might be, when it is actually ripping money out of alcohol? All you have to do is have a look. If the government is so committed to alcohol - it sits there and professes it is the biggest problem facing the Northern Territory, affecting so many lives and it just does not know what to do, and it is costing the Territory $642m a year. However, what do we see under the Department of Justice when it comes to licensing regulation and alcohol policy? The government has ripped $3m out of licensing regulation and alcohol policy. This is hardly a commitment by a government which professes to be across the issue, or experts on the issue. All it can do is strip the Department of Justice licensing regulation alcohol strategy, of $3m. That speaks volumes of their commitment when it comes to licensing and alcohol strategy. To remove money from the actual portfolio does not seem to make a much sense. But, there it is right there in the Budget Paper 2011-12. Have a look at page 77.
It has taken this government 10 years. It has now introduced the greatest bills of the 21st century - hardly a ringing endorsement by its own members who do not seem to be overly interested in the debate, but …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, I was trying to do a quick count. How many do we have?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. We are lacking a quorum, ring the bells.
Thank you, we have a quorum.
Mr CONLAN: I would have thought the member for Fannie Bay would have shown a little more interest in this considering what takes place in his own electorate.
We have identified a number of differences. This bill does not go far enough by any stretch. The government has stripped $3m out of the portfolio - it shows barely a commitment. We strongly support a bill that would have an end consequence. If you continually breach the alcohol notices, the banning notices, or whatever they might be, there has to be some end consequence. People cannot keep getting away with things. Fines are not always appropriate. People need to have a value. Money holds little value to the targeted group in this environment.
Of course, it is not just about restrictions - the supply and demand measures. There are bigger things here which the government has failed to act on, investigate, or seriously debate. That has to do with welfare quarantining. The member for Port Darwin put it very well; the federal government spend hundreds of millions of dollars pouring money into the Northern Territory through welfare and, then, we spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars every year dealing with the effects of that sort of thing. It does not make much sense. I do not know what negotiations are under way between this government and the Commonwealth government, but I know Tony Abbott is very interested in welfare reform of sorts, such as work for the dole where people have to work.
That is really one of the keys to getting your life back on track, particularly with health outcomes. When it comes to health outcomes, people need to work and people need a job. It is incredible what a job can do for your self-esteem, for your back pocket, for your life, your lifestyle - the whole gamut. It plays an important role in a person’s development and, if a person does not have that, then we see the effects of what happens, particularly when you are a large disadvantaged group …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: If people are not engaged in work it has an enormous effect on their social wellbeing, particularly when you are a disadvantaged group like so many Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Let us be honest; this is the group of people we are talking about. I really want to make it plain because, sometimes, it is so difficult as a white fellow from the leafy suburbs of Brisbane.
I did not see a blackfella until I was 20. I never professed to be this great friend of the black man. It was not until I came to the Northern Territory that we socialised, mixed, and lived with each other in the same community. The difficulty is when you are trying to identify a group or a person, it is hard to say it without people thinking you are being very general in the way you speak; you are generalising. It is not everyone. As I said, there are 540 000 Aboriginal people in this country, and 340 000 of those are living perfectly happy, healthy and successful lives. We are talking about a small group. We allude to about 70 000 of that 540 000, and a large majority of those live in the Northern Territory. That is the group these laws and alcohol restrictions, this rehabilitation - this is where we need to be. This is where the Territory can lead the way, and the Territory can punch above its weight.
The member for Karama does not like to hear it. She does not like any real, meaningful debate in this Chamber. I am attempting to make a contribution here. As I said, from someone from a different world, essentially - and I do not buy into this business of ‘I was born here so I am better than you’. I am Australian first and foremost, and I care about every township or every city in this country, first and foremost. It does not make any difference to me where someone is from in this country; we are all Australians first. The Northern Territory has a great opportunity to punch above its weight and to really set the stage when it comes to Aboriginal disadvantage and, particularly, alcohol abuse.
I do not know why we are lagging behind. I do not know what it is going to take, but I do not think these bills are going anywhere near addressing it. I wish they did. If they did, you would get the support of the whole parliament.
Alice Springs people, as the member for Araluen alluded to, support something that will address the problems on the streets of Alice. People from Alice Springs are from all over the place, including a large majority from Alice Springs. People who live in that community are well aware it is not the lush, leafy suburbs of the North Shore of Sydney. Living there comes with some trade-offs. It is a remote town; there are law and order issues, and there are even cultural issues. I believe people are more than happy to accept that, because the trade-off is you get to live in this wonderful part of Australia which is Alice Springs. People are not stupid, they are more than happy to put up with a restriction here or an intervention there. By intervention, I mean an intervention into alcohol supply or demand, whatever it might be.
People are more than happy - or more than prepared might be the better way to put it - if they are seeing results; if they are actually seeing an impact. Unfortunately, we are not. Any statistic will tell you the current restrictions are not having the desired impact. If they did, people would support it. Tony Abbott said the other day that restrictions need to be enforced. Yes, restrictions do. If we have restrictions, let us use them, let us enforce them, let us not tinker around the edges and put everything on the shoulders of the licensing. Licensing seems to get stuck with everything. There is a problem with this, so, okay it is up to Licensing to come up with a plan. The restrictions currently in place need to be enforced. If they cannot be enforced, there needs to be a complete rethink of the policy.
That is exactly where the Country Liberals are. It is worth pointing out the Country Liberals are not going to just junk every government policy because it is a government policy, because it was conjured up, dreamed up by the Labor Party. There might be elements of the restrictions that are working, and in some areas there probably are. It is not that we do not like it because you thought of it. We are not that churlish. It is not a case of because you thought of it, it is your idea, or a Labor Party thing, we do not like it. We understand perfectly, as I said in my opening remarks about restrictions, there are some restrictions, around alcohol particularly, that are necessary for a civil society to exist. We will be looking at all those restrictions. We will be looking at all the ones in place. We will be looking at all the real data from those, and we will move forward accordingly and present our detailed policy closer to the election in 2012.
We have made it clear that, unless the government supports our amendments - I do not know, has the government given us any indication, fellow members, whether it will support our amendments, which are pretty good amendments? It takes it just that little step further. I know you guys do not want to take it that little step further, although I do not know why. I do not know what is wrong with that. What is wrong with having an end consequence? The practicalities of this bill will not match the rhetoric you guys have been touting in the media. We will be back here again in a year or two, tweaking this bill, amending another one, introducing another one. As I said, there has been bill after bill after bill, after speech after speech after speech, for the last five, six, seven years, claimed to be the toughest new alcohol measures the world has ever seen. You have lost 10 years, but really, you did not get serious on alcohol until quite a few years into the first term.
Madam Speaker, I know there are still another couple of bills to go. I have a stack of stuff to talk about, so I might leave the remarks to the next bill. There is another one after that as well. There are three big bills to be debated. Why are they coming on, on Thursday? Many people have much to say on this sort of stuff. Why you are bringing three - you are saying it is greatest thing since sliced bread, they are very important and they are going to reshape the Territory, yet you want to somehow ram it through in five or six hours. Why were these not brought on earlier so everyone could have an opportunity to speak? I notice not too many people on that side are speaking, which is curious. I believe it just demonstrates the tokenism of this by the government. They are not really interested in talking about it.
In the meantime, I suggest the Treasurer go off and have a makeover. Maybe that is what she needs: to go to a health farm and detox - the toxins out of your body that is - and that would be …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is straying into personal territory. It is not needed. He needs to tail off his remarks and let us just move on with our business.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps we can just leave it at those comments.
Mr CONLAN: I stand by what I said. Thank you, member for Johnston, it is okay. We were just having a bit of a joke before. I think the member for Karama appreciates that.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing the debate and these remarks when the next bill comes before the House.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, without a doubt, this could have been the bill of the 21st century. It could have been, but for the lack of teeth it has. Any bill that perpetuates itself every time someone commits another offence, for another after another order - no wonder people will be left confused by this bill.
The advisors on the fifth floor and the government need to listen to what the members on this side have said. One is left in a very confused state as to why they did not pull apart the 2008 election policies that dealt with antisocial behaviour, drunkenness, and the prisons policies. Why did they not pull them apart a little earlier and start to look at things and integrate them into their own bills? We have seen touches of it, but only after the community has suffered and endured more hard Labor. The community has really suffered through lack of action under this Territory Labor government.
There is no doubt, as the decades continue to wind past, every government can do better, and continue to do better. It is as simple as the fact that 10 years ago, the computers we were using on our desks were not a touch on what we have now. As time goes by, things change and improve, we hope. So should the tired, old stories this government will tout about 10 years ago the CLP did nothing, the CLP did this, and the CLP did that. You cannot ignore the time frame that has since passed; it has been 10 years. There has been 10 years in further research, further development in technology, particularly that further research into ways we deal with things, understanding patterns.
You had years of opposition where you could study the various pros and cons of the then CLP government. You should have come forearmed with a change and a plan to make a difference, to really step forward. If you believe the CLP had done the alcohol policy reforms and the alcohol position so badly 10 years ago, why did you not act the minute you got into government? Why has it taken you 10 years to introduce these strong bills? If you listened to your own spin and rhetoric that suggest we got it so wrong 10 years ago, what have you done for the last 10 years?
Ms Scrymgour: You could knock yourself out with your spin.
Dr Burns: I have been the truck!
Mr BOHLIN: You have been a’truckin’ along! The minister is an absolute comedian today. I am so impressed with his clear wit, but we are also aware of his clear failings. The minister needs to understand that in his time he has failed to deliver for the Territory ...
Dr Burns: That is a bit of a generalisation.
Mr BOHLIN: Toughen up the glass chin, minister. When you come into this Chamber and throw around your little antics, remember you had 10 years of your own working time in this government. If you point the blame beyond the previous 10 years, and you say it was wrong then, what have you done? What have your ministers done in the last 10 years to improve on the previous 10 years?
You need to look at your own blame and be gentle where you push other people’s blame. I know you understand that. I know you get it. I know it is just political spin from the Labor government, but there are members on this side of the Chamber who did deal with, on a day-to-day basis, the poor alcohol policy management and the inability to actually deal with the poor people who suffered from alcoholism, domestic violence, and poor health as a result.
There are members on this side who physically picked those people up, day after day after day, and put them into protective custody. Without a doubt, we can say there were times when I served under the former CLP government, and it was also not a correct stance. I do not have a problem admitting that. Do not come here and point the finger and say ‘You got it wrong 10 years ago’ because you have sat there for 10 years and failed yourself. Look at the policies; look at the amendments the member for Sanderson has brought in. Recognise there are some brilliant aspects to it. Recognise there are some failings with the policy you have brought forward.
Members on this side who served the Northern Territory public for so long as members of the police force of the Northern Territory had to deal with and work with the failed policies. We had to deal with picking up the drunks. We had to deal with giving first aid to those who were bleeding, wounded, near dying or, in fact, dying as a result of alcoholism. We had to deal with the anguish, and we carry that with us today and understand there is a need for change ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BOHLIN: It is amazing the government can continue to poke fun and play games. If it was serious, this grandiose 21st century bill would have been brought in yesterday.
We know you must have a consequence at the end of your various programs. You cannot have an order on top of an order, and it continues on. People will get dizzy because it will be like a roundabout. There must be an end stop. There must be a line drawn in the sand.
I was talking to the police recruits in the gallery earlier today, and I told them they should be proud they will be standing on a line no one else will stand on. It is up to the lawmakers of the Territory, the members, the ministers in this government, to ensure that line is drawn clearly. When you introduce a bill like this which does not have a clear, defined end-stop line - a consequence at the end - how will they be able to enforce that? It is a continuing roundabout.
I applaud you for bringing in some amendments; some changes that are starting to make the right journey. However, include some consequences. Put a line that actually stops somewhere because, as the members opposite know, we are dealing with people who are such alcoholics they do not care if you give them a banning order. They do not care if you have banned them from X or Y or Z because they will find the grog - no different to when the Northern Territory was a dry place. When there was prohibition in the Northern Territory grog still flowed into the Territory, even though the entire Territory had prohibition.
It does not take long to talk to a few long-term Territory residents and you will find someone, or a mate who knew a mate who knew a mate, who was involved in the smuggling of alcohol into the Northern Territory during that time. It was extremely well organised as it was in America. Prohibition itself does not work; you must deal with the individual person. If you want to truly help people you must deal with the individual person, and they must have a consequence. There must be an end point.
America is willing to send some of its rich, flighty little actresses and actors into mandatory rehabilitation. It is good for the flighty little actresses and actors in America to be sent to rehabilitation. Why are we not brave enough to do it here? Why not be brave enough to say to the people who most need our help …
A member: They are nothing like Lindsay Lohan.
Mr BOHLIN: They do not have the millions, for starters.
Why not say we will give them that help? We will mandate and control their life enough that they will have the time, the concentrated effort, to get some rehabilitation; to be given the one-on-one help they need to give them some life skills. It will not hurt them, it will improve their life. It will improve their life expectancy, it will help close the gap, it will make a difference. As the member for Greatorex said, it will cost money but the savings in the long run to the community will be massive.
Former Superintendent Greg Dowd of the Northern Territory Police was formerly in charge of the Katherine region. I cannot remember what rank he was when he left the Territory police. Going back to around 2006, he put out a paper similar to the terms of crime prevention through antisocial behaviour - antisocial behaviour crime prevention. It ended up being a back-to-back paper which was easy to show to the police officers and to demonstrate and outline for the officers the various steps and relevant consequences or actions and reactions of certain things. What it did was explain to people the importance of targeting antisocial behaviour and drunkenness at the very early stages on a day-to-day basis. It actually demonstrated that if you got hold of someone before they became heavily intoxicated, it would reduce assaults, rapes, murder, unlawful entry, criminal damage, drink-driving - a whole raft of crimes that cost a lot more money for police than dealing with an individual before they get to that point. The antisocial behaviour is gone and society is a better place because of dealing with it at the right time.
It is very bizarre that that policy document seems to have vanished from within this Labor-driven system. It seems to be something they do not want to reappear because it actually supports our basic philosophy of a consequence. It shows the real outcomes that being serious will actually have. I am surprised that in this day and age there are such cover-ups.
Around the same time, when I was the Officer-in-Charge of the Kintore Police Station - 2006 through to May 2008, I think it was 2007 - I went to a national drug and alcohol forum held in Alice Springs - the first time ever in Australia’s history where representatives from all states and territories were present, which was run by Commander Jeanette Kerr. She ran it, she should know where the reports are, she should know where the notes are. We had people from Alcohol Policy, the whole gamut of so-called experts. We had Indigenous leaders. Do you know what that document, in the end, supported? It supported our basic principle that opening hours earlier prevents problems later. But, guess what? That document has been hidden as well - gone, vanished. Maybe I should start ringing some of the other interstate police forces where governments have changed hands and they have gone back to a Liberal life. That has been hidden. I urge the commander to bring that document forward. Prove me wrong. Prove me wrong that what was in that document was actually totally contra.
It said a few other things as well. It suggested that maybe drive-through bottle shops are not the best idea. If you go to New Zealand, where my lovely daughter lives in Auckland, there is not a drive-through bottle shop to be seen. A person has to park their car, get out of their car, make a deliberate act. They cannot take the taxi through. It is easy to see the people who are intoxicated. It happens in New Zealand. It is an idea. There is something out there; there are other ways. That was brought up in that national alcohol and drugs in community forum. It was paid for by this Northern Territory government. The document seems to have now been snowballed, hidden, trashed, because it is not in line with what you said. However, I tell you it was a genuine first-time ever national document.
There was a lot to be learnt from that, and there still is today, so dig for it, find it. Fifth floor, open up the computer, send the e-mails, find out where these documents have gone - both documents from Greg Dowd and Jeanette Kerr. Find out where they have been hidden. Find out what you can learn from them. Read through these amendments, find out what you can learn from them. Be serious for once. It is all great to listen to fancy interjections. Who cares? If you are serious, you might actually listen, and you might actually take notice of things and make some changes ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: You might listen. It is interesting. We have said alcohol restrictions do not work by themselves. They certainly do not work at the moment. In fact, I was very much gobsmacked to hear the Chief Minister during Question Time say we do not have any formal policy on this. The Chief Minister needs to attend to some paperwork laying around the place - it is blue in colour by the way. It is the amendments on your policy. I find it absurd that the Chief Minister would dare come into this Chamber and say we have put nothing forward. Or did his advisors not give him the amendments? Is he that blind, that shielded from the reality of life? Is the Chief Minister that blind and shielded from life that he did not even bother to review the 2008 Country Liberals’ policy launches? Is he that blind that he has no idea what is happening around him? There are policies already out there and they deal with just this.
Our drunks policy deals with the individual person. It delivers consequences for the individual person. But, do you know what? For all the consequences it gives help, assistance, rehabilitation, life skills, job opportunities through education, all whilst getting that rehabilitation and having a consequence in place. Perhaps it is so logical that is why you do not want to listen to it. It actually makes sense.
Have a nice calm barbecue and chill out, relax, and talk about and discuss it with your friends and ask: ‘Do you think we are going to have a consequence and we are going to take someone into our care and custody after they have made the choice not to take self-help? Do you think that maybe whilst we have them in our care and custody we should help them with their education, we should find out what their education levels are and help them with that? Do you think we should help them with their alcoholism? Do you think we should help them with their drug addictions? Do you think we should help them with some of their life skills, demonstrate and assist them with understanding why hygiene is very important and why even the simplest things like brushing your teeth can help reduce disease?’
This is all whilst being reformed, all having a consequence. We might one day be touted as the bad people because we are going to be hard and have a consequence. But, do you know what? For that consequence, there will be every step of assistance all the way to a longer life.
I know you get it; I can see it in your eyes. It is about helping people, but there has to be a consequence.
Our prisons policy was launched in 2008. So, to again hear the Chief Minister say we have no policy - gee whiz, that came out in 2008. Our prisons policy has the same basic intent; if we are going to have someone in our care and custody, let us actually do something with them. Let us find out if they have educational issues. Let us assess them individually because they are individuals; do not lump them as one thing. Let us help educate them, so when they come out of the prison they are in a better place where they have had education tailored to them.
The member for Johnston, of course, has one education level. Every one of us in this House has a different education level, because we are individuals. It is best, if possible, to be at least tailored within a group that is very similar to our standard. There would be nothing worse than to try to run an education program - whether in a rehabilitation facility or a prison’s facility - lump everyone in the same education class and say: ‘Guess what? You are all going to learn the same’. That does not work; we know that now.
But, whilst they are there, we are going to ensure they get the drug and alcohol reform. We are going to give them more of those life skills. Madam Speaker, if you had not learnt those life skills as you grew up, you could also have a poor quality of life.
That is why there are programs in place to help the illegal immigrants and the genuine United Nations refugees. We give them those life skills, but we do not do it for some of our people. It makes a difference.
I was speaking to a friend two or three weeks ago who was talking about the time they helped out with the United Nations refugees. That friend was saying one of the tasks she was teaching people was basic cooking; another one was using a stove. Another was using a kitchen bench instead of a kitchen floor to prepare food. Another was using a toilet appropriately - keeping it clean, and keeping themselves clean. Another skill - would you believe? - was using an iron and ironing board. My friend said it was amazing. She was asked to teach one person how to use an iron and ironing board and, when the lesson was about to start, 20 to 30 people rocked up. She said it was amazing; they all wanted to learn.
It is strange; we will help some people and not help others. We will not be strict on some people; we will be strict on others. Sometimes, you have to be strict. Sometimes, there has to be a consequence. Whilst we enforce those consequences, let us ensure we deliver real advantage for those people. Be bold and say: ‘We have to teach you some life skills; we have to provide some education; we have to teach you some work skills’. It is important and is something I am passionate about. In fact, I know people rope me into these arguments at times because I am so passionate about it. I have seen it.
When I was in Kintore I saw the difference it made. One beautiful lady in that town was immaculate every single day, and her husband was immaculate every single day. Her kids went to school every day and were immaculate every day. Her story is that her young kids were sick all the time - pus in the ears, runny noses, traditional type of illnesses. The health practitioners out there really drummed it into her - really got her focused and said: ‘You have to clean your house. You have to give them clean sheets and a bed’. And that is what she did. Martha did that and she proudly will tell you, in front of any crowd you like: ‘My kids are no longer sick, my kids go to school. My kids are healthy’. She is amazing.
There are consequences wherever you go. I have a mate, Chris, from Zambia. He has certain learning problems but he is a brilliant man. He is so brilliant that when I caught up with him the other day he had started his own business in Australia. He is an immigrant and he made the decision to do something for himself. He knew the consequence. He knew the effect of sitting back sinking too many tubes and doing very little was not going to let him succeed in his life.
Ricky is a fellow I have known since he was younger than eight. He is a local, traditional boy from the Cox Peninsula area. He works his fingers until they bleed, literally, and is an extremely talented automotive painter. He had a choice. He could sit back and sink tubes every day, but he did not.
It is a choice, but there have to be consequences in life like those people I mentioned whose mothers ensured they had the right consequences. You miss consequences, therefore, your bill will not be as effective as it should be. In fact, it will lack any teeth. Look at these amendments; accept them ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. It is a very important debate. We all know alcohol affects so much of the Northern Territory, particularly where I am in Alice Springs in the seat of Braitling, which incorporates the CBD of Alice Springs and a number of licensed premises and areas where there are concerns regarding alcohol consumption.
We do not support this bill, and we will be putting forward amendments, as my colleague, the member for Sanderson, said. It is not to say we do not want action on alcoholism and alcohol reform. I take things as requiring a balance between demand and supply-side measures. There have been a number of supply-side measures put in place in the Northern Territory, particularly Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, for a number of years.
This government has been in power for 10 years; things have continued to get worse and worse. Now, it stands here on its high horse saying it is our fault and that we are trying to put more grog down people’s throats. That is completely not the case. This government has had 10 years - almost a generation - to get this stuff right, and it has actually become worse.
The government is afraid to address anything from a demand-side perspective, or try to get people not to drink in the first place. In this debate, there has been a lack of focus on the individual who is a substance abuser. I see people who have chronic alcohol problems as substance abusers and, if you replace or remove a substance, people just change over to another substance.
I would have liked debate about the correlation between Opal fuel, ganga, petrol, speed, ice, and so forth. I am really keen to understand the people who were sniffers in Central Australia and other parts of the Territory where Opal has been rolled out. When that supply was taken away from those sniffers, where did those people go? What did they actually do? Has there been a longitudinal study? Even though it is only over a few years, has there been a longitudinal study about where that population has actually gone to in substance abusing? Maybe they have gone into training and employment, maybe moved interstate, or maybe moved to other areas where people can actually drink. It is important to have a look at that, rather than just focus on more supply-side measures.
There are a few things I will speak on; I have written a couple of notes. I will say I am not a supporter of new laws that replace existing laws that are not being enforced. There are laws in the Northern Territory now about alcohol, and none of them are enforced. That is some of the frustrations we face: laws are not being enforced. I heard the Chief Minister reference Tony Abbott’s visit last week and he spoke about some of the things that Tony said. I can tell you what Tony said. He said if you have the laws there, start enforcing them. If it is a dry town, enforce the dry town. If you have a town camp where you cannot drink, send the police in there and tip all the grog out. You do not have to go anywhere. Around the corner from my office, in Railway Terrace, people sit there every day drinking a bottle of wine - every day. The police drive past every day, all the time - never tip it out.
We can debate having tougher supply measures here but, if you have laws now that are supposed to make change, enforce the laws. This is why people get cranky in Alice Springs. You are all wondering about Action for Alice and this community uprising. This is why people are frustrated, because there is inaction by government. For the sake of a few, you penalise the majority, then you do not even apply those penalties to the few. We have these ID scanners where we all get our licence scanned. As the minister said, it is not too much of an inconvenience. It may not have been a minister, but somebody said it is not too much of an inconvenience. And it is not that much of an inconvenience, but it is an impingement on our rights. It is attacking us as individuals. We do it, everyone does it.
It might stop a couple of people, but it is not stopping the person who is being supplied alcohol. It is not stopping the person from breaking into premises to get alcohol, or who runs in there, grabs a 1.125 litre bottle of Jim Beam and runs out of the shop. More crime, it puts prices up - all these sorts of things. You are not attacking the person from a demand-side perspective. You are putting punitive pressures on people who do the right thing. We, as a society, are quite prepared to have measures put on us for the greater good. However, when you are not actually addressing the greater good, that is why we become frustrated.
This idea of having ID scanners everywhere that sells alcohol takeaway - everyone gets it. So, if you are a hockey association where you can sell a six-pack to someone who happens to be a member, you now have to get an ID scanner. If you are Nick Hill who owns the Alice Springs wine club, a friend of mine, he does not do any over the counter sales at all. He does every order by fax or by telephone call, and then he sends it out within Central Australia. He is being provided with an ID scanner. Even though he has no retail outlet, he has an ID scanner. Someone has to scan a photocopy of their ID to him. He then has to scan it, put the licence on the little scanner in his premises where he runs his business, check it, fax it back and then send the goods out. Does a wine club have to have an ID scanner? That is absolutely crazy. What a waste of taxpayers’ money sending an ID scanner to a wine club. You will not send it to any of the interstate wine clubs where much of the grog in Alice Springs comes from, but you will penalise a local business and waste Territory taxpayers’ dollars doing it.
The prison officers club now has to have an ID scanner put in. I do not think there will be too many prison officers on the banned drinkers register. This is the worst one - the police officers club. The police officers club now has to have an ID scanner if they give a member a six-pack to take home. That is fact. That is happening right now; it is being rolled out right now. This is part of the reforms. This is part of the Enough is Enough reform - the flyer that was sent out in Alice Springs. Use your brain! We will all work together, but that is just ridiculous.
The millions of dollars spent on this roll-out across the Territory, the good folk will have their rights, their freedoms, or their liberties impinged upon, and you will not put it down on the people who really matter. You are saying that it is about mandatory rehabilitation. The Country Liberals have a policy of mandatory rehabilitation, yours is not. You call it mandatory rehabilitation, but people can opt out. That is not mandatory if people do not have to do it. This is just crazy. I cannot understand the approach you take on this. I cannot understand it at all.
I spoke a little about Action for Alice. They are a group of people - and I will tell you how it all started, so that it can go on record. I was getting calls every single day from a number of people about break-ins that were happening all the time, before the traditional owners took people back out bush, before it got cold and things quietened down. I said: ‘Let us convene a meeting’. So, I called a meeting of a few business people whose premises were continually being broken into - people such as Geoff Booth, Rex Neindorf, Andrea from the Memorial Club. There were a number of people; about 30 of us. We went into the Andy McNeill Room at the town council. We discussed these issues and worked out some ideas about how to change, and what we might be able to do, as an intervention, to try to fix things. I said: ‘I will leave you guys to do your thing so it is not politicised, and I will go and do my thing’.
These people formed a group with some 300 or 400 members, or whatever it is now. They have taken action. They have put advertisements on television because they want government to do something. You all know what happened with those ads - the ads the member for Stuart, the member for Arnhem and everyone else was trying to get taken off the air? These people were crying out for help and, now, people from right across the Territory are saying: ‘We want help. We want the same action in our areas’. In Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston, Darwin, they all want action.
The member for Port Darwin issued media releases that might seem a little funny to some people, talking about people using shopfronts as toilets. That is what they do. At the back of my office, people are defecating every day. Every day, I have to walk over faeces. I wrote a letter to the Chief Minister two years ago when the Chief Minister’s office was in my building. I said: ‘How can you be implementing your policies when you cannot stop people going to the toilet at the back of your own office?’ This is what happens. We want action. I am getting phone calls from Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston and Darwin about these problems. They want me to come up and help them set up their action groups.
On Tuesday, the member for Fong Lim and I were in Palmerston looking at issues, identifying antisocial behaviour, seeing crime. I have to say there was one particular incident when we were driving around a few streets, seeing that everyone has to have padlocks on their gates during the day. What sort of a society do we live in when you have to have padlocks on your gates? That happens in a few houses in the area of Larapinta which is part of my electorate. Seeing it widespread through Palmerston is just crazy. What sort of a society is this? This is because you guys do not enforce the law. That is what this is about: enforcement of law. You will not do anything on the demand side, but now you want to put in more punitive measures on people - measures that are stupid and cost a great deal more money.
I commend the member for Sanderson for bringing forward some changes. However, in regard to these action groups, I will support and help anyone set up action groups in Palmerston and in the greater Darwin region. We need community uprising because people are not standing up representing the views of businesses and individuals in the community who are sick and tired of antisocial behaviour, crime, businesses being broken into, and drunkenness. In Darwin people call it ‘itinerancy’. In Alice Springs we call it ‘urban drift’. People are coming to town because you guys have not done anything out bush, from an economic development perspective, to make people want to stay.
You have brought in the shire reform - and all respect to the people who work in the shires - but you have disenfranchised all the Aboriginal people out in the bush. You will not talk about it, you have disenfranchised everyone. People have lost their jobs, they are wandering around aimlessly, people are moving into town - and not all for grog. They are not all for grog at all. It is only a small number that come for grog. People are coming into town, into urban centres, particularly Darwin and Palmerston, because they are sick and tired of being out in the bush and being disenfranchised with not much happening. People have mobile phones now, they have Internet, and they are starting to get access to greater information. They have lost their voice with the shires coming in. They have lost their jobs.
People want an opportunity in life and that is why they are coming in. With failure to provide housing solutions in the big towns, people are now sleeping rough with their parents and their children in overcrowded or homeless conditions, or conditions that are substandard. These poor living conditions are conducive to breeding social issues such as chronic alcoholism. Here we are trying to address alcoholism when the fundamentals of the problem are right back at the start where you should be doing things in the bush locations.
I have to say I was surprised when I got off the plane on Monday night. I knew things were getting bad in Darwin when people have been calling me up and explaining the problems, but to see the number of itinerants and vagrants walking around the streets in Darwin amazed me. They are sleeping in all the parks. I went for a walk at 6 am today. There are people sleeping on The Esplanade - more people than I have seen before. They are sleeping on The Esplanade down the front of the hill, at Lameroo Beach.
This is happening because failures in your policies in the bush are driving people to town. No one can afford to rent privately here. There is not enough temporary accommodation, and that is what leads people to go on the grog and cause problems. This is not a problem because of the itinerants and the vagrants and the long-grassers - every person in the Territory is a victim. The people who do the right thing are evicted because of the punitive approaches, and the people who are doing the wrong thing are victims because of your failed policies. This is exactly what is happening. I know you do not care. Your job is trying to stay in power.
I have put out many offers of bipartisanship to try to make changes in this area. I have put forward some very sound ideas about economic development, about land tenure reform, about how to get businesses – I put forward the idea of an innovation trade and development committee yesterday to try to bring industry into some of these growth towns. You do not accept anything. You will not do it. If it is not your idea, you will not do it. I know the majority of you do not have the conceptual ability to be able to understand some of these economic opportunities that are actually out there, but you have to go out on a limb.
Recognising that people’s voices have been lost, I was very interested to be a witness to some of the things that have happened in recent time in regard to Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, and traditional owners in Central Australia. I have seen the letter. I have a copy here of the letter that Tony Abbott sent Julia Gillard on 18 March 2011. In that first letter from Tony Abbott to Julia Gillard he offered a bipartisan approach.
I have also seen the letter from the traditional owners to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and to Tony Abbott. I will quickly read it out:
Yours sincerely
It was signed by a number of people and was copied to Tony Abbott, Jenny Macklin, Nigel Scullion, Paul Henderson, Adam Giles and Alison Anderson.
That was a true offer of bipartisanship to Labor, which owns the Aboriginal vote and continues to keep Aboriginal people down so they numbingly turn up at a ballot box and vote for Labor.
I spoke to Lindsay Bookie, Chair of the Central Land Council, about an hour ago. Following that letter, I know of at least two occasions where Tony Abbott rang Lindsay Bookie direct: ‘Thank you for that letter. Can I arrange to come out and visit?’ From my conversation with Lindsay Bookie I know Julie Gillard has not rung him. She has not rung any of those traditional owners who signed that letter. She does not care; will not sit in the dirt; did not take up Tony Abbott’s offer.
That meeting was established by some of the traditional owners. It was well attended last week. I understand there were about 70 people there on Thursday. It was a good meeting. Not everybody was there - it was called fairly quickly by word of mouth. The member for Macdonnell was at the meeting. I am not sure if she will talk about it, but it was a positive meeting. It was not designed to be well publicised. It was a confidential meeting with traditional owners and the two leaders. Unfortunately, only one turned up, apart from us.
People would know I have not done any media for a couple of weeks. I did no media around this and I know the member for Macdonnell did no media also. It was not designed to be a stunt. This was designed to put back the cultural authority of those traditional owners whose voices Labor has taken away. They have peppered away at removing the voice of Aboriginal people in the bush. The shire was the last straw. You took away their voice, their jobs, and their integrity. That is what you have done. This is whining away; it is eating away.
The traditional owners up here in Arnhem Land, the Roper, the Daly, and in the Top End are calling: ‘Adam, can you come and help us? Why did we not have a meeting? Can you help us set another one up?’ ‘I will help you’. I will not do media around it. It is not about me; it is about the people in the bush; it is about fixing the Territory after Labor’s failures. That is what it is about: it is about fixing the Territory. I call on every person living in greater Darwin and Palmerston, if you have had enough of this antisocial behaviour and crime, create an uprising, create an action group. Come out and fight against the government. Get a voice. That is required. It is all related to this alcohol policy.
I heard Tony Abbott, in a media conference recently, talking about getting people to accept some social responsibility. I have had this conversation with my federal counterpart, the federal shadow minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, who is also the Territory Senator for the Country Liberal Party. We discussed a few of these issues. The idea of applying social conscience in this area from a number of bodies is important. Woolworths and Coles and the big liquor retailers must stop selling cheap alcohol. I do not support a floor price; I do not support bans on different types of grog. You really have to question them continuing to peddle cheap $2 bottles of wine. They are just peddling misery.
Coles and Woolies are continuing to peddle misery in Alice Springs and other locations across the Northern Territory by peddling this cheap grog. It is helping no one. It is bringing misery and dysfunction to too many families, and it has to stop. Companies such as Coles and Woolworths like to parade around - and I am not attacking them as organisations, but just some of their policies and practices locally. Companies such as Coles and Woolies have reconciliation action plans, and they walk the corporate sector, parading their success and their integrity on Aboriginal affairs. However, here we have something that is local, and two of the most profitable Coles and Woolies liquor outlets in Australia, where people are peddling cheap grog. I call on those two organisations, Coles and Woolies, to take away their cheap grog, to reflect upon the reconciliation action plans and all the interventions they have tried to provide from a corporate, social responsibility position, have a look at their policies on selling cheap grog, and have positive outcomes for Indigenous Australians. If you want to make a change, have a look at that.
I may not be popular calling for that but, if you want to have a change, start there. We could start marketing Central Australia and parts of the Territory as a place where we do not sell rubbish grog; we do not have cheap wine. We have decent wine. It might be dearer. We are not going to put a floor price on it, but we can have a different way of looking at how things are done. Get rid of the cheap stuff. That is what we have to do; get rid of the cheap stuff.
I go back to this bill more directly and say you cannot keep punishing people who do the right thing. You just cannot do it. You have to start getting on to demand-side strategies. That is the reason people are losing faith in Labor - not just because you keep putting rules on them, but because you are not investing in the good things. You are not investing in any of the good things. I made a point of order against the minister for Construction today during Question Time when he was talking about the record infrastructure spend that is going to be mentioned in this Friday’s Tennant & District Times. Of $36.5m-plus that was spent on SIHIP in Tennant Creek, you did not build one house - not one extra house. What changes? What changes to those people who are still living rough in Tennant Creek? You ran out of money and did not even finish your works anyway, but we will get to that in estimates. You have to ask: what is your commitment?
How many jobs have you really created in the bush? We know how many people you have sacked with your shire reforms. What are you actually doing? How many private companies are out there in the bush? I know I work so I cannot drink during the day. What do you not try to get other people working because when they are at work, they cannot drink. Or get them training or get them doing some community participation because, when you are doing things, you cannot drink. Instead, you let people keep drinking. Instead of this bill focusing on some small supply-side measures that are going to impinge on everyone and not really help anyone, I would like to see a broader strategy.
I would like to see us start debating whether selling takeaway alcohol, as opposed to alcohol in a regulated environment, is the way to go, or whether we should be trying to encourage more people to drink in regulated environments such as pubs and clubs, rather than drinking at home through takeaway sales. That is a pretty good debate. I do not know the answer to that debate, but that is a good debate. There is so much alcohol that is sold through takeaway venues, maybe we should be starting to move towards getting people to drink on licensed premises. At least there is security and regulation, you can encourage people to eat, you can ensure people are clean when they come in, and they have the proper attire. There are ways you can try to change things. We know, with what is commonly referred to as ‘the animal bars’, people fill them up, and fill themselves up. When the takeaway opens, they leave because the alcohol is cheaper. Maybe we could try to remodel that. That is not just about the opening hours, but maybe the cost structure and the amenity of clubs, so people want to drink inside regulated premises rather than buying takeaway alcohol all the time. All takeaway alcohol does is just move the problem somewhere else where you cannot see it.
I am not saying ban takeaway by any means - I buy takeaway myself. Perhaps having smaller clubs is better than having fewer bigger clubs. In other parts of Australia, they are moving towards that; trying to bring back the corner pub, which is like a community setting. They have the footy tipping competition, they provide back to the community. There are some of those ideas, as opposed to having people sitting at home at night drinking a carton of XXXX, which is not that healthy for you, rather than having a couple of schooners. It may change things. I support reform in that area and having the debate about how we might best move forward.
There is much debate about opening and closing times of takeaway outlets. I support moving the takeaway opening times forward. People should be able to buy alcohol whenever they want. People should be able to do that. It is a free and open economy, it is a free and open market, we should be able to do that. But in the environment we are in, we have restrictions in place, we are trying to improve things. In Alice Springs, where the bottle shops do not open until 2 pm in the afternoon and they shut at 9 pm at night, I believe the idea about opening earlier is a good idea - that is our policy. It is a good idea for the short term, because what it tries to do in opening up the supply earlier, is allows those people - who you are not going to address through demand-side strategies, because you are not doing demand-side strategies - to get drunk earlier, so the police can manage it. So, from a management point of view, from a policing point of view, it is better to get people drunk earlier.
I hate talking about that in that way, because we should not be trying to work out how we can get people drunk at the right time of day so it is easier to police – it is harder to do at night. However, the fact remains, you will not do anything on the demand side, you will not try to get people to drink less, so we have to try, in this instance, to get people drinking earlier rather than later, because otherwise it gets tougher. In the same regard, I am amenable to a debate about shutting the takeaway shops earlier. I believe they are a significant problem in our society, and I speak more particularly about where I am in Alice Springs. There are too many people, black and white, who drink too much grog at night. I know I have narrowed it down, and I have not provided an explanation why. However, I personally feel we have too many people in our town who drink too much at night and find it difficult to get up to go to work the next day with a clear enough mind and perform as they should at work and support the growth in our economy, which is what they should do. There is an opportunity to say: well, let us open them earlier, but maybe we can just wind it back a bit at the end.
That is a debate I am happy to have. I am happy to converse with anyone about that, particularly regarding during the week. We want people getting up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for work the next day. Well, if there is an opportunity to sell a little less grog at night so people do get up the next day, it is not such a bad debate to have. I am prepared to have that debate.
I have said a few things tonight. I want to see a community uprising. I want to see a creation of action for Palmerston, action for Darwin, action for Katherine, action for Tennant Creek. I will assist to facilitate the creation of that from a non-political point of view, because people need a voice. They want action, and no one has been assisting these people. There needs to be a community uprising in that regard.
I will not be supporting the bill in its current form. I will be supporting my colleague, the member for Sanderson, the shadow minister for Licensing. I commend him on the approach he has taken on this bill, and the hard work and the tenacious efforts he has put in. Whatever we might come up with, some more reforms in this area, on supply side, until you start making demand-side changes, nothing is going to change; it will get worse. It has become worse in your 10 years of government. Things are much worse than when you came to power. You have not actioned anything in the slightest. Your political, philosophical structures of not getting people off the dole into work are limiting your ability to change the way people drink in the Northern Territory, and the chronic actions of alcohol abuse.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not go on any further; I have said what I wanted to say. I look forward to participating in the committee debate tonight. I believe we are in for a long, hard night. It is something we need to talk about because this is a serious issue that affects our broader society and our broader community. I would like to be a part of it. I look forward to the member for Sanderson’s contribution through the committee process.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to the members opposite regarding their contribution, and I have to say I was fairly surprised by their contradictory contributions.
I will set aside the first contribution from the shadow because he has some amendments I will go to. I want to start though, with sincerely thanking the member for Macdonnell for her support for the legislation, the PACSM bill we have before us. I have cause for support of the SMART and the Liquor bills that are consequential, albeit separate bills because of their bulk.
I have to say, from my long association with the member for Macdonnell, she has been consistent on the subject of the scourge of alcohol and what it does to Territorians; consistent in calling for strong and very strict measures in tackling chronic alcoholics, and understanding that there is a significant health issue to be tackled here. She has been very aware of the people who work in the health sector across the Territory, very aware of their views, and very tuned into their views. Their views line up with the government’s position in the Chamber today, rather than the views of the opposition who are out on their own.
There is not one health organisation in the Territory supporting the opposition’s amendments - not one. The liquor stores association - no support for them. The Australian Hotels Association - no support for them; they are on their own. The Australian Medical Association, AMSANT, NTCOSS - all the stakeholders in this debate recognise there are two significant cohorts of people we are dealing with here. We are dealing with chronic alcoholics who have a significant health problem who need to be treated in that way. Then, we are dealing with criminals, people who commit grog-fuelled violence, who ought to be dealt with through the criminal system, the court system. That is why we have two separate pieces of legislation to be debated in the Chamber. One deals with the non-criminalising of the chronic alcoholic who has a health issue but does not commit criminal acts. Separate is the SMART Court legislation that will be debated after this legislation, which deals with that alcoholic who commits criminal acts.
People at the coalface of the debate - be they working in the health sector or in the liquor industry - actually understand and can discern between the two. They can actually understand and discern why you would have a non-criminalisation of those habitual drunks, the ones who are not committing offences. I make a very clear distinction about that. An offence of defecating in public is a summary offence. That is an offence and they ought to go to court. They will go to the SMART Court and they will be mandated into treatment and, if they do not do this, they will be dealt with by the full force of the court and the law.
A chronic alcoholic who is not committing an offence but is consistently drunk and is consistently being put into protective custody for their own protection, is a drunk and will be dealt with through a health model; through bans, turning them off the tap, and mandated treatments. I will refer to the section of the legislation in the community stage debate, because it does say they must attend. The orders and the powers of the tribunal say ‘must’, not ‘maybe’, not ‘might’. ‘Must’ – it is mandatory.
You are right, we are not criminalising people. If they fail to undertake the order, we are not then criminalising people - they stay off tap. I know that is the policy, an ideological point of difference between the two, but I remind the members opposite in this debate, the Australian Medical Association, the Aboriginal Medical Services of the Northern Territory, including Congress, including all the alcohol lobbyists in Alice Springs members opposite referred to, all support our government’s approach, not the CLP’s. The liquor industry and the hotels association support our approach. They have not said: ‘The CLP - habitual drunks, lock them up, put them in. Yes, that is the way to go’. No. You have failed as an opposition to do the hard yards and convince people your alternative policy is the right way to go. You have completely failed. It is an embarrassment. You are a failure of an opposition in the most critically important debate we could have in this parliament and, indeed, in the broader community. It is a debate we needed to have. We have stepped up to the plate and we make no apologies, through 10 years of government, continuing to try, in policy development and in law, to tackle the scourge of alcohol in our community. I will go into some of the issues around the alcohol management plans in my debate.
The member for Macdonnell supports - and I am so grateful for her support, her consistency and her true and deep understanding of the issues. I agree with her. Let us look at the issue of humbug for money, and how we can, in a promotional or advertising sense, send simple messages to people: do not hand over that $3; do not hand over that $5. Yes, care about the person but do not hand over cash. I am absolutely prepared to look at and consider how we could design a campaign that could not be construed as racist or paternalistic, but genuinely let people know what us long-term Territorians know. We do not hand over money because that bit gets added to the next bit given to them, which gets to the next bit and, then, they have enough to buy grog. You are not helping that person or their friends.
I thank, too, the member for Nelson. In the 10 years I have been in this Chamber there are two people who stand out for me with their consistent calls for tough action to reduce the scourge of alcohol. The member for Nelson is one and the member for Arafura is the other. They are consistent in the path they have walked down. Two members of the opposition sought a couple of briefings and went back to find out more - the member for Port Darwin, and the shadow, the member for Sanderson. The other members who were consistent in delving into all of the reforms and the legislations were the members for Nelson and Arafura. Quite aside from all the briefings I gave my Caucus and Cabinet colleagues, the member for Arafura kept delving through the detail, as did the member for Nelson. They have been both consistent in their desire to turn the scourge of grog around that they have witnessed for decades and decades and decades in the Territory.
The inconsistency I heard from members opposite was the chest-beating and the weird ideological utterings and musing of the member for Port Darwin, who is very sure it is not going to work. Then, some members opposite said this might work; it is worth giving it a try. I say to those members opposite who said that: support it, vote for it. Give it the try you said it is worth. Try it; vote for it. It is to your eternal shame if you do not.
I invite anyone and everyone in this Chamber to continue to participate in this debate. This is not going to end, by any means, when this legislation passes. I do not care to what hour we debate this legislation. I am standing here saying we have absolute strength to stand here and have whatever length of debate you want to have, opposition. We know your tactics; it has been conveyed to us. You are a rabble; you are divided. We have been told each of you will talk to the clock as much as you can through the three different pieces of legislation; that you will drag out committee stage for as long as you can. You will take this as late as you can. Well, I am here to say, fine. If that is the level of foolishness you want to treat these serious pieces of legislation with, shame on you. But, that is fine; we are up for it.
This legislation will pass, and we will drive its implementation. Not only will we drive its implementation, we already have implementation teams set up. We have already bought the ID scanners. We have already consulted at all the takeaway shops that will be affected in the first roll-out. It is a machine that is occurring through the public service, headed up by some incredibly effective public servants across all the teams. In the enforcement, police are absolutely on board. There is not a shadow of a doubt that none of this could or would work if the police were not behind it. I can tell you, from the Police Commissioner down through the ranks, the police are fully supportive of this ...
Mr Styles interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I can also tell you, member for Sanderson, former police officer, I do not know who you consulted on your amendments because they do not like your amendments. The police do not want to do the work you want them to do through your amendments. I wonder if you consulted. However, let us have that debate in committee stage; I have some questions for you on that. They do not want to do it. They actually agree with the tribunal process we have embedded in here in people being able to self-ban.
I guess that, fundamentally, is a difference between the two parties - the government and the opposition - where you look through complex policy and you strike a landing point. What we choose to do then is consult. The history of this legislation has been that it has evolved through the knowledge of the work of all the previous Alcohol Policy ministers of our government - the work the former member for Nhulunbuy did in policy changes and settings; the work the member for Casuarina did in policy changes and settings; the work the member for Johnston did in policy changes and settings. We could not have this raft of legislation, this raft of the most significant changes in alcohol policy in the world, debated and accepted to the extent it is in the Territory and in this parliament today, if we had not journeyed down the path of the policy settings my Alcohol Policy predecessors had set.
If we had not done the alcohol management plans, put the supply measures in place, not had ID scanners in place in Alice Springs and Katherine, not had the permit system operating in Groote, not introduced the permit system operating in Nhulunbuy - if we had not done all of that work for all of those years in the past - none of us would be signing up to this here today, because it would have been a step too far because it is so radical.
Have a look around, folks. Where in Australia is anyone willing to put their hand up and say we will have ID scanners at every single takeaway outlet? We will have automatic bans issued by police over protective custody. We will set up a tribunal that has automatic bans. We will have a tribunal that has powers to mandate treatment. We will have a court to mandate treatment. You can be turned off tap forever. We are going to get you on secondary supply and turn you off automatically. We are going to hike up all the fines in the Liquor Bill so, if you are sly grog selling, you will get stung with not $1000, not $2000, but $26 000. I am sorry, there is no parliament in our nation prepared to go where we are going today.
Wake up to yourselves, opposition. You are kidding yourselves if you think you can come in here and say: ‘It is not this, and it is not going to work with this because nothing else has worked, and you are still trying to tinker’. This is not a tinker, this is a dramatic change - a dramatic change built on the knowledge of all of the work that was done by the Alcohol Policy ministers who have gone previously. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Living with Alcohol under the CLP - good on them; the right thing to do. But, guess what? We do not have the power to levy. It was based off a levy. The court said you cannot do it. It was stripped away. Once the levy was stripped away, the policy and the funding went with it.
I am absolutely prepared to say the knowledge and the journey the Territory has gone down in the past - whether it was the CLP’s Living with Alcohol policy, the alcohol management plans, the supply measures, the permit systems, the banning systems, and the ID systems that have been an evolutionary journey in the Territory - has all gone to inform the three bills, the raft of legislation, and the policy reforms we have before us today.
I have no problem and no issue that there is a fundamental, ideological difference between the opposition and the government. The opposition believes in locking up a drunk. A drunk has a health problem; they are not a criminal, they are not committing criminal acts, but the opposition wants to lock them up. You stand on your own on that one. You do not have the medical fraternity, you do not have the AOD sector, you do not even have the AHA and the Liquor Association support for that one.
There is no argument from anyone in here about locking up a criminal offender - not a stitch of an argument, and that is what our SMART Court legislation does. We have broadened the scope of it, we have broadened its powers. We all know it comes down to enforcement. We all know it comes down to the administrative processes that support the legislative framework we are going to be putting in place.
I will give you the tip: our eye is absolutely on the enforcement ball. It started before I finalised the concept of this policy. I was not taking it any further until I had the Police Commissioner’s view. He is the first person I road-tested this with, before I took it to my Caucus or Cabinet, because I know, through experience, if the police will not sign up and absolutely pursue and do this in the way we have structured it, it would not work. That is your failing: you have not done your homework. You have not found out whether the police have signed up to this. They have.
You asked questions in the Chamber today of whether or not we are funding the police to do this work. We handed the budget down two days ago; it is in there. The dollars are in there, the dollars have been in the pre-budget day leak announcements. We had the Chief Minister and the Police minister out there. What part of nurses in watch-houses did you miss? What part of auxiliaries did you miss? What part of the biometric tools did you miss? Where have you been? These have all been announced pre-budget stories. Just in case you missed the announcements pre-budget, they are in the budget books I handed down on Tuesday. Why did you not go straight to that, knowing we were having this debate today, knowing that you are leading with your chin with amendments on how you think it could/should be done, and that you were going to ask about the resources for it? If this is not a level of incompetence that is somewhat gobsmacking, well, I will go he, to quote the former member for Nhulunbuy. Unbelievable!
The member for Nelson was bang on when he said there are about 800 people who will be affected by this. We checked through all the information and the data. We have a very clear idea of who the frequent flyers are, who the police are always picking up and putting into the watch-house, not ID-ing. Then, they clear them out in the morning to have another day’s drinking. Or who is going in and out of the sobering-up shelters. The police know who they are. The service providers know who they are, but they have not had the tools to automatically turn them off tap, to ban them from purchasing, possessing, or consuming.
That is the difference between this and the ID systems in place in Alice Springs and Katherine today. These ID systems support people who have been before the court who are on prohibition orders through the court. The ID systems in Katherine and Alice Springs today support the supply measures where you are not allowed to buy more than a cask a day. The member for Araluen said she has never seen anyone be rejected. Well, okay, fair enough, maybe you do not go to the bottle shop that often. We had 9009 rejections in a year. I dare say there are a few going on every day. But, that is okay if you have not noticed it, member for Araluen - 9009 rejections for the sale in Alice Springs based on the ID system. They do not have these automatic bans attached to them. It is okay if you missed that. It is okay, too, if you missed that when it has been leading debate in this Chamber in the last sittings, that is fine. However, ignorance is not going to stop us from doing this. Petty party politics and meaningless waffle is not going to stop us from doing this. Absolutely we are going to ensure this is enforced and implemented. The structure we have set up in the implementation teams is phenomenal. I sincerely and deeply thank the officers of the Department of Justice, including Racing, Gaming and Licensing, because they have been absolute champions in working with us on the policy formation.
We have road-tested it up hill and down dale internally, amongst each other, because it is pretty hard when you are creating something that has not been done anywhere else. We kept looking back at the evaluations of the AMPs, what is occurring in Groote, what works at Groote, where the flaws are in the existing systems, what is working in Nhulunbuy, what has been working in Alice, what has not been working. We looked at it all. I spoke to key alcohol researchers interstate. I spoke to John Boffa. I listened to the guys: Russell Goldflam, Dr John Boffa, Stephanie Bell, Donna Ah Chee, Jonathan Pilbrow. They have been doing this for years. Why do you not just sit down and listen to them?
Then, after I had listened to all of them and looked at all of that - at what we have done in the past, at how far our community had gone in its intolerance to drunkenness, in its acceptance that maybe we might have to have a less than seven-second inconvenience of swiping our card to literally have a banning system - maybe they were all up for this automatic ban. No ifs, buts, or maybes - you are off tap. All over the Territory. If you are off tap in Alice, why not move up to Tennant and have a drink? If you are off tap in Nguiu, come into Darwin and have a drink. No, no, all across the Territory. That is what was missing before. We had AMP over here, AMP over there, working in that localised area. People were just following the pathways of grog. Little Children Are Sacred - pathways of grog, rivers of grog.
We looked at all of that in structuring this. It was not just throw some darts at a dartboard and let us have a guess. Listen to the experts, road-test your thinking through the process and, when you have landed on a point where you actually think you are pretty confident, based on evidence, it might work, you then seek out the people you are going to rely on to make it work. The Police Commissioner was my first port of call because, without him and his police officers, none of this is going to work. Then, you ask the health sector what they think, because these guys know this stuff. They are dealing with chronic alcoholics all the time. They get it. They know what works and what does not work.
Then, we did not just ram it through. We announced it in September of last year in as much detail as we had - fact sheets, workshops, forums across the Territory - laid bare every detail saying to people: ‘We think this is it. We think this is going to work based on all of this information, based on all of this knowledge. But, you tell us. Let us know because we are open to that debate and discussion’. I promised: ‘We will give you detail. We will actually write the legislation, introduce it to parliament in October as exposure drafts so you can really test all the details, so you can really tell us, seeing all of the detail, what you think’. We ran all the consults after the exposure drafts in parliament in October and November. I cannot count the number of meetings I have had and where I have travelled across the Territory to do this, and I cannot count the number of meetings the officers of my agency have been on and the amount of discussion we have had with the different people and organisations. We brought it all in as we said we would.
We genuinely reopened, with open eyes and open minds, and revisited where we had started, and we made some changes. The bills we introduced in Alice Springs last sittings are not identical copies of what we introduced in October. We made some changes based on good advice from the Chief Magistrate, from the health sector, from a raft of people. The arrogance of the opposition is they think, in their thought bubble, in their little world, in their little back room, what they think will work. But, who do they consult with? Who do they have on side?
The debate in the Chamber today was incredibly contradictory. The member for Araluen was saying: ‘I think this might work; give it a try’. The member for Port Darwin was saying: ‘It is not going to work. You guys are just ideologues. You would not know what you are doing. You are just lefties, and we are right wingers and right wingers, of course, are right’. What the hell kind of debate was that? Are you kidding me? You guys are embarrassing. If you are going to run it, get some consistency and understand what you are doing, and please, could you at least tell your own side what you policy is because I had to tell the member for Araluen what the policy was.
That is embarrassing; amateur hour. With your weird tactic of: ‘Let us talk for a long time; let us keep it going’, I will give you the tip, there are many departmental officers listening to the debate because it is their job. They are all probably listening and going: ‘Oh, my goodness, do these guys actually know what is in that legislation because they do not seem to know their own policy’.
The member for Nelson made the point - and I am so glad he made it because it is a point I make whenever I am doing a presentation – that it is not just Aboriginal people. Non-Indigenous Territorians drink at 1.5 times the national average. Indigenous Territorians drink 1.7 times the national average. But, guess what guys? There is not much difference between 1.5 and 1.7. We all have a drinking problem. There is a culture of drinking in the Territory; we grew up with it, we know it.
The member for Port Darwin went on radio saying when he was a policeman he climbed through the air-conditioning vents at SKYCITY in his underwear. He knows he had a drinking problem. He said he turned up to work drunk when he was a police officer - an out-of-control drinking problem. But, he got his life together. He cleaned himself up, he sorted himself out. He became a teetotaller - good on him.
Member for Port Darwin, some people need assistance, which is why we have treatment and why we have funded treatment. A $32m funding of treatment was announced in the budget. A total of $32m over five years is no mucking around, no small bickies; no $2000 here and $100 000 there. There is $5.2m this year alone in treatment - and not just the normal treatment we have always had, because if you keep doing the same thing in the same way you are going to get the same results. It is different. Again, listening to the health sector, we have modelled it quite differently. Yes, we are funding additional rehabilitation beds into the rehabilitation institutions which do a great job in the Territory. However, we have integrated case management funding, we have withdrawal support funding, we have funding that will go out into the AOD and wrap around a client in the remote or regional areas. We have the after-care funding that has been missing in the past. It is a whole different raft of treatment options and funding, funded not for one year, not for two, but for five years. This is not going to change people’s lives overnight.
Regarding treatment; mandatory or not, it takes several times in and out of a treatment facility for most people to succeed in their battle against alcohol. Run that one politically against me if you want boys, feel free, but that is the reality. Spend some time at the Salvation Army. Ask them what they are doing with their new facility. Spend some time down at Kalano, CAAPS, CAAAPU, or FORWAARD. Ask them. They will all talk to you about their programs. They are pretty happy to talk to a politician about their programs because they do not see many.
Thank you to the members for Macdonnell and Nelson for your support. It is genuine; I accept that and I embrace it. Two people who have been in the Territory - one born here and one who has been here for decades and decades and worked with the people, knows the people, know the lives. It does not necessarily suit the pure politics to support us, but they are ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Araluen, bless her and her contradictory comments. Yes, there is a need for strong and consistent enforcement; that is why we have the police on side. That is why we went as far as we went in how we structured it: we have the police on side. The amendment you have before you from the member for Sanderson - I do not know if you did your homework with the police, member for Sanderson, because they do not like it. Did you talk to them? Did you get them onside? Or were you arrogant enough to think that what you think is what goes?
How do we intend to enforce the new laws? Not only do we have enforcement teams already in place - a combination across a range of agencies including police - and not only are we already talking about what training and what workshops will occur with all police so they know exactly what these new laws are and how to work them, we funded the biometric tools in the watch-houses, the nurses in the watch-houses, and the additional auxiliaries. They are front and centre writing operational procedures to make this work. It is real.
It is interesting when you look at the amount of police time that is spent on alcohol-related issues and enforcement. Around 60% of police time is spent dealing with alcohol-related issues. Think about it for a moment, folks. If you are turning people off tap, putting people into treatment facilities, there might just be a little extra time in the policeman’s or policewoman’s day to be doing more of this enforcement. But, hey, that might be just too big a step of logic for the CLP! Regardless, we gave them additional resources because we want this to work. The member for Port Darwin called it a social experiment of welfare, health before security. What a lot of rot! We are fair dinkum. We are over the violent crime; we are over the antisocial behaviour.
The violent crime is the worst end of it. We have seen way too many women beaten. We have seen way too many children be in the way of those domestic violence incidents and get hurt. We funded our child protection reforms because we know you have to stop it at the source. You do not want to patch up with child protection afterwards. We will do that, we will keep doing that. You have to stop it at the source. That is why the SMART Court is dealing with that in a legal court sense - not PACSM. This PACSM bill is just for the drunk who is not committing an offence. Do not give us the health before safety spin; it is insulting to people’s intelligence.
Then one-pin Bohlin came bowling in with his strange musings about New Zealand – interesting. I have taken note of all of that. I am letting the Liquor Association and AHA know the new alcohol policy coming their way - because we hear from the member for Greatorex it is still being formulated - from the opposition is banning drive-through bottle shops. Bless you, one-pin Bohlin!
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: He is a truck. He talked about police protective custodies and his experiences as a police officer. Did he miss the bit about the automatic ban after those three times in and out of police protective custody? You do not go off to court and have an argument about whether you are banned – you are banned. That is it!
You know what? At any stage, the police – it does not have to be Stage 3 where we mandate they have to refer them to a tribunal - even before a ban they can refer someone to the tribunal for treatment orders. So, Stage 1. Stage 2 they have to think about it. Stage 3 they must. But, at any stage, a police officer, a member of the family, a health practitioner - that is how we pick up the sobering-up shelter guys - can refer someone to the tribunal, from day 1! We know who the frequent flyers are, and they know who the frequent flyers are. And the family members know who they need to get banned.
A family member who wants to be banned because they do not want to be humbugged, can be banned, but not through the police system you want, member for Sanderson. The police do not want that; that is not their job. The tribunal people need to know - because they are going to become the AOD specialists in the Territory - who is fronting up to self-ban, where, and for what reasons, and for whom. It informs the tribunal. There is rhyme and reason, and thinking behind all of this - not a thought bubble!
Oh yes, and no argument, member for Drysdale, yes, we all want people to have living skills. We want them to be off the grog, have living skills, get into education, get into training, get into a real job, and have an aspiration and an opportunity in life. You cannot do that when you are in a grog haze ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Actually, that is the point. But it took genius one-pin Bohlin to tell us all the point, bless him.
The member for Braitling is not happy because we are saying the opposition policy is to pour more grog on the streets, and we keep highlighting that. Well, why wouldn’t you? You wanted to extend your trading hours by four hours in the town which has a problem with grog-fuelled violence. You have to point it out because if you do not point it out, you are not doing your job. When Abbott said he does not particularly agree with that, well, you would point that out too, would you not? Their federal leader does not agree with them. What, we are not meant to point it out, and he gets a bit upset that we are? Oh, please, spare me!
So he is now open and alive to the debate that if you open up bottle shops for four hours in the morning, maybe you close earlier. I will ask in committee stage what your policy is about, what that earlier closing time is, member for Sanderson. I will give you the tip so you can start to think about it, because the Liquor Association and the Hotels Association are going to want to know the answer. I am probably already sending that little contribution from the member for Braitling off to them. They will want to know when you are expecting to shut down, because they will then want to check what the trade in the afternoon and evening in their premises is, and do some calculations. I am assuming that was not policy on the run. I am assuming you have had a bit of a caucus about your formulating policy.
So far, it is closing the drive-through bottle shop from the member for Drysdale. It is reduce the trading hours in the afternoon and evening from the member for Braitling, because he does not think people should drink at night. I do not know about you. I do not drink during the day. I will go home and have a glass of wine, but it is night time. I am open for that debate, as bizarre as it sounds.
I am glad, though, the member for Braitling’s contribution included that ID scanners are not too much of an inconvenience. That was a bit of gold coming from the member for Braitling. Thank you for pointing out what we have been pointing out to the opposition for months: it is not actually too much of an inconvenience. If it is going to turn people off the grog and stop the problem drinking, great. And, yes, sly grog sellers will pop up. We are going to hit them, $26 000 fine, thank you very much, and we are going to have police going out after them.
Secondary supply, yes, thank you, we are going to be banning them. Our understanding of how secondary supply has worked in Groote has been good. I have been open with everyone and industry in saying, we are going to watch this very closely. People are inventive and creative and, when you do one thing in one space, they will start to move into different spaces to try to change and get around it. We know that. We are going to be watching for wherever the movements are going, and we will be back in here to do something about that movement. Not a problem with that, actually. However, it will not be making someone who is a drunk, who is not committing a criminal offence, be locked up. It is a health problem; it is not an ideological standpoint. There is a whole raft of national and international studies that tell you that. It is not a lefties point of view, it is the truth.
I could talk about the structure of the legislation, but through my responses to the members, I have. Three times in and out of police protective custody, you are automatically banned. No, ifs, buts, or maybes - you are off tap. Do it again - first time you are banned for three months, second time you are banned for six months, third time it is a year. At any point, police can refer you to the tribunal. Family can refer you to the tribunal. This legislation sets out the bans, it sets out the tribunals. We have the SMART Court legislation and the Liquor Legislation to come, and it all fits together into a massive alcohol reform package to tackle the scourge of grog in our society. We are giving it a go. We are not going to take our eye off it. We have big enforcement teams, and we have the support of everyone except the CLP.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr STYLES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move to the member for Port Darwin’s chair to conduct this.
Leave granted.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Bill 2011 (Serial 158) together with schedule of amendments No 60 circulated by the member for Sanderson, Mr Styles.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr STYLES (by leave): Madam Chair, I move the schedule of amendments No 60.
Minister, the amendments we are proposing aim to address a number of flaws the opposition has identified with this legislation. The first is that there are no punitive measures associated with breaching BAT notices, GAP and BADT orders except placing a person on yet another notice or order.
When you wrapped up debate just a few minutes ago you were talking about people going on mandatory rehabilitation. Minister, what happens if people choose not to go on mandatory rehabilitation under the orders?
Ms LAWRIE: You well know because you have had two briefings so far. So, you well know and you are here to convince me to accept yours. Okay? So you have to switch the thinking around in this particular committee stage. I am not leading amendments, you are. I will make it clear: I know you know it. I know it is a rhetorical question. The sanction is that they stay on bans. They cannot purchase, consume, or possess alcohol.
Mr STYLES: Madam Chair, what we are proposing - and I will work through some of these. In clause 4, we would like the government to take on board these amendments and put in here the voluntary alcohol prohibition notice which comes under section 34. So, if we work through these, I suppose there are a number of mechanical things that have to occur.
One of the reasons that we want to put this in is to remove section 9(2)(b) which relates to secondary supply, and actually make it an offence where there is some monetary penalty, and even time served in prison, for secondary supply. In relation to selling alcohol without a licence, as you say, there is a $26 000 fine, but there is no penalty for simply breaching these BAT orders and giving secondary supply where you pass on to someone who has a BAT order. There is no penalty, so we are proposing you include some sort of penalty provision.
Ms LAWRIE: All right. Member for Sanderson, you used, in your contribution to debate, the example of you having a back yard barbecue, you have some mates over, having a drink. Unbeknownst to you, one of them is banned. You are secondary supplying them. So, you are proposing that you could face gaol?
Mr STYLES: No. We are saying the problem is where you have someone who is unaware - there has to be provisions for natural justice to prevail and you will have to prove that someone knew.
Ms LAWRIE: Where are those provisions?
Mr STYLES: Under clause 72, we would say:
The fault element there is the person intentionally supplies the alcohol to the individual and knows the order or notice is in force for the individual.
You would have to prove intention and know there is an order in force, so that would take care of that. However, it would be a deterrent and it might make people think about whether or not to supply people if you are not aware of what the circumstances are.
Ms LAWRIE: In your scenario with your back yard barbecue, you have a mate over, did not know they were banned, you get done for secondary supply, you are taken to court, and you would have to prove in court you did not know?
Mr STYLES: I suggest those gathering the evidence in the situation would have to have some statements; they would have to have some evidence before they take you to court. Police officers, or anyone empowered to make those investigations, are obviously going to have to have some cause to take you before a court. If you have no evidence and nothing to substantiate the charge, obviously, you are not going to take people to court.
Ms LAWRIE: Essentially, where we are on this – just to facilitate, and I am assuming through moving the entire schedule you are proposing to deal with all the clauses as a whole rather than individually because they are interrelated?
Mr STYLES: Yes.
Ms LAWRIE: That makes sense. We are not going to accept them for some fundamental reasons I will take you through. First, our bill does not criminalise breaches of bans. This government is committed to not criminalising alcohol misuse and drunkenness. We have said alcohol misuse is a health issue not a criminal matter. The inclusion for breaches of bans treats alcohol misuse and drunkenness as a criminal matter. As you said in your response, you go to court. You are off to court - you have to prove.
Our bill’s aim is to improve health outcomes for people who misuse alcohol or drugs. The objects of the bill support family and social welfare and improve the health and wellbeing of people in the Territory by providing a legislative framework that prevents the commission of alcohol-related offences, reduces excessive alcohol consumption, benefits people who are misusing alcohol or drugs by facilitating clinical assessment and appropriate treatment, and reduces the harms caused.
Your proposals criminalise alcohol misuse and drunkenness by penalising people who have been banned from drinking, for breaching the banned and drinking, or being in possession of alcohol. Criminalisation of breaches does not fit with the objectives of our bill. Your proposed penalties will likely result in prisons overflowing, as imprisonment is an option for the first offence, and is mandated for breaches of second and third BAT notices through a minimum sentence of at least 14 days.
Your proposals do not reduce supply through the banning of a secondary supplier, they just criminalise that supply. It does not reduce the supply; it criminalises that supply.
The bill bans secondary suppliers which reduces the capacity for banned persons from getting access to alcohol. That is what we are doing. There is a group of drinkers - banning, banning, banning - harder and harder and harder for them to get the alcohol.
Mr Conlan: That is what you say.
Ms LAWRIE: It has worked in Groote. We have seen it ...
Mr Conlan: It is a bit different in Alice Springs.
Ms LAWRIE: There is a 75% reduction in assaults. Member for Greatorex, you think the groups of drinkers in Alice Springs are so different?
Mr Conlan: A big difference.
Ms LAWRIE: People sitting round drinking in their social networks, in their drinkers groups are so different?
Mr Conlan: It is all right to sit there on your arrogant high horse.
Madam CHAIR: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: I can deal with the other ones as a whole too because we are dealing with it as a whole. Regarding the voluntary alcohol prohibition notices - the VAPs, clause 32 the bill provides a person can apply to the Alcohol and Drug Tribunal to obtain a BADT order and voluntarily seek a ban. You say this is cumbersome and a waste of the tribunal’s time and resources, but you do not actually propose to remove the tribunal’s capacity to ban a voluntary person.
While the process for entering or removing a voluntary applicant on a banned drinkers register should be simple, making sure the person knows what they are doing and the consequence of the application is actually important. The proposal would allow police to issue a ban on the spot to someone who has walked into a station requesting they be placed on the banned drinkers register. For example, a night in Alice Springs, a person has come in from a community, wants to refuse to buy alcohol for others, and being able to prove they cannot by being placed on a banned drinkers register. They do this by going to police.
The process proposed is just as cumbersome. Proposed clause 45B requires a person to fill out an approved form containing information, much like what is required for the tribunal, and include information necessary to support the application. This indicates police must consider the application. However, the following proposed clause 45C provides the police must immediately give a voluntary application prohibition notice without having considered the information contained in the notice – a bit of a flaw.
The proposed amendment also provides the request can be made in relation to all or particular licensed premises, or to all or particular takeaway premises. This is not possible under the current ID system and will require a significant restructure of the banned drinkers register. The proposal was raised with police and they see the process as problematic. Police experience with orders has shown that, sometimes, when an order is not convenient to protected people, it is ignored. If they are caught breaching the order, they either request the order to be revoked or altered to suit the feel of the moment.
The tribunal is the most robust mechanism of banning people. The tribunal is best placed to assist people with such a request. It will have sufficient information to inform itself about the reasons for voluntary applications, and can make sure the person seeking a voluntary ban clearly understands the consequences of their request. We do not support that amendment.
I will go on to the tribunal membership proposed amendments. The inclusion of a requirement that at least two of the tribunal members are health practitioners with ‘health practitioners’ defined in the section as medical practitioner, nurse or Aboriginal health worker, is unnecessary. The criteria for membership is broad and intended to capture health practitioners among others who may have qualifications or experience relating to the tribunal functions as members. So, we support those amendments.
Turning to the annual report. Clause 71 provides that an annual report on the tribunal’s operations must be provided. This is not an uncommon provision and reflects the annual report requirements of other independent decision-making bodies such as the Ombudsman, the Community Justice Centre and the Anti-Discrimination Commission.
The opposition believes the bill should specify what is contained in the report, so as to compile some really meaningful statistics on alcohol and substance misuse. There are already ample meaningful statistics on alcohol and substance misuse available, including the report commissioned by the Menzies School of Health Research released in September 2009, Harms from and Cost of Alcohol Consumption in the Northern Territory, which has significantly informed the development of the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms and the bill. We do not support those amendments.
Mr STYLES: Minister, in relation to a couple of things when you say we intend just to lock drunks up. It is not quite the case. In our policy, which you said we do not have; we went to the 2008 election campaign with an habitual drunk policy. It is, basically, still out there.
What happens is the people who have a problem and need help quite often do not really understand they need help. What we intend to do - which is different to the government’s plan - is offer people voluntary rehabilitation programs first. If they choose to go onto that program, then there are a few boxes to tick. If they finish that - great. Hopefully, they are on the road to recovery or can go into other programs that can get them back on the straight and narrow.
We are not unaware this is a health issue as well. The problem is these amendments go to the core of what is a major social issue we have in the Territory where we need to fix some of the antisocial problems we have. Quite often, all people who are addicted to drugs sometimes become a little difficult to manage. They choose not to seek help, because some of them do not think they need help. The majority of people in our community feel they need some help. So, through these amendments, we are trying to get some teeth.
It is all very well to put up these amendments. I am supporting anything I think is going to work to fix this problem. However, throughout my response to your second reading speech, I pointed out a number of problems we have on board we are aware of. You suggested we have not done any homework. Well, we have actually spoken to some people. I will not be mentioning who those people are, but we have done a considerable amount of homework, and there is considerable support for the many things we have put in here.
Ms LAWRIE: Do you have the support of the police for this amendment?
Mr STYLES: I do not have the support of the Commissioner of Police. I have not discussed this with the Commissioner of Police, but I have spoken to police officers.
Ms LAWRIE: Have you had the support of the Police Association then?
Mr STYLES: I am not prepared to say who I have support of at this point in time.
Ms LAWRIE: Right. So you have not spoken to the Police Commissioner and do not have his support, and you have not spoken to the Police Association and do not have their support, yet we are meant to believe, on your say, that you have spoken to some people you will not name, and you have their support?
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Chair! Who is under interrogation here? Who is asking who questions?
Ms Lawrie: They are his committee stage amendments. You idiot!
Mr TOLLNER: He is asking you questions, drongo.
Ms Lawrie: No, no. They are his amendments.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order!
Mr STYLES: Minister, I have spoken to a number of people in relation to this. Those people will remain anonymous at this point in time.
Ms LAWRIE: Just to clarify, did you speak to the Police Commissioner and seek the Police Commissioner’s support?
Mr STYLES: No, I have not spoken to the Police Commissioner, and at this point in time …
Ms LAWRIE: Did you speak to the Police Association and seek their support?
Mr STYLES: At this point in time, I have spoken to a number of people, and I am not prepared to say who I have spoken to.
Ms LAWRIE: I need some clarification here. Did you speak to the Police Association to seek their support?
Mr STYLES: I have spoken to a number of people, minister, and that is my answer.
Ms LAWRIE: So I will take it as a no, then?
Madam CHAIR: Minister, resume your seat. Member for Sanderson.
Mr STYLES: You can take it as you please, minister, but my answer is that I have spoken to a number of people. That is my answer.
In relation to the tribunal, we tried to get a balance across the tribunal and actually get the police onto the tribunal. I believe they have a need to be there, and it is good to actually have the presence of a police officer on it as part of the permanent member of the tribunal; that being the commissioner or his delegate. It would appear to me, from what you have said, minister, there is absolutely zero support for these amendments.
I accept that you are the government and you have your own agenda. We have tried to encourage you, both prior to this legislation coming to the House and, also, by various speeches we have given, to raise issues and concerns we see out there. We are very aware alcohol is a major issue in our community; that it needs attention. I am not saying the government - you people on that side of the House - are not aware. I realise you are trying to do everything you can to do the very best for the people of the Northern Territory. However, we have some other information and ideas how we might be able to do it in, what we believe, a better way.
Obviously, you have the numbers. When we vote on this, I am asking you to consider that these are legitimate concerns of members of the community and people in industry who wish to remain anonymous. However, they have made comments on various things. We hope, if you do not support these amendments, at some stage in the future where you see issues arising which we have actually raised, you might take on board some of the ideas we have proposed.
I believe you mentioned, at some stage during today’s debates, this is not something each side of the House should try to score political points on. On that, I agree with you. This is a serious issue facing all of us, our families, other people in the Territory, and businesses. It is a terrible situation, so we should try to work together to resolve this. These amendments have been brought in very good faith. I hope the government’s initiatives work because this is about your kids’ future and my kids’ future. We should be working together to do this.
If you do not support these amendments, as I said, if there is an opportunity to look at some of these things in the future if your policies are not working or are not working as well as you would like them to, I would be very happy to sit down and try to help formulate policies from both sides of this House that can actually fix this problem. I do not know whether there is any point in saying any more in relation to these amendments, as you have made it very clear you are not supporting them. We can probably get on with debating some of the other issues in this House ...
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Sanderson, I have to make it clear. You have come in here with proposed amendments that do not have the support of the Police Commissioner, do not have the support of the Police Association, yet it goes to …
Mr Conlan: He never said that. He never said it does not have the support of the police.
Mr STYLES: I have not said that.
A member: He did not say that.
Ms LAWRIE: Hang on a second.
A member: Rubbish!
Ms LAWRIE: Yet, it goes to the powers and the administrative workings of the police, and we are meant to take that on and say okay. Have you spoken to the Chief Magistrate regarding the process of referral of people to offences and proceedings in court? Have you spoken to the Chief Magistrate or the magistrates and sought their views and support? Because that is what you are asking. In all seriousness here, you are asking a government to change processes that affect the police and the courts, without giving any advice to us whatsoever that they are on board with that.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, regardless of the technicalities of what we are talking about, I believe what the member for Sanderson has proposed does contain some good ideas. Also, I got that this morning. I have been working on this for weeks. I have been out to FORWAARD and CAAPS and St Vincent de Paul, and talking to the Police Commissioner, talking to members of the police, and talking to the Police Association. It is a complicated issue, but I say thank you to the member for Sanderson, as he has raised some issues I actually agree with. However, sometimes, the nuts and bolts have to be sorted through more carefully before we head off down the path of introducing legislation ...
Mr Tollner: You can run for parliament now.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. No, no, I am just saying – well, anyway, I did speak to the member for Sanderson before and, on some issues, we certainly agree. I agree that parliament should try to work together. This is a difficult area.
My question to the Treasurer is in relation to Part 2, clause9(3). It is in relation to giving a BAT notice, and is only a technical query. It says:
The only reason I am asking this question is in the bill you have coming up later on, you have basically changed ‘an intoxicated person’ to being ‘a drunk’. For the sake of uniformity - as we are dealing with bills that are related – should that term, ‘intoxication by alcohol’ have actually been more in line with the definition you are putting forward in the amendment of the Liquor Act?
Ms LAWRIE: It is because the definition of ‘protective custody’ includes ‘intoxicated’ and ‘drunk’. That is why it is written in that way to capture that quite specifically.
Mr WOOD: Is there a difference between ‘intoxication’ and ‘drunk’ that I do not know about?
Ms LAWRIE: ‘Intoxicated’ captures drugs, ‘drunk’ captures alcohol. So, it is capturing both.
Mr WOOD: All right, that was my ...
Madam CHAIR: That is all?
Mr WOOD: Yes, thanks.
Schedule of Amendments No 60 negatived.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 30 March 2011.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, this bill and the briefing have all been done by the member for Port Darwin, so this is going to be handled by the member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have looked carefully at what the government is preparing to do here. The SMART Court, as it is proposed in this legislative instrument, has a history in two other guises in this jurisdiction. Once again, I do not particularly want to focus on the bill so much as the thinking behind the bill, because it is that philosophical position we have to deal with.
The underlying philosophy of this bill is the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence. I note the new Chief Magistrate in the Northern Territory, Ms Hannam, is a person who has a strong therapeutic jurisprudence background. I also note the new Justice in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Justice Blokland, also has a great sympathy towards the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence. Justice Blokland, before being Justice Blokland, was Her Worship the Chief Magistrate, who introduced one of the courts I wish to talk about.
The courts – sorry, Madam Speaker, I just lost my train of thought ...
Members interjecting
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry?
Ms Lawrie: You must be watching Channel 9 news.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I have not seen it. What was on?
Ms Lawrie: I heard it was a shocker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Come on, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, was it? All right.
I thank the members for their interjections. They have me completely rattled now, Madam Speaker.
Anyway, the two courts to which I refer are the Alcohol Court and the credit court. Speaking about the Alcohol Court first, I remember when the former Attorney-General, Dr Peter Toyne, was in the Attorney-General’s chair, he worked very hard to bring his flavour of thinking to the role of the Attorney-General. Indeed, I know many people in the department quite enjoyed working for Peter Toyne because he was a good and effective Attorney-General, and he pursued those things which were important to him well and passionately, and he did so with integrity. You may say many things about Peter Toyne, but integrity is a word I would happily apply to him. Moreover, he was a man who cared. In fact, I suspect that sort of thing truncated his political career to a fairly large extent.
He was the sort of guy who would genuinely be worried about the appropriate shade of red for a fire hydrant on a street corner if that was the issue that was concerning him. Indeed, I would not be surprised if, at 3 o’clock in the morning, he would still be worried about something like that whilst lying in bed. It was clear from the physiological changes in Dr Toyne from the time he entered parliament to the time he left parliament, that he carried the burden of the Attorney-General-ship very deeply.
However, he introduced the Alcohol Court, and it was going to be the great repair job for alcohol problems in the Northern Territory. We may well remember the media releases and the like that came out with the Alcohol Court, such as we were going to be tough on alcohol, we were going to be passionate about alcohol, we were going to sort out alcohol, and this Alcohol Court was going to change everything.
The media releases were not consistent with what was in the bill at the time. The media releases talked about being tough on alcohol, tough on grog, and tough on offenders. But, what was actually in the alcohol bill or the Alcohol Court Act was simply the concept that a person who would be found guilty of a particular offence could then, rather than going to gaol, be directed into another form of correction other than gaol. The effect was, in reality, the offender actually had another way of getting out of gaol.
I remember the Northern Territory News ran a story on the legislation with some relish, because the former member for Goyder, Peter Maley - who went back to practice law after he finished in this place - was one of the first lawyers to rely on the passage of the Alcohol Court Bill to use it in favour of keeping one of his clients out of gaol. Being the good lawyer Peter Maley is, he represents his clients in the very best possible way. It was not without irony that the man who spoke about law and order issues in here quite regularly was more than happy to use the government’s get-out-of-gaol-free card on that occasion in favour of his client. And so he should have done, because that is what a professional lawyer should do.
However, the Alcohol Court has become pretty much recognised as a disappointment for various reasons. It was a disappointment because it did not cover illicit drugs, dangerous substances, and those sorts of things. The response from the Chief Magistrate at the time, Jenny Blokland, was to also create a thing called the credit court, which, interestingly enough, she was able to establish without the requirement of any legislative instrument beyond the instruments that were already at her disposal, such as the Sentencing Act and such things. The Bail Act she could use in a different fashion. So the credit court was not actually constrained in the same fashion the Alcohol Court was and, eventually, became the more popular, as I understand it, system by which to deal with issues of therapeutic jurisprudence in the summary courts.
The SMART Court is an extension of that concept. The SMART Court is a vehicle by which people who would otherwise go to gaol can avoid gaol for certain types of offences, so long as they meet certain standards and expectations in the bill. However, the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence, as practised in other areas, may run into some difficulties in the Northern Territory. I have done quite a bit of research into the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence and, to over-simplify the concept, the idea is quite simple.
In a therapeutic jurisprudence environment, a person is steered away from their conduct. They find themselves in front of the courts; alcohol or illicit drugs have bought them in front of the courts. So, they have done wrong. They have committed an offence for which they find themselves in front of the magistrate. The magistrate is thinking: ‘I might put this person in gaol, as from my reading of the SMART Court legislation, it is not necessarily a get-out-of-gaol-free card’, because they can make these orders apply to people who may not necessarily go to gaol. In any instance, we want to steer these people away from their existing choices in life and we want them to wake up themselves.
I touched on this particular issue in the earlier debate. I discussed the idea of an expectation from government that people, through this therapeutic process being used in their banning orders, would suddenly have a ‘road to Damascus’ conversion and suddenly realise the error of their ways.
I have taken the time to sit in the back of the credit court as it operates. Indeed, I can well imagine why people are attracted to it. The magistrate takes on the aura of deep caring and those sorts of things, and there are these directions. Eventually, this person comes back before the court and reports progress on their rehabilitation. Basically, how the system works is, if you go through the process of rehabilitation, the magistrate may choose to show clemency, mercy, and exercise options in favour of the person having rehabilitated.
There is a package before us in relation to the alcohol bill, the bill that is coming up next, and this bill. Threaded through the whole package is this concept and idea that people who are touched by this legislation will fix their lives. I am concerned that this government is proceeding down the line of therapeutic jurisprudence where other jurisdictions have had some concerns about it. Whilst the idea might be attractive, it is a little like the intervention we have seen from the federal government in remote communities. Its application is something that concerns me. The idea of this SMART Court, or the intervention, was that there was going to be this tough response by government such as quarantining and those sorts of things and, as a consequence, people would change their conduct. But, in practice, particularly after the change of government when Mal Brough’s hand came off the tiller and the new government placed its hand on the tiller, it started to morph back into a welfare response.
I am concerned that this government has no track record in being able to demonstrate that its welfare-based systems of legislation work. If the Alcohol Court was such a fearsome organ of governance, why is it we have such clearly increasing numbers of alcoholics in our community, in our parks, and in our gardens?
I am sure the minister will talk about the success of the credit court and how the Alcohol Court was a good idea; but this is improving on it and capturing the concept of the credit court; it is all being rolled into this great package, the SMART Court; it is all working wonderfully well; and this is just a way of making it work better. But, then go to the Department of Justice annual report which talks about its strategies and how it is going to achieve certain benchmarks. Go through the budget papers and look at the line items and the key performance indicators and such things, and it is not long before you discover some of the key performance indicators in the annual report of the Department of Justice are not being met. We note there are even more court days being tied up, year in, year out, both in the lower courts and in the higher courts. The results we are seeing in the outcomes, as described by the department’s annual reports, are not being achieved.
I had the opportunity to speak to the CEO about this in my first briefing with him in relation to taking over the shadow Attorney-General’s position. I asked him about this briefly and, without reflecting negatively on him, he was not able to offer a clear answer as to why the strategies that were being outlined by government were not achieving their key performance indicators and the outcomes that were being reported in the annual report. The reason is because he, of course, is a servant of the government - and a professional servant of the government - so he places the government’s policies into action, and the government gives him what his key performance indicators are.
So, government then says: ‘We have this presumption which is that the Alcohol Court is going to achieve these outcomes, that our law and order policies are going to achieve these outcomes’. What actually happens is we do not see those policies achieving those outcomes. So, the government’s response is then to do, essentially, more of the same.
You only have to read the annual reports regarding their outcomes and their stated objectives and such things, to clearly get an understanding of how mismatched the outcomes are to the stated objectives. Government then has a choice. It can either choose to say: ‘We think our system is working and we just have to find another way to interpret these results’, or ‘We actually interpret the results in favour of common sense and we say to ourselves, okay, our policies are not working’.
The policies the government drives are based on certain presumptions and philosophies. One of the presumptions and philosophies, which they have now been advancing for several years, is this concept of therapeutic jurisprudence as expressed through both the Alcohol Court and the credit court.
This, then, comes back to that hoary old chestnut which is quite simple; if you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, then you have successfully defined insanity. What we are being asked to do to support the SMART Court - and we heard in Question Time today from the Minister for Correctional Services all the courses that will be made available to underwrite the SMART Court and support the Corrections system as a whole - is all we have to do is the same thing again, call it something else, and we will get different results.
Crime rates, especially the serious assault rates, have continued steadily to climb under this government. The government blames alcohol but it does not seem to blame the offenders. We have a public drunkenness rate out of control and, so, it blames alcohol rather than the people who drink. Consequently, it tries to manage alcohol. This philosophy is serving the Territory poorly. It is not healthy to pursue this philosophy. It is not working; it has not worked. Yet, we see this relentless drive forward, particularly by the current Attorney-General, to pursue this concept.
There are reasons I suspect this concept of therapeutic jurisprudence does not work in the Northern Territory, and you can particularly find that in the nature of some of the offenders who come through our system. That is because we expect many of these offenders to have some sort of revelation that, if they stop this self-destructing alcohol abuse, they will realise their life will get better. How are their lives going to get better? People who, for arguments sake, live in Ntaria, Yuendumu or Kintore get off the booze; change their behaviour and find this new standard of living. But, what is there for them at the other end?
Okay, we have these courses says the government - and during the estimates process I will be exploring exactly how these courses are going to run and how they are going to deal with literally the hundreds upon hundreds of people who will be diverted to these programs. That is a matter for the estimates process; we do not have sufficient time to explore that here today.
What are the changes in their lives in places like Yuendumu, Kintore, Hermannsburg, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Spring or Darwin? In many of these places jobs are unavailable. Many of these people are so poorly positioned at the outset that they are not going to be able to change. Even if they change their world view, where is the job for them? Where are the outcomes for them? I predict the results of the SMART Court will see people being cycled through these treatment programs and, each time they come out the other end of these treatment programs saying: ‘Yes, I have a new world view’. However, it will not be that long before they come back again because the government thinks the money it is going to spend on some of this rehabilitation work and therapeutic jurisprudence outcomes will be sufficient to make therapeutic jurisprudence work. It will not. It is beyond the capacity of this government to do so, and I suspect it will be beyond the capacity of many of the people who come before the SMART Court to change and to take change seriously. Many of them are welfare dependant and are quite happy that way.
The government asks us to support this legislation and, in doing so, asks us to support a concept that will be very expensive to run – very expensive to run. It is going to cost a motza. We already see in the budget papers how much this is going to cost. I see very little evidence presented by this government to suggest this is going to be a good outcome for the people of the Northern Territory, and for those offenders.
One of the other issues I raise - and I raised this particular issue with the Chief Justice when I had tea with him the other day - is the general concept that we are, as a jurisdiction, soft on crime. Frankly, that concept and that world view is very heavily entrenched out there. The Chief Justice was quick to point out - and quite rightly so – that, strictly speaking, the Northern Territory probably is a more aggressive jurisdiction in imposing sentences. Nevertheless, the problem we have is the public, who expects sentences to be stronger, are still being the victims of crime and criminals. Many of those people have already gone through our court system.
We heard in the introduction of the bill today by the minister for Corrections that we are now going to have ‘home detention orders’ or ‘Corrections orders’ – basically, people are going to be in custody outside of gaols - because I suspect the gaols system is not coping. However, what is occurring is you see more of this concept of therapeutic jurisprudence percolating through that set of thinking. All the while whilst this therapeutic jurisprudence is operating, crime rates are climbing, assaults are getting worse, and alcohol abuse is getting worse. There is not an effective response from the courts.
In January this year, whilst it is outside the ambit of this particular legislation - I well understand that - there was a particular sentence which saw an eruption of anger from the community in relation to the Adam Sargent stabbing. That is very concerning, because there are people out there who are starting to lose their faith in the court system. The court system does not get its integrity from anything other than the public it serves and, if the public lose faith, then the court system will come under increasing criticism.
There is a public expectation that courts impose sentences which work as a punishment, as well as a deterrent for crimes. This concept of therapeutic jurisprudence steps away from the idea of punishment for a crime and of deterrent, and actually tries to embrace the individual and say: ‘You have to go and correct yourself and, once you have corrected yourself, we will be nice to you’. Unfortunately, we do not see that bear out when it comes to the nature of crime in our community.
Crime is going up, particularly violent crime. People are particularly unsatisfied with it. You only have to turn the television set on in Alice Springs. In Alice Springs, businesses have started openly criticising the government - and we all went through that process in Alice Springs. We saw the protests. This government has already played its social experiment with the people of the Northern Territory, and it has failed. It has not achieved what it promised to achieve. That is made clear by the outcomes in the annual reports, as it is made clear by the increasing public disquiet about what is happening on our streets, in our parks, and in our gardens. It is time to stop the social experiment this government is engaging in with the people of the Northern Territory. It is time to stop this soft-on-crime approach.
Whilst I understand what the government is attempting to do, it has already attempted to do it and it has failed to achieve its outcomes. It is time for government to acknowledge that it has failed, and the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence cannot successfully be applied in the Northern Territory for a variety of reasons. It is that failure of therapeutic jurisprudence which has seen the increases in crime that we have seen.
If the government wants to engage in a crime fighting policy, then the answer is very straightforward and very easy: create a work in an environment where people take on responsibility. Let the courts make people responsible and accountable for their conduct. Make changes in remote Aboriginal communities, and encourage changes in the Land Rights Act so more jobs can find their way into remote Aboriginal communities, because with people who have jobs, there is a very strong correlation between employment and living a straight life. There is a link that matters.
I urge this government to stop its social experiment. It has not worked. It has failed the people of the Northern Territory. I express my disappointment that the government will rush headlong into this process. It is not the fault of the department or anybody who works in the department; the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of a government that continues to see the Northern Territory as a laboratory in which it wants to experiment, and the experiments have failed.
Madam Speaker, to support this bill would be to support the ongoing failure. For my money and the money of the Country Liberals, we will not support this failure. We will restore the faith people can have in their court system and in their government; that they have a government that cares about their security and their safety.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support this bill because it gives me great encouragement to see that families can refer their own family members who have alcohol problems to the court. I take this opportunity again, Deputy Chief Minister, to congratulate you on your foresight. As you said in your closing debate in the last bill, you have spoken to many people, and it is really good that you brought in the professionals who actually work on the ground and deal with these issues.
This bill allows families to refer their own family members. It has taken the authority figure away. Previously, police always were doing this. It is now putting the onus and the responsibility back on families. It gives them greater power to deal with the issue as well. They can see their own families struggling with alcohol, alcohol abuse and, through that, leading to other things such as dysfunctional communities, children not going to school, domestic violence with their wives, or seeing their children or their relatives doing it. That really now puts the onus and the responsibility back on families. It puts the power and authority back into the people to take action as well, instead of always concentrating on government and the police in our communities. The police do a wonderful job. They are over-run.
As the Treasurer said before, we are talking about 800 people in our community, and these people are not criminals, they are sick. We cannot just continue to be locking these people up in the revolving door of the justice system and treating them like criminals when, in actual fact, they are sick.
It gives me great pleasure, Deputy Chief Minister, because it means I can now refer my brother, my nephew, and my niece without going to the police, to the court. That really puts the responsibility and onus back on the families and the communities now to do what they were not doing before. That will give them and the whole family structure greater power to have that relationship with people who are going through the crisis of dealing with alcohol. It will also give opportunities for families to get back together as real families that can deal with their own issues, instead of always outsourcing their problems and relying on other people to deal with it. This is the great satisfaction I get from looking at this bill.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the government for talking to different services, listening to them. It is a gutsy vision. I know Cabinet would have thrown this around. There would have been feelings; they would have had to go out to industry. They would have had to talk to social services; every service that has an impact on dealing with these people. I take this opportunity, once again, to congratulate them.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for bringing this legislation forward. Because I have some concerns about whether it should go a little further, I neither reject nor support the bills because I simply would like to see how it works. The government has said it believes it will do some of the things I am concerned about, and I am happy for that to happen. I would like to give it a go and then, perhaps, make comment one way or the other as time goes by.
This particular bill is about the SMART Court. It relates to those people who have committed a crime and, at the same time, that crime was, basically, caused by the use of alcohol. It seems to me, as I have said before, that we have to get people into permanent rehabilitation or involuntary rehabilitation through a process which says you must have committed a crime. I am not saying that it is not the right way, in the sense if someone has committed a serious crime they have to be punished for the crime. However, they also have the opportunity of rehabilitation and, to some extent, the carrot-and-stick approach is what I would prefer to see for the tribunal as well. That is where we have the difference.
Be that as it may, this is what the government is putting forward. I believe the process should be monitored, and it will be interesting to see how it works. Strong figures need to be collected. For instance, strong statistics to show if person A goes through the system, they avoid going to prison because they have gone through the processes of rehabilitation, which are fairly strict because the SMART Court can ask for reports. They can ask them to attend and say what stage they are up to in their rehabilitation process. It is not just a matter of saying: ‘Go out there and do something and goodbye’. There are processes which will occur on the way.
As with many things, it is about outcomes. In this case, we are talking about very important outcomes; it is about whether someone has been able to change their life around. We know that is not easy. You would be a fool to state that any of these things we are talking about in relation to alcohol is easy. It is quite difficult to overcome any addiction.
I would just like to talk a little more broadly. This debate has been going for quite a while but, I believe, to some extent the government has avoided some of the broader issues. The government might say some of them are not in its area of expertise.
I have always been concerned about the advertising of alcohol. We are looking at a certain part of the system, but you cannot just deal with that part without looking at everything from early intervention through to things like alcohol advertising.
I went to an NTCOSS forum recently and I picked up a book called The Social Context of Alcohol Use in Australia. It is an excellent book written by Ann Roche, Petra Bywood, Toby Freeman, Ken Pidd, Joseph Borlagdan and Allan Trifonoff. It is by the Australian National Research Centre on AOD Workforce Development. It is a great summary of some of the issues we are dealing with in relation to alcohol in Australia. I thought I would use some of the information in here, because it is important we do not think we are just dealing with a particular problem in Alice Springs or Katherine, or we are just dealing with itinerants in Shepherd Street, or whatever. We are dealing with a problem.
It is interesting to read in the executive summary, it said:
That is a very important statement. If you go to Woolies now you will notice the liquor outlet is right next to the groceries. We have a society which presumes milk, fruit, eggs and grog are normal. Years ago when I was a kid - admittedly I came from the city of Camberwell as it was called then - it is not called that now. There were no pubs in the city of Camberwell, but there were licensed shops that sold alcohol. However, they were not with the supermarket at that stage. We have change in the way alcohol is sold: in and next to ordinary commodities. It went on to say:
That is a good summary of alcohol, especially in the Australian context.
In relation to advertising, I believe it is time governments tightened up on alcohol advertising. It is all very well to tighten up on tobacco advertising. Again, I will quote from this book because it probably summarises many of the matters I have raised before more succinctly. It is good to see someone else saying advertising has a fairly big effect on the amount of alcohol being consumed, especially by young people. That is part of the debate we have been missing out on; young people certainly drink in a different manner than they would have years ago. We know binge drinking is a problem in our society. It is not just down south; young people binge drink here.
I did a tour of Mitchell Street earlier this year, courtesy of the Australian Hotels Association. I am a non-drinker; I do not have a problem. I go to the pub at Howard Springs often and enjoy the company of people there. However, I find it hard to believe that - there is no other way of putting it - certain parts of the Darwin nightclub scene are simply there for people to get drunk. I went to the Vodka Room, I think it is called. I did not see any food. If there was, it was well hidden. There were purple and infrared lights, and all they sell is alcohol. There is a bit of thumping music going on, and all they are selling is vodka. I must admit it is a weird place; like something out of a Dr Who movie where it is all about vodka. There are some strange things. Perhaps I am an old fuddy-duddy but it did not look like it was about the good consumption of alcohol; it looked like it was about making lots of money.
Under Chapter 4, Commercial Aspects of Alcohol, the document raises some key points which are worth mentioning. There is:
Increased diversity of alcohol products for segmented markets.
You can see that yourself when you look at the shelves these days. There is:
Strong association between exposure to alcohol advertising and young people’s drinking.
Look at the advertisements for certain brands of beer on cricket paraphernalia:
Alcohol products and promotional materials are positioned carefully to gain optimal exposure.
Just go to the cricket. When you look at the scoreboard, see what is placed on either side:
Pervasive and prominent alcohol advertising is on billboards, bus shelters, buses and trains, where exposure to children is high.
Discounted alcohol products sold through off-premise outlets contributes to pre-loading among young people.
If we are serious about changing our culture - not just changing whether there are a few drunks down the road, or getting a few people off the road - then we have to be serious about changing the way alcohol is advertised. It is very good advertising from the point of view of selling a product. How many people laugh when they see a XXXX ad on television? It is funny, there is no doubt about it. Cooking a few chickens on the front of the Toyota relates very much to people in the Northern Territory. So, you enjoy the joke, but the subtleness is it is about selling beer.
That may not be an area the Northern Territory government, on its own, can do much about it - although I am interested to hear why we cannot restrict some of the advertising - but it certainly may be something it can push for when talking to the federal government or other ministers from other states when it comes to this issue. We all know alcohol brings in a great deal of revenue for states and territories. You have these clashing ideals. One is we need some money from alcohol revenue - whether it is employment or whatever - and the other is it is costing us money because of the harm associated with alcohol.
The other area is the price of alcohol. There has been much discussion about a floor price for alcohol. Some people say it does not work. I believe there is a political reluctance to bring in a floor price. However, I have to say, regardless of the social benefits, you have to ask whether the taxation scheme is actually fair.
I was listening to ABC about two weeks ago, late at night. There was a gentleman who was the economist writer for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald who spoke about the unevenness of tax when it comes to alcohol. He mentioned the Henry tax review. As much as this is written in taxation-style language, it is an important document. Regardless of whether you think we should have a floor price, you would have to ask why we have uneven taxation of alcohol problems. Why is beer taxed at a far higher rate than wine? Was it that the wine growers were all fairly upper class or members of the Liberal Party at some stage in their life, and believed the beer industry was a threat and lobbied that wine should not be taxed anywhere near as much as beer? I do not know. Perhaps I should ask people in the Adelaide Hills, Yarra Valley, Hunter Valley, or all those lovely places where people produce wine. Why are they taxed differently than beer? This is an issue. If governments are a bit concerned about going it alone and saying we should artificially bump the price of wine up, the question really should be: why is there an uneven tax basis for alcohol?
For example, it says under Chapter 8.3 of the Henry tax review ...
Ms Scrymgour: It is a federal issue.
Mr WOOD: I know that, but you cannot isolate yourself from alcohol issues just by saying things in the Northern Territory matter. Our ministers meet through COAG and all those things. I am not saying …
Ms Scrymgour: But she has done it.
Ms Lawrie: I have.
Mr WOOD: I am not being critical here, I am just raising some issues. The issue of a floor price has been debated in the community. We are talking about trying to reduce the effects of alcohol. We need to also say these issues are Australia-wide as well. We might do a bit here to change things but, if we are going to try to change the culture, surely this debate and those such as the carbon tax, for instance, is not just about the Territory; it is a matter for the country as well. In the Henry tax review, he said:
I will not go through the whole document, but later he said:
Further on he said:
Madam Speaker, I raise that as an issue. It is not just about the Territory. The federal government should simply be asked, when it reviews the Henry taxation later in the year …
Ms Lawrie: October.
Mr WOOD: Yes, in October. … why it allows a different form of taxation for alcohol. What is it about? Why? Is someone getting a benefit that other parts of the alcohol industry are not getting?
Madam Speaker, I still believe we have a society where we have allowed drunkenness to be the norm. I still say it is time we said drunkenness should not be the norm. We go crook at people for losing the plot, you might say. We wonder why we have domestic violence and violence in our community. Much of it relates to alcohol and excessive use of alcohol where people simply lose control.
I was trying to find another section in this book which relates to some of these issues as well. It is an area I believe we need to promote, in a sense, to say drunkenness is not cool. What we have moved to over the last few years, especially with young people, is we are basically saying drunkenness is cool, and to go binge drinking is a form of entertainment. How much health damage and social damage is occurring at the same time? I believe that is an area which is not necessarily popular; people obviously enjoy having a good night out. However, I believe it is an area that we, as a parliament, need to be saying is not necessarily a good thing.
The other area is about hours of operation. I went to Newcastle and looked at the changes to the hours of operation. I believe that is an area we should not shy away from. If the studies show that, in Newcastle, where a reduction when you can have shots, when you can leave a pub and not re-enter a pub, and at what time the pubs are actually closed, can make a significant difference to violence in that particular city of at least 37%, you have to ask yourself why it is not being implemented elsewhere. There is no doubt the Australian Hotels Association and the liquor industry are extremely powerful. I know that, because I receive feedback from those people who fought hard to get changes to closing hours in Newcastle; you are dealing with a very powerful industry. It can be very influential, especially in the political area.
We need to ensure that decisions we make are not about protecting the alcohol and liquor industry. It is about what is good for society and reducing the cost of harm. In Newcastle, they were able to get the nurses, the doctors, the police, and the ambulance people to join forces and say to the New South Wales government: ‘We have had enough’. That is what happened. I believe we must also include those people in discussions about changes and the effect alcohol abuse is having on our society. They are the ones on the front line. They are the ones who have to put up with people in accidents, or the people flattened outside a shopping centre. It must not be a very pleasant job at times, and much of it has to do with alcohol.
I only raise these matters because, if we do not look at the total context, we do not do this debate any service. By all means, we look at a particular aspect that the government is bringing in. It is saying if you cannot handle alcohol then there will be certain restrictions on what you can do: you will not be able to drink, you will have to go into rehabilitation and, if you are involved in a crime you will be sent off to the magistrate who could send you to the SMART Court.
That is fine, but we need to do more to try to reduce the need to have all these things. We need early intervention just as we need after-intervention. The member for Sanderson and I believe we should have special places where there will be involuntary rehabilitation for those who have tried - and there is no doubt it can be very difficult - but there comes a point when people cannot help themselves. We should have a place which helps people from a medical point of view.
At the NTCOSS conference, the speaker there - whose name I cannot remember at the moment - was a professor from Sydney who has been very much involved in these issues through the Matthew Talbot hostels in Sydney. He said that most people who are very dependent upon alcohol have both a mental and physical illness. So, we would have to set up places that made sure those people were cared for, for those particular illnesses as well.
I believe we can do it. I am certainly willing to see whether the government’s amendments will actually do something instead of having to set these places up. I am willing to let the government have a go. I congratulate the government for having a go. If you do not have a go, you will be criticised for not doing it and, when you do have a go, you are criticised because it is not exactly the way other people might think it should be. All is fair in this business: we give the government a try; we ensure the government comes back on a regular basis showing whether its legislation is making a difference and, if it is not making a difference, the government has to be prepared to look at adjusting it, changing it, reviewing it, amending it, or repealing it - whatever is necessary to make this work because this issue about alcohol in our society is getting worse. There has to come a point in time where governments have to get tough. We will see how this goes.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I will pick up on a couple of points. I appreciate the member for Nelson indicated he wanted to speak on some broader policy matters. Before I go to the SMART Court I will touch on those.
We have had discussions about hours of trade, and I have made it very clear I do not support reducing trading hours arbitrarily because that is harming everyone when the government’s whole policy position with these three bills is going actually after the person who has the problem with the drink. That is our point of difference with you on that one, member for Nelson.
Regarding the volumetric tax, I am a strong supporter of the volumetric tax. I agree with the Henry tax review recommendation and call for a volumetric tax. I have expressed that publicly on every occasion I am asked regarding those broader policy settings and issues. As Treasurer, I am very keen on the Commonwealth’s Tax Summit, and I have it fairly and squarely on the agenda to ensure it is clearly put and our views are known. There ought to be a volumetric tax. The revenue raised out of tax absolutely ought to go to harm minimisation measures - no doubt about that. The $76m package we have to support these reforms across all the harm minimisation measures in these reforms, quite frankly, should be coming from the volumetric tax. I have no problem whatsoever with that argument.
I am not in favour of a minimum floor price because that is the profit staying with the retailer, and it is not being turned into harm minimisation measures. That is the difference I have with the minimum floor price and volumetric tax argument. I have been clear about that. The entire health lobby sector knows my views about that. The Commonwealth government knows my views about that. I have had these discussions with the federal Treasurer, the federal Attorney-General and with other federal ministers. They know my views about the volumetric tax. I will advocate for it, as the Treasurer, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Alcohol Policy.
You are right, that advertising is a national issue, but sometimes we do not recognise the work we are doing here. One advantage of being a small jurisdiction is you can deal with issues on a local basis and do what you can. They are not going to be as broad and expansive as people would expect because advertising is a national spend, they are national companies and all of that. That being said, Fosters did the right thing. When there was an attempt to run down beer prices and carton prices they said: ‘No’. So, you are not going to have some sort of crazy sale on that price. They did the right thing; they stepped up at the time that issue arose and they made it very clear to their distributors: ‘No, you are not going to do that’.
Whilst we like to point the finger at the big manufacturers and distributors, I have seen some behaviour, particularly in the last two years, where I am seeing the industry recognising the role it has to play in harm minimisation. I have congratulated the industry when I have seen it.
I have had my stoushes; I am the only minister in Australia who was prepared to use their statutory powers to ban a particular product. There are plenty of ministers around Australia having a complaint about the Vodka cranberry casks. No one was going to sign off on their statutory powers to do it. I had the statutory power on my desk to sign whilst I was still having an argument with that particular distributor. They pulled the product from the Territory because I was signing that statutory power. They threatened all sorts of things, but they pulled the product from the Territory.
All the other ministers around Australia were happy to run arguments in articles and newspapers saying what a terrible thing it was pitching to that young market, but they did not do anything. We did in the Territory. That product is not sold in the Territory; it is being sold elsewhere. I sent a very clear message to the distributors of alcohol there is behaviour we will not accept and you can keep it out of the Territory.
I have had countless meeting with the large retailers and small retailers. The Liquor Stores Association and I meet on a regular basis. The Australian Hotels Association and I meet on a regular basis. I meet with Woolworths and Coles here and in Sydney. I am not just dealing with the local guys; I am dealing with the senior guys about retail behaviour in the Territory. They need to step up to their responsibilities, as an industry, when it comes to harm minimisation. My experience is they have been more prepared to do that here than I have seen in their practice elsewhere.
Credit where credit is due. The Australian Hotels Association did not have to, but negotiated a Darwin CBD liquor accord. There is a whole raft of items in that accord that go to refusal of sale to drunks and intoxicated persons, and all their procedures and practices in how they operate as hoteliers in the CBD. One thing they put in - and some of the things you see in other accords across the Territory; they captured all of that and went further. No 1.3 in that accord is restricting activities that encourage drinking excessively. That came from the licensees from the Australian Hotels Association. I believe credit where credit is due. They agreed to:
A. Prohibit promotional pricing of alcoholic drinks:
1. within and immediately outside their licensed venues including, but not limited to, spruiking, TV screens, posters. For example, no drink price specials or discount advertising will be permitted;
2. in all venue advertising, including but not limited to print, the venues or other websites, radio and TV, but not including bottle shop promotions where applicable;
3. for the purpose of this clause promotional pricing:
(a) includes:
(i) advertising of prices for any alcoholic products; or
B. Prohibit the use of promotions or advertising that encourages excessive alcohol consumption.
D. Ensure happy hours are finished by 7 pm and no advertising of finishing times.
F. Serve drinks at standard measures.
G. No servings of doubles unless explicitly requested by the patron consuming the drink.
H. Comply with the code of practice to assist in the responsible promotion of alcohol contained in the schedule.
I. Licensees support the Sober Bob campaign by offering free post-mix soft beverages where available for designated drivers all year round.
In their accord, the hoteliers in the CBD took out the promotion and advertising. It has not happened to my knowledge anywhere else. They stepped up to the mark, along with a raft of other activities in the service of alcohol and intoxicated persons: ensuring bottled water is available for purchase and free tap water is available; notifying crowd controllers of patrons who are showing signs of intoxication so that crowd controllers can monitor and manage the situation; having crowd controllers there to refuse entry; refusing the service of alcohol to persons intoxicated; and issues around underage drinking. They packed together an accord and, in that accord, importantly and unrecognised, is they took out their promotions and advertising. All those happy hour signs outside, and two-for-one specials have gone from Mitchell Street. They are not promoting and advertising.
You are right, it is a national issue. Sometimes, we forget the good work that is being done in our own back yard. I believe in credit where credit is due. Good on the publicans of the Darwin CBD for striking this accord, which is pretty comprehensive. That was struck on 14 December 2010, and it has been signed off by all of the licensees in the Hotels Association along the Darwin CBD but also - I am just going to the Accord Steering Committee, which includes a representative of the Northern Territory police, a representative from licensing and regulation, and there was a representative from each licensed venue that is a member to the accord. They signed up. They are stepping up to the plate.
At the same time, they introduced the unbreakable glass after 11 pm, and the plastics as well. That was something I was absolutely insistent on. I kept pursuing it, did not let it go. We were sick of the glassings. Touch wood - and it is a terrible thing to say - but there has not been a glassing since. You hate to say it, because you go: ‘Oh my God, is there going to be one?’ Some of those glassings were earlier in the evening, at 5.30 pm.
As you know, and as the industry said to you, the really nasty violence that occurs is not just grog-fuelled. There is an absolute imperative for us to continue the crackdown on the use of illicit drugs. We have created not an alcohol tribunal, it is an Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. Going to legislation before us is not an Alcohol Court, it is the Substance Misuse and Referral Treatment Court, which takes the drugs in as well. We are packing together the issue of substance misuse, alcohol, and drugs, and tackling it together, because a lot of the violence being fuelled, which is simply easy to blame on grog, particularly in the nightclub districts, is fuelled by the very nasty illicit drugs.
The member for Port Darwin talked about new policy around using precinct bans to deal with drugs. Well, that can occur now under the existing precinct bans within the Liquor Act. It is not related to the alcohol substance, it is related to the behaviour ...
Mr Elferink: I did not talk about them.
Ms LAWRIE: Though you did not talk about them in the debate, I have heard you talk about it on radio. I am happy to provide further detailed information and advice to you on that.
We have not rushed headlong into the SMART Court or into therapeutic jurisprudence. The consultation for the SMART Court started comprehensively with a discussion paper that went out in 2009 - sorry, just checking my dates here of the Alcohol Court discussion paper. I launched it in Alice Springs, as minister. We ran the public consultation on the Alcohol Court discussion paper. On 29 October 2009, we went out with the Alcohol Court discussion paper and sought comments around the operation of the Alcohol Court on issues regarding alcohol dependency. As a result of the feedback coming back, we have broadened out the scope of the Alcohol Court; for example, to include a significant change. It is not just alcohol dependency, it is alcohol misuse. One of the things we know about drinking behaviours in the Territory is many of the issues are with binge drinkers - not people who are necessarily alcohol dependent. We have captured that in the change in the scope within the SMART bill, as opposed to what was in the Alcohol Court. So, we have put a whole range of changes in scope and orders.
We make no apology for recognising the importance of therapeutic jurisprudence. Much evidence is flowing through of the better results you can gain out of it. Packed in here within the SMART Court is, if it does not work, well, off to gaol ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, after they commit a second offence.
Ms LAWRIE: No, not after they commit a second offence. There are some very strict provisions in here. It is one of those things where, yet again, unsurprisingly, we are agreeing to disagree. However, I point out the Law Society and others actually think this is good. We have it in writing they are supportive - absolutely supportive of this. The member for Port Darwin said: ‘No, it is not going to work. It is not good’. The judiciary: ‘Yes, it is going to work. It is the right thing to do’. The Law Society: ‘Yes, it is going to work. It is the right thing to do’. Member for Port Darwin: ‘No’ ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, on the balance of that, I will err on the side of the judiciary and the Law Society on that one, quite aside from all the great knowledge of the legal policy within the Department of Justice ...
Mr Elferink: I listened to people beyond the legal profession, and they are not quite as happy in the profession.
Ms LAWRIE: I am pretty confident about the advice I am getting from all of those knowledgeable, practising lawyers ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, and lawyers, but the point is, have you …
Ms LAWRIE: It is interesting, that one. They have actually had experience. They have been in court and seen what happens. They have had years of experience. The Chief Magistrate has had significant experience, and is a specialist in this particular area. I will take the advice of the Chief Magistrate any day over the pearls of wisdom coming from the member for Port Darwin.
We have two committee stage amendments. Because this has been a comprehensive raft of reforms, we have some minor amendments. In clause 4, we need to insert the word ‘detention’, because this captures juvenile offenders. A new clause 26A has the powers to bring the offender back before the court for failure to comply. I am grateful for the advice from the member for Sanderson that the opposition has no problem with these amendments and I propose we go to committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 61.1. This amendment invites the inclusion of a new definition in clause 4 of the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Bill 2011. The reason for this amendment is to allow for detention of youths when sentencing under Parts 4 and 5 of the bill. The jurisdiction of the SMART Court is intended to include youth offenders.
Without reference to detention of youth, a youth may not be able to be sentenced under clause 21 as the proposed clause refers only to imprisonment. This was an unintended oversight during the drafting of the bill. The insertion of a new definition ‘imprisonment’ in clause 4 to include detention of a youth under Parts 4 or 5, will ensure that a youth can be sentenced to detention.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 26A:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 61.2. This amendment inserts a new clause 26A into the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Bill 2011. The reason for this amendment is to ensure an offender who contravenes a SMART Court order can be brought back before the court. The current provisions of the bill do not make it clear about how a person may be brought back if the SMART order is contravened.
While the provisions of the Bail Act and the Sentencing Act provide mechanisms for the issuing of summons and warrants for arrests of defendants, new clause 26A provides the SMART Court with a clear power to issue a summons or warrant for arrest of the offender.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I will keep my comments short. Part of the problem I have with the process we are engaged in is this is a serious plank for government. It is hanging its hat on this whole policy reform package, yet, it holds off the introduction of the discussions of these bills past the budget day, past Wednesday, to the Thursday of parliament. The government has been anxious to drive this matter forward, and I can understand why because it has to get this thing running and performing, as it believes it will perform, by the time the next election rolls around. We are well aware that the people are deeply concerned about what is happening in the community. It concerns me, however, that the government waits until the Thursday and, then, simply comes into this place with a couple of amendments because it still has not covered all the details.
If this package was so important to this government, which it is, then one would hope it would have been much more careful about putting these bills together. I am concerned because amendments are still being made at the final hour. I know that happens from time to time. However, an amendment as important as clause 26A means there was something not covered in the original process in the haste to bring this forward. These bills have to get passed tonight because the expenditure out of the budget depends on the passage of these bills in relation to the programs that surround these bills.
Madam Chair, I place on the record that there seems an element of angst on the part of government to push these things through and get them operating. I hope it does not expose mistakes in the bill.
New clause 26A agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the remainder of the bill but I would like to speak to it. Yes, at the moment but I do want to speak to one of the clauses. Okay, I will do it now.
It comes to page 21 of the act in relation to consequential amendments. Clause 44 refers to the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act which is amended as a consequence of this. Do you have it in front of you? Clause 44, sort of oddly numbered it goes 141 …
Ms Lawrie: We found it. It is on page 23.
Mr ELFERINK: I have it on page 21 on mine …
Ms Lawrie: I have it on print version. That is why it took me a little longer. I was on consequential amendments but I was on the incorrect …
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. So now we have a slightly different …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, Prisons (Correctional Services) Act amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, clause 44 says:
Ms Lawrie: Yes: ‘repeal, insert Division 4, SMART orders requiring surveillance’.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. We are talking about the same thing. That is good.
I have a small problem and I would like the minister to guide me on this. I have taken the time to open up the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act and read Part 27, Division 4. The only problem is I found Part 27 Division 1; Part 27 Division 2; Part 27 Division 3. I am wondering if the minister can guide me to Part 27 Division 4.
Ms LAWRIE: We are getting the relevant act now. If you have any other questions, we can go on with those and come back to this one.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason is because I checked the legislation website, and there does not appear to be a Part 27 Division 4.
Ms LAWRIE: As I have said, I am getting the legislation now. So, if you want to move on to a different question, I will get back to that one.
Mr ELFERINK: I just want to ensure I am reading this correctly, and I can be guided by you, minister, that I am reading this correctly. You want to amend Part 27 Division 4. I would like to know, if I am reading it correctly, that there is a Part 27. There is Part XXVII in Roman numerals in the act.
I will check to ensure I have the right act. Yes, Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. I am looking at the index at the moment, and it is Roman numerals Part XXVII - which is XVII. Division 1, Division 2, Division 3, Part 28. Could you please direct me to Part 27 Division 4?
Ms LAWRIE: Well, if there is not, obviously what this does is insert a Division 4 into it. If you look at it, it is titled ‘Division 4’. It is SMART orders requiring surveillance and, then, it sets out the provisions. As I said, I am checking because we are inserting here. That is what we are doing. We are …
Mr ELFERINK: No, we are repealing it. Read it, it says: repeal and …
Ms LAWRIE: It says: ‘repeal, insert’. Okay? So we are inserting …
Mr ELFERINK: Tell me about repealing. What are we repealing?
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, just your normal stuff, John, calm down. We are inserting Division 4, SMART orders requiring surveillance. What I said to you a moment ago is I am currently getting the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. I do not currently have it before me, but I have officers and advisors getting it. I will be able to respond to you as to whether there is a Division 4 or not. I do not physically have it in front of me yet. However, regardless, I am showing you we are inserting a Division 4.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but you are also repealing a Division 4.
I am curious about this because, as I read it, Division 4 talks about leaves of absence: Division 1, Leave of absence within Territory, Division 2, Supervised interstate custodial permits, and Division 3, Leave of absence to give evidence at foreign proceedings or assistance at foreign investigation.
Surveillance of offenders subject to SMART order does not quite flow on the first read of it. Is it in the right place?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. At this stage the advice is, with the changes as a result of the new era in Corrections, it is in the right place.
Mr ELFERINK: The changes in the new era of Corrections, is that a bill that is currently - yes, it has just been introduced today. Are you amending a bill that has not been passed yet?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. Obviously, the legislation before amends the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. I am getting advice on the amendments in the bill introduced today. Obviously, we are not incapable of knowing what we are doing in amendment of the head act and ensuring the amendments we are doing in this raft of changes fit within the amendments of the other legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: So I understand it properly, you are attempting to amend legislation that does not exist. Is that correct?
Ms LAWRIE: No, that is not correct, and you know it. You are doing your normal twist.
Mr ELFERINK: No. Then, explain it to me slowly and carefully, so I can keep up.
Mr Knight: That is the best card you have?
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. I would like to know if this stuff has been properly pursued by this government. The fact that I cannot get an answer instantly to say this is what is happening is of concern. Surely, the shadow Attorney-General, whilst we are scrutinising these bills, has the right to ask these questions? There is a reference to a repeal of a section of law, and I cannot find that section of law we are repealing. I am curious about what is happening. Surely, that is not a ridiculous question to ask?
Ms LAWRIE: We are just getting that information through from Parliamentary Counsel. As I said, if you want to go on with a question on another section, we will get back to you on that one.
Mr ELFERINK: This is my question and I am asking you the question. Now, we have to get advice from Parliamentary Counsel about what is going on. I presume we have now read the act at this stage? Have we someone who has looked at the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act?
Ms LAWRIE: You are asking a question that goes to drafting. It is absolutely appropriate to go to the drafting ...
Mr ELFERINK: Are you telling us there is, potentially, a drafting error here?
Ms LAWRIE: No, I am not telling you that. I am telling you I am doing a thorough check.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. What about Part XXVIA, minister? Does that give you a hint? Oops, oops, oops.
Ms LAWRIE: You are referring to Part XXVIA of which?
Mr ELFERINK: Of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
Ms LAWRIE: I was going to assume that, but I wanted to check.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. That does have a Division 4 and a section 94G which can be repealed.
Ms LAWRIE: All right. In the explanatory statement, Part XXVIA has been renamed as Part 27 by the Statute Law Revision Bill (No 2) of 2010. So, Division 4, SMART orders requiring surveillance is in the right place.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry. XXVI, the explanatory statement? I am looking at the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, the explanatory statement is tabled with the bill, so you have that. So, within Part ...
Mr ELFERINK: The explanatory statement is not law.
Ms LAWRIE: The explanatory statement explains to you that the Statute Law Revision Bill (No 2) of 2010 renamed it as Part 27.
Mr ELFERINK: Renamed what as Part 27?
Ms LAWRIE: Renamed Part XXVIA.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, okay. So, that has all been done. The question I have now is: has that been enacted? When was that particular legislation passed? The problem is, according to the statute books that are on the record right now, there is a Part XXVIA in the existing act.
Ms LAWRIE: What I am advised is that the Statute Law amendment will pass in August, and they can still come into effect, the numbering will just …
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, it will pass in August. So, when you bring bills before the House, we are still changing legislation that does not exist yet. Whilst I …
Ms LAWRIE: No, we are changing – hang on, let us be reasonable about this, member for Port Darwin. The Statute Law Revision Bill has been introduced, it has not been passed. So, do not say it does not exist. It does exist …
Mr Elferink: Well, it has been introduced.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … it has not come into effect.
Mr ELFERINK: It has been introduced. Are we talking about Statute Law Revision?
Ms LAWRIE: It was introduced in November.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, are we talking about Serial 140 - Statute Law Revision Bill (Serial 140)? Is it Serial 140?
Ms LAWRIE: I do not have the serial number on me.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. So are we talking about the Statute Law Revision Bill which is currently …
Ms LAWRIE: The Statute Law Revision Bill, introduced in November, on the books.
Mr ELFERINK: Has it been passed?
Ms LAWRIE: It has not been passed. As I said, the advice from the Department of Justice is we are quite capable and able to do this. The advice from Parliamentary Counsel is we can do this. It is in order.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, but it makes it a little difficult when you have to trudge your way through this stuff. When you are looking at current legislation, assuming we are amending current legislation, not legislation that may or not pass through this House ...
Ms Lawrie: Are you kidding me, an SLA?
Mr ELFERINK: I have to say, Madam Chair, the fact that it took them so long to figure this out and what is actually happening is cause for concern. It shows the Northern Territory government is rushing this through. It is anxious to push these things through. It is clearly a disappointment to me that the government has chosen to push these things through without effectively explaining to people what is going on. I have no further comments.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 30 March 2011.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, this bill achieves a number of functions. One, it inserts penalty provisions into the body of a number of sections, in some cases resulting in substantial increase in monetary value of the penalty. It makes licensees more accountable to breaches of legislation. It clarifies the powers and functions of the Licensing Commission, and inserts the definition of ‘drunk’ into the act.
This bill introduces what appears to be a much-needed clarification on the powers of the director and the commission in relation to handling complaints and taking actions against licensees.
I note there are some amendments the minister has put forward. I must inform the House we will not be arguing against those amendments. They all seem to be in order, so we will not be challenging them.
There are a number of issues I would still like to raise in relation this particular issue on alcohol reforms; that is, things about reports written by people, in particular, Sara Hudson. I go back to that most recent report where she speaks about the necessity to have enforcement.
We see that in the previous legislation which was passed just a little while ago in relation to BAT orders and things like that. The argument from our side was run along the lines of you need to have some teeth in this legislation so those people who choose not to look at the issue they have, or are unable to look at the issue in a reasonable manner, actually have some mandatory rehabilitation.
What we have is, for the other people in our community, monetary penalties and imprisonment penalties. You can do a whole range of things and be fined seriously. So, you have the good people in our community again being subjected to fines if they step out of line. If they do not do certain things and orders are made, then they get some pretty serious consequences, not only to themselves in monetary terms but to their businesses. ‘Double standards’ is probably too strong a term, but we have a difference where the good people in our community are fined. Perhaps the small minority of people who are not so good are actually infringing upon the good standards of our community, basically, just get one order or one notice after another without actually having any serious penalty.
I note the minister, in the previous debate, talked about Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. I do not recall anyone on our side separating the two. Our idea is we have to look at everyone who has an alcohol problem - be it whatever ethnic background, race, religion, etcetera. It is with that in mind I ask again that the government looks at seriously reviewing what it has proposed.
We are aware that the government will put this particular bill through tonight as well. I seriously hope that when things do not go as planned, the people who are listening to this in the departments and the minister’s office might actually look at some of the stuff we have suggested.
There is not a great deal more I want to say. I wish the government well and I sincerely hope what it puts forward works. I have some serious reservations about that occurring, as my colleagues have said. There are many people in the community who have serious reservations about whether this will work. I note the member for Nelson has also expressed serious reservations.
It really goes back to the core of how you philosophically deal with a particular issue. The issue here is there is a very small minority in our community who have a problem, and we are going to penalise the rest of the community for the behaviour of a minority without actually holding the minority to account. It is about making people accountable, responsible, and aware of real consequences of their actions and the way they conduct themselves in our community.
I mentioned in an earlier debate this evening the issue about those people conducting themselves where they live or where they visit. If I go from where I live in Darwin to Alice Springs I am expected to conduct myself in a reasonable manner that reflects the standards of the community in which I am present as a visitor, or by the reasonable standards of the community in which I live. When these people step outside those boundaries of reasonable standards of the community by participating in behaviour and conduct that is offensive to the majority of people in their own community, or in the community they are visiting, we start to have problems.
The issues raised by the opposition would go some way to placating people who are the taxpayers, the good people in our community, who are simply trying to get on with their life, to be able to send their kids to the shop to get the milk and bread without being humbugged or harassed by anyone - Indigenous, non-Indigenous, Asian, Russian, Chinese or Mongolian; it does not really matter. It is conduct we are targeting here, not necessarily any particular person. The conduct of these people may be because they have a terrible affliction; that is, they are addicted to alcohol.
I reiterate, you can enact all sorts of legislation but, unless there is a deterrent factor, one suspects it may not be that effective. In this House, we have to look at ourselves and the upbringing we had. We have all had different upbringings but, essentially, we have all reached a point where we understand what is expected of us in relation to our behaviour in our community. We understand if we breach those standards there will be some consequences for us.
I heard the member for Johnston say yesterday that we, as parliamentarians, have a higher standard. One would assume people in our community who have to abide by even ordinary standards would do so, and understand they cannot just go out and continue to do the sort of things they are doing where you have the majority of the community up in arms about their behaviour.
The minister said this evening that people are on board; they agree with all of these measures. Well, she may have some groups on board. In fact, she mentioned quite a few industry groups, but there is another group of people out there called the wider community. It is the wider community I talk to, and I mentioned this previously. When I am out talking to people - I am sure the same people are talking to government members as to members of the opposition. These are Mr and Mrs northern suburbs, Mr and Mrs suburban Alice Springs, Mr and Mrs Katherine. They are talking to people about fixing the problem. They do not care how we do it, and I am sure they may not take much interest in the debate that occurs in this House. What they are looking for are real solutions and real options. They do not want it to take too long; they are demanding action now.
What I hear when I have been talking to various people - and there have been a number of people in industry, in private enterprise, in government. Many of them will have to remain anonymous because the only way they will talk to you is if you guarantee anonymity. They express concerns about some of these things. I will repeat something I said earlier. I would like to see anything work because this should be an apolitical argument we are having because it affects all of us and has some very serious implications if we do not get it right.
We have a different philosophical view from the government as to how we might achieve the outcomes. I am sure all in this House want a very positive outcome from whatever it is we do. We have said so much on this issue.
Madam Speaker, we do not have any huge problems or issues with the current amendments to the liquor legislation. Many people out there are grateful for the fact the government has listened to them. It is good that governments do listen to industry and those associated with it. The government has acted, so it is with that in mind we do not have much more to say, and we will let it go through on the numbers.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, we will be going to a committee amendment stage on this liquor legislation. I thank the member for Sanderson for his support for that. I also note the member for Sanderson, obviously, has picked up the industry support for the legislation we have before us. It goes to the heart of addressing a series of problems that exist with enforcement of the structure of the existing act. It addresses issues in respect of the provision of liquor to minors. It introduces, importantly, a new regulatory framework for liquor licences to create a more flexible, responsive, and modern compliance regime in the Liquor Act. There had been some gaps and ambiguities in relation to the role of the NT Licensing Commission, and these are addressed, as well as the inconsistencies in relation to the existing penalty structure.
It was a very comprehensive overhaul we undertook in this framework. We did so with thorough consultation. I put on the record my sincere thanks to the officers of Racing, Gaming and Licensing, the Department of Justice, and Parliamentary Counsel, who all worked tirelessly and in a very efficient and effective time frame to bring forward all of these changes. I set them a significant task. When I looked at the raft of reforms we were bringing through with the PACSM and SMART bills, I saw there was still this significant issue of the regulatory framework that needed to be addressed. We needed to introduce a range of penalties that really did send very clear messages about the seriousness with which we view breaches of the act and, also to capture where I saw some weaknesses in the low penalties that existed for things such as unlicensed sale of alcohol - the sly grog.
One of the things you pick up in all your consultations and listening to members of parliament who have contributed to lively debate is what is actually happening out on the ground. The member for Macdonnell has been one who has been on the public record talking about the sly grog sales she saw in Alice Springs. We had low penalties for unlicensed sale. It just seemed to be something we absolutely needed to pay attention to. This was the start of the genesis of genuinely looking at the Liquor Act and what the range of breaches were in the Liquor Act, what wider enforcement tools were available in the imposition of the fines, providing enforceable undertakings, providing infringement notices, to make it easier for the licensees to be more accountable, provide the community generally with a more effective, efficient, and flexible transparent regulatory framework, provide greater clarity for licensees, improve the enforcement in relation to licensee breaches but, also really tightening up on those other areas such as the offences relating to the sale and supply of alcohol to minors.
We are moving into a policy realm in relation to supply to minors that is starting to become part of a national move. It is to our credit in the Territory that we have moved more swiftly than other jurisdictions around our nation in regard to ensuring the irresponsible supply of alcohol to children cannot and should not occur, and there are breaches accordingly.
I recognise we have captured significant new penalty regimes in here. They were pretty low penalty regimes in the past. It sends a very clear message how serious our government is regarding the sale of liquor, the activities and actions of licensees but, equally, how we will get our own house in order within Racing, Gaming, and Licensing in the enforcement and the tools, clarify the role of the commission, and remove the double jeopardy that had existed, quite unfairly, and put in place the definition of a drunk to ensure there is clarity of irresponsible sale to an intoxicated person. We have captured all of those issues that have been kicking around out there with concern to people on both sides of the debate. We have picked up all of those and put them into this bill.
We did look at grog runners and at trying to split out sale and supply, and possession. That is really the genesis of why I am bringing the committee stage amendments before us, because we do want to send a very strong signal about just how tough it will be for people who are trying to pedal grog out into remote and regional areas of the Territory. It is just a no-go zone as far as we are concerned. It is tough. We are repacking those penalties to a fairly significant maximum penalty of 100 penalty units, or imprisonment for six months around what we are proposing in the committee stage amendments.
I acknowledge the tremendous work done by my colleague, the member for Arafura, with me on this legislation. It has been fantastic. I really enjoy being able to work with colleagues who take these matters incredibly seriously. My Cabinet colleagues have pored over all of these reforms and all this legislation, and have been rock-solid in their support for what our government is doing here, through all of the legislation we have had debate on in this Chamber. Whether they are in Cabinet or Caucus, it has been a significant team effort, I have to say, of everyone in government to pursue these reforms, and get some rigour, clarity, strength and enforcement into this very serious issue of liquor in the Territory.
These are fair, sensible and enforceable changes that are occurring in the regulatory framework, also recognising we want the toughest penalties available for going after the people who are trying to do the wrong thing - whether they are a licensee, or whether they are unlicensed and trying to get around what are the laws of the land.
I reiterate my sincere thanks to Racing, Gaming and Licensing officers, the Department of Justice officers, Parliamentary Counsel, to my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues. I thank the industry. They have stepped up to the plate again on this one. They recognise there are some absolute tests and standards that are required if they are going to be in the business of selling alcohol in the Territory. I thank the Australian Hotel Association and the Liquor Stores Association for showing a significant level of maturity in recognising the need for harm minimisation and just how serious the issue of alcohol is in the Territory.
This has been one of those rare occasions in politics - extremely rare - where you have both sides of the debate on a very serious topic lined up and agreed. From the Australian Hotels Association and the Liquor Stores Association, through to the Australian Medical Association, the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, and right down to the service providers in the AOD sector, to the Law Society - I thank them for their support throughout this whole process as well - through the practitioners, the judiciary, the police, all of those non-government organisations such as the Northern Territory Council of Social Services. I sincerely thank them for their steadfast support for all of the work we have brought before the parliament in the three bills.
I have been strengthened by the fact that it has been a significant consultation process. Everyone has engaged with goodwill to try to get something that everyone thinks is absolutely going to work, to literally save the lives of Territorians. That is what we are about here. We do not want the crime. We do not want the antisocial behaviour, and we are not going to put up with it. That is why we titled these reforms ‘Enough is Enough’ - we are all heartily sick of it.
I recognise the sentiment is shared on the opposition benches. We will have a view on the differences of the pathways and how we go about it, and we will continue to debate that, no doubt whatsoever.
To all of those critically important stakeholders across the service sectors: the people doing the hard yards on the front line from the police officers to the people in the sobering-up shelters, the people in the rehab centres, the people who would have provided that post-support care, to the industry associations and the people in the medical and health sectors – I thank you sincerely.
This could not have been done without an incredible amount of work that has been undertaken by the Department of Justice. First and foremost, the Department of Justice staff have stepped up to an enormous body of reform work in excruciatingly tight time lines. They have worked significant lengthy hours through the days and the nights to get this body of reforms done. We have had countless meetings, consultations, forums, and debates internally as to what detail we get down to and how we do what. I am very proud of all of the people; the enormous teamwork and effort it has taken to get to this.
I put on the record my thanks to staff in my office. Not only have we had an incredible load in getting the Northern Territory Budget 2011-12 put together in the same time period, in the lead-up to these sittings - and that work started intensively last year - at the same time, much of this work started intensively. So, it has been an enormous effort from all of the staff in my office. Jo Martin, who is in Adelaide, will be delighted and thrilled when she hears about the passage of the legislation because she put an enormous effort into it.
As I said, I could not have done it without the teamwork, the support, and the tremendous strength and rigor of my parliamentary colleagues. I was sincere in thanking the members for Macdonnell and Nelson for their support. It is difficult, when it is so complex and so groundbreaking, to be able to stretch yourself out in that political domain. I sincerely thank people and propose to move to committee stage for the amendment.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Alcohol Reform (Liquor Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011 (Serial 161), together with Schedule of Amendments No 62 circulated by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, Ms Lawrie.
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, given there is agreement between the parties and the Chamber, I propose to take Schedule of Amendments No 62 as a whole, if there is no objection to that.
Mr Styles: No objection, Madam Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay, if there is no objection, I move Schedule of Amendments No 62.
Schedule of Amendments No 62 agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: We can move straight through it, because I moved the entire schedule.
Madam CHAIR: Oh, we have moved the entire schedule.
Amendments agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to standing order …
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I indicate on behalf of government that there will be an extension of the time and we will not be adjourning at 9 pm.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I put the question that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move that the question now be put.
Motion negatived.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table the Power and Water Corporation Statement of Corporation Intent 2011-12.
The SCI is the annual performance agreement between the corporation and the Shareholding Minister on behalf of Territorians as owners of the corporation. As members are aware, the Power and Water Corporation became the Territory’s first government owned corporation (GOC) on 1 July 2002. The 2011-12 SCI is, therefore, the corporation’s tenth.
Consistent with previous years, information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the SCI being tabled today on the basis it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information that no private sector business would be expected to release.
The 2011-12 SCI continues the largest ever capital and maintenance investment program in the corporation’s history. This investment is important to enhance reliability of supply and respond to growing demand across the Territory, and forms a key part of this government’s strategy to grow the Territory. A $1.272bn capital investment will be made between 2011-12 and 2015-16. In addition, some $459.1m is projected to be spent on repairs and maintenance over the SCI period. Whilst this critical capital and maintenance program, together with weather-related reductions in revenue and renewal energy credits cost increases - increases outside the corporation’s control - will inevitably mean the key financial sustainability measures will be marginally below that recommended by the Reeves report, they are certainly not anywhere near to the point that would render the corporation financially unsustainable.
All utility tariffs in the Territory remain at previously announced levels which, for electricity and water, are the second lowest in the country. This means not only is the Henderson government, through the provision of debt for equity swaps announced last year, assisting the corporation in maintaining financial sustainability but, by keeping tariffs, supported by generous subsidies, amongst the lowest in the country, we are reducing the cost of electricity for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, as the 2011-12 Statement of Corporate Intent will be considered by the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, I will not go into any more detail now. In accordance with section 39(7)(a) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, as shareholding minister for the corporation, I table the Power and Water Corporation 2011-12 Statement of Corporate Intent, and I move that the statement be referred to the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee for examination and report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, it would have been nice to have had some notice, not only of the Statement of Corporate Intent, but also the fact the motion was going to be moved to the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee for further discussion ...
Ms Lawrie: It always is.
Mr ELFERINK: I beg your pardon?
Ms Lawrie: It gets referred to the scrutiny committee for discussion every year.
Mr ELFERINK: Fine. It would have been nice, though, if you had given us some notice so we would have known what was going on. I had no notice from the members opposite in relation to this. Whilst I appreciate what the minister is doing, it would be better to see better levels of communication across the House.
The motion to continue the Appropriation Bill was not discussed; it was simply dropped on us - and now this. I ask the government to tidy up the way it communicates with this side of the House so we know what is going on.
Motion agreed to.
APPROPRIATION (2011-2012) BILL
(Serial 163)
Continued from 4 May 2011.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Brennan has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Thirteen minutes! Can I not buy a couple?
Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to pick up a debate you started, got on a roll with, and so forth. I have a few notes here, and I have gone through some of the budget papers over the last couple of days.
No matter what side of politics you come from, you certainly welcome money spent wisely. I note there has been an increase in most of areas in education for this budget, and welcome the money. More importantly, Territorians expect - and so does wider Australia - any money that is spent is well spent, and the stated outcomes achieved.
This budget this year reminds me of last year. I heard the Treasurer say the reason things are revoted so much in the Northern Territory is because of the Dry Season, and that most of the works are carried out in the Dry and not so much in the Wet. I understand it but it is disingenuous to present it in the final figures. The only figures that seem to get into the media are the record budgets. Last year, it was a $1.8bn infrastructure budget - this year not so much. When you look at what the revoted works are, it over-inflates the truth. There is nothing wrong with being truthful in the glossaries - that perhaps $1bn is being spent this year and the rest is revoted. There are many revoted works this year.
In the Northern Territory, the biggest cost to government is recurrent funding. When you add the interest on borrowings the Territory has taken, and will continue to take into the future, it leaves less and less for infrastructure and, of course, new programs.
We have heard much about debt over the last few days, and debt ratios, and the number of people who live in the Northern Territory. The bottom line is we need to live within our budgets. We demand that from people who live in our communities. I know too well what it is like to have a credit card debt - a terrible situation to get into and a hard situation to get out of. It is like having an anchor thrown over the boat as you are trying to cruise along. No one likes debt. I can understand what the Treasurer said about going into debt for specific reasons, and I appreciate all that. I know previous CLP governments have gone into debt, probably to build this place. There is a reason for going into debt at certain times. There are many areas where real savings could be made you get a little frustrated and think that we did not have to go into so much debt. I understand why we go into debt. No one likes to have a mortgage, and particularly credit card debts and car loans. But there is smart debt and there is wasted debt. I suggest someone buying a suit on a credit card is not a wise move, particularly if you can pay cash for it and if you have saved for it.
The years are gone where we put things on lay-by. I remember mum and dad would lay-by a toaster, or a pair of shoes, and pay it off over three months before the item came into the household. Today, it is too easy to whack out a credit card to pay for those shoes or toaster. I suggest, though, that toasters were made to last a little longer years ago than they do today, but that is another story. You need to understand debt: what is good debt, and what is bad debt.
Recently, this House debated the carbon tax. I am an environmentalist at heart, and would be the first person to sign up to a carbon tax if I thought it was going to make one bit of difference or improvement to our environment. But, it will not do anything to improve our environment. You cannot take money away, which adds to the cost of something like electricity, and then give it back and expect people’s habits to change. If there was a tax that increased electricity by 25%, people might learn to use electricity more wisely: turn lights off, close doors, and have air-conditioners on a little warmer than cooler. However, when you are going to give that money back, you are not going to change people’s habits, so it will not make one iota of difference. All it will do, particularly here in the Northern Territory, is place an additional impost on families, and they are already struggling.
I will go directly to the budget. A few areas highlight my earlier concerns about revoted works. Department of Education and Training: $109.905m for total infrastructure programs, of which $58.605m is revoted. There are some wonderful schools programs such as new buildings but, when you total all the infrastructure works, or nearly all of them, you notice there is a little one there, and it is all to do with the BER. From the $109.905m and $58.605m revoted, when you take out the Commonwealth money, which is $34.937m, you actually only have $23.668m of new money. Interestingly, there is $33.919m earmarked for repairs and maintenance. There is not much new money for infrastructure when so much of it is, indeed, Commonwealth money. We understand we get so much money from the Commonwealth, but to pad the budget in the Northern Territory with Commonwealth money makes it appear that more local money is being spent than really is.
The Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport - I have missed a page here - total infrastructure program, $65.657m. That sounds impressive but $44.416m is revoted. That is a remarkable amount of money to be revoted; the majority of the total budget is from revoted works. From the government’s perspective, they had a chance to gloat about it and make announcements last year, and they will have the same opportunity to gloat and announce these programs again. There is probably nothing wrong with many of the programs in here but how many times do Territorians have to be told about them before they are actually delivered …
Mr Wood: Reinforcing.
Mr CHANDLER: Is that what it is? Reinforcing. Thank you, member for Nelson.
One of the big issues we have spoken about in this House before - and, whilst not directly under my portfolio it was mentioned by the member for Drysdale - is the $30m that has disappeared from the Darwin Port Corporation’s budget for a conveyor belt. Had it been constructed when the money was first allocated and promoted by this government, we may not have had some of the tragic spills we have had at the port. To see that money taken away from the budget this year does not send a good message about how we should be protecting our environment. There is a great deal of talk but there is little substance to what is actually delivered. The government says how important the environment is but, when it comes to actually delivering, delivers little.
I am the first to congratulate the government for setting up the EPA, and last year supported amendments to strengthen the EPA to give them those teeth. But now, as I said the other day, you have given them the teeth, they have taken a bite, and there is no indication yet from government as to how seriously it is going to take the recommendations and what action it is going to take. We will wait with bated breath and I hope the government is serious about looking after our environment.
I also noted under the Department of Education and Training a massive reduction in support for non-government schools, from $166m down to $140m, and that has much to do with the BER funding from the Commonwealth.
Fluffing up the figures in the budget papers last year with all this extra Commonwealth money and, then, in this year there is a big reduction, is why we have spikes and troughs and peaks in our budget cycles. This is where businesses go bust because we might have spent a lot of money for a few months or over a 12-month period and then, all of a sudden, there is nothing left. All those companies working hard on those programs last year find that all of a sudden there is no money this year. Perhaps the money should have been shared out a little better over a number of years.
Something the member for Nelson asked for the other day, and the minister stood up in this House and, without batting an eyelid, said he would ensure these attendance figures are put into the budget papers in future and, magically, they appeared. Here on page 101 are all the attendance rates and so forth ...
Mr Wood: Details that used to be there.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, it is still tragic to see. It is not for the lack of trying. This government has certainly tried with programs over the years. It has introduced recent legislation to improve attendance. I only have a few minutes to read out some of the horrendous attendance rates. There are several stark reminders of how successful the government thinks its programs are going to be. Looking at middle years education, attendance rates are around 89% for non-Indigenous and 70% for Indigenous - that is on page 102. The estimate for 2010-11 is 89% and 64% which, going by that, the Indigenous side of things is up on what they expected. However, if you have a look at 2011-12, they do not expect any improvement in their figures. In 2010-11, the figure is 70% and in 2011-12, they still expect 70% ...
Dr Burns: What number are we on again?
Mr CHANDLER: Page 102 in Budget Paper No 3. I do not quite understand. We have introduced new legislation that is going to achieve results; we are told it is going to achieve results. In our budget forecast - and I understand it is a forecast - you would think there would be 1% or 2% improvement in there to demonstrate the government feels it is going to get a dividend from its investment - a dividend from this new legislation. It is one of those areas where you wish there was a little more work on the vision, and some kind of willingness and understanding that the programs being introduced are going to work. I do not see it here.
There are other areas I would like to cover, but 10 seconds is not enough. It is an interesting process with the hospital. We certainly welcome a new hospital in Palmerston. I do not quite understand …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, your time has expired.
Mr CHANDLER: … the dichotomy between different governments in this country.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, today I talk on Budget 2011-12 …
A member interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: The member did not want an extension, young boy. Interjecting from the crowd like naughty little children.
It is a tradition of a Labor government to spend its way into deep debt. It is, unfortunately, not its debt; it is debt for all of us. It is not their credit card, but our liability. We are told $200 000 a day in interest is not that bad. The Treasurer said it is not that bad. As mentioned in Question Time today, in Victoria, per capita, the deficit is $287 this financial year. That will be going to $234 per person next financial year. In the ACT, it is $401 this financial year, growing to $944 per person next financial year. By contrast, the Northern Territory is not that badly off. The per person deficit is $1283, growing to a whopping $1683 per person next financial year. Apparently, that is not a bad spot to be in compared to some of the other states - Victoria is going to be only $234 per year. A bit of a difference - not too bad.
We see we are not too bad on the global front. We are only marginally behind the economic basket cases of Greece and Ireland, and worse than Portugal - as mentioned in Question Time today - and all of these countries have been begging the EU to save them. We are right amongst the mix in debt per capita, per Territorian, right amongst the worst in the world, and this Treasurer wants Territorians to believe we are not doing too badly; that we are doing pretty well. We are amongst the worst per capita in the world. Not that flash, but can be understandable at times.
In my electorate I welcome the upcoming water park. Thank you for putting it across the road from my electorate office - it is perfectly positioned. I can go for a quick swim, maybe a quick paddle. I can get out there and have a splash at lunchtime; keep up the physical training - fantastic. It is a great bit of entertainment. Not a critical piece of infrastructure, but definitely a great piece of entertainment for Territory people. I thank you for the sporting facilities in my electorate of Drysdale. They are great community facilities. I brought a motion before this House about sporting facilities, and that active kids and active minds deliver better education outcomes so, I certainly support greater facilities for our sporting teams in Palmerston. The rest of Darwin and anyone who wants to visit from Central Australia will also benefit from these facilities.
I am concerned about further changes in the budget to the cost of the water park. It is a fantastic entertainment facility. We have seen budget-on-budget changes to the figures surrounding it - the real cost. We see more costs this time to include the cost of an access road. This is, unfortunately, a systemic failing of Labor in failing to plan for something properly and missing a few things out. In the case of the water park, first, you failed to actually advise the owner of the land, to advise the council, and work out what exactly you wanted and, second, you have come to the point where you brought out your secondary crayon drawing and you failed to plan for the road access and car parks - pretty important things. I have seen the plan and quite like it; there will be some good stuff there. It will be quite enjoyable to use - and across the road from my electorate office, so that is fantastic.
The Arts and Museums area this year is down $2.4m, from $46.074m to $43.68m. Unfortunately, the arts sector continues to sit in a holding pattern with this Labor government. Libraries, a foundation stone of knowledge, history, and the future, remain in a holding pattern, even though all the costs have gone through the roof - electricity and water, and books cost more. There probably will be carbon tax on them too - you never know. Transport costs to get the books here will be more. I am proud to be one of the new generation of politicians who delivers books during Anzac Day ceremonies and on Remembrance Day. I see many people doing it, and I encourage that. It is adding to our history, our knowledge, and our education.
Houses and electricity cost more under this hard Labor government. Sports and recreation is down $8.3m. Territorians, however, are going to get some much hard-fought-for facilities. I am going to highlight some of them. These are positives. I just mentioned the Palmerston facility is a positive ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is a very important speech my colleague is making.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, we lack a quorum. Ring the bells. Thank you, we have a quorum.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and member for Braitling ...
Ms Scrymgour: If you said anything intelligent, we might be in here.
Mr BOHLIN: If that member could ever keep her mouth closed, it would be a miracle, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Palmerston sporting facilities are a plus but, if it not for the persistence of the presidents and committees of those various sporting clubs, they would have had fewer facilities because the government failed to plan in the first place during their election campaigns. It failed to plan an appropriate facility. It would have, if it followed the original government crayon drawing during the election campaign …
Ms Scrymgour: The crayon?
Mr BOHLIN: The crayon drawing. We kept them for you to prove you got those crayon drawings wrong. Instead of the Palmerston Magpies having a training oval and a main oval they would have had a game oval only. They would have had their practice oval turned into a Rugby and joint soccer field by this government. However, the presidents stuck in there as a community group, and worked well with the government to deliver some fantastic future facilities. We saw another great government spin on the news today, with the minister for Sport trying to kick a soccer ball. He missed it, he dropped it and, then, he nearly dropped his heart at the same time. The Palmerston Soccer Club is one of those going to benefit at the Gray Primary School.
Another positive is the Darwin Squash Courts, a facility that is fully booked most opening hours of most days. It is a well-used facility. I extend my congratulations to the Darwin Squash Association for its hard work and dedication, working with government and the opposition. It has achieved a great result, but it was public persistence and a very high-profile public campaign against the government to ensure they got their squash courts. I commend the government for listening to the public. Well done, three cheers ...
A member: Hip, hip!
Mr BOHLIN: Hooray, hip, hip, hooray! We will stop short of the extra one.
Minister for Sport, I note there is a loss in Sports Development of $3.3m. So, let us see a glossy media release advertising which developmental sports programs are going to be wiped from your scoreboard. Let us see a few media releases about the good news you have created there. We see a media release for everything else, so let us be honest and up-front. Let us see the media release detailing which sporting development program you will be cutting from your $3.3m.
Defence Support and Liaison: I am only going to mention one little part of this, but this goes back to when I worked on trucks in the Defence Force. As a former Defence member, I got my trade in the Australian Defence Force as a mechanic, working on trucks. The Defence Force is about to progress a roll-out of light and medium vehicles, a new fleet. It is vitally important the Territory government gets in there with local businesses that have been getting subcontract work to service, maintain and repair those vehicles, to get the appropriate lead in, through the feds, to get the training with the new Mercedes fleet that is coming through. They need to have the work. I was one of the first 12 Australian Defence Force mechanics trained on the ASLAVs when they first came in, and we were lucky. I do not care if I work with the ministers. Give us a call, Hendo - I withdraw that comment, sorry - member for Wanguri, give us a call, and let us talk about it, see if we can ensure the businesses get their bite, not just of the cherry, but a whole slice of the pie because, without the training, they will miss out. That was missing when we had the Land Rover roll-out from the Land Rover Australia, or Jaguar Australia, program. We need to watch that space and ensure we fill it properly, so businesses currently getting subcontract work continue to get subcontract work, and get whatever appropriate assistance is required.
I extend the hand of common work, and almost friendship, to work through some of this, since I have an understanding of the mechanical side, and of the new vehicles. Let us work together. The offer is there and it is yours for the taking, so we can work with businesses and the Defence Force to ensure we get something for them.
The Construction and Infrastructure portfolio is spread around and it is a difficult to chase all the bits and pieces. I note in Victoria, there was a $650m spend for flood repair relief to deal with the flood damage. In the NT, after Cyclone Carlos and the much-touted very long Wet causing flooded roads, on top of poor routine maintenance and poor routine substantial sealing of our major and minor roads, we see a national network cut of over $1m. It is not a big budget piece to start with; it was $20m last year and is now around the $19m mark. That is a cut to the repairs and maintenance; it is not the new works, which has a good chunk of money. It is the repairs and maintenance. That is the television ads the minister is wasting money on, telling people how they are fixing potholes. You have over $1m less this year! You cannot afford to be wasting it on television ads. That is crazy! We would not come in here and give you a little slap around if it was not for something as stupid as putting out television ads when you should be spending that money on doing repairs! It is ludicrous. We see a marginal increase on our Territory roads of $14m. This is the repairs and maintenance. This is not for new parts, but repairs and maintenance. We have had the touted Wet, the big Wet, and it is going to cost a lot of money to fix. We have seen communities entirely cut off. It is going to cost a lot and you are only throwing another $14m at it. In Victoria, after their floods, and in this Budget 2011-12, they are going to spend $650m just on that aspect of it. It had to be done. It is not a want, it is a need, and it had to be done.
If you look at photos like this of the Gilbert Swamp incident, just out of Alice Springs, that is not a big road …
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: Just out of Alice Springs, mate. Member for Nelson, I have driven that road a few times. As far as I am concerned, that is just out of Alice Springs - it is not far; it is not a big drive. Maybe for people from the southern states it is a big drive, but not here.
There is flooding and a washout near Wycliffe Well, literally at the front door. There is a major section of road totally ripped up, about 10 km north of Hi-Way Inn. The Arnhem Highway has spent an extraordinary amount of time under water. I know there is some money there for 20 km of particular upgrade - good stuff and about time. Let us see some detail. How high are you going to raise it? What is the detail? Is it going to become flood proof? Is it really there? It is important. It would be good to see it.
What about our cattle roads and our mining roads? Where is the next road delivering actual finance money back into the coffers?
If we go to the Darwin Port, on its infrastructure side - whilst we have engineering firms falling under the stress of the GFC and other business dealings, and business and employment under stress in general, and environmental spills, this government has pulled $30m from the overhead conveyor system. We still see the engineering and design work for a new overland conveyor – that is $3m. However, the actual spend for the engineering should have happened two years ago during the GFC when those engineering companies needed it. You had the money already allocated, so you should have spent it. You should have delivered it, and we may not have seen some of these environmental spills, we may not have seen the port corporation trotting in and out of court today. But, $30m has gone missing, ripped from the budget, ripped from the engineering companies that were ready and waiting to do that project. They were thinking about it. They knew where they were heading. They were forward planning for it. They saw you had it on the table, and were keen to do it, and they had the expertise in the Northern Territory to do it. Where has that $30m gone? I would like you to stand in front of those engineering companies and explain why you have pulled this when you planned for it two years ago. Explain to them and their employees why you have continued to put them at risk.
I will finish with some great news in response to the Country Liberals’ 2008 election campaign: the public’s passion and drive, commitment, signing of petitions, joining of Facebook pages, radio, Palmerston City Council driving it. The announcement of the new Palmerston rural hospital is great news, and I am sure they will not prevent rural people using it ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: I am sure you are right. Maybe the location is not the best, but at least we are getting something. It said $110m - $70m of federal money and $40m of Northern Territory money. It is, unfortunately, what the former Health minister called a cruel farce during the 2008 election campaign. Tut, tut, tut - naughty man. Well done to the Commonwealth for stepping up and seeing the public need. Well done to the Territory residents, the Palmerston residents, everyone involved, the radio stations, the council in Palmerston, for their efforts to get that hospital, and well done to the government for coming to the party in the end …
A member: Accepting the money.
Mr BOHLIN: For accepting the major part of the money, but still accepting it needed to happen. You cannot knock it back. It is brilliant news for Territory people. Even though it is not in this year’s budget, it was still a great announcement the day after the budget. It is a fantastic highlight for this time of the year.
The rest I will leave until estimates. I look forward to chasing that $30m you have now ripped away from the engineering companies, the continued spills you have been having, like Sunday at the port corporation, and where we see our roads going. The member for Braitling has been there. I have seen some photos of him there. I have been there, and I want to correct the record. The Construction and Infrastructure minister, the member for Barkly, suggested I get out of my air-conditioned office. On the last two weekends, I went down that road. I had a great time with some country people. I saw some of the upgrades and some of the pothole fills. The minister needs to pull his head from beneath wherever it is hiding and get on with the job.
Ms Purick: Hey! You were not even going to speak.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): You encouraged me to speak, member for Goyder.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a few words on the budget. Much has been said and the budget will be analysed in more detail in the Estimates Committee.
The government announced approximately $10m for a shires funding package to improve Indigenous employment opportunities in shires, including a $1.6m contribution from the Commonwealth, which I gather is part of the attempt to keep the CDEP program going. Whilst I welcome the contributions from the Commonwealth and NT governments, there are still many people on welfare. This process has been stop, start, stop, start. Over the last couple of years, money was invested and then the Commonwealth pulled out. More money was invested in CDEP and this is another attempt to keep the CDEP program going. The Commonwealth and NT governments need a long-term assessment of welfare and employment in remote communities. The shires funding is welcomed, but I would like to hear the NT government policy on welfare for people in remote communities who are either working for the dole, or not working at all. There is an opportunity to use our local government shires as a means of providing valuable employment and training. Welfare, as it is, is detrimental to the Northern Territory and continues a cycle that has continued far too long. If we are to give some hope - and I think the member for Drysdale spoke about it earlier - the welfare system has to change.
In relation to health, many people have spoken about the new hospital. It is surprising that one day after the budget no one seemed to know about it, and there is no mention of it in the budget. I am not sure how things work, especially if the NT government is putting $40m into it, one day after the budget. These hospitals just come out of the ground like mushrooms! That is why I ask that the Public Accounts Committee look at this issue. I am a supporter of a hospital, but the problem with announcements such as this is there are good feelings and nice words said, but there should be an independent assessment of the hospital. Is it going to be situated in the right place? What type of hospital is it going to be? Who is going to supply staff for the hospital? Where are they going to come from? We now educate our own doctors, but will there be enough to supply the medical staff required for the hospital? What is going to happen to Royal Darwin Hospital?
Many issues require assessment and this is a project the Public Accounts Committee should consider. This is $110m worth of public money, and we want to ensure we get the best value for that money. We should look at the potential growth of the Darwin area, including Weddell. We should also consider that the rural area will be growing - some say it should be grown maturely and retain its rural amenity. Regardless, there will be much growth in the rural area. For example, Coolalinga is growing exceedingly fast. The member for Brennan mentioned the opposition was considering a heritage site on the Stuart Highway, where the old United States hospital was, as a possible site for the new hospital. I do not want to be too parochial, but 100 m across the road on top of the hill on the corner of the Howard Springs, Lambrick Avenue, and Stuart Highway intersections is a large block of vacant land zoned Commercial. It is on the main highway near Palmerston and close to Howard Springs, Coolalinga, and Bees Creek residents. The new hospital site should be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. I would also like to know why the government announced the project, yet there is no reference in the budget.
A large amount of Commonwealth money and some Territory money is allocated to Remote Indigenous Housing through SIHIP, but I am concerned about communities that are not regarded as growth towns. I have still not heard a policy from the government. Page 113 of Budget Paper No 3 says:
That worries me. If one read this document in isolation, it would appear the allocation will meet the needs of Indigenous and remote communities by providing new and upgraded housing, but it does not specify whether this will take place only in growth towns. There is a dire need for government, including the Commonwealth, to tell people in those communities what their future is. If there is no funding for new houses on places like Nauiyu, community morale will decrease. Nauiyu is a beautiful community, which had a healthy housing building team working for many years, but has built only one house since 2002.
I am interested to know where there are new houses at Nauiyu and how they have been funded. Peppimenarti, Palumpa, Milikapiti, Pirlangimpi, and many other communities, which you would not regard as outstations today, do not seem to have a future when it comes to housing and there is nothing in the budget to show they will get those houses. These are key issues the government needs to address.
It is good to see the government highlight a few matters relating to resources, or primary industry. The budget shows $3.5m to provide access and security of tenure for exploration, mining, petroleum, and geothermal activities, which I support. I hope geothermal energy becomes commercially viable because it will be good for the Northern Territory. There is also $5.3m to provide new generation geoscience data and to promote investment under Bringing Forward Discovery.
There is $1.75m to provide quality assured veterinary laboratory pathology and virology services to support diagnostic and research programs, and regulatory requirements in terrestrial and aquatic animal health and production, and a further $1.6m to support plant industries with entomology, plant pathology and agricultural chemistry services. These are basic industries that help our economy, are important for our economy, and it is good to see the government is putting money into those areas.
There are a couple of small questions. The Police budget shows the proportion of drivers breath tested who were detected for drink-driving offences. Budget 2011-12 says 4% for this year and the same next year. We have just introduced alcohol reform bills and I would like to see if that figure drops. A key indicator of whether the new alcohol legislation is working will be the proportion of drivers breath tested reducing from 4%. These figures will help us assess the workability of that legislation. Police also show the proportion of calls answered within 20 seconds at 80% for this year and next year. This is the first year of Territory-wide call centre monitoring. I rang the police number in Alice Springs a few months ago and, after five minutes, the phone rang out. I will be interested to see whether that figure stays at 80%, now that the statistics cover the whole of the Northern Territory.
There is money in Budget 2011-12 for special education, but the Prime Minister announced yesterday there would be funding of $200m to provide extra funding for students with disabilities. Is that money the same money shown on page 98 of the budget or is this new money? Special education requires more money because, whether you like it or not, special needs education is growing.
Regarding local matters, it is good to see money going to the swimming pool, the $1m hole as someone said in the NT News. It is a beginning that rural area people will welcome. I welcome the extension of the Girraween bicycle path that connects with the Coolalinga park-ride, which is due for completion by end of this month. There is money, some of it revoted money, for Freds Pass, which continues as the jewel in the crown for rural area sport.
Infrastructure improvements are needed, and the minister has accepted an invitation to view the traffic problems on Howard Springs Road. Things often change quickly and government needs to respond. Good Shepherd School – a middle- and secondary-school is growing rapidly. It is growing so rapidly that there are heavy traffic problems on Whitewood and Howard Springs Roads caused by Palmerston people dropping their children at the school and returning to Palmerston.
Police, Fire and Emergency Services is putting out a tender for a new aircraft. I wonder whether it will be a single engine or a twin engine aircraft? I also wonder about the location of the new Berrimah Fire Station. Many are hoping it will not be at the Wongabilla horse training area and I query why the minister did not tell us the location of the new fire station.
Budget 2011-12 is a budget, which I would refer to as ‘one back from the last budget before an election’. The history of budgets suggests it was not going to be a super-spending or necessarily popular budget. There are cuts in places. Next year you will be able to compare the two and observe that budgets go in political cycles, rather than economic cycles …
Dr Burns: Always political, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Budgets are always political, and it is not just this government - it is any government. You have a tough budget when first elected, followed by a couple of moderate budgets, keeping a few specials up your sleeves for the election. That is normal and the way it goes. We are in debt and need to repay the debt without too much strain on the economy, because we are a growing economy.
If you go back to the CLP days, tourism got going by the Territory government going into debt to build the Crowne Plaza – which was the Sheraton Hotel at the time - and the Ayers Rock Resort.
Governments sometimes have to go into debt to keep the economy going. It will be a matter of balance to ensure the debt is not a burden on future generations. If we keep the economy going in preparation for a boost when INPEX arrives, there will be less drain on government because the economy will drive itself.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will consider the budget in greater detail at estimates and will push to have the new hospital scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee before any hard and fast decisions are made.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am concerned about this year’s budget, particularly the projected doubling of nett debt from $1.1bn to $2.2bn over the next four years, even after per capita handouts from Canberra that are more than five times higher than most southern states. So much could ride on the resources boom into surplus. It might be the NT misses the mining boom altogether. The projection of a recurrent deficit of $387m for 2011-12, not including capital spending, should also ring alarm bells.
I will provide brief comments on my shadow portfolio areas and a few comments on areas pertinent to my electorate in the rural area.
The resources industry and associated downstream processing at Alcan’s Alumina refinery and Conoco’s LNG plant underpins our economy, and will continue to do so. Alumina and LNG production are in manufacturing figures, rather than resources industry figures, but the feedstock of bauxite and gas are included, and are closely related.
Contribution to gross state product stands at 25%. Mineral royalties account for $162m, and the resources industry is a major user of products and services across the economy. Whilst the resources industry is not, and does not claim to be, a big employer due to its capital-intensive operations, it is responsible for considerable indirect employment and regional development, including the development and construction of ports, airfields, and telecommunication links in remote parts of the Northern Territory.
The Territory is blessed with an abundance of both mineral resources and potential for further mineral and petroleum developments, which is well-known and well-documented. In past times, we were fortunate to have many mines, most small to medium, that allowed towns to develop and prosper and hopefully will continue to do so. Some projects exhausted their resource and closed, and some fell foul of global prices and management complexities. Over the past 15 years, the Territory’s resources industry has weathered many storms, but the environment is getting tighter and more competitive. We need to be aware of the challenges ahead and the impact these challenges will have on the resources industry in the Territory.
Exploration is fundamental to the success of the resources industry and no exploration equals no mining. A key factor is geology but companies also look for enabling irregularity and taxation frameworks. These factors will drive exploration in the Territory, especially for the smaller explorers, or junior companies, as referred to by the industry. I will come back to that either at a later stage or through estimates.
Currently, there is a level of uncertainty regarding the future of the exploration industry, from which the Territory is not exempt. Despite an increase in mineral exploration levels, real mineral activity, measured in actual metres drilled, is well down on the record levels of the 1990s. Most Australian and Northern Territory major projects were discovered during the 1960s exploration boom: Gemco, Alcan, McArthur River, and Ranger - Ranger is perhaps a little later.
As I said previously, we have small to medium mines that come and go, but we are yet to bring online a new world-class deposit, such as Jabiluka, and look where that project sits currently. We need long-term mining projects and the economic stability from a 20-year-plus mine.
In addition to lower drilling levels, the industry is focusing more on brownfields rather than greenfields, exploration. New projects are more likely to come from greenfields areas where little or no exploration has taken place, and that is what we need to encourage.
There is an Australia-wide move towards bulk commodities exploration, such as iron ore and coal, which are not, or are not known to be, in abundance in the Northern Territory. The trend is away from base metals and gold, where we do have a good level of mineral occurrences.
I encourage the minister to obtain a copy of an industry paper titled Exploration Policy – A Response to the Policy Transition Group Issues Paper. Perhaps he has it already. This paper details the future challenges for exploration, and is a very good report by the minerals industry. The minister and the government needs to heed the warnings in that report as they are real and might have serious implications for the Territory and its future industry.
Another report the minister is aware of, has read, and used widely in his comments and debates, is the Fraser Institute report. The report contains specific examples of where the Territory does well. It also contains examples where we did not rate well. In the past two years, we rated poorly in relation to government policy and taxation regimes; notably, when the Commonwealth government proposed the introduction of a mining tax. It will be interesting to read the latest report with regard to the mining tax, coupled with the prospect of a carbon tax.
I welcome a further round of funding commitment to the geological survey exploration program in this budget and commend the government for again committing to a three-year cycle. It is important to maintain our minerals competitiveness against the states, and minerals competitive countries, because we not only compete for the exploration dollar in Australia, we compete with overseas countries and states.
Intense competition for the exploration dollar means government has a key role to play in providing an environment conducive to exploration expenditure investment. This program provides that incentive and, given the issues I previously highlighted, it is imperative that this government-sponsored program continues. I know the minister understands this position, but I am unconvinced that his colleagues fully understand.
Regarding the proposed establishment of a Central Australian mining team with a price tag of $0.69m, I query what the team will actually do and what value it will add by its location in Central Australia. Why is there suddenly a need to have a team in Alice Springs? I understand there are departmental staff based in Alice Springs so, who are these proposed people, where are they being sourced from, and what will they be given to do, given the government does not appear to support exploration in Central Australia - notably by its collapse of support for the Cameco Paladin joint venture?
My shadow responsibility area of Fisheries includes both commercial and amateur fishing. I stress the commercial because, at times, the minister takes his eye off the importance of the commercial fishing industry. His comment at a public meeting that commercial fishing people ‘just over-fish’ was unsupportive of the commercial seafood industry.
Fishing people will welcome money allocated for work on improvements to boat ramps and associated facilities, and equipment for the Palmerston boat ramp area. I do not see plans or proposals for new boat ramps. Where is the planning for new boat ramps, given the strong growth of our recreational fishing industry. I see no reference to plans or funding commitments for the many commercial fishing charter industry operators. They, too, have their challenges regarding the current regime, and access to areas and docks.
I query the total cost of the Blue Mud Bay settlement proposal. We know government wants to register boats, so how will this be implemented, what will it cost, how will it be achieved, and how will it be regulated? What will be the impact of the Blue Mud Bay settlement on the commercial seafood industry? These are questions I will explore during the estimates process.
Regarding the pastoral industry, there is a paltry amount of money for beef roads – a disgraceful level of funding! Serious damage to the road network by this year’s Wet Season has elicited no government commitment to fix the main roads used by the pastoral industry. Large washouts, potholes, shoulder edge erosion, and the generally poor state of the roads will affect travel times, and wear and tear on pastoral industry trucks and vehicles. What is the government’s plan to fix our main highways and main roads? Will it support the pastoral industry by providing serious money to fix the roads?
I welcome money allocated, as it should be, to biosecurity, vet labs and research. We need these types of government activities, to work with industries, and to grow and prosper these industries. There is little further mention of the agricultural industry, so I am curious about funding for new crop research, outside of the $180 000 for rice trials, and funding commitments for the mango industry and mango research and development. I welcome that funding because mangoes and bananas are the two products most likely to sustain agricultural industry growth and development.
I reserve my comments regarding Building Advisory Services for estimates.
Regarding my electorate, Palmerston gets a $12.5m water park with slides and, no doubt, free entry. The rural area gets $1m for earthworks, or a hole in the ground, which, if we have a big Wet Season, will probably fill up and we will have our own swimming pool. Will the minister and government fully commit to building a swimming facility in the rural area, though through my consultations and discussion I am advised there will be no change out of $67m. $1m is a start, but is a long way short from the rural area getting a safe and secure swimming facility, particularly for schoolchildren. Currently, if a rural area school embarks on a swimming program, they incur additional costs to transport students to the closest swimming pool, which is Palmerston.
More money for Freds Pass Reserve is good news, as this reserve is an excellent sports and recreation facility. I urge the government to consider additional assistance to some of the groups based at the reserve, as club facilities are old and in dire need of upgrade, including the Southern Districts Cricket Club and the Litchfield Bears. Both those clubs presented written proposals to government with strong support from communities, the members for Nelson and Daly, and from me. I encourage government to seriously consider the proposals and open their coffers to help the growing number of people in the rural area, particularly juniors, who are taking up sport and recreational activities.
I noted funding for preservation of the World War II site at the 17 Mile, which is good news. The member for Nelson advised me that it is not actually the 17 Mile, it is Palmerston – part of the old hospital site on Lambrick Avenue. I do not have a problem with claiming Lambrick Avenue as part of the rural area, but believe the location should be accurately stated. It is important to preserve our history, and recognise our war involvement, so I thank the government for putting funding towards that heritage site.
Extra funding for special education at Taminmin College is welcomed as many rural area colleges and schools require extra funding for a range of activities, including special education. Taminmin College and the community will be appreciative. Next year, we might see a commitment for more money for the community library, or facilities associated with the library, given that it services the college community, and the residents in the Taminmin area.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave my comments about the budget there. Much more could have been done, particularly for the rural area. Times are tight in our economy, but regarding statements by the Treasurer about the global financial crisis; that is gone, and we need to move on and stop harking back to it. We need to plan better for the future, particularly for the development of the rural area, because that is where most pressure will come in regard to future developments - whether it be development of land; or provision of essential services such as power, water, and sewerage. I look forward to the Estimates Committee and asking more questions of the ministers in my areas of shadow responsibility.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, once again this Labor government rolls a budget into parliament and expects the community to believe that it can deliver it; to believe the spending commitments and the revenue forecasts; to believe in the infrastructure investments and the debt calculations. Can I believe that as I pick up this document? Can I believe that it is all in here? Well, no. This is a budget of deficit, debt, and deceit. While you might expect me to talk about the debt and the deficit, I will first talk about the deceit. The deceit so manifest in this government that it cannot go one day after the budget before breaking its promise to Territorians. That promise is about the truth, honesty, and debt.
The government would have Territorians believe that yesterday’s Palmerston hospital announcement was a bolt out of the blue, that weeks or months of negotiating a $100m investment and delivering a huge budget promise just happened the day after the Territory books were tabled for 2011-12. Are we expected to believe …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We lack a quorum. Ring the bells, please. A quorum is present.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are we expected to believe the Commonwealth treats the Territory like the US-Pakistan relationship? In the Territory’s case, the government was hoping for a helicoptering in of cash rather than troops, but, when the rubber hit the road, the Territory government was caught with its pants down.
The Palmerston hospital announcement is a deliberate attempt to deceive the Territory public, to keep $40m of extra debt and operating costs off the books in the forward estimates, to attempt to gazump the opposition’s budget reply. One expects that of the Labor government’s spin factory and its federal Labor mates,, but that is not the only game the Labor government is playing. It is keeping its new gaol and the aeromedical contract out of the books. The deceit goes further than that. There is no mention of the aeromedical contract in Budget 2011-12 in terms of a line item in Budget Paper No 2 or No 4, but it is mentioned in the regional highlights, Katherine region page 11 under Better Health; $31.6m to acute care services including patient travel, road and aero- retrieval transport services provided through the Katherine Hospital. If it rates a mention there, why is it not a line item in the budget?
Mr Knight: What about rating a mention in personal explanations about the Ombudsman’s report?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Knight: It did not rate a mention in your personal explanation. You are a bit of a carpetbagger.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Daly!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Tens of millions of dollars in debt to deliver a core service that should be in the budget and in these books, but instead we have deceit. Critically, for the future of Territorians, we have debt, absolute mountains of debt, debt to rival the world economy basket cases of Portugal, Ireland, and Greece. While the EU is bailing out the PIGs, the Territory government is likely waiting for the Commonwealth to bail us out, to take on more responsibility than the current 82% Commonwealth funding we receive, more responsibility than the intervention or progressing statehood, more Commonwealth responsibility than Territorians should tolerate.
The Territory Labor government rolled over on the mining tax, but slugged our own miners 2% extra last year. It rolled over on the health and hospital network, and it is rolling over on Territory debt.
I spoke earlier about the PIGs and the government, and they are one and the same when it comes to debt. Portugal has a national debt of 88% of GDP, Ireland has a national debt of 99% of GDP, and Greece has a national debt of 158% of GDP. The Territory has a debt and liabilities bill of 169% of GDP, which I will follow up on later. The comparison is: Portugal owes $20 000 per person and the Territory in 2011-12 owes $26 000. That will blow out, so we will owe $31 000 in a couple of years - almost as bad as Ireland which is currently $39 000 per person and Greece at $45 000 per person.
Regarding the budget deficit, our allocation from the GST pool is $2.657bn and our own source revenue is $864m, a total of $3.521bn. Where is the rest of the budget spending - the $5bn expenses in 2011-12? It is capital investment, the money from borrowings, and it is delivering more than $800m in Commonwealth partnership spending. The Treasurer will confirm the Territory does not make a profit from delivering Commonwealth services and national partnerships. It is money in and money out, and no debt is created as it is attributable to the Commonwealth.
What state would the Territory be in if it was also racking up credit card debt for the Commonwealth? If the NT spends more on linking in with the Commonwealth’s $872m spend, it does so from its discretionary income or by adding to its debt. The same applies with infrastructure - it pays for it from discretionary GST or own source revenue or from debt. This year, the budget deficit is projected at $375m, so the discretionary spending is $3.521bn, and the government is spending unallocated revenue plus the debt, a total of $3.896bn.
The Commonwealth is not going to pay back the Treasurer’s debt with its tied grants. It is not like the EU bailing out the PIGs; it is your GST and own source income that will do it. In Budget 2011-12, the real ratio of deficit to earning figures is 10.68%. This government is spending 10% more income than it receives. It is maxing out the credit card and putting the Territory into hock. Treasurer, I will put that question to you repeatedly until you correct the public record and provide an answer. When exactly will you have a budget surplus? You refused to correct the public record about 2015, so when will it be? When there is a surplus you will have to deal with the accumulated non-financial public sector estimate for nett financial liabilities, which for 2011-12, is $5.946bn.
This year, we have $3.521bn in discretionary income and $5.946bn in liabilities. That is a true ratio of non-financial public sector nett financial liabilities to attributable income of 169%. Welcome to the PIGs, Treasurer. You are quick to point out that total debt is low compared to international basket cases, but what about per person? In 2014-15, per man, woman, and child, you are lumbering them with $31000 each. What about the ratios? A spend that is 10% more than earnings. What about liabilities at 169%? The Treasurer has put the Territory into hock and Labor does not have a plan to pay it back.
I spoke about deficit, debt, and deceit, which arise from your incompetence, and lack of commitment to save excess GST revenue and control ballooning expenses, and lack of commitment to productive investments in infrastructure. We have a government that simply lacks commitment. I am proud to say that the Country Liberals have commitment - commitment to deal with the mess the Labor government is delivering and to bring real action and direction to government.
I now turn to a centrepiece of the Leader of the Opposition’s reply, the sale of NT Fleet. NT Fleet has $90m in assets and earns $15m per annum, from which it pays $5m in tax. A $10m actual profit comes from income of $51m - a nice 20% return for the department. NT Fleet is a government body that charges other government agencies for providing services. It has an effective monopoly, and monopolies are inherently inefficient. NT Fleet does not profit from commercial activities or competition; it profits from the business needs of departments. One department pays another in a pseudo shell game, moving money around departments - something like the government’s shell game with national partnership payments, Palmerston hospital funding, and the aeromedical contract - which creates an impression but adds to deceit.
The Country Liberals’ concept is that departments will instead under-pay private sector suppliers to do the same task as NT Fleet. We recognise the efforts of the 33 NT Fleet staff, but I can think of at least one national leasing and fleet managing organisation with 10 times that number of staff and $1bn of assets under fleet management. Another has 30 000 vehicles under management. NT Fleet does not manage Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ vehicles, as it has its own arrangements. Can the Treasurer advise the commercial arrangements for departments that spend money on vehicles and what comparisons can be made with NT Fleet?
Let us get the best deal for Territory taxpayers. If you do not open the fleet to competition, you cannot realistically say you are getting the best deal. The sale of NT Fleet is about debt. We estimate NT Fleet has an enterprise value of at least $150m, estimated in two ways. The first is the amount of debt that $10m in after tax income would service. At 5%, that $10m will service $200m of government debt. At 7%, it will service just under $150m. That is one figure; a range bound by high and low valuations. Second is the return on assets. The assets of NT Fleet are $90m and a straight-out sale of assets would raise $90m, but this is an enterprise with a monopoly position and a monopoly profit, and it returns 11% on its assets. The real value of the organisation is well above its asset position, which we estimate to be at least $150m.
Selling NT Fleet for not less than $150m is no different to setting an indicative price range for the float of a national asset like Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, or Queensland Rail - all ex-government-owned companies - which have a return on capital and an expectation of a profit. We will take advice as to the upper target, but the sale will reduce debt, and improve efficiency and productivity through competition.
Good wages and jobs drove economic prosperity in the Territory until 2009, but the wheels have since fallen off, which is reflected in this budget. Our biggest contributing sector, mining, is providing lower than projected royalty payments this year, notwithstanding the 2% increase in royalty rates foisted on the industry. Property taxes are 20% lower and not forecast to recover in 2011-12. Gaming and gambling taxes are lower due to government policy and the inept introduction of smoking regulations. Own-source revenue is down 5% in 2010-11 and, you cannot trust that the books are representative if spending commitments are missing. Are the 2011-12 revenue projections believable? We had best hope so or the nett result will be more debt.
Other members spoke about the revote of works. In touching briefly on that, I turn to my electorate of Katherine to look at what the budget says are the infrastructure highlights and the items in A Working Future in the Regional Highlights document. Some infrastructure highlights ring a bell as they were in last year’s budget, and there are a couple that might have been in the year before. Construction of a high-level bridge over the Cullen River was promised last year but the money was not spent, which reminds me about the appalling state of the Stuart Highway. I recently wrote to the minister for Infrastructure regarding the state of the Stuart Highway. There has been some repair work, ,but when I wrote I was not necessarily concerned with the issue of the damage to the roads caused by recent heavy rains this past Wet Season, but rather the lack of strategic maintenance of the Stuart Highway over the past 10 years.
I have been in the Northern Territory since the end of 1984 and remember the days when you drove across the border from any other state and were met by absolutely divine Northern Territory roads. They were absolutely beautiful. There was not a pothole in sight and the Stuart Highway was something to behold. Since moving back to Katherine 10 years ago, and travelling often between Katherine and Darwin, I have seen that road slowly disintegrate. There are patches upon patches upon patches. Much of the Stuart Highway is in need of strategic repair. I do not mean putting a bit of bitumen in a pothole and tamping it down. This is about taking up sections of the Stuart Highway which are in need of major work and re-sheeting those sections of road. I have not seen any proper re-sheeting activities take place on that road for at least two years. There is no excuse for that. It is a federally-funded road, and unless funding arrangements have changed, the Northern Territory simply does the repairs and strategic maintenance, and sends the bill to the federal government. Is that correct?
Mr Tollner: That is correct.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. Unless there is an arrangement between the Northern Territory and federal governments to reduce spending on the Northern Territory’s largest and most important piece of infrastructure, then that is a question someone in the government might ask themselves.
Turning back to Katherine, I note other revoted works include the extension of renal facilities at the Katherine Hospital and associated renal services promised in Budget 2010-11. We have not seen that yet, but herein lies the deceit, the sneaky way in which the Territory government chose a site for the satellite renal unit in Katherine without any community consultation. The first anyone in Katherine knew about the proposed location for the renal unit was a planning notice in the Katherine Times, fortunately picked up by diligent locals, who made further inquiries. The deceit continues. The government has a planning process in place, so it can go through that process, consult with and obtain the support of the community or otherwise. In this case, the land requires subdivision. The subdivision application went before the DCA in Katherine yesterday and, if approved, will progress to a planning application for the actual building and the service.
If the process was transparent, and the government wished to be accountable, it would go through that process before it let the tender for those renal services. The tender document for the satellite renal services in Katherine shows the government decided - before it had gone to planning, before the subdivision approval, before any other planning approvals, before any consultations with the community, and before any feedback - that that renal satellite unit was going to be in Katherine East. The document says so. So even before any of the processes were done, this government had a tender document out for satellite renal services in Katherine East!
Are you trying to tell me that you did not know you were going to put it there? I am confused about the process. Not more than two years ago, the government sold a block of land on Casuarina Street for the purpose of a residential subdivision. Did they know then that there was going to be a proposal for a satellite renal unit in Casuarina Street, virtually right next door to the new residential subdivision? There was no mention of it when the land was sold to the developer. Where is the transparency in this government? I hear that the only criteria to be met for the site was that it was to be outside the flood zone. Never mind that it is next door to a residential subdivision. Never mind that it is opposite a primary school and an early learning childcare centre.
Going back to electorate issues, much of the other work listed under A Working Future is revoted; SIHIP, revoted; Yarralin airstrip, I am pretty sure that is revoted from last year; the same as the Lajamanu airstrip; and upgrades to the Buntine Highway. There is little in here for Katherine that is new, and Katherine needs new infrastructure to promote growth.
We are a town of 10 000 people that cannot grow because we have had little land released over the past 10 years - the last lot was the first land release in 10 years. Katherine is not on the planning map for this government and there is no strategic plan for Katherine. Tim Baldwin, the then minister for Lands and Planning, or Planning and Infrastructure, or whatever it was in 2001, published the last strategic plan for Katherine 11 years ago. I presume this government knows about the document, but it probably sits on a shelf gathering dust. The proposal for a renal unit in Katherine East does not fall within the guidelines of that plan, so if there is another plan, I would love to see it, but that is not in the government’s thinking because Katherine is often left out and thrown the crumbs.
I am not the only person who thinks that about regional parts of the Northern Territory. Yesterday, the executive officer of the Cattlemen’s Association said on the ABC, with respect to regional roads and cattle roads, regional Northern Territory is being thrown crumbs by this government, and I agree. The Treasurer and those opposite are happy to trot out the nice, positive comments from industry groups around the place, give them a little pat on the back, tell them what a great job they have done, but there is someone in the Northern Territory who is happy to speak up and say it like it is. The Cattlemen’s Association chief executive described it as a disgrace – and it is an absolute disgrace!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a great honour to respond to this pathetic budget. The Treasurer has proved she is a master of spin and one could mistakenly believe it is all rosy in the Northern Territory.
I quote from P J O’Rourke:
He should have said that giving money and power to Labor governments is like giving whisky and keys to teenagers, as proved by this Labor government, which is drunk on spending and has no answers to anything other than spending money. The shadow Treasurer was dead right when he said it is a budget of debt, deficits, and deceit. The deceit flows through this document and is alarming for the future of the Northern Territory.
Yesterday in Question Time, the Infrastructure minister was questioned about potholes in the roads. In Question Time today, he said I was well-travelled and well-balanced. A wonderful compliment, minister, and it is true that I am well-travelled. The past couple of months, I have been up and down the track of the Northern Territory, and I am absolutely appalled at the roads. It is no skin off the government’s nose patching up the Stuart Highway - it is the national highway. It just orders and has the work done, and hits the Commonwealth with the bill. It is as simple as that. It does not have to scrimp and save or find money to repair the Stuart Highway. But, as is the wont of this government, it cannot do that without an advertising campaign telling people it is fixing potholes – quite unbelievable! I found it most amusing that the government has stopped using Hector the Road Safety Cat ...
Dr Burns: He had his foot broken.
Mr TOLLNER: He was the flagship of this government. Hector might still be recovering after being hit by a bus whilst giving road safety lessons at Berry Springs School ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, do not pick on Hector. Get back to the subject.
Mr TOLLNER: The last time we spoke of Hector the Road Safety Cat, we learnt the minister had actually dressed up from time to time …
A member: Twice.
Mr TOLLNER: Twice, he tells us. He dressed up twice as Hector the Road Safety Cat.
In any case, the new pothole advertising campaign does not feature Hector the Road Safety Cat and we can only scratch our heads and wonder why. Perhaps he was not such a good advert for road safety after all, particularly after being hit by a bus at the front of the Berry Springs School - very sad.
As the member for Katherine said, road spending is paltry. The Territory relies heavily on regional, rural, and remote services. Much of our wealth and fortune comes from those areas. The least we can do, and what we need to do to build a future for the Northern Territory, is develop those areas. Sadly, there is nothing forward looking or visionary in this budget. It papers over problems, tries to hide mistakes, and comes out with titbits it can sell to the population - very sad, indeed.
A Treasurer concerned about the future of the Territory should identify threats to our economy, but it is not her wont to do that. You would think the first threat identified would be the proposed mining tax of the federal Labor government, but there is no mention of it. This Labor government is no friend of mining and has done whatever it can, for a long period, to make life as difficult as possible for miners. I see people smiling because they have been lobbying, working behind the scenes, trying to ensure some mines are inhibited. I recall the McArthur River Mine debacle. We wanted the government to defend the mine - a mine that is 5% of our GSP - and expected the government would be in there, boots and all, doing what it could to salvage the future of the mine. This government sat idly by and did absolutely nothing. It was caught up in internal bickering between a couple of progressive people and the anti-development, anti-everything majority in the party - terrible shame.
You would think carbon tax would be identified as a future threat. This is a great big tax on everything. If government believes Ms Gillard is true to her word, it should be identifying the carbon tax as a threat to our future. The Territory is a fledging economy. We have a lot of growing to do and it is difficult to do that with the shackles of the carbon tax hanging around our necks. The Treasurer should at least pass observation on it. I was disappointed today in Question Time, when I asked the Chief Minister whether he would be lobbying Canberra with the will of this parliament, because this parliament clearly demonstrated its will last night when it voted to support a campaign to have the Northern Territory exempted from carbon taxes for 50 years.
The government should take that on board and start a campaign, but the Chief Minister says no. He says we do not deal in hypotheticals. We do not know what is going to be in this carbon tax or what is going to be out. It is all hypothetical. As drafting takes place, industries, businesses, organisations, non-government organisations, and unions are in Canberra arguing for their fair share. What is our mob doing here? They are burying their heads in the sand saying: ‘Oh, no. It is all roses. It is nothing to do with us. This is just about dirty, brown coal-fired power stations in Victoria’. What a load of nonsense! This is a new tax on everything: everything we use, the services and products we buy, every time we drive somewhere. It is a tax on everything. The government has some responsibility for the future aspirations of Territorians, and should be ensuring we get a decent deal, not burying its head in the sand.
There is no agriculture support in this budget, but this government is anti-farming and anti-agriculture. It is not what it says, it is what it does. It shut down the Berrimah Farm research facility. That was shut down. It is almost impossible to get a drop of water out of the ground anywhere in the Northern Territory, which is an ongoing issue. Government talks nonsense like: ‘We do not want to see the Daly River turn into another Murray Darling’, or ‘We do not want to see the Roper River turn into another Murray Darling’. The Murray Darling has 64 000 farms scattered along it and produces almost half of Australia’s produce. There are not 64 000 farms in the whole of the Northern Territory, let alone scattered along the banks of the Daly River or the Roper River. We could almost pump completely …
Dr Burns: You almost said – you had better find another way around that now.
Mr TOLLNER: We can pump a lot of water out of those rivers with little effect, more water than any single farmer would ever need. In the Top End, our aquifers recharge every Wet Season, and we can pump water from them quite sustainably, but this government constantly prevaricates about allowing farmers and agriculturalists to take water.
There is going to be tree clearing legislation: ‘Oh, my goodness, we have wiped out most of the trees in the Northern Territory’. Get real. This is another attack on farming and agriculture. We do not clear-fell broadacre areas in the Northern Territory. It is madness to think farmers would contemplate doing that. The reality is, where trees are cleared in areas with arable soils, we need to be maximising those areas, getting them producing, and allowing mums and dads and organisations to make those lands productive. No one is advocating clearing the trees out of the whole of the Northern Territory, but this government acts as though that is the great threat, the same as it acts as though our waterways are going to be turned into Murray Darling-like rivers and resources. That is so far from reality, it is not funny.
These are threats we face. The budget is debt ridden with a huge deficit. As the shadow Treasurer said, with a budget of approximately $4.3bn, the government is spending approximately $5bn. Giving money and power to Labor governments is like giving whisky and keys to teenagers, it is complete madness. Throughout her speech, the Treasurer emphasised a responsible budget. Responsible - you have to be joking! Where is the responsibility? Where is the preparation for the future?
I was part of a former federal government which had a good name for economic responsibility and managing budgets. That government proved itself a responsible economic manager because it put away for the future. Not only did it deliver surplus budgets, but it hived money away at every budget for looming problems. The Future Fund was set up to cover the superannuation entitlements of Commonwealth government employees. Where is a similar fund being set up here in the Northern Territory? We have a looming superannuation bill and this government appears to bury its head in the sand and say: ‘No, that is not actually happening. Someone in the future can pay for that. Our kids can pay for that. We do not really have to worry about that sort of stuff now’. We set up a telecommunications fund to ensure funding for the telecommunications needs of people in the bush. The Commonwealth government put money into the HEEF fund, the Higher Education Endowment Fund, to provide for future higher educational services. Responsible economic managers set these things up.
What is this government setting us up with – a whole lot of debt. The Treasurer says: ‘It is not a big deal. We do not have a great deal of debt. Compare us to Portugal and Greece’. Goodness me, you could not find any more broken economies. How absolutely ridiculous! The PIGs, as the member for Katherine refers to Portugal, Ireland, and Greece, are broken economies, and this is what our Treasurer compares us to. Absolutely appalling stuff! This moribund government is fresh out of ideas - well, not fresh out of ideas; it has been out of ideas since the day it was elected, and it talks about being responsible.
The government spins that at breakfasts and the like and, quite rightly, people attending those breakfasts and lunches are thrilled that the Treasurer, and sometimes the Chief Minister, graces them with their presence. The Treasurer gives a flowery speech about a budget that almost no one has seen, or has had only a couple of hours to flick through, and they see only the headlines the Treasurer wants them to see, and the response is predictable. Government runs around saying businesses welcome this. Go down the track and ask farmers, miners or people in the tourism industry whether they welcome it. They will shake their heads and not know whether they welcome it or not because most people, at that stage, would not have a clue. Real, live Territorians often shake their heads and wonder what the hell this government is doing with all the money.
The Treasurer spoke about the cost of alcohol in our community and we had a big debate on the topic today. The Treasurer says alcohol costs the Northern Territory $642m a year. What is government’s response to that? The government’s response is the $10.9m Enough is Enough campaign; $5.2m for enhanced alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services; $4.7m for the banned drinker register and ID scanners; and $1m to establish an Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. Almost half the money is going into a banned drinker register; that is, we are going to belt the hell out of all decent Territorians who like to have a drink; we are going to inconvenience every Territorian because of the actions of a few. And what about those few? People bandy around the figure of 800 problem drinkers, maybe more.
Let us say there are 1000 problem drinkers. We are going to spend $5.2m sending them to rehabilitation for treatment, which is not compulsory. This government does not demand a person who has an illness, or cannot behave in the community, go into mandatory detention or rehabilitation. It will not come at that, but will spend a paltry $5.2m, which it could double by not penalising the hell out of every other Territorian. We all know who the drunks are. Talk to the police: they know who the drunks are and arrest them every night. Place those arrested half a dozen times over a few weeks into mandatory rehabilitation. Instead of a banned drinker register, put the money into compulsory rehabilitation services. It is ridiculous to spend half a $10.9m budget setting up a register, which inconveniences everyone. H ridiculous!
The current Housing minister has done a good job, and his vigour impresses me. I did not gatecrash his media conference today, but I did listen to part of it as I was due to speak to the media immediately afterwards. I heard the minister’s explanation to a reporter about the three strikes and you are out policy for people who muck up in public housing establishments. I was impressed because it was the first time in a long time I have seen a minister who appeared to have the courage of his convictions. When asked: ‘What are you going to do with these people once you have kicked them out of a public housing place?’ he said: ‘I do not care. They are in a taxpayer subsidised place, they are being subsidised by the taxpayer for their income, and if they are not behaving themselves they can get out, and what they do from there I do not care’. I thought: good on you, minister - a bit of tough love. In my electorate, I have made a couple of calls to the minister and he has been as good as his word. He has booted a few people out of Territory Housing units to the delight of the majority of the residents - some of the bad eggs have been moved on. So ...
Dr Burns: Too bad I cannot do it in here, hey?
Mr TOLLNER: I am sure you would love to do it in here, minister. The way this minister is doing his job in this area is quite good, but this is what the Treasurer said in relation to housing:
We are about 5000 houses short because this government flogged off so many of these …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Sales of public housing commenced under a previous government, but this government has done nothing to rectify the situation only aggravated the circumstances. The Treasurer said: ‘Oh, this is a great thing, we are building 15 new joints over three years’. Fifty a year will not scratch the surface. We speak of a housing crisis and an affordability crisis in the Northern Territory, but get caught up at times talking about land release, and forget other strategies that can improve housing affordability and housing availability. One of those strategies is ensuring adequate public housing stock. What does this government promise when we are right in the middle of the worst ever housing crisis the Northern Territory - 150 new homes over three years and 42 one- and two-bedroom units. How pathetic! From a $5bn budget, the best the Treasurer can do is 50 houses and 20-odd units in a year. How absolutely pathetic - and the Treasurer says it is a responsible budget!
This Treasurer would not present a budget without all the goodies racked in right at the back. There is $1m for site works for the Litchfield swimming pool. Well, my little baldy-headed mate who sits on my left, now has a $1m hole at Freds Pass …
Mr Conlan: Do not be too hard on us.
Mr TOLLNER: He could not even get the pool built in his own electorate. In any case …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not know if that was parliamentary, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: What is that?
Mr Conlan: Follicley challenged.
Mr TOLLNER: Walking on eggshells here, aren’t we? $1m for a hole in the ground. Goodness me, if I had the balance of power and had been stuffed around the way this poor bloke has for over a year-and-a-half, I would be giving the game away. People say: ‘What are we going to do about Gerry? We better talk to Gerry; we will get the government to do something’. A year-and-a-half or two years he has been in this job and the best he can manage is a promise of a hole in the ground - a $1m hole in the ground. By the time he picks up his super and goes, a future government might be talking about laying the concrete and tiles, putting a fence up, and filling this hole with water …
Dr Burns: From the Daly River.
Mr TOLLNER: Possibly, it might be the last of our water stocks. There is $8.1m for Rugby League, $4m for a 12-court squash facility, and good on the squash guys. They have done it hard and deserve a break. No squash facility in Darwin and we have a couple of Australian representatives. It is a feat-and-a-half to be able to play squash for Australia when you do not have a squash court in Darwin. There is $5.1m for tennis and netball facilities in Palmerston, and $4.3m for soccer facilities in Palmerston. I love seeing netball and soccer getting a bit of a go, because these sports are left behind. Netball and soccer are probably the largest participation sports in the Northern Territory. This money is not going out for free, they expect it to come back in votes.
The government will spend $10m for a Defence of Darwin Museum. You talk about revoted works and …
A member: Clare Martin.
Mr TOLLNER: I remember having discussions with Clare Martin in 2001. I suggested the museum should go to East Point, but she did a big study and it had to go anywhere but East Point.
A member: Next door.
Mr TOLLNER: I remember it was going next door. Poor old Clare got knifed and the new bloke suddenly decided to wind that one back, maybe we will go to East Point. I think we have a new federal member now, and the decision was changed. There were promises back in 2001 that they were going to build this Defence of Darwin Museum somewhere in Darwin, but we find it in 2010-11.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, time just flies.
I was talking about the Defence of Darwin Museum. If people believe this rot, they have rocks in their head. This has been promised in budgets going back 10 years but, in 2011-12, it is back in the budget again.
Recreational fishers are going to get $1.8m for improved fishing infrastructure, a new boat ramp, the Taj Mahal of boat ramps, at Palmerston. That was $5m, but this year you will only get $1.8m. There is roads funding in there for fisherman.
There is $12.6m for the Palmerston Water Park - I hope and pray for the people of Palmerston that this is not another Defence of Darwin Museum-type project appearing on the budget papers for another 10 to 15 years. You might be able to seek the influence of the member for Nelson so the government will dig a hole for you at Palmerston - $4m for the water park.
There is much detail about the goodies the Territory government is throwing around, but there is little detail on too many other things. There is no detail about putting money away for the future. There is a little detail about tax cuts, but the government simultaneously signals greater debt. It is a bit like me saying to the member for Port Darwin, look mate, I will pay you an extra $10 a week but, by the way, you are going to have an extra $100 000 in debt to your name. It gives with one hand and takes with the other, a sort of pea and thimble trick.
Madam Speaker, this budget is a budget of deceit, cover up, debt, and spending. It is doing what Labor does best: blowing the budget, blowing the books, ruining the fiscal position of states and territories. When I was fortunate enough to be a part of the federal government in Canberra, we had a responsible government putting money away for the future. Higher education fund, telecommunications fund, a whole range of areas where we were saving for the future, running surplus budgets, paying off Labor debt, and in a few short years we see where we are now. A federal Labor government, and surprise, surprise, it is doing exactly what this mob have done in the Territory for the last 11 years - 10 years. Spending money taxing people more, thinking up new ways to tax people, and there is a range of new taxes brought in by this new federal government. The Territory government is similar - all smoke and mirrors. I cannot believe people believe anything this mob says. There is a bunch of re-promised re-promises, a bunch of new debts with no thought about how we might repay that debt. The Treasurer cannot give, refuses to give, an indication, alleging the paper misquoted her when it said that she expects to be out of debt by 2015.
It was ludicrous to suggest we could be out of debt by 2015 under a Labor government. It is not something a Labor government could ever hope to achieve. Madam Speaker, it is a sham. This is a moribund, shambolic government with no ideas or direction.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I will not talk too long on this Budget 2011-12 as it is late on the last day of parliament. It is a beads and trinket budget. There is little on offer for Alice Springs, particularly in my electorate, and there is little infrastructure spending for Alice Springs.
When one reads the offerings in Budget Paper No 4, it appears this budget is setting up for next year’s election. The battlegrounds seem to be Palmerston and Litchfield, which are where the works are going - the water park, hospital, and any of the other works. That is where government is trying to fight because they appear to hold the greatest gains. Unfortunately, everyone else misses out.
There is $5m for the Alice Springs CBD upgrade in the current financial year, which does not appear in the budget papers. I do not know whether the cheque has been paid, or is about to be paid, to the Alice Springs Town Council, but the CBD has not been upgraded despite a 2008 election commitment. There is no mention of road upgrades, and the golf course and bowling club have not been fixed. There are many things we anticipated being achieved in Alice Springs, which have not happened, but will antisocial behaviour and crime continue? No doubt. Has Alice Springs Hospital been upgraded as it was supposed to be over the past few years? Not at all.
Regarding my shadow portfolio of Indigenous Development, in Budget Paper No 3 there are two areas with a significant increase in spending. The first is education, and investing more in early childhood years is a good investment and something we need to focus on in the Territory. There is an increase in spending across a number of line items within the Department of Education and Training, but whether the money will go to bureaucrats or hit the ground is another question. I am concerned because it is not about how much money you put in, it is about the outcomes.
On page 103 of Budget Paper No 3, Senior Years Education, Key Deliverables, there is a budget for total senior years student enrolments of 4900, which has been scaled back to 4580 for the estimate this financial year, and the budget for next financial year is less than the budget for the current financial year, which is not yet finished. How can the government set a budget for next financial year that is lower than this financial year which was based on a poor estimate? The same graph has students attending over 80% of the time. Government forecast 31% of Indigenous students would attend 80% of the time. It thought only 31% of kids would attend 80% of the time, but that was not the outcome. The outcome was 24.9% - which is a disgraceful figure. We won’t get into NAPLAN or reflect on how poor that is here, as most of the debate about portfolio issues should go through estimates.
There are many failures in the budget, but I did say there were two areas with an increase in spending and, for education, that is a positive. The other spending increase is in Corrections. We are spending a little money on education, a little money on Corrections, and cutting everything else. In Corrections, instead of trying to help people, we had a forecast this year of 1190 daily average number of prisoners. The estimate is we will achieve that number, and next year there will be 1280 daily average numbers of prisoners. Expected peak beds required 1300; an increase of 61 over the forecast and estimate for this current financial year. This government is investing more in Corrections than it is in Housing.
There has been a significant rollback in the amount of money to be spent in the much-maligned SIHIP, and other ancillary programs that come out of the national partnership agreement. So, a decrease in housing when we need a significant increase in bush housing.
I will focus on Housing in estimates. On page 113 of Budget Paper 3 is a forecast 5268 urban housing stock for public housing dwellings, but the estimate for the end of the financial year is 5186, so I am unsure where the additional 82 houses have disappeared. This government says the CLP gets rid of houses but, on page 113 Key Deliverables: Urban social housing stock, public housing dwellings reduce from 5268, as a forecast, to 5186. What happened to those 82 dwellings? In the same table, New households assisted in urban public housing - 618 was the forecast, but you have only helped 525, which is the estimate and demonstrates the performance of this government.
In remote Indigenous housing dwellings, there are strange figures, which I will have to get to the bottom of in estimates. Key Deliverables: Remote public housing dwellings - 4570 was the forecast, and the estimate has ended up at 5498 - around 900 additional houses. Where did those 900 additional houses come from? This budget forecasts an additional 1500 remote public housing dwellings. Where are those extra 1500 public housing dwellings going to come from? They are not coming from SIHIP, unless there is another golden goose that is going to lay a multibillion dollar program enabling government to deliver houses at an affordable price. I am not sure exactly what that refers to.
Communities and town camps receiving repairs and maintenance services has been scaled back by four, but I would like to know which four communities or town camps will not be receiving repairs and maintenance services any more, as shown in the forecast.
It is not beneficial to examine the budget in detail now. It is much better to wait until estimates to look at the budget in more detail, and seek further information.
Regarding the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, while the government is spending much more money on Corrections, it is scaling back investment in sport by $9m, from $34m to $25m. Isn’t it better to invest in children, in sports, and keep people fit, healthy, and active, but we have a budget of $34m being scaled back by $9m in the next financial year, which spells out the intent. This year’s budget is more false than last year’s budget, and I am quite disgusted by it. The revoted works in this 2011-12 budget carry promises from 2008 and beyond. The works have not been done, but government inflates the size of the infrastructure pie to promote it in the media rather than getting on with the work. ‘
The back of Budget Paper No 4 contains the fourth quarter projects that are supposed to commence April 2012, just a few months before the election. You can scrap these items: Fog Bay Road, upgrade and seal selected stream crossings, $4m. That is clearly an election promise to assist the member for Daly be re-elected and will not happen; Jenkins Road Stage 2 upgrade and seal, $6m - that will not happen because it will be carried over as another revote; and Department of Construction and Infrastructure, relocation from the Greatorex Building and fit out of new buildings, $4.4m - it will not happen. Government has done nothing in Braitling because it thinks Greatorex is an easier target, so they have used the word, Greatorex, which is how it thinks. Do not listen to what the government says, look at what it does. Taminmin College - who is Taminmin? Is that Kezia, the member for Goyder?
Mr Conlan: I guess so.
Mr GILES: I think it is the member for Goyder. Another election promise - $3m for a special education centre for Years 7 to 12. These things will come around next year, but nothing will happen. Nothing will happen at all.
In Budget Paper No 2, the revoted works from 2010-11 in Health is $134m, with new works for next year at $37m - $134m sitting there, not being used. When I was the shadow minister for Infrastructure - and I know the current shadow has done a fine job in attacking his Infrastructure portfolio in this debate - I remember talking about how it was revoted last year, and the year before. It was revoted, and revoted.
The Alice Springs Hospital: fire protection, air-conditioning and remediation, a fit out for relocated staff from the administrative ward, relocate and upgrade the emergency department. I have heard the member for Greatorex talk about this. If you just keep revoting it and revoting it and, if you revote for three or four years in a row, all of a sudden you have a $1.5bn infrastructure budget, but you have not done anything; you just keep making announcements. We wonder how much money is in the bank.
Regarding yesterday’s announcement of a $70m hospital at Palmerston with 60 beds, we had the man with the moustache, the broomstick there, with all his colleagues, his mates, making this announcement. Whereabouts? Palmerston, the battleground for next year’s election. The Chief Minister or the member for Johnston spoke about how that hospital will take two years to build. Of course, it will not be built before August 2012 because that would be before the election, but he will make sure there is a shovel in the ground for a photo just before that election, so you can put out a flier to say: ‘We are building this new hospital’.
Some of the other works that have not been done include works at Royal Darwin Hospital: $16m for the 50-unit patient accommodation complex; the electrical system, $41.5m - revoted works. You just keep announcing; you do not have to do it. That is how it all works.
In Lands and Planning, revoted works include: Canteen Creek airstrip; Utopia airstrip - $181m in revoted works; Johnston sewer pump station; Palmerston East headworks; Cullen Bay pontoon; and $15m for Stokes Hill Wharf restoration. Remember when government announced it and said: ‘We are going to fix it up’. There was a bit of media, a bit of publicity, but it did not happen. Budget Paper No 3, page 253 refers to the Darwin Port Authority. Government was supposed to be putting an extra $15m into Stokes Hill Wharf restoration, and it has come as revoted works. Regarding the port’s performance, East Arm Wharf appears to be performing in the positive with a nearly $4m surplus, but navigation and pilotage is going backwards - minus $1.357m out to $1.4m in the budget. The city wharves show a $2m loss, blowing out to a $3.5m loss. One wonders what the government is doing when it loses money on these wharves all the time, and a potential investment of infrastructure for the Stokes Hill Wharf is not going ahead.
What happened to the $50m announced a couple of budgets ago by Anthony Albanese to fix up the Darwin Port at East Arm? We were trumped by Oakajee - Oakajee is getting all the investment in Western Australia. We received $50m to do a feasibility study, but money has just disappeared out of the budget. Whisky and keys for teenagers. The money has gone, the port is still sinking, trade is not improving as quickly as we would like, and navigation and pilotage are going backwards. We need to look at the economic fundamentals in the Northern Territory, and we have to get that right.
Where is the lobbying going on in Canberra to get money to drive the port, so we can get our mineral exploration out of the ground, our mining out of the ground, along the train line and off to the port, and into Southeast Asia or wherever we might send it?
I do not want to go on about this budget as I am very disappointed. This is trickery, thievery and, as the member for Katherine said, deficit, debt, and deceit.
In the estimates process, I will focus on the SIHIP dollars, and what has been happening. I want a full breakdown of the SIHIP dollars and the spending to date. Not just for SIHIP, but also the national partnership agreement dollars and where that money has gone, the investment in tenancy management and what has happened across the Territory. Government says it has built so many houses here and done so many refurbishments there, but I want to know whether value for money has been achieved, because I believe it has been appalling value for money. I want to know about the grants from SIHIP dollars - the direct grants. I believe it is about $50m this financial year, and I want to find out where that has gone, and where it is proposed to go next year.
I have serious questions about the homelands policy in the Northern Territory and what the government is going to do about people living on homelands. Government has turned off the resources tap which assist people to live on a homeland in a sustainable environment. People are moving into town and urban drift is happening everywhere. It is a problem for government because people are homeless, living in overcrowded conditions, everyone is a victim, and antisocial behaviour, violence, crime, and so forth are growing. Businesses are being broken into. The government knows the situation in Alice Springs, and it has not defended it, so I want to know the government’s policy and expectations for homelands. What is it going to do in those locations?
I am interested in the proposed $3.5m headworks at Kilgariff and if the government will get to that this year. A planning meeting was held in Alice Springs in June 2008 – just before the election – to make it look like the government was interested. Now there are design processes and so forth. Kilgariff was chosen over Larapinta, south Sadadeen, and a number of other locations, including Undoolya because the government believed it would be more affordable for Territorians - I think those were the words. There were estimates of $23 500 per servicing of the block for headworks, but apparently an 800 m2 block will now sell for $250 000. Government intends cheaply servicing blocks in Alice Springs, selling them for significant profit, price gouging out of pockets, out of mine and the members for Greatorex and Araluen, so it can come up here and spend money pork-barrelling election commitments to stay in power. I do not think that is fair at all.
I would like to have seen some money go towards some headworks at Larapinta. Sell those ones for $250 000 because I know it is going to cost $150 00 to $170 000 to do the headworks on those blocks. That is a different issue. Do the Larapinta headworks, and develop the 158 south Sadadeen blocks. There are things that could be done straightaway. I will passionately advocate the release of those two areas. In regards to Larapinta, I will advocate with my colleague, the member for Greatorex. Larapinta is his area but I also want it to develop and grow, and I want more land released there. I want to support industry through construction, which should have major flow through effect, and that is what I wanted to see in Budget 2011-12.
The government has done nothing in my electorate. Larapinta Seniors Village, another revote from last year, is yet to be finalised. Work is happening and we have discussed the delays, but it is another revote. We need to get things moving, including the CBD redevelopment. Stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on design plans for the CBD, and start the work. Open up the mall and turn the shops around so they are facing the river - I do not mind. There are massive opportunities there. $5m is a large allocation, but we need to get it off the ground.
Madam Speaker, I will not talk about Budget 2011-12 any more. It is a foolish budget which attempts to deceive Territorians by making it look like the government is actually doing something. Instead, the public service is ballooning, which restricts the amount of money for infrastructure, and the government just keeps making announcements and announcements, and rolling them over each year.
The federal money has slowed down since the economic stimulus and there is limited money for this government to spend. It is broke. It has put Territorians into debt and we are paying something like $200 000 a day in interest, which is an appalling figure for our small jurisdiction. Our economy is too small to generate our own income and we rely on the federal government. Until we get significant investment in infrastructure so we can develop our own economy and become self-sufficient or, at least, on the way to doing that, we will continue to fall a long way short. The deficit, which is forecast to be $295m at the end of the financial year, and the admission that it will soar to $387m, are of great concern.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is worth pointing out that by the year 2014, as a result of this government’s financial mismanagement, every Territorian will be $30 000 in debt. Every Territorian - every man, woman, and child. A total of about $3.87bn in the next few years, which is not a great look.
Lindsay Tanner exposed you all. He published a new book and spilled the beans on how these things work: how Labor governments fiddle the figures, bury figures in one output group, and slide them into another output group. It is difficult to find things and the language is not always straightforward. Things are promised and revoted down the track. There is a record budget for this, and a record budget for that, but the projected inflated figures mean that it is not really a record budget at all. Lindsay Tanner spilled the beans on Labor governments in his latest book, and the things he writes about are what we are seeing here today.
The announcement of a $110m hospital at Palmerston has been much spoken about in the past two days. This is the promise, the announcement. This government is very good at issuing media releases which, essentially, amount to policy. The announcement was about a $110m hospital in Palmerston, with $70m from the Commonwealth government and $40m from the Northern Territory government, and there is no mention of that $40m in the budget papers. Even the member for Nelson pointed out that, one day after the budget announcement, the Northern Territory government commits $40m to build a hospital at Palmerston. A much-needed facility no doubt, and the Country Liberals welcome the intent, but you cannot believe anything this government says.
One only has to look at previous announcements and previous promises. It took 10 years to build the oncology unit - the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre. In fact, it was longer than 10 years - about 11 years. It was a promise made by the then Opposition Leader, Clare Martin, and it was delivered and made operational with the help, thank goodness, of the Commonwealth government at the time. Tony Abbott as Health minister, and great work from the member for Fong Lim really got that up and running. They were let down, as were Territorians, by the Northern Territory government, and so were those people who needed it most. People requiring radiation treatment in the Northern Territory would have welcomed receiving their treatment in Darwin. They were let down most by the Northern Territory government. It took 10 years to deliver an oncology unit. Member for Fong Lim, how much did the Northern Territory government throw into the oncology unit, can you remind me?
Mr Tollner: It was a pittance.
Mr CONLAN: It was a pittance. That is what I thought.
Mr Tollner: It was about $1m out of $30m-odd; something like that.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, about $1m out of $30m-odd. The Northern Territory government provided the land and it was the great work of the former member for Solomon and the member for Warringah, the Health minister at the time, Tony Abbott, who managed to pull that off. Thank goodness for the people of the Northern Territory, they did, in particular those cancer sufferers in Darwin who desperately required radiation treatment in their own back yard. It took 11 years to deliver the oncology unit. It was promise after promise, and people were waiting for it. If it was not for the work of the Commonwealth government at the time we might still be waiting for that oncology unit.
The Palmerston Hospital allocation is $110m, of which $70m is a contribution by the Commonwealth. I wonder how those figures will change and flex over the coming years. I say years because that is how long it will take this government to deliver. Let us not get our hopes up. Talk about a cruel farce. We promised a hospital, and we would have built it; we would have delivered it. We had a clear plan to do it.
Dr Burns: By 2023.
Mr CONLAN: This government made an announcement and that is what it does; just makes announcements. It says: ‘Here is this wonderful media release, look what we are going to do; fantastic’. People have wised up to the Northern Territory government; they are a bit jaded. I cannot quite remember the phrase. People know that if the government says something, if it ever comes to fruition and government actually follows through on what it says it is going to do, it will take a long time. All the people of Palmerston - and I see a Palmerston resident in the gallery - who were here today in the Chamber, and who are listening to the broadcast, please do not get your hopes up under this government. The only way to get a hospital built, delivered, and operational in Palmerston is vote 1 for the CLP in 2012. We will build it, deliver it, and make it operational. Do not vote for these people, the government. Do not vote for them because you will not see a hospital in Palmerston any time soon.
This is what happens after so many years of complacency, laziness, and sloppiness. When you started you came out strong and had a good couple of years. Under the Martin Labor government you achieved some things. You have achieved absolutely nothing under your new man here, the member for Wanguri. You have been –what is it? – a moribund government, member for Fong Lim. I think that is your turn of phrase to describe the Northern Territory government …
Mr Tollner: Shambolic.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, a shambolic, moribund government. You had a good couple of years and people welcomed the change; a new era. This is a democratic country where we change governments without a shot being fired, and we are probably the best continuing democracy in the world. By virtue of that democracy, we change governments, and I do not think anyone begrudges a change of government as that is what democracy is all about.
After 27 years of the Country Liberals, people welcomed change - apart from those members who lost their seats in 2001. A large number of Territorians welcomed the change and you did not do a bad job. You got on with it and delivered some things. You built the convention centre, the wave pool, and the waterfront precinct, which was good. It was the biggest thing you have built since being elected. They were the best years; you had a couple of good years - your 15 minutes of fame is what it was. However, we really have not seen much in the last four to five years.
You had a Labor Party hero in Clare Martin; there is no doubt she was one of the great Labor Party leaders. She took the Labor Party from opposition, after 27 years, into government. You had a great front bench. The member for Johnston was in his prime in those days and he was good. He is a bit tired now and is looking at getting on the Zimmer frame express back to Nimbin. The former member for Nhulunbuy was also strong. He was experienced, heavy hitting, and knew his stuff. You had the member for Fannie Bay, the Labor Party hero, and the member for Arafura - what a talent – a talent that has been lost to the backbench. If you guys want to try, it is the last roll of the dice for you now. You have a little over 12 months to prove yourselves and ask Territorians to give you another four years.
It will be a big ask considering how badly you have let down the Territory and Territorians in this last term. It will be a big ask, and you will need all the big guns. The member for Johnston is going to have to dig deep, back to those glory days, and rise to the occasion one more time - like Bobby Simpson coming back to captain Australia. You are going to have to do that, member for Johnston, come back out for the side and lift. You will need to put the member for Arafura out the front again because she is a talent and knows her stuff. She is feisty, and I do not think there is much love lost on this side for her, but she has common sense and plenty of experience. You are going to need this team.
In those days it was a good side, but the government is a shadow of its former self. Not you, in particular, member for Johnston, but the team. It is a shame because the real losers are Territorians. They are stuck with a government, which has been strung together by an Independent. The place is essentially paralysed, and that is what we see in this budget - promises, after promises, after promises. The member for Braitling put it beautifully; you just keep revoting stuff, and promising stuff. It makes the figures look fantastic, but like Lindsay Tanner said, bolstering it up, looking fantastic, but nothing is getting done.
The hospital in Palmerston - great intent, great announcement, but that is all it is. This is just an announcement. Let the government be judged on its performance, not its announcements. The government must be judged on what it delivers. The people of Palmerston and the people of the Northern Territory, who will rely on the pressure being taken off Royal Darwin Hospital by this facility, will be relying on what you deliver for the Palmerston hospital.
It was mentioned in sittings that there is no money for aeromedical. Where is the money for aeromedical? The minister today advised that it is coming out of the Central Holding Authority, which I assume is a Treasurer’s Advance. It has to be in excess of $20m, because you cannot possibly run a decent aeromedical service in the Northern Territory for anything less, and I believe that is where the problem lies. The bids were well in excess of $20m, and the government has panicked and called in its so-called expert. I question the advice of the government’s so-called aviation expert - a self-styled expert. Government has gone to the expert and said: ‘You are going to have to fix this, because we just cannot afford it. We cannot afford to pay the amount that these guys have bid, so you have to go back and re-jig it’. Whether that means a compromise on the age of the aircraft, or whether it means contracting out the medical component, or whether it means utilising the Department of Health, there have been all sorts of goal post changes when it comes to the aeromedical tender.
The only people being let down are the people of the Northern Territory, who are relying on this service. We currently have a compromised service. It is not a state-of-the-art aeromedical service. It is not an ideal medical service operating in the Northern Territory. The interim contract looks set to be extended again because the Northern Territory government cannot make a decision. Yesterday, the minister mentioned the single-engine versus twin-engine aircraft business, which has nothing to do with it. Something about an engine failure in Western Australia is the reason for the delay. It is ridiculous because the single-engine bids were nonconforming anyway and are there as a secondary option. They will not get a look in, as is the case with nonconforming bids. All the conforming bids were for twin-engine aircraft, but some who bid with twin-engine aircraft also bid with single-engine aircraft. The stuff about the single-engine aircraft holding it up and is absolute nonsense. The self-styled expert has a problem with and does not like single-engine aircraft. He has been railroading the Pilatus and the PC 12 at every opportunity as he is a former Beech salesman, and his position is compromised. This is the advice the minister is taking, which is absurd.
The people paying the price for this incompetence and poor advice are the people of the Northern Territory, and it is staggering that the minister will not step up. Any minister worth his salt, anyone in such a position as the minister would be saying: ‘Come on’, because when it all comes crumbling down, it is not going to be the so-called expert or the bureaucrats who will take the fall. It is going to be the minister. It is his neck, his job, and his reputation on the line. If only for self-preservation, one would think he should be in there fighting and demanding that this gets sorted. It has dragged on for far too long and it is going to drag on again. I cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. It is not in Budget 2011-12, so you clearly do not foresee it. Will we have a tender announcement between now and the next budget cycle?
There are enormous implications for the order and purchase of aircraft. The service requires four or five aircraft. One would usually be off-line as a spare or backup, and the rest online. When a decision is made about the type of aircraft there will be a lead time for ordering, fit out, purchase, and delivery. One cannot simply go to a shop and say: ‘I will have four of those, thanks’. It takes a long time to secure delivery of four new twin-engine aircraft, and have them online, up and running, and operational. It is May now and it would be a miracle if they were here by Christmas. If you are going to announce this and need it up and running by July, you have obviously compromised on the age of the aircraft and all you are doing is messing everyone around. The people who submitted tenders have spent a year of their life on, and invested nearly $1m in, this tender process. They deserve answers and want certainty. Are they in, are they out? Are we still in with a chance, where are we? Have we done the right thing? Have you changed the bidding? Have you changed the parameters of the contract? It is a mess, but this is the hallmark of the government.
These are the second-termers. You have come in, you have come out, and you have played a beautiful first innings, but you are having a disastrous second innings. This is where we are at as a Territory, as a result of this poor performance in the second innings. The crowds go to watch a great match but they are not cheering. They are walking away wanting a refund.
The Alice Springs emergency department has been whacked in there again - $20m plus for the Alice Springs emergency department. When is this going to happen? When are we going to see the new emergency department in Alice Springs? What is the problem? Why can we not get the emergency department up and running? By virtue of its name, one would assume it is pressing. It is an emergency department, for crying out loud. The hospital is hanging off this stuff. Have you been into the Alice Springs Hospital - I am sure the member for Stuart has been there. The minister needs to sit in that emergency department any time of day, but particularly at night. There are often long waiting times, which are blowing out.
We know you are dragging the chain, but when it comes to this sort of stuff, dragging the chain is an understatement. What is the opposite to ‘leading the way’? ‘Dragging the chain’ is probably the best way to phrase it. When it comes to the rest of the country, we are second behind the ACT, and we play catch-up with the ACT. It is either them or us. Tasmania is in there as a jurisdiction of similar size. We have some of the worst emergency department and elective surgery waiting times in the country, and we have seen Alice Springs elective surgery cease for a week or two because of staffing shortages.
I have a copy of an e-mail on my desk sent around Alice Springs Hospital. The head honcho said there was an extraordinary amount of overtime and staff shortages, and thanked everyone for pitching in and helping to fill the roster but, unfortunately, elective surgery has been cancelled for a week. This is what we are facing at the Alice Springs Hospital and across the health sector, and it is in the figures. This is urgent. The emergency department is an emergency department and I would like to make it an emergency to get this going. Another $20m in the Health budget is fantastic, but will we see it any time soon?
I recall asking questions about health reform during estimates last year. I was asking about the acute side of it, and the minister or the CEO at the time said: ‘Not too sure; it is a bit hard to budget for that, or give an estimate for that, because of the health reform. It has thrown everyone into a spin. We are not sure where we are with it’. Twelve months later and we are no further down the track with health reform. Thanks to a sustained campaign by the people of Alice Springs and the Barkly we now have two local hospital networks. Thank goodness. If the government had its way - I remember the minister telling me: ‘No, we are only going to have one because you cannot have two, it is too small. It is ridiculous to have two, it is too small’.
The people of Central Australia, including Alice Springs and the Barkly said: ‘No, hang on; we need to have one for Alice Springs’. It is a First World hospital, a tertiary hospital, a teaching hospital - one of the most significant First World tertiary hospitals in thousands of miles. There is not much between Adelaide and Darwin and it is remarkable to have a facility like that in the middle of the country.
To suggest we do not need a local hospital network for a hospital of that stature or size, which services an enormous part of the interior is ridiculous. That was the minister’s first response. That was his gut feeling: ‘No, cannot do it’. That is the advice he has been seeking – do not have the population, cannot do it - without appreciating the significance of that facility to the interior of the country, not just Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.
There is nothing in the budget about that because it is business as usual. The local hospital network and health reform stuff is probably a federal Labor Party promise, like all the Territory Labor Party promises. It is a promise; it is something on a bit of paper. It was a Kevin Rudd dream. He came in, in 2007, and said: ‘We are going to fix the world. We are going to save all the hospitals. I am going to fix it by 30 June 2009’. That was a complete flop. By early 2010, he said: ‘Okay, we might be on it now. This is what we are going to do. This health reform is the biggest reform since Medicare’. You have to be kidding me. It is just a change in funding arrangements; it is not reform.
It has to be another promise because there is no detail in the budget, no detail from the federal government, and no further detail from the Health department of the Northern Territory government about exactly how this health reform is going to work. We do not have efficient pricing models on surgery or activity. How are Tennant Creek, Katherine, and the smaller facilities, going to fit into this health reform set up? Is it going to be an activity-based or a block-funding model? Again, the only ones who suffer are the people of the Northern Territory - the people who rely on their Northern Territory government to provide the best possible health service; the people who pay their taxes to the government so it can go forth and deliver these core services. To say: ‘We are spending all this money on health, $1.1bn, this is just fantastic, isn’t it?’ It is the government’s job; it is a core service. This is why the government is elected and it is what it is expected to do, and we are not seeing it. We are seeing a whole stack of announcements - Kezia, any chance?
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member’s time be extended by 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thanks, Madam Speaker. How time does fly; it is quite amazing, and still only up to Health. Announcement after announcement, and not much to show for it.
We have seen all the money going into alcohol. However, the government has stripped $3m from licensing and alcohol strategy. That is how important alcohol strategy is to the government, and how committed it is. The biggest problem facing us, it says. These are the most important bills and reforms in the history of the world, yet it has stripped $3m out of the Department of Justice to tackle alcohol issues. That is how important it is to government. It cannot be that important, and it is not much of an investment. Nevertheless, it is significant amounts of money in anyone’s books. Despite stripping $3m, millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is going into alcohol reform and what are we going to see? All this going into banning alcohol orders, or the banning notices, I think they are, member for Sanderson …
Mr Styles: Alcohol treatment orders.
Mr CONLAN: Treatment orders. It is another fancy word some spin doctor like Hawker Britton came up with, so let us use that. That is good language and people will buy it. Let us call it a banning alcohol and treatment notice. I did not get through all the stuff I received about alcohol. There has been much spin regarding your commitment to the alcohol management plan, and how tough you are on alcohol, and what you are going to do. Much effort has gone into painting us as cavalier and swashbuckling regarding alcohol, and portraying that we do not really care about it. That all we want to do is open up the rivers of grog and we could not care less. There has been much spin to pump up your arguments and try to diminish anything from the Country Liberals. Ultimately, we are not seeing much stuff on the ground, and we are not seeing many inroads or results. The spin you generate to bolster your arguments, and the media releases, the tens of tens of media releases - there would be at least a few hundred media releases on alcohol that you ...
A member: You put out a few.
Mr CONLAN: I have put out a few - most to counteract and dispel the myth you are trying to peddle to the Northern Territory public. When I see such injustice and government spin, it is my duty as a responsible citizen and member of parliament to try to correct the record, which I do via a media release. I have an enormous number of media releases on this alcohol stuff and I regret I did not bring them. They are in my office in Alice Springs and I forgot to bring them. They will sit there for another day, because this argument will not be going away. A whole stack about: ‘This is what we are doing. The great new initiative by the Northern Territory government to tackle alcohol and get tough on drunks’.
It would be great if you could get somewhere with it. Unfortunately, 10 years on, we are not. It is the second innings and you have dropped the ball, so you do not have any chance of getting anywhere now because you do not have the side, you do not have the team anymore. You did once upon a time. You had the side, and the chance. That was your chance. You came out a bit slow, you lost a few early wickets, but then in about 2003-04 you started to look at alcohol seriously and you had a pretty good team. The member for Johnston was in his prime. Boy, he could belt them over the fence in those days. The member for Karama was a good all-rounder. You had big hitters like the former member for Nhulunbuy. That guy was like the Lance Cairns of parliament - six sixes - I am sure he could give Garfield Sobers a run for his money.
Dr Burns: Why not add another six to it?
Mr CONLAN: What is that, seven sixes? I think you get the point. We could go on all day with the cricket analogy. You do not have the team, and I do not think you will achieve it with the side you have now. We are so crowded with this spin.
Dr Burns: We have Kim Hughes right now.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: I am not crying yet.
Madam Speaker, alcohol policy - it is a real shame because it is an enormous issue that affects the Territory and us all. The human cost is high and one cannot overlook the financial cost to the Territory taxpayer. It is becoming unsustainable and almost insurmountable.
I will speak about Central Australia for the next few minutes. I am only allowed one extension of time, is that right, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct.
Mr CONLAN: The member for Barkly was talking about roads today. You would agree, member for Stuart, that they are pretty ordinary. I was at Wauchope near Tennant Creek the other day and it is a shocker - really terrible. All the boys were staying at Wauchope, as was I, and we had dinner and a couple of beers. We had a good night - it is a great spot as you probably know. But they were shaking their heads about what was going on. You have been filling it up with asphalt. They were giving me all the technical jargon - I am not a roads master. There are 250 tonne road trains going over the top of this stuff all day long and the road is only gravel. They were saying: ‘We need to strip the whole Stuart Highway, put on a foot-and-a-half of concrete, and then asphalt the top’.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is called. Ring the bells.
Mr CONLAN: Can I keep talking?
Madam SPEAKER: No. A quorum is present. You may now continue, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I went to the youth hub and it reminded me of the show, Yes, Minister, where the minister wants to see the most efficient hospital in Britain. All the typists are there and the office is packed and he says: ‘This is pretty good’, and he sees the cleaners working hard. Then he goes into the wards and no one is there. He asks: ‘What is going on?’, and they said: ‘It is the most efficient hospital, as we do not have one patient!’ The youth hub has all these people working away and there is not one kid in the place. It is quite extraordinary.
I have 25 seconds left and wanted to talk about the Mereenie Loop, but it is not there; the police station relocation, hello, hello, that will have to be a story for another day, Treasurer, and, of course, housing at Kilgariff, Larapinta, and Sadadeen. I agree with the member for Braitling. The future development is marked on the planning maps, and CBD redevelopment, but they are stories for another day.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will concentrate on issues rather than how many dollars and cents the Treasurer and her Cabinet decided to spend on what.
In relation to my electorate and the local economy, I go to my shopping centres every Saturday morning. I rotate around them and I hear interesting comments from people in the electorate. They are ordinary people, they get on, they go to work, they pay their taxes, they try to educate their kids and give them the best possible life, but many of them are struggling. The government tells you that everything is great, not too many people are struggling, and the future is rosy. However, some people on the ground are very concerned.
All shops in the northern suburbs are experiencing serious downturn in relation to turnover. I am told people’s disposable income is down. Customers are telling shopkeepers that rents are high, and the cost of living on everything else is high. They are not going to the shops; they are not buying little bits and pieces. That is having a serious effect on businesses and employment.
Many family-owned shops have teenage family members working in the shops, and people are working extremely long hours in these supermarkets. The owners and business proprietors are working long hours and they are not employing local people, they are not employing young people in part-time jobs and providing some income to take pressure off their families. That is not occurring.
There are an increasing number of vacant shops in the city and other areas. That indicates the Territory economy is not in the shape portrayed by the Treasurer. I do not know if the Treasurer is talking to these people because she might see a different picture if she talked to people who have serious concerns about where the Territory is going. People have serious concerns about their kids who are still in school, and those who have left school but are still living at home.
My electorate has one of the highest proportions of young people still living at home with their parents. That will change as many are heading towards university these days, and in a number of years those people are going to be looking for their own accommodation and looking for jobs. I sincerely hope some of the Treasurer’s predictions come to fruition or we are going to have serious trouble with jobs and the cost of living. We will also have serious problems with an exodus of our young people.
I have made written requests to a number of ministers recently. One request was about a crossing on McMillans Road near Carnoustie Crescent. There is a six-lane highway at the intersection of Carnoustie Crescent with a hidden driveway as you come into it. It is an interesting design. A large number of people – I do not know the exact number - but half the Northlakes estate lives there, including many families with young kids. Many of those kids attend Anula Primary School and need to get from Carnoustie Crescent across McMillans Road to the park, which they walk through to access the children’s crossing on Yanyula Drive, and then into Anula Primary School.
The mornings, just before school starts, are one of the busiest times on the roads. There is heavy traffic outbound, but especially inbound, with traffic heading towards the CBD for work. The intersection is an 80 km/h speed zone. There are young people, and some primary school-aged kids on bikes, walking, sometimes with elderly grandparents taking them to school. These people have to negotiate three lanes of highway where the traffic is usually travelling at 80 km/h. Their only option is to walk from Carnoustie Crescent in an easterly direction outbound along McMillans Road to the shopping centre, and to the intersection of Matthews Road and McMillans Road. I calculate it is a distance of 496 m. Then they have to cross the road, which is about another 20 m or 30 m, and another 496 m back to the park. These young people and elderly people have to walk about 1 km to get across the road.
The area is serviced by public transport and there is a bus stop on the inbound side, so the people of Northlakes do not have a problem getting to that bus stop. However, if you are travelling in the other direction, these elderly people who cannot run across the road - we have many retirees in that area - would have a problem walking 1 km to a bus stop which, if you stand at the intersection, is about 120 m across the road and up the street.
In Malak, at the Malak and KOA Caravan Parks on McMillans Road, there is a pelican crossing for permanent caravan park residents whose children attend Malak Primary School, which is in the member for Karama’s electorate. There is a pelican crossing in the member for Karama’s electorate, which is well-used. Down the road are more elderly people and young children than there are in the caravan parks, who have to walk 1 km or mix it with the traffic. Most young people do not want to walk the extra 1 km and choose to mix it with the traffic. Parents and others in the area say they regularly have close calls and there could be a serious injury or a death in the not-too-distant future. I hope it will not take that for the government to consider the ongoing requests over many years. I have made noises in the last few years about getting a crossing in place and will not dwell on it further.
I have asked for trees to be replanted on McMillans Road to create a sound barrier and to replace the trees removed as part of the government’s culling process of apparently unsuitable trees. We have an enormous amount of coloured grass now. People on that stretch of road are not happy and would like the government to replace the trees with what it considers to be appropriate trees. The residents want some trees.
I have serious concerns about youth. On Saturday mornings at each of my shopping centres I talk to many young people who are buying breakfast and the paper. I talk to them about where they are going, how they are going, how they are travelling. There is a whole range of issues seriously affecting our young people. I estimate that young people make up roughly 18% of the population, but they are 100% of our future. If we do not keep these young people in the Territory, we are going to have serious issues with school shortages and people to replace their parents who, in many cases, when they retire have to relocate south because of the cost of living and the lack of seniors’ accommodation.
I stray into other portfolio areas here, so will stay on youth issues. At one of my shops last Saturday morning a young lady in despair approached me. Her partner has a good job in a mine, is earning good money, and they would like to buy a home. They were both born in Darwin - good Darwin people. I know the young lady; she is a former student from Sanderson High School. She is a lovely young lady who has two fabulous little kids. They are currently residing with her brother-in-law and his family because they cannot afford rent. They are desperately trying to save for a home. Even the extra $10 000 the government announced for BuildBonus will not help these young people and many others who find themselves in that situation. Home ownership is out of reach for them. To obtain the great Aussie dream of owning a home will be difficult. They pay exorbitant rents because we have not had timely land release, which has put pressure on housing. The competition for housing has driven prices sky high. What the government has done in the past has not worked. I know government has allocated money in the budget for headworks for new blocks in Palmerston East, but it is probably too little, too late.
Young family members who leave school or university, or are looking for a job, cannot afford to rent, and they cannot afford to stay here. If they are single, five or six or seven of them will share the rent and it is not so much of a problem. However, if these young people are in relationships and want to start a family, accommodation is often beyond their budget. The rents are too high and they cannot afford to. It is sad to hear what these young people say. They say they would love to stay here, as their mums and dads are here, but they cannot afford to. They want to start a life so they are moving south where they can find jobs, afford the rents, and even afford to purchase. We are losing not only their skills, but part of the social fabric of the Territory. I do not know if these kids will return once they go elsewhere, which usually means we will lose mum and dad who are our seniors and a stabilising influence in the community, usually forever .
There is talk of a mining tax. Many young people work in mines in the Territory, although there are many who have to fly-in and fly-out because there is no accommodation here, so government is killing mines. Recently, a mining company moved its processing from the Northern Territory to Whyalla in South Australia because of unfavourable conditions in the Territory. When we expose them, I am sure the government cannot say it does not know about these things, but one wonders exactly what it is doing.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, do you mind if I just interrupt you? I have a document here for a pair between the member for Fannie Bay and the member for Goyder from now, 12.30 pm, to the close of the sittings. It is signed by both Whips. Thank you.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, when we look at the budget, we see 150 houses over three years and 40-odd units, which I welcome, and thank the government for doing something. There is an enormous waiting list for seniors’ housing and I again think, too little, too late.
I know there is some argy-bargy between both sides of the House and this side accepts the selling of somewhere around 793 homes up until 2001. However, the Australian Bureau of Statistics public housing figure is 2016 or 2017 houses that this government has sold off. There just is not the housing stock any more.
We sold 700-odd homes and many were sold to low-income people to get them into the housing market. I have spoken to a few of those people when doorknocking, and they said they were very lucky. They have young kids at school and uni now. They purchased their homes 10 or 15 years ago and are eternally grateful to the people who facilitated the purchase. If not for those public homes, they would not have been able to enter the housing market. Many of those people are in an improved situation, they have stability, and they are not going to get put out of their homes. They can stay there and do whatever they wish to with those homes. They can stay there and have the kids or grandkids visit.
Madam Speaker, we move on to seniors. The greatest gripe from seniors that I talk to on Saturday mornings, at my office, or at seniors’ functions is: ‘What happens when we retire?’. Those who have retired are saying the same thing and they are referring to the cost of living and the cost of accommodation after retirement. Once they lose their weekly or fortnightly income, they have problems supporting themselves because it costs them too much to live here.
I note the government has put extra money into the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme, which has not been improved for many years. We still have a massive problem in providing seniors’ villages and seniors’ accommodation.
I know of retirees who live in the four-bedroom home in which they raised and educated many children - whom they had later in life. The husband has a medical condition and sleeps at various times of the day. She is in one room, he is in another, and they have a grandchild living there with them. They are close to the hospital, close to services, yet they were told they are a little over the income level to remain in their home. The house came as part of a job package and they cannot afford to move out. I am hoping for an urgent review by the responsible minister to consider what can be done to help them.
The issue is that even if you want to downgrade these people, we do not have premises to downgrade them to. Too many have been sold off and it is difficult to replace them as demonstrated by the announcement of only 150 homes and 40-odd units into the public housing stock. It is a problem trying to keep seniors here. I acknowledge that the government reduced stamp duty in the last budget to encourage people to move out of those big homes, freeing them up for young families.
Regarding Racing, Gaming and Licensing, I am assuming we will receive the standard answer from government - that it spends an enormous amount giving back to the racing industry. I do not have the figure with me, but the government takes a fair whack of tax out of the system and puts less back in. I have mentioned this before and it is timely to mention it again - regional race meetings keep families and bush people together. They give people a reason to go out, to feel proud of what they are doing. They are major community events in regional towns and areas. The Tennant Creek races have gone from two race meetings a year down to one, which is a shame because the people, especially the ladies in town, love to get dressed up to go to the races. Single girls meet single boys at race meetings, functions, and those sort of weekends. They meet potential partners and the next thing you know we have people getting married, having kids and staying in that regional area.
If we do not facilitate these events the social fabric breaks down, people tend to drift into larger urban areas, and you lose those bush people, quite often forever. They do not return. They find someone; they fall in love, marry a city person and do not move back. We need to do things, and I hope government notes the need to put more money into regional areas to ensure this social interaction occurs and facilitates the building of social capital and the social fabric in our regional areas.
Another of my shadow portfolios is Alcohol Policy, but we have said enough on alcohol policy today so I will skip that one.
Much has been said about transport and the state of the roads in the Northern Territory. I have spoken to trucking companies and the Australian Trucking Association about the conditions of our roads. The Australian Trucking Association says drivers are reporting extremely dangerous conditions because of the standard of maintenance on our roads. The minister and the Treasurer said: ‘We are spending lots of money’. We accept we had a severe Wet Season, and a long one, which has taken its toll on our roads, but the issue is about the ongoing maintenance of our infrastructure. Regarding the beef roads that were put in some years ago, various industry people have advised me of the cost of repairing and upgrading those roads. I was stunned by the amount. They said the cost of urgent repairs required on our beef roads in the Territory is $2.6bn, which is half of our annual budget. We are not going to see that money spent immediately, but it gives some idea of the amount of money required to keep regional and remote Northern Territory open for business.
The cattle industry and the mining industry - might I say, hopefully, the increasing use of those roads by the mining industry will contribute to tax dollars, royalties, and a range of income for the Territory, but we are going to have to invest that money into the road system to ensure it keeps going.
East Arm Wharf requires improvements, including extra container cranes. I went on a self-funded trip to Singapore recently and will give a report when I have the opportunity, though it is not required. Exciting things are happening worldwide which might interest members in the House, so we can consider what we might do with East Arm in the future, and shipping and transport generally.
One cannot discuss transport without referring to the carbon tax - the big new tax on everything. I refer to the Greens, who want to get rid of the fuel subsidies. I am concerned because when fuel goes up in the Territory by 5 or 10 a litre, or even a couple of cents a litre, people are alarmed. We have front page stories; we have people calling on politicians, especially the government. They want something done. People start ringing local MLA offices saying: ‘This is terrible. How can we do this; how can I run the kids to school; how can I do that?’ Even small increases are horrific. The Greens want to get rid of the fuel subsidy on a range of things, including agriculture. The subsidy for road transport is about 36.9 per litre. Almost everything we do here is courtesy of the trucking industry or rail. Trucks still carry the most, so we need the trucking industry to retain the subsidy.
Forty per cent of Territory houses have diesel-powered electricity, which means a likely 25% increase in the cost of electricity when fuel is one of the most expensive components. Where people and families are struggling with vehicle fuel costs and you start adding to the cost of transport, the cost of staples such as bread and milk will also go up because it is delivered by trucks that use diesel.
Agriculture: how to kill off an industry!. We have fledgling agricultural industries and people desperately trying to compete in an environment where everything else costs much more than elsewhere in Australia. If we want to have sustainable development of agriculture then we need to ensure the Territory government pressures the federal government on the carbon tax. Last evening, this House decided it would not support carbon taxes, and we should be lobbying Canberra to ensure we do not get a carbon tax, a mining tax, or any other great big new tax on everything.
Until we have a global agreement on carbon taxes and carbon pricing, and everyone is on the same page, the rest of the world must be laughing at us. We are going to give away our competitive advantage or kill industries while our competitors are in a far better position because they are not a signatory to anything like that which will apply in Australia. It behoves us not to do anything until there is complete agreement, everyone is on board, and we are all on the same page.
I move on to schools, especially the schools in my area. I attend school council meetings and listen to people’s concerns about student numbers, which affect staffing levels. We have a consistent situation in the northern suburbs. The Chief Minister said on many occasions that we have the lowest unemployment level in the country. That might be because if you do not have a job, you cannot last long up here because you cannot afford it. What I regularly hear is that someone has been put off, they lost their job, and they do not have a huge backup. Young people with families do not have a lot of money in the bank. They live from one payday to the next, and they struggle. However, what happens then …
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: I will not be too much longer, Madam Speaker.
I was on schools. Numbers in schools are affected by the high cost of rent and low disposable income. People cannot afford to stay in homes in the northern suburbs so they are moving out to the rural area where rent is cheap. They take kids out there and it is more difficult for them with high petrol costs, and they are caught in a vicious cycle. Numbers are down and we struggle to get people to come in and pay the higher rents. There are now vacant homes in the northern suburbs, which is not doing anyone any good, though it does bring down the cost of rent. With a bit of luck, the cycle will go around, but it poses a problem for people who bought houses in good times and paid big dollars. The house value drops or the rent is insufficient to cover their payments. It is going to put other people in difficult situations.
I ask the government to seriously look at housing affordability. It is doing bits and pieces but it needs to release more blocks faster. A figure, which I agree with, is that we are 5000 homes short here. That is because you cannot buy a block of land and young families cannot afford to purchase land.
I was doorknocking a street in my electorate recently and found a grandson living with granny, who said: ‘I do not mind living with granny and being here because she is on her own, but I cannot afford to live anywhere else. It is pretty cool, granny is cool. She is deaf. I can do whatever I like with my music and everything is sweet’. I went to another house and spoke to a young lady who is the daughter of a guy I have known for years. She is moving back home. She is an AO4 in government. She has a permanent job, a great job, but she cannot afford to live away from home. She bought a unit, but she is struggling and has to move home to rent the unit out. The lady in the next house is an AO5 and is forced to live there with three other women because she cannot buy a home on an AO5 wage. She is in her mid-30s and is struggling to stay in Darwin. She is an experienced public servant and she said she is thinking of leaving because Darwin is too expensive. So we will lose good people, which is not good for the Territory.
Recently, several doctors moved to Tasmania because they can earn the same money and buy a house. These are new doctors. We are not talking about doctors that have millions of dollars up their sleeve. We are talking about young doctors who would like to buy a home and have a reasonable lifestyle, who cannot find that lifestyle here so they move to Tasmania. We have nurses and tradespeople - I am stunned at the number of people who are moving out of town, which gives credence to our negative population growth at times. The government says it is cyclic, but it is happening. We are struggling to get tradespeople here. We are struggling to keep nurses here because they cannot afford to stay here.
Regarding infrastructure, we have deliberately gone into debt. It is an interesting concept and I accept the Treasurer has many supporting arguments. Perhaps the Treasurer should have squirreled away a few dollars in the good times so when the bad times come she can go to the piggy bank and pull some out. We have a huge investment required in infrastructure.
I am led to believe by various people Power and Water - and this would not be official - has a run-to-fail policy. I have people in my electorate who regularly call me, and I have a number of people to whom I say: ’Every time the power goes out, text me’. There are times when my phone rings all the time and the messages reads, ‘no power, power on, power off’. I receive text messages regularly where a crew is called out to replace fuses that should be part of an ongoing maintenance program, but it is not happening. The rivers of gold that came in during the good times were obviously not squirreled away for the bad times. There are simple lessons in life that we have all read about in nursery rhymes and animated stories about that issue, and yet we have not paid off our debt.
I am a Territorian, my kids are here, I have two little grandkids here and we are not going anywhere. When I retire from this job, or it is determined by the voters that I should not have it any more, I am not going anywhere, this is my home. I cannot go anywhere. I am frightened because by 2014-15, Territory debt will be approximately $6.574bn, divided by 220 000, which equals just under $30 000 per person. That is $30 000 per person and only four and a bit years away. It is a scary thought, because I have to live here, my kids have to live here, they have to survive and work here, and we will be saddled with this enormous debt; a doubling of debt in approximately four years. I do not know how the Treasurer sleeps at night because I would be concerned if I was running a debt like that.
Madam Speaker, I ask the government listen to the opposition’s concerns. We are in touch with our constituents, we talk to them, we doorknock, we stand at shopping centres and sit on street corners and, like the member for Nelson, we talk to many people. Our stories are not made up to fill space. These are legitimate concerns and I ask the government to note and address these things. If it does not take note this time, perhaps during preparation of the next budget it could acknowledge that people are struggling, want to be heard, and want a break. To quote the government: ‘Enough is enough’. People have put up with this and are sick and tired of it. We encourage you to look closely at programs that can help average Territorians.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Treasurer in her delivery of the Appropriation Bill and highlight key funding areas in my portfolios which I believe will deliver real benefits to Territorians.
Education and training are key priorities of the Henderson government and Budget 2011-12 reflects our efforts in this area. In 2011-12, we will deliver a record $930m education and training budget which will see more teachers in classrooms, improved infrastructure, and better programs to help students obtain the best possible education.
Teachers play a vital role in a child’s education and we want the best teachers in front of every class. Since 2002, we have invested strongly in an additional 400 teachers, principals, and support staff. In Budget 2011-12, we continue our investment in teachers with a range of new initiatives. The government is committed to providing an additional $14m in 2011-12 to improve teachers’ pay and working arrangements under the new enterprise bargaining agreement. This includes an additional $1.2m over two years to establish 50 specialist teacher positions, meaning more of our top teachers stay in the classroom benefiting students. $1.18m will provide teacher aide positions across all urban Territory schools. Teacher aides will be in transition classrooms giving teachers more support and focus on early literacy and numeracy development. They will benefit schools in Darwin and Palmerston, the rural area, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy, Batchelor and Alyangula. We know keeping teachers in bush schools, is important if they are to make an impact on students’ education.
The Territory government will include $100 000 to introduce a study reimbursement of up to $3000 for higher education loans program repayments in Budget 2011-12 to attract more teachers in hard to recruit to positions, particularly in remote locations. Budget 2011-12 completes the $246m four-year Territory government initiative to upgrade every primary and group school, with $7.2m to upgrade 24 schools. Schools to receive funding in Budget 2011-12 include: Alpurrurulam, Bakewell, Borroloola, Clyde Fenton, Driver, Durack, Gillen, Gray, Kalkaringi, Larapinta, Leanyer, MacFarlane, Malak, Milingimbi, Moil, Nakara, Nganmarriyanga, Nightcliff, Parap, Ross Park, Sadadeen, Stuart Park, Wanguri and Woodroffe. The Commonwealth-funded program of $268m for all Territory schools under the Building the Education Revolution will also be concluded in 2011- 2012 and will see upgrades for all schools.
The Henderson government’s commitment to improving infrastructure for our special needs students continues with significant investments in Budget 2011-12 including: $11.9m to relocate and build a new purpose designed Nemarluk School in Alawa; $3m for Taminmin College; $2m for Henbury School; $1.5m to continue works at Acacia Hill School; and $1m for Palmerston Senior College. In Budget 2011-12, the department will invest $2.8m to establish a regional school support structure to provide a more responsive support service to all Territory schools; $850 000 will be provided to commence stage one of the national curriculum implementation in all Territory schools helping to prepare our teachers and ultimately benefiting students; and $700 000 will also be invested to establish an engagement centre at Palmerston Senior College to improve outcomes for disengaged youth.
We know children must attend school every day to receive a good education which will set them up for the best possible life. We know school attendance directly impacts a child’s results at school, and our Every Child, Every Day attendance strategy is in place to boost school attendance, especially in the bush. In Budget 2011-12, we are continuing our investment in attendance with $3.2m to continue and expand student engagement programs including: rolling out the Clontarf Football Academy and Sporting Chance Program; $2.28m to continue enrolment and attendance initiatives under the Every Child, Every Day strategy; and $1.6m to fund attendance and truancy officers in all regions.
In partnership with the Australian government, the Territory government will continue improving educational outcomes of Indigenous students under the A Working Future initiative including: $10.6m for the Strong Start, Bright Future program; $6.4m to continue to enhance and support training programs in Territory growth towns; $8.7m to continue and expand ’virtual’ very remote early childhood integrated services hubs and Families As First Teachers programs; and $1.2m for additional teachers for very remote schools.
For early childhood, Budget 2011-12 continues the A Working Future upgrades, investing $16.4m to build child and family centres at Yuendumu, Gunbalanya, Maningrida and Ngukurr. An additional $500000 to expand the mobile preschool program to $3m to improve access to preschool services for children living in remote communities is also in the budget, helping prepare children for school.
The Territory remains the only jurisdiction to pay a childcare subsidy to help reduce the cost to Territory families. In Budget 2011-12, $4.3m is provided to continue to pay childcare subsidies for all children attending licensed childcare centres. Childcare places will be subsidised by $27.37 per week for children under two years old, and $20.20 for children over two years old. This creates significant annual savings for families.
The Territory government’s investment in training to build the workforce of the future continues in Budget 2011-12. It will support over 4000 apprentices and trainees in training across the Territory - an increase of 81% since 2001. This includes 1800 traditional trade apprentices in identified skill shortage areas. $21.8m will be provided for training and apprentices to grow a skilled Territory workforce, including: $8.5m for an employment strategy for local Indigenous people, incorporating $7.37m in CDEP transition and $1.1m for 16 full-time equivalent assistant teacher positions; $1.85m for 15 industry engagement and participation personnel to facilitate structured work placement programs for senior students; $1.3m to continue the Workwear/Workgear program to assist apprentices with the initial cost of work-related necessities during the first year of their apprenticeship; continuation of the $1m per annum for 10 000 apprentice and trainee commencements between 2009 and 2012; $900 000 Work Ready funding to help young Territorians transition from school into apprenticeships and traineeships; $800 000 in incentives for employers to take on apprentices and trainees in occupations experiencing skills shortages, or to employ persons from disadvantaged groups; and $250 000 to provide vocational education and training and work experience for students in middle years of schooling, with a particular emphasis on young Indigenous men.
Budget 2011-12 delivers significant investment in public and affordable housing, investing $539m for more affordable housing and accommodation across the Territory. Consistent with our Territory 2030 objectives, the government is committed to growing our housing numbers, improving access to housing, and building the capacity of the non-government sector to be involved in providing housing solutions for Territorians in need.
Urban public housing: the public housing construction budget for 2011-12 includes significant investments in urban initiatives including: continuation of the $49m investment over three years towards building 150 new public housing homes; continuation of the $11.6m investment to complete construction of 40 seniors’ units at Bellamack; $14.1m to complete social and affordable housing dwellings as part of the four-year $60m Australian housing stimulus package; $15.1m for repairs and refurbishments to existing public housing dwellings; $9.4m to commence a targeted upgrade program on urban public housing dwellings across the Territory; and $1m to redevelop old public housing unit complexes.
In Budget 2011-12, $1.2m is allocated to the new public housing safety strategy, including establishment of a public housing safety officer workforce in 2012. In addition to a construction budget in urban areas, we will continue to ensure that 15% of all government land release is set aside for affordable and social housing, creating real opportunities for low- and middle-income earning Territory families to enter the housing market. Additional affordable housing options for eligible Territorians will be provided in 2011-12 through the establishment of the affordable housing rental company. Work is already under way on the first project at the former Wirrina site in Parap, where 35 units will be available.
Supported accommodation: reducing homelessness will be addressed with $6.8m in Budget 2011-12 to operate managed short-term accommodation facilities in Alice Springs and Darwin including: $1.22m to manage the Alice Springs Visitor Park, a short-term accommodation facility housing up to 150 visitors; $1.22m to operate a transitional accommodation facility at Crerar Road, Berrimah; $1m for Percy Court Transitional Village in Alice Springs; $1.7m for tenancy sustainability programs across the Territory; and $1.25m for homelessness referral services and grant programs.
Remote Indigenous housing: our commitment to improving the living conditions of Indigenous Territorians in remote areas continues in Budget 2011-12 with $172m investment in the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program to construct new housing and upgrade existing housing, and $118m to provide land servicing and essential services infrastructure in Territory growth towns. Already, 1500 families have benefited from new and improved housing in remote areas and town camps, and this number will increase at a good pace this year.
Government employee housing: delivering key government services such as health, education, and policing in remote areas is vital. In Budget 2011-12, we will deliver $42m to build, replace, and upgrade government employee housing in remote areas so we are able to attract and retain the best teachers, nurses, police officers, and other government staff in our remote regions.
Northern Territory home ownership: buying a home is one of the biggest and most rewarding investments a person makes in their life. The Henderson government is committed to helping more Territorians become homeowners. In Budget 2011-12, significant changes to the Homestart NT scheme will help more low- and middle-income earning Territorians get their foot in the door of the housing market. Since 2004, over 1400 households have been assisted to purchase their own home. The Treasurer has made a number of announcements about lifting the income limit for people under the Homestart NT scheme, and that was well received at the budget breakfast with the Master Builders Association today.
Public employment: we continue to invest in our public servants. This year’s EBA demonstrated that we do value our public servants. We are also working towards completion of the new public sector management act, and negotiations are continuing.
Budget 2011-12 and the Appropriation Bill highlight this government’s commitment to Territorians in a range of areas.
I particularly want to compliment the Treasurer. It has been a long few months. Today has been a very long day, and night. The Treasurer started the day at the Master Builders Association breakfast before coming here and she has had a heavy workload with the bills she has put through parliament and committee stages - important bills about alcohol. She also has charge of the Appropriation Bill, and our Treasurer should be commended for this budget. It was framed in difficult circumstances. The opposition will have the opportunity to interrogate the budget during estimates. I commend the Treasurer for her energy, commitment, and intellect. At budget functions, the Treasurer has demonstrated detailed knowledge of all portfolios areas, and I sometimes think, my goodness me, I wish I knew as much detail about housing and some of those expenditure items as the Treasurer. You can quibble about it, but the Treasurer, when you think about the portfolios and detail she is across, it is incredible. It shows a Treasurer who is right on top of her portfolios, and everyone else’s. That is the difficult role of a Treasurer.
Madam Speaker, opposition members spoke during this debate. Some were humorous and some made good observations and critique of the budget. I was saddened by what the member for Katherine said earlier today. The member for Katherine, quite brazenly, spoke of deceit, debt, and integrity. I believe the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Port Darwin put him up to coming here today and using that sort of language in the parliament. If he was given that advice, it was not good advice.
It demonstrated that it was, at one level, cheeky, if you were going to be charitable. To me, it oozed hubris, it was contumely, if you want to look up the word and what it means. It had some arrogance about it. Yesterday, in a very important motion involving himself, the member for Katherine did not afford this parliament the courtesy of responding. He did not respond to allegations about deceit and debt on his part.
A major allegation raised against the member for Katherine was in the Ombudsman’s report, and I quote from page 6:
He admitted to the Ombudsman that he altered legal documents, transfer documents – not once, but twice.
In the view of the Ombudsman, quote:
The Ombudsman found, on the balance of probabilities, that he used his position as a police officer to personal advantage and acted unlawfully.
The member for Katherine should have been chastened yesterday, but he bounced in here today and used words like deceit, deception, and debt. The Ombudsman’s report says the JRC understands that Senior Constable Westra van Holthe agreed, in an out of court settlement, to pay Mr Rowley $8000 for the sale of the vehicle. Remembering that he signed off at buying it for $14 000 from Rowley, that makes the total amount of monies received $11 000. Senior Constable Westra van Holthe effectively received $9000 from the sale transaction - a clear profit of $6000. Mr Rowley sold it to him for $14 000. He received $11 000 and the member for Katherine makes $6000 and still owes Mr Rowley $3000. He cleans up $6000 and the guy comes in here and lectures this government about deceit and about debt.
It is all a bit rich. I tried to handle yesterday’s debate in a gentlemanly and objective way, but I am offended, not personally, but on behalf of this House, that the guy came here today and said things like that after he could not stand in his own defence yesterday. It seems a bit rich. I was prepared to not comment yesterday that he did not get up because I thought this poor bloke is sitting there, feeling so bad and feeling chastised. He looked grave and I thought I would not sink the boot in. I had my say being the first say yesterday, and I took the foot off the accelerator in the second part in deference to the way I thought he felt. From what he did here today, he shows no remorse.
He is a bit of a joker coming here and talking about the sale of NT Fleet. That is a joke-and-a-half after listening to him rave on about the sale of NT Fleet. I saw it as provocation and I see the member for Port Darwin’s hand in this. He should be advising the poor old member for Katherine a bit better. The member for Katherine needs to show remorse because what happened today demonstrates that he has shown no remorse for what he has done, and he has treated this parliament with contempt. I am sorry to end on that note but that is the way I feel.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the contribution from all members of the Chamber in the budget debate. I look forward to the scrutiny of the budget through estimates. I have no doubt there will continue to be public scrutiny of the budget.
The opposition will say what it wants to say. I congratulate the member for Johnston, the Leader of Government Business, who pointed out the stark difference between government and opposition at this stage. The opposition has a deceitful, dishonest shadow Treasurer, and they sit there and accept it. In every other parliament in our nation, that member of parliament would be hounded out of office, let alone be allowed to remain shadow Treasurer. It is unbelievable.
I sincerely thank the Treasury staff who worked tirelessly with the staff of my office - and I sincerely thank them - in putting together Budget 2011-12. We are proud of the budget. It is a true, solid Labor budget in which we support families to get ahead. We are supporting businesses through the tough times. We are brave and bold enough to step into deficit country when we could have just sliced a bit off the infrastructure budget and been in surplus. We did the right thing, the responsible thing, the responsive thing in terms of need. The opposition members do not understand that. They do not understand what is occurring in the economy at the moment and where the growth needs to be filled from the public spend. Bring on the estimates debate. We all look forward to it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, this bill is now referred to the Estimates Committee.
Debate suspended.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at rising on 5 May 2011, adjourn until approximately 1.30 pm on Thursday, 23 June 2011, or such other time as notified by the Speaker, with one hour’s notice being given to government and opposition Whips and members by the Speaker, or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker, pursuant to sessional order.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, my concern about this motion is that the Estimates Committee worked in a particularly positive fashion last year. However, the government cannot but help itself to set the scene at the last moment with the Leader of Government Business continuing an attack he could not even sustain in this House on the member for Katherine. Again, he used the word ‘unlawful’ ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, this is a procedural motion regarding the next sitting day.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker, and I want to talk about the next sitting day and how that sitting day will proceed. I need to construct the argument and …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you might like to make that pretty fast; it is extremely late, and it is a procedural motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the minister should be less provocative. I have every right to defend …
Madam SPEAKER: Not during a procedural motion, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, speaking to the procedural motion, we are talking about the establishment of the next sitting day when we will deal with matters that come before this House. It is clear this government has established it is going to deal with that next sitting day in a provocative fashion. They are doing nothing more than continuing to stir the pot. If the minister believes what the member for Katherine said today was provocative, he is easily provoked. He sees all sorts of hands in conduct.
Madam Speaker, I accuse the minister of gross myopia ...
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are talking about a procedural motion about the Estimates Committee date, if the member could bring his attention to that particular subject.
Mr ELFERINK: I can tell you, here is …
Madam SPEAKER: It is a digression. However, continue for a very short period on this level of digression.
Mr ELFERINK: Here is the deal. Give me three minutes to get this off my chest, or you can have the argument for the next half hour ...
Madam SPEAKER: Is that a threat to me, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: No, I was looking directly at the minister for …
Madam SPEAKER: As you recall, all comments are directed through the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, Madam Speaker. The government has established its attitude. This minister was unable to prosecute his argument in this House yesterday because the motion was lost, but he continues to prosecute nevertheless. He has again accused the member for Katherine of engaging in unlawful conduct. And guess what? He applies unlawful conduct, which, in a court, requires beyond reasonable doubt. He changed it to balance of probability to suit his argument. You are guilty at a lower standard of conduct.
The minister makes these promises about how he conducts himself in the future. He says he took his pedal off the metal yesterday because he had some sympathy for the member for Katherine. No, it is because he knew he was going to lose the argument because he could not sustain it. The attacks on the member for Katherine are nothing but a smoke screen for the failures of this government and for its debt and desperate measures.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, in no way do I support the weak Rudd/Gillard Labor government border protection policies. I am a vocal critical of Labor’s failed policies. People have died travelling the high seas to get to Australia. Labor has failed, and continues to fail, on border protection.
However, it would be silly not to pursue economic opportunities following from Labor’s failures. It is a terrible situation to find ourselves in, seeking to bolster our economy from detaining illegal boat people, but facilities such as detention centres need to be established. It would be foolish not to debate the merits of such a facility in Central Australia.
Today, I have written to federal Immigration minister, Chris Bowen, asking him to consider the merits of building a detention centre in Central Australia. I have asked, if such an idea has merit, if I could arrange a community meeting to hear from a delegation of immigration officials to explain the pros and cons of such a facility. I recognise a similar opportunity has been taken up in Darwin at Wickham Point. In the two weeks before that announcement, I had been working with a number of people in Alice Springs discussing the merits of such a facility in Central Australia. Every conversation has seen the positive merits of such a facility.
I hope we have not missed the boat, so to speak, on the opportunity. In the interests of driving our economy, I will actively pursue the concept, and talk with the community about such opportunities. I would like to see a debate in Central Australia to gauge community sentiment about the merits of establishing an immigration detention centre. There is much community unrest in South Australia, Tasmania, and Sydney about current and proposed detention centres, which poses an opportunity for Central Australia.
If the community surrounding Villawood in Sydney, Pontville in Tasmania, and Inverbrackie in South Australia do not want these facilities then, maybe, we could step up to the plate and provide a service for a failed policy and support our economy at the same time. If the boats stop coming, we could use the facility for temporary accommodation or a workers village in a business model, keeping up the maintenance and ensuring the availability of the facility should it be required again with such failed Labor policies.
The building and management of an immigration detention centre would be an immediate economic stimulator for our local economy. It would help stimulate the construction industry, creating and sustaining jobs. Such a facility would see increases in demand for services which support competition and work towards reduced costs: laundry services, kitchen services, transport, airfreight - the list of services is almost endless. We could see an increase in demand for flights, which would work toward increasing the number of overall flights in Central Australia that could potentially create competition and drive down the costs of airline flights in and out of Alice Springs.
Central Australia would, obviously, need to bring in more staff to service the facility, thereby creating demand for housing and assisting to stimulate the housing construction industry - once again, creating jobs. This is a multimillion dollar opportunity which we should talk about as a community. If the majority supports it, we should actively pursue the concept.
Speaking freely, I do not support the failed policies of the Labor government of Australia. Its border protective approaches are not working, and we are all well aware of that. All Australians would agree. If it comes to the point where detention facilities are required, such as what is going ahead at Wickham Point, Alice Springs in Central Australia would be silly not to put up its hand.
I know it is a long shot, but I have written a letter today to the federal Immigration minister asking that we be considered. I am asking in good faith whether he will sit down with me and the Alice Springs community to work through a potential model for a detention facility.
I want to see Alice Springs look at this as an opportunity to support our economy, to help grow jobs, and to grow services in our town. With the continued frustration we see through media about proposed facilities in South Australia and Tasmania, and the riots that are continuing in Villawood which are causing significant community concern, it is an opportunity for us to welcome such a facility. We can send a message to the rest of Australia that Central Australia will provide the solutions, and a clear message to those illegal arrivals that if they come to Australia, they will be living in the desert in a facility. That is a positive approach to try to deter people from coming. Most importantly, I am here to stand up for business in Alice Springs and the community more generally to create a debate to get jobs into Alice Springs.
On a lighter note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate Rebecca Healy from Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory. I have been made aware this evening that Rebecca Healy, who was the NT Mother of the Year, has now been named the Australian Mother of the Year.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES: For a young woman from a remote part of Australia, Tennant Creek, that is a significant achievement - being named the Barnardo’s Australian Mother of the Year. I understand she is the youngest recipient in the award’s 16-year history. It was announced tonight at a gala dinner in Sydney. For her children, Blake and Chase, it is a fantastic award.
Rebecca undertakes a number of fine community services in Tennant Creek. She is a well-known Tennant Creek identity. The member for Barkly knows Rebecca well and, I understand, your wife is very friendly with her too. I am sure you and I both agree that she is a worthy recipient. It is good to see some attention going to Tennant Creek on a national level. I am sure Rebecca will be a long-term, passionate advocate of Tennant Creek and will try to advance Tennant Creek into the future. Once again, congratulations from me and my colleagues in the Country Liberals.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I thank my PA, Vishal Mohan-Ram whose last day at work in Parliament House is tomorrow. He is off to Government House.
I place on the public record my thanks to him. I am sure members will join with me in saying he has done a terrific job working for members in this House. He is always friendly and smiling, even though things may be going a bit pear-shaped in the office. He is a wonderful person to work with. I wish him all the best in his new job and career, working for His Honour, a well-deserved position for him. Congratulations, Vishal, and I hope you enjoy your new future.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the recent community events in Borroloola over the May Day long weekend.
The National Trust NT Gulf Branch Open Day on Saturday, 30 April commenced the weekend’s proceedings with the opening of the Gulf Heritage Arts and Community Festival. The festival commenced in the grounds of the historic Borroloola Police Station Museum where heritage displays, government and local organisation representations, and fundraising activities entertained the vibrant crowd.
The highlight of the day was the opening of the Borroloola Police Station Museum 25-year time capsule that had been buried under a formidable concrete pad in 1985. The contents of the time capsule were displayed on tables outside the museum. It was wonderful to see the community members, both young and old, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, poring over the artefacts. It was moving to see them reminiscing about that period in the 1980s where families and young adults were able to show their children and, in some cases, their grandchildren, photographs of themselves at school and in the community, including their school project work representing Borroloola and Ganjarani School at McArthur River Station.
The open day was complemented by the Waralungku art centre exhibition of works, including traditional and contemporary art sculpture, pottery, and weaving, with the representative group of artists cooking sausage and onion sandwiches served with icy cold soft drinks as a fundraiser to support their pocket money budget while on tour to London in 2011, exhibiting art work at the prestigious Rebecca Hossack Art Gallery.
Staff from the Borroloola School organised the photographic display representing many Borroloola sporting achievements over the past decades, with the outstanding Borroloola Cyclone Soccer Project instilling real community pride. The story of a fledgling school extracurricular activity commenced by the school janitor in 1997 has developed into an internationally recognised sporting program with representative teams from Borroloola competing at the Arafura Games and in Singapore.
The festival included Borroloola’s inaugural Golden Heart Awards on Sunday, 1 May 2011, that saw 120 residents dress up for a gala night of community awards and entertainment under the stars in the picturesque gardens of the Savannah Way Motel. The inaugural Borroloola Golden Heart Awards recognise nominees from across the town community in the categories of School Achiever, Local Hero, Best Employee, Most Valued Business, Best Police Officer, Golden Oldie, and Community Volunteer, with the final award recognising the overall Golden Heart For Outstanding Community Service. The night was an impressive turnout with fine dining, speeches, awards, and entertainment that set a positive tone in true recognition of the most important element of the NT growth town: its people.
As the MLA for Barkly, I was honoured to be invited to MC the event and took the opportunity to reflect on the community, both past and present, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and the colourful characters of the Gulf country who were being acknowledged for their many and varied community service achievements. My brief history in the town spans 30 years, and it was a proud moment to stand at the lectern and present Golden Heart Awards to friends and countrymen, including past staff and students of the Borroloola Community Education Centre, where I was the principal for six years.
The inaugural Borroloola Golden Heart Awards was the result of a small, but hard-working, committee that hosted the first event as a prototype for what could become an annual event for the Gulf country town. The inaugural committee gained the attention of the townspeople, who turned out in their finery to both enjoy a gala night and celebrate the unsung heroes within their community who are the backbone behind community events, successful businesses and community organisations which represent powerful, positive role models. The vibrations from the crowd made the event a great night out and a memorable and meaningful occasion for recognition of those community members who apply the ‘above and beyond the call of duty’ principle to their community engagement. That is the powerful aspect for the intrinsic growth and development of the people.
The Henderson government has commenced the bold and courageous journey, never before undertaken in the Territory, of developing our 20 growth towns across the Territory in A Working Future policy that has commenced with the important community consultation, planning, housing and infrastructure development.
The Gulf Heritage Arts and Community Festival in 2011, including the show, rodeo camp draft, NAIDOC Week, and the Golden Heart Awards in Borroloola, are examples of community development initiatives that grow the spirit of the people in parallel with the development of the growth town infrastructure and services. Growing community spirit is an important part of community development in relation to its healing potential, connection to true reconciliation among the people, and for achieving social harmony and community safety.
Well done, Borroloola, for your 2011 festival program, and congratulations to all those inaugural Golden Heart Award recipients. Best wishes, Borroloola, for the way ahead as, through the reflection on the positives within the community, we have already provided a resolve to strengthen the lives of more of the residents and build the important cultural and spiritual foundation representing an important community spirit that will underpin the social and cultural development of your growth town.
I also acknowledge the important volunteers and sponsors who work hard in the planning, development, and delivery of such community events, as it is their dedication and fine example that inspires others to do better.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I also share with the member for Braitling, and the members of this House, the excitement of my family, on behalf of Dawn McCarthy and me, when we heard today that Rebecca Healy was named Barnardo’s Mother of the Year 2011, following closely on her nomination and win as the Northern Territory Mother of the Year. Rebecca is a well-respected young woman in our community, and very much an emerging young leader in our community. I am sure she would be celebrating with her family and friends tonight on a national stage. Good luck to her. We hope to see her home soon, and we celebrate that marvellous achievement and recognition of an Australian citizen recognised for being the Barnardo’s Mother of the Year.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very late. A couple of weeks ago I was very honoured to be invited to the grand opening of the Driver Primary School Stephanie Alexander kitchen and garden. It was a very well-attended event. Fantastic facilities have been put together under the Stephanie Alexander guidelines. The school garden is magical. We have seen it go from a patch of hard rock and dirt 18 months ago when we began helping the school build a Stephanie Alexander garden, to a beautiful, lush tropical garden.
To see the way the kids interact in that garden is magical. I am sure there have been storybooks written about the magic garden. This garden is just that. I urge any other school considering it to find the time, space, and motivation to put together a school community garden. I know there are a few others in the Northern Territory considering it. Do it.
It is truly a place where you will see your kids, your students, blossom. We even had our young men do their version of the Haka. I cannot remember its proper name, but it was a bit like Old McDonald on the Farm Haka instead. Instead of the normal Haka, there were quack quacks here and the like. It was amazing. Those young men have changed their attitude towards school and it was fantastic to see them. That group of young men then served all the guests at the function. The food, made from the produce from the farm, was fantastic. I was very pleased to put forward a platinum sponsorship because I genuinely believe it is a great learning tool.
I also congratulate the Palmerston markets. They kicked off again last Friday and will be on later tonight in Palmerston. There is a new committee, a new person leading the show. I was very excited to be back at the Palmerston markets. I am able to see my students from the various schools on the Friday mornings, but I then get to see them on Friday night at the markets. Probably the most enjoyable part of my job is to have that community involvement. Well done to the Palmerston markets. It kicked off in a big way last Friday, and we look forward to continued support of the Palmerston markets. We have chipped in to sponsor the talent quest this year and we are looking forward to hearing - and sometimes not hearing - those various talents.
I am looking forward to going into the Gray Primary School this morning, which will be the first time I have visited Gray this year. They have a garden they are trying to establish, and I hope they can gather their inspiration from Driver. I will be helping to share that knowledge at the Gray Primary School. I look forward to being there in only a few hours.
To quickly wrap up, I also pass my congratulations to Ms Rebecca Healy who won the Northern Territory Barnardo’s Mother of the Year and has now gone on to win tonight - well last night now - the Australian Barnardo’s Mother of the Year. She is an absolute inspiration. Anyone who meets Rebecca comes away with the feeling that she has passed a little of herself on to you, and she has given you her time and full attention. She has more energy than almost anyone else I know. Well done, Rebecca, enjoy yourself and I am sure, as it was after the NT awards, you will be back home within a day.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITION
Lot Size - Rural Residential Zone in the Litchfield Council
Lot Size - Rural Residential Zone in the Litchfield Council
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 1953 petitioners relating to lot sizes for the rural residential zone in the Litchfield Council.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Minister for Lands and Planning
- We, the undersigned, request that the present minimum lot size for the Rural Residential Zone (RR) in the Litchfield Council remains at 1 ha (2.5 acres).
We request that lot sizes of 4000 m (1 acre) be regarded as large urban and only be permitted within district or village centres.
MOTION
Membership of Council of Territory Cooperation
Membership of Council of Territory Cooperation
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the following members be on the Council of Territory Cooperation or subcommittees:
1. the member for Fong Lim and the member for Braitling be coopted to the Council of Territory Cooperation to work on the Innovation, Development and Trade subcommittee; and
2. the member for Port Darwin and the member for Goyder be coopted for the Council of Territory Cooperation to work on the Animal Welfare Governance Committee as referred by parliament.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Referral to the Estimates Committee
Referral to the Estimates Committee
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Order of the Assembly dated 4 May 2011, the Budget Papers 2011-12 together with the Appropriation (2011-2012) Bill 2011 (Serial 163) be referred to the Estimates Committee for inquiry and report.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Routine of Business for Thursday, 23 June 2011
Routine of Business for Thursday, 23 June 2011
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the Routine of Business for Thursday, 23 June 2011, be as follows:
1. Prayers
2. Petitions
3. Notices
4. Government Business – Notices
5. Government Business – Orders of the Day
Motion agreed to.
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 165)
(Serial 165)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now be read a second time.
The purpose of the Commercial Arbitration (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2011 is to repeal the Commercial Arbitration Act and provide a new procedural framework for the conduct of domestic commercial arbitrations. The bill updates existing uniform legislation. The equivalent bills have already been introduced in New South Wales and Tasmania, and the New South Wales bill was passed in June 2010. The remaining jurisdictions intend to introduce legislation into their parliaments during this year. As the legislation is uniform, my second reading speech substantially replicates those speeches made by my counterparts when they introduced their bills in the New South Wales and Tasmanian parliaments.
The bill facilitates the use of arbitration agreements to manage domestic commercial disputes and it will ensure that arbitration provides a cost-effective and efficient alternative to litigation in Australia. The current act is part of uniform domestic arbitration legislation across all states and territories. This uniform legislation has not kept pace with changes in international best practice and still reflects the old English arbitration acts of 1950, 1975 and 1979. This bill will provide for an up-to-date commercial arbitration system.
At the May 2010 meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, ministers agreed to update the uniform legislation. The updated law will be based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law, UNCITRAL, on International Commercial Arbitration. The UNCITRAL Model Law reflects the accepted world standard for arbitrating commercial disputes. Notably, the jurisdictions with which we compete for international arbitration work do not have different national and international arbitration laws, and nor should we. I also note the Commonwealth government passed the International Arbitration Amendment Act in 2010 to increase effectiveness, efficiency, and affordability in international commercial arbitration.
There are a number of good reasons for adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law as the basis for the domestic law. First, the UNCITRAL Model Law has legitimacy and familiarity worldwide. It has provided an effective framework for the conduct of international arbitrations in many jurisdictions, including Australia, for over 24 years. It provides a well-understood procedural framework to deal with issues such as the appointment of arbitrators, jurisdiction of arbitrators, conduct of arbitral proceedings, and the makings of awards and, therefore, is easily adapted to the conduct of domestic arbitrations. Indeed, jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Singapore have based their domestic arbitration legislation on the UNCITRAL Model Law and it has proven appropriate.
Second, basing domestic commercial arbitration legislation on the UNCITRAL Model Law creates national consistency in the regulation and conduct of international and domestic commercial arbitration. The Commonwealth International Arbitration Amendment Act 2010 gives effect to the model law in relation to international arbitrations. Many businesses, including legal ones, operate domestically and internationally, and one set of procedures for managing commercial disputes makes sense.
Third, practitioners and courts will be able to draw on case law and practices in the Commonwealth and overseas to inform the interpretation and application of the provisions.
At the April 2009 meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, it was agreed that the UNCITRAL Model Law could form the basis for the reform of domestic arbitration. Following that meeting, a draft bill was sent out for targeted consultation with stakeholders in each of the states and territories. Feedback was sought, in particular, on the appropriateness, adequacy, and desirability of additions and amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law tailored to domestic dispute management and related matters.
The bill before the Assembly today is based on the text and the spirit of the UNCITRAL Model Law. This delivers consistency with the Commonwealth’s international arbitration law and the legitimacy and familiarity of internationally accepted practice. However, the UNCITRAL Model Law does not provide a complete solution to the regulation of domestic commercial arbitration. The bill, therefore, supplements the model law to provide appropriately for domestic dispute management.
At the April 2009 standing committee meeting, ministers agreed on two principles to guide the drafting of the uniform legislation. They were:
that the bill should give effect to the overriding purpose of commercial arbitration; namely, to provide a quicker, cheaper, and less formal method of finally resolving disputes than litigation; and
that the bill should deliver a nationally harmonised system for international and domestic arbitration, noting the Commonwealth’s review of the International Arbitration Act 1974.
The purpose of the law also agreed to by ministers is found in section 1C of the bill, the paramount object provision being ‘to facilitate the fair and final resolution of commercial disputes by impartial arbitral tribunals without unnecessary delay or expense’. Stakeholders advocated for and endorsed the inclusion of a paramount object clause, noting the absence of such a provision as a weakness in the present uniform commercial arbitration acts.
I turn now to the details of the commercial arbitration framework established by the provisions of the bill. Part 1 of the bill applies the bill to domestic commercial arbitration and clarifies that it is not a domestic arbitration if it is an international arbitration for the purposes of the Commonwealth act.
Part 2 of the bill defines an arbitration agreement and requires the court before which an action is brought to refer that matter to arbitration if it is the subject of an arbitration agreement, and a party so requests.
Part 3 deals with the composition of arbitral tribunals and provides flexibility and autonomy to parties in selecting the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal to decide their dispute. It enables parties not only to agree on the number of arbitrators, but the process by which they will be selected and how they may be challenged. It also provides a default position should the parties not be able to reach agreement.
Clause 12 sets out the grounds on which the appointment of an arbitrator may be challenged and obliges proposed arbitrators to disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence.
The jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals is dealt with in Part 4, which makes it clear that an arbitral tribunal is competent to determine whether it has jurisdiction in a dispute, but also enables a party to seek a ruling on a matter from the court where a tribunal determines that is has jurisdiction.
Interim measures are dealt with in Part 4A of the bill. It provides power to arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures for purposes such as maintenance of the status quo and the preservation of assets and evidence. The bill also contains power to grant enumerated interim and procedural orders in addition to those contained in the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Arbitral tribunals are granted the flexibility, unless the parties otherwise agree, to conduct an arbitration on a stop-clock basis in which the time allocated to each party in the hearing is recorded progressively and strictly enforced. This can enable arbitral tribunals to conduct arbitrations in a manner that is proportionate to the amount of money involved, and the complexity of the issues in the matter.
Similarly, clause 33B contained in Part 6 of the bill enables an arbitral tribunal to limit the costs of arbitration, or any part of the arbitral proceedings, to a specified amount, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. This gives arbitral tribunals the flexibility to cap costs on the basis of proportionality - another mechanism to ensure that arbitrations can be conducted in a proportionate manner to the money and complexity of the issues involved.
Part 4A, Division 4 also provides for the recognition and enforcement of interim measures issued under a law of the Northern Territory, or of a state or another territory in certain circumstances. The grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of an interim measure are also contained in Part 4A.
The conduct of arbitral proceedings is dealt with in Part 5 of the bill, which provides that parties must be given a fair hearing and they are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by an arbitral tribunal or, in the absence of agreement, for the arbitral tribunal to conduct the arbitration as it considers appropriate. This ensures that parties in arbitral tribunals are granted flexibility to adapt the conduct of proceedings to the particular dispute before them.
Part 5 includes some provisions additional to those in the model law to ensure that arbitrations can be conducted efficiently and cost-effectively. Clause 24B imposes a duty on parties to do all things necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of arbitral proceedings. Clause 25 provides the powers of an arbitral tribunal in the event of the default of one of the parties. Additional powers to those contained in the UNCITRAL model are provided by clause 25 to ensure that arbitral tribunals have sufficient powers to deal with delay by parties or failure to comply with a direction of the tribunal.
Clause 27A enables parties, with the consent of the arbitral tribunal, to make an application to the court to issue a subpoena requiring a person to attend arbitral proceedings or to produce documents. Clause 27D provides that an arbitrator can act as a mediator, conciliator, or other non-arbitral intermediary if the parties so agree, to provide further flexibility for parties to agree on how their disputes are to be determined. If, however, a mediation or conciliation is not successful, an arbitrator is prevented from resuming as an arbitrator without the written consent of all parties.
Part 5 also provides an optional confidentiality regime. Confidentiality is viewed as one of the key benefits of arbitration for parties dealing with sensitive commercial topics. These provisions are drafted consistently with those of the Commonwealth act, and provide a default position if no alternative confidentiality regime is not agreed upon by the parties. As parties often assume that arbitration is both private and confidential, the provisions apply on an opt-out basis to cover situations in which an arbitration agreement does not cover confidentiality.
Part 6 of the bill covers the making of awards and the determination of proceedings. The UNCITRAL Model Law has been supplemented by additional provisions to deal with the issue of cost and the awarding of interest. As stakeholders overwhelmingly suggested that harmonised treatment of cost and interest across international and domestic legislation was desirable, these are dealt with consistently with the Commonwealth act.
Recourse against award is dealt with in Part 7 of the bill which outlines the circumstances in which an application can be made for the setting aside of an award, or grounds upon which parties can appeal an award if parties have agreed to allow appeals under the optional provision.
Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is dealt with in Part 8 of the bill which allows for the recognition of awards irrespective of the state or territory in which it was made, and which outlines the grounds on which enforcement can be refused.
The bill will ensure that the Northern Territory’s domestic arbitration laws reflect accepted international practice for resolving commercial disputes and it will provide businesses with a cost-effective and efficient alternative to litigation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement which substantially replicates the New South Wales explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
JUSTICE (CORRECTIONS) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 167)
(Serial 167)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce a comprehensive package of amendments to support the government’s new era in Corrections framework, and which are designed to contribute to decreasing prison numbers and recidivism in the Territory.
It is widely known that the Territory has the highest recidivism rate in Australia, currently at 47.9% compared to a national average of 37.6%. Recidivism means the percentage of prisoners who are released from Correctional Services and who return within two years following a further sentencing episode. The government is committed to cutting the Territory’s recidivism rate to align with the national average.
The Territory’s prison population has also grown steadily over the last 20 years with an imprisonment rate greater than other Australian jurisdictions. The Territory’s prisons are at capacity and the rate of incarceration is unacceptable. To assist in achieving the outcomes in a new era in Corrections or reduced imprisonment and reoffending rates, the centrepiece of the bill is the two new tougher sentencing orders targeting offending behaviour, the community based order and the community custody order.
The introduction of a new sentencing option, called the community based order, aims to provide supervision in the community and mandate programs, treatment, or training with the option for a court to order electronic monitoring and community work. The introduction of a new sentencing option called the community custody order is deemed imprisonment in the community for a term of up to 12 months, and mandates intensive supervision by Community Corrections, community work, and programs, treatment or training.
Other elements of the bill include the introduction of electronic monitoring and a form of home detention for bail and parole. The new orders also provide for the support and supervision of offenders in the community rather than in actual prison. They are largely modelled on Victorian provisions, although Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia have similar sentencing options.
The community based order is a non-custodial sentencing option and is targeted at lower end offenders. The order will be available to the court to impose on offenders for up to two years, whether or not a conviction is recorded in relation to the offence. A community based order is not available to impose on offenders convicted of sexual or violent offences.
While on a community based order, an offender must comply with certain statutory conditions, including being subject to ongoing supervision of probation officers charged with supervising them. The court may additionally order a number of other conditions, including that an offender undertake prescribed programs, undergo assessment and treatment for misuse of alcohol or drugs, psychological and psychiatric treatment, perform community work, or be subject to electronic monitoring.
If an offender breaches his or her community based order, the court may vary the order, confirm it, or revoke the order and re-sentence the offender while taking into account the extent of the offender’s compliance with the order.
The community custody order is a custodial sentencing option available where an offender receives a custodial sentence of up to 12 months and the court orders it to be served by way of community custody order. It is deemed imprisonment and, like the community based order, is not available to impose on offenders convicted of sexual or violent offences.
The community custody order has some similar features to the community based order, but the level of supervision is more intensive. The offender must report to a place for 12 hours per week to perform a minimum of eight hours of community work. The balance of the time is to be spent undergoing counselling or treatment for a specified psychological, psychiatric problem, or for misuse of drugs or alcohol. This number of hours can be increased by the Director of Correctional Services to 20 hours per week and can comprise further community work hours, or a combination of community work hours or programs targeting employment skills. The director may direct the offender undertake the further hours if it is appropriate to do so in light of the offender’s circumstances, such as whether, from time to time, the offender is employed or not.
Under the community custody order, the offender must also report to, or receive visits from, a probation officer at least twice a week.
Another key difference compared to the community based order is the consequences of breach. If the offender breaches the community custody order and the breach was by committing an offence while on the order, the court must revoke the order and, unless there are exceptional circumstances which would make it unjust to do so, sentence the offender to imprisonment for the unexpired portion of the term of imprisonment originally ordered. If the offender breaches any other condition of the order, the court may confirm, vary, or revoke the order and sentence the offender to imprisonment for the unexpired portion of the term of imprisonment originally ordered.
Common to both the community based order and the community custody order is the possibility for the offender to remain in the community and engage in employment or community work. Where an offender is not employed, some of the prescribed programs may assist in preparing for and seeking employment. Consideration will be given as to the suitability of an offender for these types of orders, and the suitable conditions of the orders in pre-sentence reports. Electronic monitoring of an offender on one of these orders is also an option to provide for a higher degree of monitoring and supervision.
Programs for both orders are being developed by both government and non-government providers and will be prescribed by regulation following passage of the bill. These include: the drink-driver education course; programs targeting road safety; alcohol rehabilitation; and programs addressing anger management and life skills.
Approximately 25% of the prison population is made up of driving offenders who serve an average of 75 days. This provides limited opportunity to access treatment or training programs targeting alcohol misuse and bad driving behaviour. Driving offenders are almost always disqualified from obtaining a licence and, when released from prison, are placed at risk of quickly committing a further driving offence, particularly if they are placed in a situation where there is no alternative for them but to drive while disqualified from doing so. This further contributes to the revolving door of recidivism. What this cohort of offender needs is intervention, supportive training, and rehabilitation targeting their offending behaviour such as treatment for alcohol misuse. Under the new era in Corrections, this cohort will be able to be diverted from prisons to an appropriate residential treatment and training centre.
To support this, the bill also contains provisions allowing a court order that an offender be given a licence to drive while supervised while undertaking practical training as part of a program targeting the rehabilitation of drink- or drug-driving and road safety. These provisions are necessary to overcome the legal problem that if an offender is driving on a road, even during training, the offender is technically committing the offence of driving whilst disqualified. The provisions also enable the offender to continue to drive while supervised and on the order, to obtain further practical experience and to meet the requirement in the Motor Vehicles Act that a learner undertake practical training for a continuous period of six months.
The bill also contains provisions to enable a court, in its discretion and taking into account a number of factors such as community safety and the rehabilitation of the offender, to remove mandatory licence disqualification or suspensions and demerit points to allow an offender who has completed a community based order or a community custody order and specified programs to obtain a driver’s licence, alcohol interlock licence, or learner’s licence.
Some offenders will have outstanding fines being enforced by the Fines Recovery Unit, or may have had their licence suspended under the regime in the Fines and Penalties (Recovery) Act. While on the programs as part of their community based order or community custody order, offenders will be assisted and encouraged through programs to enter into time to pay plans under the act and, thereby, be able to get their licence.
The amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act made by this bill will be beneficial to offenders who engage effectively in programs and demonstrate their rehabilitation and willingness to change. It will not permit every driving offender to get their licence back. Not only does the offender need to successfully complete the prescribed program targeting drug or alcohol misuse or road safety, he or she also needs to complete a community based order or community custody order.
If the offender breaches their community based order or community custody order, the court may revoke the order granting them the ability to apply for a licence and lifting their disqualifications and suspensions. This means that even after the order has expired, if it is discovered the offender breached the community based order or community custody order while it was enforced, the offender’s licence may be revoked, their pre-existing disqualifications reinstated, and their pre-existing demerit points reactivated. If the offender breached his or her community custody order by committing an offence, the court has no choice but to revoke the order.
The bill makes a number of other amendments as part of the new era in Corrections package: the introduction of electronic and voice recognition monitoring for bail and parole; and amendments to the monitoring powers for surveillance officers who are probation officers, so they will be able to monitor compliance with the conditions of the new orders.
The bill also amends the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to include in the definition of ‘worker’, adults on community work orders and adults on community based orders or community custody orders who are subject to a community work condition.
The bill also makes a number of amendments to the Youth Justice Act to clarify that the new sentencing options are not available to youths unless they are being tried as adults in the Supreme Court for indictable offences. The development of an alternative approach is required to address juvenile offending, and this will be considered as part of a separate review of the Youth Justice Act.
Finally, the bill also makes a number of minor amendments of a statute law revision nature as listed in the schedules to the bill. The amendments in this bill will be supported by significant government investment in resources for the new era in Corrections, including a significant investment in additional resources for Community Corrections to manage the new orders, provide rigorous assessment to inform court decisions, and to provide enhanced monitoring and supervision functions.
The additional officers will be stationed across the Territory in each of the regional centres, the growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu and Lajamanu, in Nhulunbuy, and on Groote Eylandt. The first 18 Community Corrections officers will be recruited this financial year.
There will be an additional 45 beds in supported accommodation for alcohol and drug treatment services in Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin; improved integration and post-release support; the introduction of travel and community work crews in Alice Springs and Darwin; and the establishment of an intensive driver offending program supported by residential treatment and training centres.
The new era in Corrections legislation is further supported by new infrastructure, including the construction of a Corrections precinct in Darwin, a prisoner work camp in Tennant Creek, and a prison farm and work camp in Katherine.
This bill represents a significant part of a comprehensive package of innovations in managing and rehabilitating offenders. The new era in Corrections package also includes non-legislative components such as post-release from prison reintegration, support and accommodation, and the expansion of the Elders Visiting Program.
This bill represents a significant step towards making the Territory a safer community by mandating supervision and support for the rehabilitation of offenders. Without this intervention, the rate of recidivism will continue to rise to unsustainable levels.
The government consulted with a number of stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including the legal profession and the judiciary. I thank those stakeholders for their valuable insight and contribution to the development of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ALCOHOL REFORM (PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIME AND SUBSTANCE MISUSE) BILL
(Serial 158)
(Serial 158)
Continued from 30 March 2011.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, my thanks to the minister for the excellent briefings we received from her departmental staff. The briefings clearly demonstrated there are some major points of difference in the policy of the government and that of the Country Liberal Party.
What this bill lacks is a requirement for those in our community who consume liquor to be accountable, responsible, and understand that there are consequences for their actions and behaviour. Unfortunately, the bill does not have any real consequences or deterrents, as it allows those in our community who choose to conduct themselves in a manner that is contrary to the standards of the community in which they live or visit, to continue the behaviour without being called to account. The only penalty for these people who will be breaching the various orders this legislation brings to this House is that, under this proposed legislation, these people will be placed on, for instance, a banned drinkers register for ever-increasing periods of time, or remain under a general alcohol prohibition order, which just keeps going and going and going. There are no real teeth.
The minister has and will, no doubt, continue to tell us that the proposed legislation has a requirement for the people I have just mentioned to undergo mandatory treatment. The problem is there are no serious consequences for those who choose not to undertake the mandatory treatment.
I acknowledge the great work the Menzies School of Health Research does, and also the authors of a number of other reports that have recently been brought forward on alcohol issues in the Northern Territory. The most recent report into alcohol problems in Northern Australia is a report by Sara Hudson, called Alcohol Restrictions in Indigenous Communities and Frontier Towns of 6 April 2011. I draw attention to a number of statements in that report in relation to the sentiments of the government policies on alcohol-related matters. The first point in the executive summary on page 8 says that controls of alcohol supply help mitigate the harms that alcohol causes, but they will not solve the alcohol problem. I will refer to a couple of these statements as we work through the presentation.
The CLP is about tackling the actual problem and providing meaningful and ongoing rehabilitation. That is where we differ from the government. They have what is known as a therapeutic jurisprudence attitude towards the issues. We actually want to deal with the people who are creating the problem and give them some meaningful and ongoing rehabilitation.
In the executive summary on page viii, the final sentence reads:
- The gradual erosion of benefits of alcohol restrictions highlights the futility of introducing restrictions without addressing the aimlessness and boredom of lives on welfare.
We will be recommending to government other ways that might help to fix that particular problem.
On page 5 of the report it said:
- As alcohol epidemics have gained momentum, even ‘normal’ functioning people who once took responsibility for their families have been drawn into the vortex of alcohol abuse.
The Country Liberals’ policy in relation to our habitual drunk legislation is there are some real consequences. Those people who are the core problem will be required, under mandatory laws, if they do not undertake rehabilitation in a voluntary capacity, to undertake rehabilitation. That fixes part of that problem I just mentioned.
Further on page 5, the report reads:
- The problems and dysfunction inherent in many Indigenous communities are not only due to limited education and higher rates of welfare, but also stem from the lack of proper controls on alcohol use.
This reflects the lack of real consequences for people to continue to indulge in behaviours that are not only harmful to themselves, but also the communities in which they live or visit. I reiterate the Country Liberal Party policy on habitual drunks actually creates the deterrent and gives them some meaningful rehabilitation.
The government is focused predominantly on the supply issue, rather than dealing with the demand issue. People who are addicted to any drug, irrespective of whether they are on a banned register, will go out of their way to obtain their drug of choice. In trying to reduce the supply without seriously tackling the demand issue, you simply create sly grog markets. The member for Macdonnell has told us in this House she has been aware, and has passed on information, about sly grog operations in Alice Springs. There have been sly grog operations in Palmerston recently. Those who are on whatever register the government comes up with will, if they chose to, get their drug of choice. Other ways they gain access is to unlawfully gain access.
We have enough problems in our community with people on illegal drugs gaining access to drugs. For the life of me, I cannot see how putting someone on a banned register is going to prevent them - if they really are addicted, if they really want to do that, they will get into it. Recently, someone believed to be addicted to drugs, tried to kick in the back door of my office while I had people inside. I had to go outside and deal with someone who was literally kicking in the back door of my office to get access either to cash, or perhaps they thought it was the back door of the pharmacy located next door to my office. These people, being addicted in such a terrible way, often try to remove liquor from those who have purchased it legally. They humbug them, they harass them, they intimidate people and they threaten them, either physically or mentally. They assault spouses, families, partners and friends. They will do all these things - and they are doing them as we speak.
I have had numerous people talk to me, especially when I visit shopping centres on Saturday mornings. The stories of people being humbugged are ongoing and, in some cases, quite distressing. My colleagues on this side of the House relate anecdotal evidence in relation to things happening in their electorates, things that are being reported to their electorate offices, and stories they are hearing when they doorknock and talk to people.
What I am really surprised about is those opposite do not seem to be hearing the same stories or, if they are, they are not letting on. I would be very surprised if members of the government are not hearing the same stories. Yet, what we do not see reflected in this bill is real issues, real consequences, that will go to resolving not only the supply problem, but the demand problem.
I refer to a media release issued by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General on 10 December 2010. I quote from the second paragraph:
- The Minister for Alcohol Policy, Delia Lawrie, today welcomed the release of the Menzies School of Health Research report which assessed the effectiveness of the Katherine AMP …
… and other measures to reduce alcohol-related harm.
The fourth paragraph said:
- ‘The report concluded that in 2009 pure alcohol supply was 8.5% less than 2007 levels before the introduction of the AMP …
When you go through to the sixth paragraph it said:
- However the report found the impact of the AMP in reducing alcohol-related harms was short-lived with increases in emergency department admissions, alcohol-related assaults, disturbances and apprehensions for public drunkenness.
The government makes great light of the fact that it reduces the amount of alcohol. I have listened to the minister say on numerous occasions that to tackle alcohol-related assaults and crime you have to reduce the amount of alcohol in the community. Well, congratulations to the government; in 2009, we reduced it by 8.5%. The problem is the Northern Territory Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics issued on 31 March 2010 show that, in 2008, offences against the person were 597 and, in 2009-10, the very year we had a reduction of 8.5% in Katherine, we have gone from 597 up to 768.
What we are seeing is a reduction in alcohol available - pure alcohol consumed - yet we have seen a massive – about 28% - rise in assaults against the person. I do not know how we equate the statements from the government saying: ‘This is fabulous; we reduce all this alcohol and everything is going to be magically fixed’. The figures do not stack up for that.
The actual percentage increase in offences against the person is 28.64%. I find that rather amazing when the government is making claims everything is fixed and on track. I quote from another media release by the Minister for Alcohol Policy dated 22 February 2011 titled ‘New Figures Show Alcohol Reforms on Track’. Having just quoted those figures, I do not know what track they are on but it is not the track I would like to see us on. On page 2 of this media release it said:
- The report shows that compared to 2008 wholesale alcohol supply in 2009 …
And it goes through:
dropped by 1% in Darwin …
…
The figures are all over the place. Again, the Justice figures are very clear - 28.64% increase in assaults and crimes against the person. After that, it said:
- Ms Lawrie said the report showed that since the introduction of AMPs in Alice Springs, Katherine, and Nhulunbuy, wholesale alcohol supply has dropped in these towns.
In the next paragraph it said:
- Wholesale alcohol has dropped 8% in Alice Springs since 2006, dropped 8% in Katherine since 2007, and decreased 37% in Nhulunbuy since 2006 …
I go now to the recorded crime June quarter figures which are issued by the Department of Justice Research and Statistics Unit. I am referring to the Northern Territory key findings. It is an appalling state when it is saying: ‘Everything is on its way down; isn’t it wonderful?’, yet assaults in the Northern Territory overall are up 73%, in Darwin are up 52%, in Palmerston are up a whopping 128% and, where we have an 8% drop in wholesale alcohol supplied in Alice Springs there is a whopping 87% increase in assaults. This is on top of what the government continues to call ‘tough new laws’. Since 2001 when it took over, we have seen these figures heading north at a great rate of knots - all despite tough new laws and a reduced amount of alcohol being purchased in these towns. I will come to that later in relation to these purchases.
There is anecdotal evidence that many ordinary folk who go to the supermarket - or used to go to the supermarket - to buy a few drinks to take home for consumption in a responsible manner, were being humbugged and harassed so much these people are now choosing to purchase their alcohol in other ways - especially in Alice Springs. I was there on the weekend and I canvassed many people who were at the Alice Springs Cup which, I must say, was a great event. I asked them about their purchasing habits. Many of them now have shifted from going to their local supermarket outlets where there are great congregations of people who humbug and harass them to give them some alcohol, money, or even cigarettes and things like that, to where they are now buying online and having it delivered to their home, a place of employment, or their business.
I wonder whether these percentages we are seeing are simply a shift in the actual amount of alcohol consumed, or whether people are purchasing from interstate and having their alcohol delivered. We do not capture those figures of goods purchased interstate and delivered to the doorstep in the Northern Territory.
When you look at those figures - which I repeat for the Northern Territory since 2004-05 and 2009-10, which are the latest figures we have: NT 73%, Darwin 52%, Palmerston 128%, and Alice Springs 87% - they are shocking figures. In Darwin, recorded figures for the six-year data show from 2004-05 to 2009-10 it is 52%. In Alice Springs, from the recorded crime June quarter 2010 figures, key findings over the six-year data - there it is, plain to see: 87%. It is quite interesting that the government continues to say its strategy is working. When you look at the figures it is a whole different story.
I refer to another media release issued on 24 February 2011 by the Chief Minister. It is titled: ‘Banning notices getting drunks off our streets’. Well, it is an interesting concept. I go to the second page of this media release:
- Other powers include:
turning off the tap to problem drinkers by banning them from purchasing takeaway alcohol ...
The second dot point said:
introducing mandatory rehabilitation treatment for problem drinkers …
I would like to reiterate something I said a bit earlier; that is, there are no real teeth in this proposed legislation. What happens is you are required to undertake treatment - there are orders - and that is fine. The problem is, if you breach those orders or you choose not to go, there are no consequences, except the fact that you are going to stay on a list. So, until these people who are, unfortunately, addicted to alcohol, understand there is a requirement for them to go, it is not going to change too much ...
____________________
Visitors
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, could I interrupt you to acknowledge our visitors, thank you.
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Leanyer Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Sheree Grossman and Ms Emma Cook. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr STYLES: It is fabulous to see our young people coming to parliament to find out about all the great things that happen here.
The third dot point is:
rolling out a new Territory-wide Banned Drinker Register in all takeaway retail outlets ...
The fourth point is:
expanding and enhancing rehabilitation and treatment options for problem drinkers.
That is interesting. In Budget Paper No 1, the minister’s budget speech, on page 7, paragraph 5, line 1, it said:
- … $5.2m to enhance alcohol treatment and rehabilitation options and establish new services to meet the demands of people with significant alcohol problems …
Great! That is an excellent thing to aspire to. However, if you go to Budget Paper No 3, you find, between the financial year 2010-11 and the budget year 2011-12, there is only $2.546m extra in the budget for these services. We are minus a few million already, so I do not know where the minister gets her $5.2m from. When she replies and wraps up this debate it would be nice to know. Perhaps she could enlighten us as to where that comes from.
When you look at the heading of these dot points which says ‘Other powers include’, if this is what the government proposes as tough new laws, I do not know what its definition of ‘soft’ is going to be. Maybe it will give people warm chocolate and tuck them in at night, because we do not see these are what the government might call ‘tough new laws’.
When you look at those who are addicted to illegal drugs, they get their drugs. We even read reports that people have access to drugs in prisons. If you are not going to keep illegal drugs out of prisons, how on earth are we going to expect that legal drugs are not going to fall into the hands of people on a banned drinker register, unless those people are aware there are some serious consequences for doing so? We do not see any fines in the government’s legislation; we do not see any periods of incarceration. These people can continue to behave very poorly in our community. They can snub their nose at the community, and do whatever they like. They continue to do so because they can choose not to participate in rehabilitation. They will get their drug of choice.
Those of us – and I speak of my former life as a police officer – who have worked at the coalface and dealt with this over many years understand that, even with illegal drugs, people will get it. If they cannot get their drug of choice, they will try to break into places. We need the rehabilitation to be serious and ongoing.
The government still maintains that putting people on a banned register is going to turn them off tap. The ID system relates to takeaway liquor outlets and sales. It does not relate to on-premise consumption. If staff of those premises are unaware that a person is on the banned drinker register, these people can still get their alcohol. This has not worked in Alice Springs. I repeat the anecdotal evidence that police are still locking up the same people for protective custody, as they were before the bans and restrictions came into effect.
The banned drinker register and the ID card system effectively create a licence to drink. To get a drink anywhere you are going to have to produce some sort of a licence. Some people in the community do not have drivers’ licences, and that is another issue we will deal with at a later stage. There are some problems with some of the forms of identification.
Instead of tackling those with a problem, the government intends to penalise the entire community. I refer again to Sara Hudson’s report on page 9 where she states:
- Enforcement of restrictions is critical. A recent report on child protection in the Northern Territory, Growing Them Stronger Together [sic], describes how alcohol continues to be a problem in 73 communities prescribed under the NTI.
That is, the Northern Territory intervention.
It is the first line of that quote that is relevant and reflected throughout the report: ‘The enforcement of restrictions is critical’. If you are going to have restrictions, you need to enforce them. To enforce restrictions, they have to be effective enforcements. They need to have some teeth and serious consequences for those who choose to flaunt what the community expects. Herein lies the problem of the banned drinker register: there is no real enforcement option.
For the people who receive their first banning alcohol and treatment notice, more commonly known as a BAT notice, if they breach the notice their penalty is to receive another notice for a longer period of time. If they breach that order, then they receive another notice for an even longer period of time, and so on. When they run out of those, they go on to a general alcohol prohibition order and, if they do not undergo any treatment, they stay on that - one assumes forever or until they pass from this earth. Well, if they can still access their alcohol and are still enjoying the lifestyle they choose, why are they going to do this? These people have serious addiction problems. We have enough trouble with people addicted to illegal drugs not seeking rehabilitation or assistance for their addiction.
The government says a tribunal can mandate these people to have treatment. The problem is there is no penalty or serious consequence for people who choose not to go, except they stay on the banned drinker register for a period of time under the BAT notice or a GAP order. Provided you do not come to the attention of the police for any street offences or criminal activity whilst under the influence of alcohol, then you can continue to consume liquor - either purchased and given to you by some other person or taken from the centre of a communal drinking group. Those government and non-government agencies in the community that have to deal with the ongoing problem of communal drinking understand these people will get their alcohol from the centre of a group. To gather evidence to try to ascertain who supplied what to whom and when is going to be a very time- and resource-consuming exercise.
The current resources the community has are already stretched beyond capacity, so what hope is there for increasing their workload and seeing positive results? I sincerely hope they can carry that and I wish them well. However, what extra resources have been allocated for this increased workload? I am sure the Northern Territory Police Association would love to know what extra staffing and resources have been allocated to deal with this particular issue.
On the secondary supply issue, if people who have a serious addiction cannot get their liquor they will put pressure on those around them to purchase it on their behalf - friends, relatives, tourists or people from the community. In many cases, this may be male or female partners or other family members who have some form of identification.
The consequence of secondary supply to a person who is on the government banned drinker register is they also will be placed on a banned drinker register. If they continue drinking, then they get a second notice saying they are banned for a longer period. If there are real mandatory consequences that force people to undertake meaningful rehabilitation, then we may see some results, otherwise people will just get one banning order after another for an increased period of time.
One of the absurd things that may happen is I might have to stop inviting people over for a barbecue, set up boom gates on my driveway, and interrogate all my visitors and invitees to ensure they are not on a banned drinker register of some kind. Then, I will have to keep an eye out for the grog squad in case they turn up at my house ...
Mr Bohlin: The Australia card.
Mr STYLES: There you go: the Australia card by stealth.
Mr McCarthy: Only if you are selling alcohol.
Mr STYLES: No, no, no. I pick up on the interjection. If I provide alcohol to a person I know is on the banned alcohol list, I am in trouble. This may sound flippant, but what happens if someone comes to your home and leaves at a later time having consumed some liquor from your home and, for any reason, that person ends up in police custody or - God forbid! - has some form of accident or is killed? What happens to me? What happens to the person who supplied that person with alcohol under the proposed legislation? Is the coroner going to say they should have known; they should have done this?
It is really putting an onus on people other than those who actually have the problem. It is about where you put the onus. Do you put it on everyone in the community, or do you put it on the people who have the problem?
Some of the practical applications to the proposed legislation are from a policing perspective, where the issues the police are going to have will be in gathering evidence in relation to secondary supply, where there is no accountability, responsibility, or consequences. Police can issue BAT orders again and again with no real serious consequences. Of particular interest is the example in Alice Springs where police are still locking up the same people for protective custody as before the bans and restrictions came into place.
In Western Australia, for instance in Fitzroy Crossing, when restrictions and bans came into effect a couple of years ago, the first 12 months saw a 36% reduction in alcohol-related emergency admissions to the Fitzroy Crossing Hospital. Fabulous result. However, in the second year of those restrictions, there was an increase in the number of alcohol-related emergency admissions. So, they realised it was not working too well and things were going back to where they were. While they put bans and restrictions in place in Halls Creek, emergency presentations at the Halls Creek emergency department declined 40%. The problem was that alcohol-related presentations by Halls Creek residents to other emergency departments in the Kimberley region - namely Derby, Broome, Fitzroy Crossing, Wyndham and Kununurra - demonstrate the problem was not resolved, it was simply moved. They moved it from Halls Creek and those people who wanted to continue to consume alcohol went to other towns where there were no restrictions and created a problem there and were, obviously, clogging up the hospitals.
We have the same problem in the Territory where you ban grog here, and people go elsewhere. It looks great for the place where you ban it, and is terrific. The problem is we are not resolving the problem. We have to do something to help these people with this terrible addiction; that is, meaningful consequences and mandatory rehabilitation in some form.
There are no consequences for failure to comply except more banning notices for even longer periods. Positive aspects of rehabilitation, practical job training, job preparation for participation in regional, rural, and remote locations and service industries is what we need. I have not seen anything from the government that shows they are serious about doing that.
I refer to another Northern Territory government media release titled ‘Tackling Alcohol-related Crime and Antisocial Behaviour’ dated 1 September 2010. When we talk about making mandatory treatment orders from the tribunal, we have in that media release issued by the Minister for Alcohol Policy under the heading Increased Rehabilitation Services:
- There are currently 300 treatment and sobering-up shelter beds across the Territory.
In September there were 300. We do not know which are treatment beds and which are sobering-up shelter beds. They just seem to lump them altogether to have that.
I go to another media release dated 14 April 2011 titled ‘Rehabilitating Problem Drinkers Back into Society’ by the Treasurer. Paragraph 2 said:
- ‘To tackle crime you must tackle alcohol abuse: our reforms aim to stop the harm problem drinkers are doing to their families, communities, and themselves ...
I go back to Alice Springs where police are still locking up the same people; that has not resolved the issue there. When you look at the harm problem drinkers are doing to their families, their communities, and themselves, you have to go back to the statistics of the Northern Territory where, over the period I quoted earlier, increases in the Northern Territory overall of assaults, etcetera: 73% in the Northern Territory overall, in Darwin 52% up, Palmerston 120% up, and Alice Springs 87% up. That is with tough new laws and restrictions, and all sorts of things.
The same media release talked about:
- While the ID scanner system will turn problem drinkers off tap, rehabilitation will put them on the path of recovery.
Well, it has not worked in Alice Springs, so I am interested to know, when the minister wraps this debate up, what they plan to do about that.
The other interesting thing in this media release is where the Treasurer said they have:
- … $3.5m to expand services currently provided by non-government organisations, including 25 extra beds in addition to the about 400 currently online.
We have gone, in a matter of six or seven months, from 300 beds to 400. I do not recall seeing or hearing about any great increase in bed numbers. Fair go! It would be nice to hear the minister explain where the extra 100 beds are - that is a 25% increase, which is substantial. We have not seen where the money for that came from or, in fact, whether they are real.
The next Northern Territory government media release, also in relation to the numbers, was issued on 3 May. It was from the Minister for Health. It was titled, ‘Record Health Funding for Quality Health Services’. In the last part of that - in fact, under the last heading in that media release, Community Services, the third dot point says:
as part of $70.6m committed to public health services, $31.1m is provided for alcohol and other drug services, including over 396 rehabilitation and sobering-up shelter beds ...
Again, the Minister for Health has confirmed there are an extra 96 at least, and the Treasurer says an extra 100. We accept they have rounded that up. But where are they and what are they? Rehabilitation beds are totally different animals to sobering-up shelter beds. This is the question I pose to the government: tell us exactly how many rehabilitation beds and how many sobering-up shelter beds it has. It will be interesting.
We go back to the cost of these beds. On page 7 of Budget Paper No 1, the government says it is going to invest:
- $5.2m to enhance alcohol treatment and rehabilitation options and establish new services to meet the demands of people with significant alcohol problems - the first tranche of a $34m boost.
The increase on page 133 of Budget Paper No 3, under the output group Public Health Services, in the line Alcohol and Other Drug Services, the increase is only $2.546m, not the $5.2m as page 7 of Budget Paper No 1 states. So, there are a couple of little issues there. I do not know where the magical numbers come from, but they do not seem to add up. I am hoping the minister can help me with my arithmetic and show me where the numbers add up. I would be grateful if she could do that.
Whilst the government wishes to be seen to be doing something to tackle this problem in our community, it appears to be out of step with community sentiments. The anecdotal evidence I am sure all of us get, but the government does not seem to want to acknowledge, is people are constantly telling me they are tired of walking in human faeces. They are sick to death of the humbugging, the harassment, the threats, the intimidation, and real violence for money and cigarettes. The women are sick of the threats made to them and the intimidation by groups of people who are hanging around looking for cigarettes, money, alcohol, or whatever. They are sick of people defecating in alfresco restaurants, under shop awnings, in front of shopping centre doors, in alcoves in shopping centres, and rear door alcoves of businesses.
It is also expressed to me and my colleagues that they are sick to death of the sexual assaults and even fires, deaths on roads, maiming, and injuring that have occurred through alcohol abuse. They also mention waiting times at accident and emergency centres, where families and other members in the community are forced to wait longer times while the aftermath of alcohol-related fights and violence is dealt with.
We need real rehabilitation for those who do not care and are not concerned about going to mandatory rehabilitation. Most of the people taken into protective custody in the community are reasonable people when they are sober. Whilst they are in some type of care or rehabilitation, these people are not committing crimes; there is less violence, less crime, less anguish, fewer problems for the person, their family, and the community in which they live or are visiting.
The community expectations of a healthy environment are not being met with the amount of defecating in public places, parks, and other amenities. People have just had enough. This may be an addiction issue, but it is only part of the problem. When individual rights take over and override the rights of other people in the community and their ability to go about their daily lives without being harassed, threatened, intimidated, or assaulted physically or sexually, as a parliament and as a government we are required to act.
The ALP runs this current strategy Enough is Enough, and people want action, because the majority is tired of it. They want something real done. They do not want empty promises, rhetoric, or spin that is not going to deal with the problem.
It is a social experiment that has not worked, because we have seen the results of increasing crime, assaults, etcetera. Those who are seriously addicted, in the absence of consequences, do not appear to care or choose to go into rehabilitation. Prohibition does not work - consequences do. There is also an important aspect regarding education about responsible drinking.
Madam Deputy Speaker …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and member for Port Darwin.
I refer to an ABC news bulletin titled, ‘NT Alcohol Policy Dispute Heats Up’. It said:
- Yesterday, Chief Minister Paul Henderson dismissed calls to increase the price of alcohol as a way to tackle problem drinkers.
I actually agree with the Chief Minister; I do not think it is the way to tackle problem drinkers. Further it said:
- Mr Henderson spoke out yesterday after a group of Territory doctors said research showed making alcohol more expensive and reducing its availability were the most effective methods of tackling excessive alcohol consumption.
When you look at the reduced availability in Katherine - the figures that were quoted earlier - it is clear that does not work. In any attempt to increase the prices as a way of controlling that, you penalise the whole community for the actions of a minority, which I am told is about 800 people. Pensioners have approached me, as the shadow for Seniors, saying they are sick to death of paying more because four litres casks were taken off ...
Mr Elferink: Having to make more trips.
Mr STYLES: That is right. I spoke to a friend of mine recently, who lives out on a community. He went to Katherine to do the shopping for many people in his community. He is employed out there, and they wanted to have a dinner. He was asked to buy some wine, so he went into the shop, and they would only give him one cask. He went back to the community where they were expecting this nice dinner, and he had one cask of wine. He was amazed that, as a responsible person and a resident of the Northern Territory, he could not buy an amount of alcohol to take back so they could have a nice staff dinner. There are a few people who are a little concerned.
The pensioners who have spoken to me said they are on low incomes and they should not be forced to pay more for alcohol when they have been paying taxes all their lives. To keep the minority of these people going is, in fact, contributing to the situation we find ourselves in now. Families and others who are paying more for power, water, rent, medical insurance, school fees, educating their children so they can keep the country going to pay more taxes, are struggling.
The majority of people in the community are responsible drinkers and they would like not to pay minimum floor prices or be forced to buy smaller casks. These people are going interstate; they are getting online and are purchasing from interstate. That is the reality of it. We do not know how much is coming into the Territory from those sources, which is growing by the day.
I can hear people on the fifth floor asking the question now: ‘How much is all this going to cost?’ Currently, it is costing $642m per year. We have heard that from the Treasurer. With our policies you could save quite a bit of that. Even if you saved 20%, you are still looking at in excess of $120m a year that you could put into some real rehabilitation, building some decent facilities to encourage these people to get off alcohol.
What cost to the community in the social capital? The savings that can be made by having these people not involved as clients of police, ambulance, acute and long-term medical care, accident and emergency, intensive care, court, legal aid, incarceration, versus the cost of rehabilitation and education - problems with alcohol to break their drug addiction, for real job training, lifting self-worth and breaking out of the cycle of alcohol abuse. The banned drinker register is like locks, and locks are designed to keep honest people out of your home. The banned drinker register, in our view and experience, is just a one-stop shop for people who are addicted. It is not going to stop them from obtaining and drinking the drug of their choice.
Rehabilitation is either voluntary or mandatory. Education from early intervention – that is, school nurses, school-based police officers and the like - all went to help prepare young people with the tools they would need to say no to alcohol.
The Alice Springs experience - I reiterate this because it is very relevant and shows what the government is doing – has some serious policy failures. The Alice Springs experience is the police are still apprehending the same people for protective custody as they did before the alcohol management plan and the requirement to provide identification.
Anecdotal evidence is because people get humbugged at liquor outlets and the car parks at shopping centres, they have shifted their purchasing habits from local premises to the Internet and interstate suppliers. We are missing out on tax dollars. We do not capture the statistics.
Regarding secondary supply, police do not know who is getting what alcohol delivered where. You can get a truck load of alcohol simply dropped off at the side of the road. You can say: ‘I want that; please deliver that to the 34 km peg’ on whatever highway or road you live on, and they will drive the truck there and, with a little crane attached to the truck, simply lift off whatever pallets of alcohol you order and put it on the side of the road. You just sit there and drink it. That is happening around the Territory as we speak.
Irrespective of whether people are required to fax a driver’s licence, it is very difficult to know who is using whose driver’s licence to order what supplies from home and where. Just go back to wine clubs, direct cellar sales, Australia Post, all the transport companies. If we try to stop that, then we have issues of free trade across borders and issues with the Australian Constitution. I would like to hear from the government in relation to how it sees that working.
We see alcohol decrease and then we see increases in violent crimes which demonstrates the government’s strategies are not working. The presence of real consequences, in many cases, increases self-policing. So, when people know there are some serious consequences they take responsibility for their actions, they become accountable, and they are aware that there are consequences for their bad behaviour if they choose to continue.
People who have a chronic addiction do not care. BAT orders and fines will not matter, because many of these people who find themselves addicted to alcohol and in those situations will not be paying their fines anyway. When you look at what the Fines Recovery Unit has waiting to go into the bank, it is a very substantial amount of money. The government cannot impose fines on these people, so it means they will eventually be incarcerated for public drunkenness. If you are going to do that, then we are just going to increase the number of people being locked up for non-payment of fines.
Ten years ago, there were 11 000 people per annum taken into protective custody. That figure is now 55 000 a year - and this is despite Night Patrols. Speaking about Night Patrols, I go back to Sara Hudson’s report, on page 7 where it says:
- To the detriment of communities, state and territory governments are using night patrols to abdicate their responsibility for providing police services.
She says that is right across northern Australia, not just the Northern Territory, but across the top end of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
It would be interesting to check the statistics before and after the Northern Territory intervention regarding urban drift. You have bus transit officers – behaviour on buses is still appalling. I know a gentleman who is my bus spy. He rides around on buses …
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: Still have them out there, spying on what is going on, on the buses. He comes back to me with appalling stories of what bus drivers have to put up with and what other people - normal taxpaying people who act responsibly - have to put up with.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have highlighted a number of problems. I sincerely hope the government listens and takes note of those, and we see some real amendments to this legislation that will give it some teeth which will be of benefit to the people of the Northern Territory - the taxpayers who keep the system going for all of us - so we can enjoy the fantastic lifestyle we should be enjoying in the Northern Territory ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the government’s bill because I believe it is trying to do something. I want to put it in very simple terms; alcoholics are sick people, and alcohol is the biggest troublemaker we have. When you look at kids not going to school, domestic violence, child abuse, it is all related to one thing, and we say alcohol is the troublemaker in Aboriginal communities.
Husband and wife are normally very calm, well disposed to each other in a home environment, and community atmosphere is very good if there is no alcohol inside the community. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would know that coming from a remote Aboriginal community, as will many members on the opposite side. There are days and days, if not weeks and weeks, we live in our community in harmony. Then, one day - normally it is pay day, Thursday, Friday, Saturday - there is an increase of alcohol consumption and alcohol coming into the community through grog runners and, all of a sudden, we have this huge problem. It is the biggest contributor to many things in our society. Our society has just been normalised through one thing, and that is alcohol. This bill is taking steps to improve how society operates, and how Indigenous people operate within the realms of coming into hub towns like Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs.
What I see, not just in Alice Springs but in other places like Darwin, tells me it is not just a black issue. It is an issue across our Territory population, amongst all Territorians. It is up to us, as people who have been duly elected to this House, to be sensible in the way we legislate, and this comparison of how we encourage business to operate in the Territory - and that is all our pubs - but, at the same time, bringing in something that looks after our Territorians who are consuming alcohol.
This is a great opportunity for us all to have input into the minister’s bill. Later on, the minister might take into consideration, through other programs, some of our suggestions. There are many programs the minister for Education, the Minister for Health, and the Minister for Central Australia look after. It all comes into dealing with the community antisocial behaviour we have, and what we see in a town like Alice Springs. Yes, as the member for Sanderson has explained, people outside Coles and Woolies and the supermarkets, all hang around asking for that dollar: ‘Can you give me $1?’ We know that dollar is not for a pie, it is actually what we call chucking-chucking, because they are $1 or $2 short to buy a cask. It is up to us not to be cruel, but to be kind and have that hard love, and say: ‘No, I am not going to give you that $1 because you are short of $1 to buy a cask; I am going to buy you a pie so you can have something to eat’.
People in my family also stand around at Coles and Woolies. When they ask me for $4 or $2, I know they want it for chucking-chucking for grog, so I will say: ‘You come with me to Woolies and Coles and I will buy you bread and chicken. I am no longer going to give you that $2 or the $4 in order to perpetuate the problem you have. You are actually sick’. As family members, as human beings in this society in the Northern Territory, that tough love is required when we are approached for $1 or $2, to say: ‘I will not give you the $2 because I know you are $2 short of buying a cask, but I will buy you a pie’. You will automatically see they will say no to the pie, because they did not really want the $2 for the pie, or the $7 for the chicken and bread; it is just another way of collecting. It is like the church offering, I guess. They put their little T-shirts out on the street and they sit there and beg. You can put money into the shirt and it is accumulating money for something that is really bad for their health.
Even with passers-by, we have to have some form of education strategy so we educate our tourists and people who walk in our streets to be very cautious that they are not throwing the $20 or the $7 into the hats and the T-shirts when people are playing music in our streets, because we are actually perpetuating the problem of their sickness, which it is alcoholism. Let us stop and say to these people: ‘I am not going to put the $5 in your hat, but I will go to the shop nearby and buy you a cake and coffee, or chicken sandwich’. I believe we need that kind of education strategy.
If we can educate all Territorians to have in the back of their minds as they walk along, not to put the money in, but offer them a sandwich and a drink, we will do justice to the Territory. That is up to each and every one of us. We sometimes feel guilty when we walk past and someone is sitting on a seat and we think: ‘Oh, poor bugger, we will chuck $3 in’. We do not know that $3 is actually going towards a bottle of rum or cask, or whatever. We need to put that message out to everyone in our streets in the Northern Territory to not put the money in, but to buy them a pie and a drink. That is doing more for that person sitting in the street than putting the $3 in to perpetuate this nonsense of the rut they have themselves into, drinking.
I go back to the town camps. All I have seen in this bill is going on a journey of correcting many of bad things that are happening. I congratulate the minister for bringing this forward. We need to normalise the behaviour in town camps and say: ‘You cannot drink in a Territory Housing property in a town camp, just as you cannot drink in Territory Housing at 51 Paterson Crescent, or in a flat in Lyndavale Drive’. It has to be normalised so you have one standard of living, one standard of entry, and one standard of behaviour in all our towns. When people are moving in and out of our remote communities, they will know that we all live with one standard and we will not tolerate anything less - not even if you are Aboriginal or Chinese.
I have spoken in this House about a German bloke who lives underneath the bridge because he is allowed to live underneath the bridge. Since I spoke of that in parliament, he has moved to a town camp. He is just moving from one place to another. We say to our people that you cannot do this kind of stuff.
Alcohol is a major factor in many bad things that have happened in a person’s life - truancy in children, domestic violence, houses not being kept up to Territory Housing standard, and the way people behave in the street in general. If we can cut that down by putting in the back of the minds of everyday ordinary Territorians, that go for lunch, go for smoko in the street, not to do this thing and perpetuate the problem, we will really improve the standards of how we expect people to act in our towns. Minister, I congratulate you for bringing this bill forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am going to talk more specifically about the objects of this bill, and I might talk about some wider matters later. It is a common theme in the Northern Territory that this issue is about 800 people who are a problem. Generally, there is a hint that most of those are Aboriginal. This is a real myth. People have to look at the facts: alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory is not high simply because Aboriginal people drink. It is because the culture of the Northern Territory is about alcohol. It has been about alcohol ever since I came to the Northern Territory, and I do not think it has changed.
In fact, it is far worse because there is promotion of alcohol as there never was when I came here in the 1970s. The most promotion you ever had was the ‘Two Miles to Swan’ signs on the Stuart Highway before you came into each town. There was no electronic and smart advertising as there is today. I will talk a bit about that later.
I get annoyed when we get into this camp of ‘it is them, not us’. We should reflect on our own society because we are just trying to hide the fact that much of our domestic violence, much of our alcohol over-consumption when driving, is not Indigenous. Much of it is non-Indigenous - or I probably should say non-Aboriginal. I went to the Larrakia training centre the other day and they said: ‘We are Aboriginal, the rest of us are Indigenous’. I digress, Madam Speaker.
In relation to this bill, I have put much thought into what the government is trying to put forward. I appreciate them putting forward these changes and I congratulate them for trying. A problem we have in the parliament when it comes to these difficult issues is it is easy to knock, and it is not always easy to do. The issue of excessive alcohol consumption and the economic and social effects it has on our society is an area that should rise above party politics. It is a major problem for the Northern Territory. We should recognise that and work together towards finding a solution. That does not mean one does not criticise what has been put forward.
I have come to the conclusion, even though not everything I would have liked is in there, I would rather give the government a chance to have a go, to see if what it says actually does happen. I cannot say it will not happen. I might have my doubts, but I would prefer, for the sake of working together to find a solution, I am willing to allow this legislation to pass and to see what happens. The government will need to come back to this parliament and report on what changes have occurred since this legislation was brought in.
My concerns are similar to the member for Sanderson in one particular aspect. I did not agree with everything the member for Sanderson said. However, in relation to those people who have been given numerous opportunities to turn their lives around, where it is seen they are simply incapable of turning their lives around because of alcohol or other drugs – it is only alcohol we are referring too here - there needs to be some stick. And not done in the sense of put people in prison as if they had done something criminal, but done for a compassionate reason. Many people will say you should not lock someone up for drunkenness or alcohol matters, that that is depriving people of their liberty.
The reasons why something was done could be put clearly to the public. It could be suggested there would be opportunities for people to voluntarily change their lives and the greater community also has rights. Those rights are to live a life not humbugged by people, or not have people sitting on the lawns at the back of their premises defecating, urinating and swearing. It is a two-way street: the community has some rights for peace and, on the other hand, the people who are the cause of this need to be helped. We are helping the community by trying to remove this nuisance factor but, at the same time, we are saying these are human beings and, with a compassionate approach we are going to have involuntary rehabilitation which will include medical facilities, medical help and care, a garden, workshops and numeracy and literacy. These things will cost money and the opposition is looking at something similar. I could introduce legislation or amendments to say this is what we have to have. At the present time, we do not have those facilities.
This is the way we may have to go if things do not change. I will be talking to people I know in Darwin who are continually confronted by people whose behaviour is not acceptable. We have to realise there are certain norms all people need to have. Whether it is hooning in the main street in a fast car or defecating on someone’s back porch, there are norms that need to be upheld otherwise society slips into lack of respect, which leads to lack of respect for authority and does not do our society any good.
The other issue is in relation to the swipe cards. I laugh a little when I deal with this issue. My personal feeling is you are going to have a great deal of difficulty making it work. The normal drinkers are not going to be affected. They might get a little upset if they have to swipe their card, but if they have not done anything wrong such as cause any alcohol-related offences and they do not have a banning notice because of their behaviour, they have nothing to worry about.
The history of this is interesting. The government introduced it into Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy and then moved into Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek - you have to show your licence when you want to purchase …
Mr McCarthy: Not yet.
Mr WOOD: Not in Tennant Creek?
Mr McCarthy: It is coming.
Mr WOOD: It is coming. One of the criticisms from our Alice Springs colleagues was if it is good enough for Alice, why is it not good enough for Darwin. Then, when it is decided to introduce it to Darwin, Palmerston, and the rural area, the word is it does not work in Alice Springs. It is a bit like on one hand we do something and, then, when we do something to satisfy the criticism, it is criticised again.
Let us give it a go. It will be harder in the Darwin regions simply because there are far more liquor outlets and far more places people can go where they will not be recognised. I am not saying they will not be banned, but there are more relations and friends who can disappear into the ether to obtain the supply.
As the member for Sanderson said, when you have people with a serious alcohol problem they will do everything they can to obtain alcohol. One thing I was told in Alice Springs in relation to this was the danger will be - and the law enforcement people recognise this – if you dry up the alcohol supply, there are going to be more break-ins to people’s premises. We have to take that into consideration as a likely outcome. I have spoken to the police about this issue. The lady I was speaking to said the police support it because at least it gives them something to ban; they can do something for those people they are picking up all the time, because police can give a banning notice. It gives them some teeth. Whether that works, let us see what happens. That is why I am saying let us try it out.
I was concerned if you go to the tribunal and, if you do not carry out the requirements of the tribunal, there is no real penalty except you will still be banned from drinking alcohol. I felt that could be strengthened, and I still think it is something the government should consider after reviewing how this legislation is going. After going to the tribunal, if you do not take up the request by the tribunal to have rehabilitation - and that could be once or twice - then you are sent to the SMART Court. Then, the SMART Court, which has more power, can make a decision as to whether you should go to involuntary rehabilitation.
Regarding involuntary rehabilitation, I would not support going to prison. We need a special facility that is not attached to prisons. It is there for a specific purpose; it is built for that specific purpose. It is built, not with an idea of punishment, but with an idea of rehabilitation and compassion. That is what we need.
The government is saying the police will crack down on some of the behaviour that annoys all of us. People have been in contact with me. I have been in touch with the commissioner and he said it is certainly an area they are putting more emphasis on. I have rung the people from the Darwin CBD who rang me, and they said so far there has not been a great change. However, the legislation has not come in yet; let us see what effect it has.
If you are asking police to do all this work, they are going to need more resources - there is no doubt about it. The problem with picking up people for minor offences is there will be far more paperwork. When there is more paperwork there are fewer police on the beat. There have to be ways around ensuring, if you want to enforce some of these provisions in the act, there will be the financial and the structural changes to allow this to occur - otherwise the police will be snowed under with paperwork and you will have fewer people on the beat.
In relation to this bill - and I would like to speak on the SMART bill when it comes up and, maybe, add a few more things to that as well - I will not necessarily vote on this bill. I say that not because I am scared of supporting it or not, but I am sending out a signal that, whilst I think it is good, it could be tougher. I have been told the other side of that debate is that the police are going to act more firmly on the people we are talking about; they will have the benefit of banning people. The government says that will make people think twice. I have my doubts. As I said before, we can think we have the simple solutions to a difficult problem. I am willing to give the government a go on this and see what happens. I ask the Treasurer to come back with figures showing us what change is occurring with this new legislation.
In the budget paper under Department of Justice Alcohol Reform Program, page 92, the government is estimating that in Budget 2011-12 there will be 2300 alcohol bans issued; there will be 150 treatment orders completed; the number of attempts to purchase alcohol denied will be 5000; the number of applications received by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal will be 600; and the number of referrals received by the SMART Court will be 375. That is an estimate. I am not sure what the scientific basis of those figures is, but there must be something that backs them up. Those figures have been put in the budget. That is a start when it comes to seeing whether the legislation is working. These are the types of figures we need to know.
The path of turning people’s culture around in relation to heavy drinking, or the misuse of alcohol, will not be short and it will not be easy. I believe we have to persevere and do something about it. When people are talking about the cost of alcohol, or the effect on society, or how people are a bit put out by some of the restrictions - I heard the member for Sanderson talking about how he could only buy one cask of wine and you must remember in most licensed facilities in communities that is exactly what happens. You cannot buy unlimited alcohol at Oenpelli, Gunbalanya, or Nguiu. There are restrictions in our community already on how much alcohol people can buy. It is not uncommon. I do not believe you can say it is abnormal, because it already applies, and has applied for many years in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I am willing to hear what other people have to say on this particular bill. I will also expand on some of those issues in relation to the bill that deals with the SMART Court.
Debate suspended.
ALCOHOL REFORM (PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIME AND SUBSTANCE MISUSE) BILL
(Serial 158)
(Serial 158)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support these very important pieces of legislation we will be debating this afternoon. Putting aside the politics, each and every one of us in this parliament understands alcohol abuse and crime, antisocial behaviour, the misery, domestic violence, the neglect of children is way too high in the Northern Territory. At the root of so much of this dysfunction is the abuse of alcohol. This government - me as Chief Minister, my ministers, and all of us on this side of the House - are absolutely committed to turning this around and we are looking for support from this parliament to tackle, head on, the abuse of alcohol in this community.
These pieces of legislation have broad community support. I say this in a spirit of not seeking to politicise this in debate this afternoon because it is too important. Look at the support this legislation has from the Australian Medical Association, the representatives for doctors who are at the front end of so much of this tragedy seen in our hospitals day after day; from St John Ambulance; from academic research groups such as the Menzies School of Health Research; from industry; the AHA; the police very strongly; from NTCOSS, the peak body on behalf of the Council of Social Services; and non-government organisations which work hard to pick up the pieces for disadvantaged families and individuals throughout the Northern Territory.
In this debate I am saying to the opposition and all honourable members we are looking at introducing this legislation backed up by significant financial commitments on the basis of significant consultation, strong support from those organisations I just mentioned, and wanting to see better outcomes for our community and for the people caught up in the tragedy of alcohol addiction.
I understand the opposition has problems with key planks in this legislation. I also understand the opposition has yet to finalise its policy on alcohol reduction in the Northern Territory. The latest comments from the shadow Health minister a few days ago were: ‘We will conclude our policy position on this in time for the lead-up to the next election’. The reality is, as of this afternoon whilst we are debating this legislation, the opposition does not have a cohesive policy position alternate to what we are debating this afternoon.
I say to the opposition that every day the clock ticks over and we do not introduce significant reforms is another day where we will see the tragedy of the abuse of alcohol played out throughout our community. Even if you do not necessarily support all of the measures here today, I cannot see why you would not say: ‘Give it a go, we will see how it works’. We are 15 months out to the next election and if we do not see significant improvements and change then more needs to be done and we will be in the policy realm of putting alternate policies to the people of the Northern Territory.
This issue is too important to play petty politics with. In the absence of any specific and cohesive finalised policy from the opposition, as announced by the shadow Health minister a couple of days ago, I urge the opposition to give this a go because, if we do not, then more of the same will be more of the tragedy we see around the Territory every single day. We all know alcohol causes 60% of all violent crime. Although there might be a different take on this, we all agree that for problem drinkers, mandated rehabilitation is something we have to step into. And we are stepping into this with this legislation today. We all know we have to increase and improve access to alcohol rehabilitation across the Territory. That is why we are committed to $34m additional over five years for alcohol rehabilitation, $3.2m to implement the banned drinkers register, and $1.5m for police to enforce it.
The tragedy of all of this is the significant financial contributions we have to make. The CLP’s position is to oppose the banned drinkers register, and that is fine if they want to have a platform to oppose that. I challenge them again to articulate because, for the life of me, I do not see if you do not have a register that identifies who is banned from purchasing alcohol, how you can enforce any ban on people purchasing alcohol. The first thing we have to do for people who have significant problems with alcohol is to make it very hard for them to access it.
I believe a banned drinkers register should be in place for Alice Springs. I have bought grog in Alice Springs when I have been there, going to friends houses for dinner parties, picking up a bottle of wine, picking up a six-pack of beer. It takes five seconds, it is not an inconvenience, and I do not see people in Alice Springs objecting in droves at the bottle shop when I have been there.
We know where we have alcohol management plans in place. There is the club on the Tiwi Islands and, when people play up on the Tiwi Islands and get banned from the club, the member for Arafura is the first one to cut crook at the fact that people come over to Darwin and access grog in Darwin and live in the long grass and play up over here. So, unless we have a Territory-wide register that enables licensees to say: ‘You are banned, I cannot sell to you’, people will continue to easily access alcohol who should not be accessing alcohol.
Even Tony Abbott said in Alice Springs on 29 April:
- Now, it’s true that if there’s a demand for booze restricting the supply is not going to entirely alleviate the problem but it can make a difference and it has made a difference and that’s why I say these restrictions are important.
We know there is no silver bullet cure to this. We know this is not going to be the magic wand that cleans up the problem across the Territory overnight. However, we are very confident it will make a significant difference, and that is supported by Tony Abbott. Tony Abbott, basically, has said in Alice Springs: ‘… it can make a difference and it has made a difference and that is why I say these restrictions are important’.
Despite comments I make from time to time about Tony Abbott, the federal Leader of the Opposition, he understands that alcohol is not the issue to be playing politics with. It is too important, in restricting access to alcohol, to play politics with. I urge the opposition, in light of the fact that they do not have fully determined policy yet, to give this a go; their leader in the federal parliament is saying it should be given a go.
In further questioning of Tony Abbott on ABC Alice Springs on 29 April, where the reporter said:
- But Mr Abbott, your counterparts here, the CLP in the Territory, are proposing opening the bottle shops for longer, would you support that?
Abbott said:
- Well obviously, I do my thing in the federal parliament and they do theirs in the Territory parliament …
He certainly was not supporting the positions that have been put forward to date by the opposition.
Regarding improvements in rehabilitation, the grant funding that is available in the budget for innovative regionally-based alcohol rehabilitation programs are in place. With the alcohol tribunals and the SMART Court, this is a comprehensive plan. It is comprehensively and overwhelmingly supported by august bodies such as the Australian Medical Association.
I was at Royal Darwin Hospital recently in the emergency department talking to emergency clinicians and nurses. I get out there from time to time and say thank you to people, because they do an amazing job. They were very supportive of what we are doing. I will not name the clinician directly in debate here tonight, but he was very supportive of this. He said the trauma they see on a nightly basis that they have to patch up is human tragedy on an enormous scale and something needs to be done. Again, strong support from the AMA.
We have four former police officers sitting in this parliament on the other side and, as minister for Police, I know there is very strong support for this from police. Police are the front line picking people up night after night across the Northern Territory, attending domestic violence disputes, entering into violent situations that are alcohol affected. They are very supportive of this. Even the AHA, the industry group that profits from the sale of alcohol - this will reduce alcohol sales and the very industry that profits from the sales of alcohol acknowledges they have a social responsibility and they can see they need to support this. The Australian Nursing Federation, St John Ambulance and NTCOSS support this.
I say to the opposition, let us have the debate here today. You have an opportunity to put your concerns about these issues on the table and we will do our best to look at those concerns. In the absence of anything that is a coherent, complete, determined, comprehensive policy from the opposition - they say it will be ready for the next election, that is fine - we should give this a go. That is where the member for Nelson is at. I have had long discussions with the member for Nelson. He made his contribution. He likes much of what is in here. He thinks we need to go further in some other areas, but his position is: let us give this a go; we need to do something. This is a very significant something. Let us give this a go, and let us evaluate where we are six or eight months down the track.
I commend the minister for the enormous amount of work that has gone into this. There has been comprehensive community consultation. There is comprehensive support from all the peak body groups that are around service delivery and picking up the pieces in regard to alcohol. The Menzies School of Health Research, one of the most esteemed health research bodies in the nation, supports this. I urge this House to support this legislation this evening. In six or eight month’s time after this has commenced, if it is not making a significant difference I am sure we will have the debate again.
Madam Speaker, I commend the three bills before the House this afternoon.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I respond to the new alcohol reforms the government is putting forward. I listened with great interest to the response of the Chief Minister. As one of the members of parliament representing Alice Springs, I feel more than qualified to respond to the reforms the government is putting forward.
Unlike the government, we have three members of parliament who live in Alice Springs, as opposed to their one. That is a significant fact because Alice Springs has been subjected to rather strict and ongoing alcohol reforms for many years - since at least 2005 or 2006, and even before then. In the last five years they have been quite intense. I have experienced firsthand what the alcohol restrictions are, and have been, in the Territory up to this date. I feel qualified, because of my experience, to give my opinion about what the government is proposing for the future alcohol reforms in the Northern Territory.
Alcohol is a massive problem. We have all stated it many times in this room. It is a huge problem. It is probably the most profound problem facing the people of the Northern Territory. It is the root of all evil, and has cost individuals and communities a great deal - not just in money, but in lost generations.
The Four Corners program on Monday night about the North Queensland community of Aurukun described a period in their history in which alcohol, basically, wiped out the social fabric of that Aboriginal community. It described how it has taken years to start the repair, the mending, the rebuilding process of that community from the damage alcohol has done to it. When I saw that program the other night, it certainly rang a bell in the similarities between what Aurukun faced over the last 20 to 30 years and what many Aboriginal communities and, indeed, mainstream communities throughout the Northern Territory have faced over the last 20 to 30 years.
We get to 2011, and the Labor Northern Territory government is desperate to find a solution to the problem, as we all are. We all are desperate; this is a very serious problem affecting each and every one of us who live, who chose to raise our children, and who hope to build a future in the Northern Territory - whether it be in business or whatever you choose to do. It always seems to come back to alcohol and the impact of alcohol on our lives and the way we go about our business from day to day. I am telling you the same old story. I read somewhere today that was a title of a section in a report, something to that effect: the same old story, here we go again, we all know it.
One of the observations I have made about the alcohol reforms imposed on Alice Springs over the last five to 10 years is the need for consistency. Whatever you do, it has to be consistent. I do not think this government has been particularly consistent in how it has gone about imposing reforms in Alice Springs. Nor has it been at all consistent in how it has enforced alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs and alcohol reforms.
The example that comes to mind is the dry towns legislation. In 2007, the Northern Territory government brought forward this legislation which used Alice Springs as the guinea pig once again. I can remember being extremely excited about the dry town legislation. At the time, I was an alderman; I may have even been Deputy Mayor. I can remember the Alice Springs Town Council was well and truly in the mix of how it would be implemented. We were being consulted. We were front-runners in how the dry town legislation was going to be implemented in Alice Springs. We were extremely hopeful.
I can remember the Mayor at the time, Fran Kilgariff, was interviewed by John Laws. I heard a replay of a section of that interview not so long ago. Fran was talking to John Laws and was tremendously excited about this dry town legislation because we really believed, at the time, that it could be a solution to the growing tide of alcohol and the alcohol problems affecting the town. We were desperate to find a solution, as is the Northern Territory government at the moment desperate to find a solution.
We put to the side the fact there had been a 1 km drinking limit in Alice Springs for some time which had never been enforced. We seemed to put that to the side because we had this new thing called the dry town legislation. Of course, that created much enthusiasm in the community. It was brought in and people were being driven out of Alice Springs because they were not allowed to drink in Alice Springs. Over a short period of time the streets remained quite clean from the obvious signs of drinking alcohol. People were not being seen on the streets of Alice Springs consuming alcohol. They had, effectively, disappeared. We were getting statistics relating to how much alcohol the police were pouring out on a regular basis, and it was all looking very promising.
That did not last for long. We all know this story - it did not last for long at all. It probably lasted no more than six months, and people started to see the signs of alcohol consumption within the CBD of Alice Springs returning. People were behaving in, possibly, a much more clever way in how they consumed alcohol in town. They were putting alcohol into containers that were not labelled alcohol, they were hiding in the bushes in and around the CBD and had developed more devious ways of hiding the fact they were drinking in town. They had changed their behaviour. This is an important point when we are talking about alcohol reform.
As the member for Macdonnell mentioned earlier today, people who drink, people with a sickness called alcoholism, will drink at all costs. They will drink no matter what. They will find alcohol no matter what. These drunks who were frequenting the CBD of the Alice Springs in 2007 when the dry town legislation was brought in, changed their behaviour and were able to get around this dry town legislation. They resumed their position in the CBD and the police interest in enforcing the dry town legislation quickly fell away. The public, once again, became alarmed that this great answer to the alcohol problem in Alice Springs was looking like being a flop - and it has been a flop.
The reason I am telling you this story this afternoon is because, without very strong and consistent enforcement of any alcohol reforms, it will flop. We have plenty of evidence of that in Alice Springs. We had the 1 km non-drinking area, then it became the dry town legislation, and they both were a flop.
Recently, the government announced a restricted alcohol area in Alice Springs which is basically a re-branding of the dry town legislation. A similar intent was attached to this restricted alcohol area zoning; that was, that people within a certain geographical area of the CBD of Alice Springs could not drink. That included through Heavitree Gap, Gap Hotel - the various hot spots around town. There was some degree of excitement. Over the years, people have become extremely cynical in Alice Springs when it comes to these initiatives, but there was some degree of interest in what this government had put forward: another re-branding of the dry town. We were assured by the minister for alcohol reform this was a great thing. Once again, we see that is not enforced either. This is an example of the alcohol reforms we have had over the last 10 years that, basically, have tried to address the same issue and have been unsuccessful - for want of a better word.
We cannot talk about alcohol reforms without using the word ‘enforcement’. Simply speaking, if you do not enforce it, it does not work. How do you enforce alcohol reforms? For the most part, you need police. That is why the Country Liberals have been demanding more police in Alice Springs for many years. Without police on the ground to enforce any sort of alcohol reforms or restrictions, it simply does not happen.
Alice Springs has been subjected to reforms for some time, and most of those reforms have failed, in part, because (a) we have never had enough police in Alice Springs to enforce these reforms, and (b) they were tried - and that is a good thing - but they never really worked. They were not, and have not been, adequate to address the extreme problem we have in Alice Springs.
In future alcohol reforms throughout the Territory, the advice I give the government and all other interested stakeholders is please have a look at what has been happening in Alice Springs because, as I said, numerous times in my seven months of being a member of parliament, Alice Springs was the guinea pig. We are the guinea pigs in alcohol reform. We have been subjected to a whole range of reforms by this government. I guess, for them, it must be extremely exciting having a contained area they can impose these reforms on, because it is new ground.
The Chief Minister talked about how these reforms have the support of a whole range of organisations - organisations throughout the Territory are supporting their initiatives. The reason they are supporting these initiatives is because most people will try anything. The government has been very lucky because they have been able to use Alice Springs as the trial ground for many of these things. The Alice Springs community has not been particularly impressed, for the most part, to be used in this way. There is a lack of respect, to some extent, when you know because you live in Alice Springs you are treated in a certain way and, if you live in Darwin, you are treated in a slightly different way. But, hey, we have all heard for many years about the Berrimah Line, so that is all very constant with our understanding of how this government operates.
People in Alice Springs have weathered many a storm when it comes to alcohol restrictions and reforms. We are all sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for the next thing to happen; that is the way we live in Alice Springs. We accept it, to some extent, because we know there is a serious problem. We know this problem affects our lives every minute of every day. For people who live in certain parts of Alice Springs, such as the town camps and various suburbs of Alice Springs, things are very tough. We know alcohol restrictions have not worked in Alice Springs, because there has been no change in alcohol-related crime, and there has been no change in presentations for alcohol-related medical problems.
We know there has been a significant decrease in the amount of alcohol consumed in Alice Springs - around 18% since 2006, I believe the minister for alcohol reform mentioned a few months back. I have no doubt that is as accurate a figure as you are going to get. I have responded to that before, saying that, obviously, the people with the problem are not the ones who are drinking less. It is the people who choose to buy their alcohol through other means rather than through the local liquor outlets, and people who just could not be bothered drinking at all who are drinking less because of the fiasco you have to go through to buy alcohol in Alice Springs. For most people it is a right pain. I have heard the government talk about how you can get used to certain requirements of these alcohol reforms, to using your identification when you buy alcohol, and not being able to buy certain alcohol products before a certain time. Yes, you can get used to it, but it still remains a right pain in the neck.
For different sections of the population you could even argue that it is discriminatory. For example, elderly people who like a glass of sherry or port - we heard this argument five or six years ago. It is a pain in the neck. It is unfair on them. Old ladies having to get into their car - which is normally tucked away well and truly before 4 o’clock in the afternoon - after 6 pm to head down to the bottle shop to get their beloved bottle of port that they might run out of once a month. There is inconvenience attached.
I will be very curious to hear what the response to these alcohol reforms is throughout the Northern Territory. It is quite interesting, coming from Alice Springs, because you have heard it all before. We have been down this track many years ago. We understand what the issues are. To hear people outside of Alice Springs and Central Australia talk about how these restrictions are going to impact on their lives is quite amusing in one way, because you just feel like you know it all, and these poor people are playing catch-up with you. It is amusing but, by the same token, it is also incredibly sad.
Another example of alcohol restrictions that were imposed on Alice Springs some time ago was the identification system. This system was brought in during the time I was an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council. This whole system of identification, which was meant to be the salvation of the alcohol problem in Alice Springs, was a complete and utter flop. Everyone in Alice Springs, basically, will agree with that. It was brought in by the current Labor government in 2008. I can remember that the Alice Springs Town Council was consulted very thoroughly on what we thought of different systems.
I can remember the IDI system, which was the system chosen at the time - I am not sure what is actually being used at present. There were discussions around the cost of the machines and how it was going to be used throughout the takeaway liquor outlets in Alice Springs. The reason why it was a flop - and I find it quite bewildering why it is even being used currently - is the fact that it was attached to the court system. Once you are deemed as not being in a position to use alcohol, you were meant to be identified on the system as being not in a position to buy alcohol, and that was a mechanism that was attached to the court system. That was, effectively, never used. There were probably fewer than a dozen cases over three years that ever got to court.
So, it always comes back to enforcement and how it is used. You can set up all these things but, if you do not have the mechanisms and the police resources, legal resources, and judicial resources in place, then it is a waste of time and money.
In Alice Springs, we are still using an identification system regardless of this legislation on the table. I do not go to bottle shops these days much at all because I could not be bothered queuing up at 2 pm with the stream of interesting people who queue up at 2 pm to buy alcohol in Alice Springs. I just could not be bothered. The fact is this identification system is still being used. I have never seen anyone being rejected for the sale of alcohol the whole time it has been in use. I do not frequent liquor outlets on a regular basis, but I have never seen anyone being told they cannot purchase alcohol as a result of the identification system.
It remains to be seen exactly how this government intends to enforce the whole raft of requirements that are contained in these reforms because, if you do not match it with a substantial increase in police resources, there is no way the current level of police staffing can cope with these extra demands. There has been no commentary or discussion around this area of need, when you talk about imposing all these new regulations, requirements, bans, and so forth. How does the government intend to enforce it? That question needs to be answered. How does the government intend to enforce all these new reforms?
The Chief Minister said we should give it a go. He said we should have an open mind and see if it works. He said there is no guarantee and no magic wand. He is right - there is no guarantee. To some extent, I agree with him. These things have to be tried and trialled because there is no real precedence. We are breaking new ground in the Territory. As a resident of Alice Springs, I can say loudly and clearly that, honestly, who knows where this will lead? Who knows if these reforms will be successful? There really is very little precedence throughout Australia with what we are doing in the Territory. That is mainly because the problems in the Territory are not anywhere else in Australia - thank goodness. Perhaps parts of Queensland and Western Australia might rate fairly significantly against the Northern Territory problems, but I say we lead the field when it comes to the severity of our alcohol problem in the Northern Territory.
When you talk about alcohol restrictions, my colleagues, the members for Greatorex and Braitling, and I really are the local experts when it comes to how effective these reforms will be. We do not object to the sentiment of the reforms the government is putting forward. We think, in essence, they will do no harm. However, our philosophy is more of a stronger line. We feel the people of the Northern Territory have had enough. Enough is enough. We feel this set of reforms, although it will do no harm and possibly might do some good, will not be enough to fix the problem. In fact, after being subjected to, essentially, 10 years of alcohol reform in Alice Springs, I remain quite cynical. I personally believe these reforms will not make much difference at all, and that is based on what I have seen and experienced in Alice Springs.
All we are doing is trying to plug the leaky holes. These reforms will not address the problem, and they will certainly not ease the pressure on the government when it comes to resolving the crime and alcohol-related problems we see in our community. The Country Liberals have an habitual drunk policy which is far more hard-hitting. It is three strikes and you are out, and connected with that …
Ms Lawrie: Three strikes and you are in the lock-up.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Exactly. The Minister for Alcohol Policy is assisting my speech this afternoon and I thank her for that.
Ms Lawrie: You have no idea have you, Robyn? Oh my God, I feel sorry for you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: She is very right - three strikes and you are in meaningful rehabilitation. You are in rehabilitation that might set you straight for the rest of your life.
I will listen with great interest as to how the government intends to enforce these alcohol reforms, because enforcement is where they have failed in Alice Springs over the last 10 years. It is all very well to write these wonderful pieces of legislation and come up with all the answers, but I have to say, Minister for Alcohol Policy, you are probably not highly qualified to talk on the matter. I guess you are well intended, and theoretically it is all good on paper, but come and live in Alice Springs for a while and you might get a slightly different perspective. Most people are happy to try anything, but do not expect people to be deliriously positive and overwhelmingly excited by these reforms, particularly within Central Australia. We have been there, we have done it, we are jaded; we have had enough because nothing has changed.
But, let us go another round. We have 15 months to the next election, which should give us time to work out whether your reforms will be effective to any extent. Hopefully, the game will be on for the next election as to who has the stronger plan - a stronger policy with more affirmative action when it comes to helping these people, getting them off the street. You cannot help a drunk who lives and breathes alcohol, who goes home to alcohol, who goes to town and drinks alcohol, and hangs out with people who are drinking alcohol. At some point, you have to break the cycle; remove them from the equation, put them into rehabilitation, and give them a chance at changing their life.
I listen with interest as to how these reforms roll out. I invite the Minister for Alcohol Policy to a briefing with me and the members for Greatorex and Braitling - who are the experts on alcohol reform in the House - and we can let her know firsthand exactly what it is like to live with alcohol reforms.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, one of the things I am going to enjoy about this debate is that it goes to the very heart of two perspectives of how you look at the world, and how the world operates. Those two perspectives are in a condition of constant tension in our communities, not only in the Northern Territory, but nationally, and pretty much throughout the whole of the OECD, and even many non-OECD countries. It comes down to the way we think about ourselves as a community and how we consider ourselves as people.
It is important to understand this debate lies at the very heart of those two perspectives. For the purposes of this debate, we can talk about the left perspective and the right perspective. I am one who is on the right side of the argument. I mean that in both senses but, in actual fact, what I am referring to is the more conservative world view. In fact, I would even go as far to say, on a traditional use of the word ‘liberal’ my world view is very much a liberal world view ...
A member interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I will not rise to the bait.
The government argues a very simple argument. The simple argument the government chooses to run is we have a group of people who conduct themselves in a particular way. That group of people, who are in a substantial minority in our community, conduct themselves so poorly they then have a negative and deleterious effect upon the vast majority of us. We can see this behaviour expressed in our parks and gardens on a daily basis. The member for Fannie Bay is fully aware of the No 2s deposited all around the Fannie Bay shops. I see him nodding; he acknowledges that - as it occurs in Harriet Place and The Esplanade. These are the actions of a minority. Not every person in Darwin defecates in front of the Fannie Bay shops, Harriet Place, or on The Esplanade. In fact, very few people behave in this way.
This, then, takes us back to the perspectives we bring to this place. The government, being a good Labor government, sees society as an organism of which we are all part and, therefore, as part of that organism, we have to look at these individuals as part of the whole. To make the whole operate better and more healthily, we must then make every effort to change the way that small component of the whole organ works, so the whole organ will work better. That is at the essence of what the government is trying to do. It is saying: ‘All right, if you have a problem, we are going to ask everybody else in the community to assist in dealing with your problem’.
We do that in several ways. One of the ways is we tax people. Another way is we are, through these legislative instruments - and I want to talk about them more generically because the philosophical debate is consistent throughout all three. The essence of the government’s argument is the whole of the community must now lose an element of liberty so we may police that small handful. We do that through the introduction of scanning machines and all those sorts of things, so we can bring out...
Ms Lawrie: There is no loss of liberty in that.
Mr ELFERINK: Why are you so insulted by this?
Ms Lawrie: Because you are wrong. There is no loss of liberty in the scanning machine, you idiot!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Actually there is. This is why I have to pick up on this interjection. Of course, there is a loss of liberty. People have to do something otherwise, under your rules, they will not be allowed to purchase liquor …
Ms Lawrie: They will do it.
Dr Burns: A bit like getting on an aeroplane.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. Okay, I draw honourable members to this particular issue. I ask honourable members to read the social contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau because the dynamic between the demands of the society people live in and people's liberties is a dynamic of tension. It creates a tension between the demands of that community. We have to suffer those problems when we get on an aeroplane because of the actions of a few morons. Unfortunately, those morons are so dangerous they kill people. In fact, so do the drunken morons. They kill each other from time to time in our parks and gardens and in Aboriginal communities. That is what this is about. That is precisely what this is about.
We have to ask ourselves, as a society, how much are we prepared to inflict on ourselves? And we do it. Conservative governments do it as well as Labor governments. The question is to what degree? This is when you hear the expression, when people talk about these sorts of things, as being an exertion of the nanny state: the state will look after you under all circumstances. Your liberty will be sold away for the price of a free set of false teeth. Your liberty to buy liquor will be diminished because you will now have to do more to buy that liquor than you would otherwise have done, which was the fair exchange of value.
We already, as a community, seriously and heavily police the supply and sale of liquor. The Liquor Act is at least as thick as the Criminal Code. Getting back to the debate, the fact is this government would then seek to inflict even further restrictions and laws upon the people of the Northern Territory to deal with this liquor problem in our community. Do I deny a liquor problem? No, I do not. In fact, I point one out nearly every parliament, in the adjournment debates, when I complain about drunks infesting our parks and gardens, defecating in our shops and conducting themselves, all in all, in a most unpleasant fashion.
However, that is exactly what the government, by these proposals, seeks to do: create a system by which the whole of the community needs to respond. So, they have to produce their driver’s licence, identification and such things, and that is an imposition upon them. Impositions like that have been inflicted also on the people of Alice Springs for some time. Those impositions are resented by people; people do not want to have to constantly change their behaviour because of the actions of a few.
I, too, share a belief that there is an organism called community, but I do not believe that it is part of a single conscious whole. Everybody in that community actually is a conscious individual and, so long as they do not suffer from a gross mental disorder, is capable of making rational choices. The problem is that humans are not always inclined to make rational choices. I suspect that, as a police officer, I would have had a very boring day at work if rational choices were the only sort of decisions that people make. People make bad choices. At our biological level, we are motivated by all sorts of things - tantalising our taste buds, satisfying our senses, sensual conduct, and those sorts of things which lead us to make poorer choices. One of those sensual conducts that people engage in is drug taking, both licit and illicit. They take legal drugs and illegal drugs.
How many members of this Chamber pop out occasionally for a quick smoke? How many members of this Chamber like a drink? How many members of this Chamber will drop an aspirin to avoid a headache? How many members of this Chamber have smoked dope in their past? How many members of this Chamber have dropped an ‘E’ in their past? I do not know. I suspect that some people will have done. Statistically, several people in this Chamber have smoked dope at some point in their life.
So, we make irrational choices. Many of those irrational choices are based in satisfying a sensual – and I do not mean that in the sexual sense – outcome. Some people in our community pursue that behaviour to an absurd degree. We have people who like to drink and who like to get drunk, and they pursue that to the gates of insanity.
We all know how bad heroin is. We have all seen pictures of heroin addicts lying in the gutter with a needle sticking in their arm as they go to that place where they are. But, in actual fact, so do alcoholics. There is no difference between the dero sitting in the park drinking a perfectly legal substance and a dero sitting in a park who is taking an illegal substance. They are both deros and they conduct themselves in a fashion which offends the general community. It is for that reason we have laws such as the Summary Offences Act.
As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we have seen and observed so many of the social experiments, which have been engaged in by both sides of politics. Indeed, the former CLP government changed the law to enable people to be locked up for being drunk, simply because we had so many drunks. The former CLP government was prepared to tax and lay an excise on the purchase of alcohol to fund an anti-alcohol program. The former CLP government had a Liquor Act, as the Northern Territory government has continued to have a Liquor Act. However, this Labor government has increased the level of responsibility on the community as a whole in response to a poorer and poorer alcohol outcome under their management.
In the year 1999-2000, the police annual report simply and clearly demonstrated that there were about 11 000 drunks, perhaps a fraction shy of 12 000 drunks, locked up in the Northern Territory. The last police annual report that I saw on this matter showed me that 35 000 - more than three times that amount - were apprehended. The Chief Minister has acknowledged that 55 000 incidents of drunks being locked up have occurred in the Northern Territory - a factor of five increase since this government came to power.
The Chief Minister says - and rightly to a degree but not completely - that it is due to more activity from the police, bigger population, all those sorts of things. Yes, I accept that. But, it is also because the drunks themselves have become more numerous. They have come in from remote Aboriginal communities, sadly, to our parks and gardens. They are more numerous, and they are prepared to drink more liquor - and they do drink more liquor. If you look at the last reports from the Department of Justice on the amount of alcohol consumed around the Northern Territory, they have consumed a substantially larger amount of liquor which is being sold in the Northern Territory than was under the last years of the CLP government.
This gets back to the issue of what do you do about it? The choice is you continue to pursue these programs where you seek these people to come to their own senses. We see that philosophy being played out by this government. It has every right to play out this philosophy, because it is the government. But, this is a government which seeks to introduce milder interventions to get people to change their behaviours. However, when you do that, what you are actually asking these people to do is to have a change of the way they view the world. What you are saying to these people is: ‘Okay, you have been picked up three times in three months for being drunk. We will whack you under one of these BAT orders, and you will be cut off’. The person is then banned. If you allow this legislation instrument to go through its paces and get to the point where you are dealing with the sticky end of this legislation, you might front the tribunal, and you will get BADT orders issued to you. Another acronym might be issued to you as well. But, in fact, what we are actually saying is: ‘Through that process we expect you to go through an intervention’.
The nature of that intervention will be a health intervention, not a custodial one. There is no sanction attached to the breach of these orders. There is no penalty other than the fact that you are banned for a little longer, or you continue receiving banning orders attached to this legislative instrument. The focus is a health focus, so there will be no custody involved. There will be no juridical intervention, and there will be no penalty attached to this sort of thing. It is my understanding the member for Sanderson will be trying to change that through the committee stages of this bill. However, I suspect the government will be resistant to those legislative changes because it is inconsistent with the philosophy it brings to this House in this legislative instrument.
We have to ask ourselves as a government what our primary responsibilities are. I argue that the primary responsibility for any government, particularly in a democracy, is to provide, above all else - before it does health, before it does education, before it does roads - a secure environment. That is what the people of the Northern Territory are pleading and calling for. They want a secure environment. They want to be able to walk out of their shop in Fannie Bay without treading into somebody else’s faecal matter. They want to be able to live their lives without being humbugged in the street by beggars and drunks. They want to be able to conduct the normal business of getting along in society in an orderly fashion. They want to enjoy a community where the normal social intercourse of that community goes unhindered by the actions of a few.
That is what I believe and know to be correct as the primary role of government. On a national level that talks about defence, on a state level - which is our level - that talks about policing; internal security. This is why the government is making an error with this legislation because written into the philosophy of these legislative instruments is a single assumption which is wrong. The assumption is the role of government is primarily a health intervention role. This bill is designed to achieve a health intervention before the government is prepared to address a security problem in the community. Will these people be removed from the community? The answer is no, they will not.
The government is engaged in a highly speculative assumption which is these people, once they have the tap turned off as the Treasurer likes to say, will cease to drink. No, I do not believe that is the case. I suspect some will have more difficulty in obtaining alcohol; however, we must remember we are dealing with people who are addicted to a drug and will go to extraordinary lengths to fill that addiction. One needs only to look at the illicit drugs in our community to see the lengths people will go to feed their addictions. They will lie, they will cheat, they will steal and, more importantly, there are people who will operate outside the law to provide and feed those addictions.
If you look at the illicit drug market, you will see we are constantly fighting a battle to keep our streets clean of these nasty illicit substances. If I remember correctly, watching the news today there has been some extraordinary amount of crystal meth, or ice, or some such substance seized by the Federal Police as they trumpet at their triumph of policing skills. I am sure it was a very good operation, and good on those police officers. What you have is a clear description of the lengths people will take to operate outside the law to provide addicts their drug of addiction.
You will not have to go to a Columbian drug lab to find liquor in our community to side-step the law to feed these people’s habits. I should know this because I have tried personally to be involved in the policing of prohibition - and I am talking about alcohol. In remote Aboriginal communities around the Northern Territory, vast amounts of Territory police resource are poured into stopping grog coming into these communities because that is what the parliament has asked to do. It has often been a fruitless and futile exercise, I can tell you. In fact, a cask of wine which used to sell years ago for $5 at Coles in Alice Springs was being traded out of the back of an HQ Holden at the front gates of Yuendumu for $50 a go.
The government asks us all to take this extra step to support a legislative instrument which will enforce orders with a health outcome, with no real description attached on how you are going to stop the illicit flow of alcohol to these people. The Attorney-General will, of course, stand up and say: ‘Oh, we have these penalties and people will be held accountable for selling alcohol to these poor health victims’. Well, piffle to that. Those penalties do not deter behaviour. If they did you would discover that Columbian drug labs would have to go into another business - perhaps pottery or something.
We are dealing with people with shortcomings and, in many instances, more substantial shortcomings than the average Joe. That being the case, I urge the government to stop playing with the community and seeing the community as a Petrie dish in which they can continue to play their social experiments. It is time - it is well over time - for us to stop trying to engineer community outcomes with a view to, ultimately, creating a system by which we can get these people – to what? - wake up to themselves, have a revelation, have a new and spiritual emotional wakening as a result of getting an order? No, it is time to start saying to these people: you are responsible for your conduct in the community in which you live ...
A member: Or visit.
Mr ELFERINK: That being the case – and when I said that I meant the whole of the Northern Territory, but I appreciate the interjection - this is why I feel it is no longer useful to continue trying to encourage people to feel better about themselves. The government is extraordinarily optimistic. I will say this for the Labor Party: as a general rule, they are more optimistic about the human condition than I am. They believe, or assume, or even hope, that through this process people will wake up one day – ee, ee, ee - and suddenly have a revelation like Saul on the way to Damascus: ‘Oh my goodness gracious’, and he falls off his horse! ‘I am Paul’. Well, that does happen, but one of the more common ways that occurs is not when people are encouraged and helped along; it is when people are confronted with the reality of the choices they make, and those choices are producing outcomes that are bad.
The problem with a welfare-based approach - which is, essentially, what this health-based approach is all about - is what we try to do in those processes is soften the outcome, soften the blows, soften the hit so it is not so hard. You were a poor person, you were a victim, you had a bad time as a kid, your left leg does not work properly, your upbringing was not what it should have been. Guess what? Many people in the community go through those problems, and most of them get on with life and deal with those problems and challenges when they come up. If a person who is confronted with the enormity of their problems suddenly realised, ‘Holy cow, it is this, gaol, insanity, or death; I might take changing my behaviour as an option’, they will be far more motivated by those things which confront than those things which give comfort.
So, I support a legislative instrument which, ultimately, does two things. First, it fulfils the principal role of a government; that is, to provide security for a community. This legislative instrument cannot achieve that outcome. I also support, in that instance, an intervention, but an intervention which is confronting to the point where people will change their behaviour. Therapy, I do not believe, is necessarily going to help someone who, deep down, is wondering where their next drink is going to come from. As a consequence, this is why I have been such an active proponent of the Country Liberals’ policy in relation to these matters. One, it provides security. By placing people into detention, into a treatment program for which they have no choice, it removes them from the streets and communities, the parks, the gardens, and places them into custody.
Most people, no matter how poor their life choices are, do not like custody because custody deprives them of their liberty. We are not talking about depriving the community of its liberty. We are talking about depriving those people who have an alcohol problem, and that problem extends to affecting the rest of the community. Those are the people we are dealing with. If a person chooses to buy two casks of wine and a bottle of Jack Daniels, and go home and get outrageously drunk in their lounge room and fall asleep on the lounge, I have no care or interest in that person, because that person has offended no one other than their own liver. However, if that person chooses to drive a motor vehicle, fly an aeroplane, or defecate at the Fannie Bay shops, I do have an interest, because it does diminish our community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us not particularly focus on the social experiment. Let us focus on taking the drunks out of commission, and the Country Liberals policy would achieve that. The second component, after you have dealt with the first priority of government, which is security, is to then bring a treatment program whilst they are in custody – which is why we talk about a three-month period - so these people are out of commission. They are out of the reach of those blackguards who would prey, if you like, on their addictions by providing liquor. We can control them in an environment - which I do not care if they like or not – which will go about confronting them with the shortcomings of their conduct in a way that does not give them comfort but, rather, says to them they are making the wrong choices, not only for themselves - which is their choice - but the community does not accept the decisions they make. Their decisions are offensive to the community and individuals in it. If they choose, through their alcoholism, to conduct themselves in such a fashion where it offends or harms others, that is when the state should intervene.
We, on this side of the House, believe this program of health before security will, ultimately, result in an abject failure for government. This could not place a more stark and obvious difference between the two political parties in the Northern Territory. The political party of the left would give us a police state in which you have to produce identification to do a lawful thing. It will introduce the nanny state, and tell you all of the things it is going to do for you, because it is good for you – ‘We know best’.
On this side of the House, on the right, we are proud to stand up and say we believe in your liberty, as much as we can give it to you. We will not diminish your liberty as much as we possibly can, at least for the sake of the conduct of a few, but we will hold the few responsible. That is the stark difference between this government’s approach and the approach of the Country Liberal Party. It could not be more clear, it could not be more pronounced. The people of the Northern Territory will have a clear and unambiguous choice given to them at the next Northern Territory election so they might pass judgment on the welfare, ‘softly, softly, make them feel good about themselves’ approach of the Northern Territory government, or a policy that is going to see the drunks and the villains who occupy our public spaces and defecate in our public spaces taken out of commission.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for her clear and unambiguous way of describing our policy. Three strikes - you are in.
Ms Lawrie: No, I said three strikes and lock them up.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is pretty clear some restrictions on alcohol are necessary for a civil society to exist. That is pretty obvious. The great John Stuart Mill said the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. Of course, we have some common regulatory controls on alcohol already in this country and, indeed, in the Territory. That includes taxes on alcohol, taxes and levies, limits on the number or the types of trading hours for outlets, controls on the types of alcoholic beverages sold, and responsible beverage service requirements. We are well down the track to alcohol restrictions and they are necessary, to a degree, for a civil society to exist.
But here we are, 10 years down the track with this Labor government, and we are, once again, introducing tough new alcohol measures. It is beyond me why it has taken this government 10 years to do just this. If we go back to 2005, the then minister for Racing - yes, alcohol policy reform progress was with Syd Stirling. He said:
- The government’s effort will focus on reducing harmful risk or risky patterns of drinking. In taking this approach, the government has rejected the recommendations to seek a general reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed by Territorians. Government believes that most Territorians know how to enjoy a drink responsibly.
Well, that was Syd. He seemed to have got it. He said:
- … most Territorians know how to enjoy a drink responsibly. They are not the target of this framework. Instead, our focus looks to reduce the drinking behaviours that produce the unacceptable levels of harm, social disharmony and community costs that we are no longer willing to tolerate.
I do not know what has changed in six years, but it sounds like a lot. The government is now focusing on a whole-of-community approach. It is this whole-of-community approach which is actually going to the core of the problem. It is not a targeted approach. It has been articulated here today by a number of members on the opposition side exactly who we need to be targeting. Let us make no bones about it - we are targeting problematic Aboriginal drinking. There is no doubt about it.
There are enormous problems with alcoholism right across the country. It is not just confined to Aboriginal problematic drinkers. There are about 540 000 Aboriginal people in Australia, and 340 000 of those live perfectly normal, happy, successful lives; 130 000 have the same socioeconomic outcomes as non-Indigenous Australians who live on the outskirts of towns in the far western suburbs of Sydney in low socioeconomic housing and are on welfare. Those sorts of health issues and problems associated with drugs and alcohol are much the same. The remaining 70 000 are the ones living out in the remote parts of Australia; that is, most of those are living in the Northern Territory. This is the problem we are trying to tackle.
I have said on many occasions that there is one thing we should be doing as a Territory parliament; that is, punching above our weight when it comes to dealing with Indigenous affairs and Aboriginal issues, particularly Indigenous drinking issues which, of course, is directly related to Aboriginal health outcomes. This group of 70 000-odd Aboriginal people, of which a large majority live in the Northern Territory, are way overrepresented in nearly every single statistic, every indicator - whether it is employment, law and order, health, or education. It is just not good enough. It is the failure of Territory governments for a long time, of both persuasions, that we have not been able to rise above that. Jurisdictions from all around the country - those in Victoria and New South Wales - are saying: ‘Gee, look at the Territory. If only we could just copy that model. Why can we not do what the Northern Territory is doing?’. We are just not there. In fact, we are almost a bit of a laughing stock in so many areas.
Western Australia seems to be punching above its weight when it comes to getting tough on this problem. It is time to get tough. We are 10 years down the track, and the government brings in three bills that are proclaimed to be the toughest laws in the country. What has happened to the last 10 years? If we did this 10 years ago, imagine how far down the track we could possibly be now.
It is, essentially, a failure of the Northern Territory. We are all responsible for that. If we look at the 21st century, Labor certainly cannot evade responsibility and point the finger at the CLP and say: ‘You did nothing’. We have all been trying to do something, but no one has been able to accomplish it, hence we are not punching above our weight when it comes to this issue. We are not leading the way; we are not setting world’s best practice. We are not introducing the toughest alcohol laws the world has ever seen. People are not going to be looking at us saying: ‘Boy, you guys are really getting tough on this’. It is not happening; it is not the case.
It is a failure of not just this Northern Territory government, but Northern Territory governments. I say that with a bit of a heavy heart because I believe the CLP did some wonderful work in its 27 years. Maybe it did not do enough in some areas. However, the Northern Territory Labor Party has not done enough in this area either. It has wasted the 10 years it had when it comes to this issue.
There is much work to do when you are in government. I run into ministers in the corridor and they tell me how busy life is. I can only imagine how busy it is when you are in the hot seat, how much work there is to be done, and the stress and strain it must have on your families when you are away from home so often. There is, obviously, much to do, but there has not been an emphasis on leading the charge and punching above our weight when it comes to these issues. The alcohol measures need to be squarely focused on the problem drinker. As Syd Stirling said in 2005:
- The government’s effort will focus on reducing harmful and risky patterns of drinking. In taking this approach, the government has rejected the recommendations to seek a general reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed by Territorians. The government believes that most Territorians know how to enjoy alcohol responsibly. They are not the target of this framework.
That flies in the face of the Menzies School of Health report or the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan also done by Menzies, Moving Beyond the Restrictions. There was an article on this recent report by Sara Hudson from the Centre for Independent Studies in the Northern Territory News on 6 April this year titled ‘Tough booze laws miss target’. I thought the report by Sara Hudson was quite interesting; it was well written. She raised some good concerns and points. There is a whole stack of things in there we could quite easily use as attack points for our argument.
At the end of the day, she is proposing it has to be a whole-of-community approach, and the reason we are not succeeding with our alcohol restrictions is because Aboriginal people resent the fact they are being singled out - it is a double standard as such. It suggests you cannot have this double standard approach; you have to have a whole-of-community approach so everyone has to be a part of it. The drinking we see in the streets is almost in defiance to the laws imposed by government.
The government has not really based any of its policies around this policy monograph by the Centre for Independent Studies. It has hung much of its argument off the Menzies School of Health report and the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan which was, I guess, just a review of the plan. It painted a pretty poor picture of what is taking place in Katherine too; it essentially tipped a bucket over the plan in Katherine. If you thought, member for Araluen, the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan was not really up to standard, then the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan has been a complete disaster.
Syd Stirling seemed to understand we need to have a targeted approach. That is the Country Liberals’ approach. Sometimes, as the member for Port Darwin suggested, both sides of the House could not be further apart on this issue. I used to think that. Sometimes, I think maybe we are not that far apart. Then, sometimes I think yes, we might be back to being poles apart again. We all want, at the end of the day, the same thing.
I just do not think you are prepared to go quite far enough. I do not understand why these bills do not result in a custodial sentence as such; why people are placed on a banning order, after banning order, after banning order - forever and a day. If you are directed to go to mandatory rehabilitation and you are asked to turn up on a particular day and you do not, then you just are placed on that banning order again for another 12 months. When is the end consequence going to come in? Where is the end consequence for that person who continually flouts the law and disregards any of these interventions? Where is that end consequence? Until we have that end consequence, we are not going to get a grip on this problem. We are not going to arrest the problem - for lack of a better word. That element on the streets, that problem we have with Aboriginal drinking, will continue.
That is why we oppose these bills; they just do not go far enough. We oppose them as they stand. We have some amendments we are going to raise in the committee stage. It clearly does not go far enough. I do not know why it does not. Surely, if we needed any more evidence - 10 years you had. You have been introducing policy after policy, tweaking policy after policy, amending policy after policy, repealing policy, and changing policy and legislation year after year, policy after policy, trying to get it right. The thing that scares me is if we do not get it right, then how long is it going to be, how many years are going to pass until we actually are able to get a grip on this problem?
We are determined, as a potential Country Liberal government, to develop a rock-solid, watertight alcohol policy. We will present that at the next Territory election. That is our word and our commitment. We will present a watertight, rock-solid alcohol policy that is being developed as we speak and will be announced as we get closer to the next Territory election. We know if we spend 10 years, as you have spent 10 years, that is 20 years that have passed. Imagine all the people, all the drunks, all the problems, all the health issues, all the money.
You say it is $642m today; what will it be in five years time? What will be the amount of money spent on alcohol problems in 10 years time? So $642m times 10, that is how much you have spent addressing this problem over the last 10 years - give or take probably a few million. Imagine the amount it will be over the next 10 years.
We are determined not to spend another 10 years dancing around this issue like a political windsock - whichever way the wind blows, whichever way the polls dictate is where we are going to go. If someone does not like it, ‘Gee we cannot do that in Darwin’. You do not have problems in Darwin? You do not have problems in the Top End? You do not have problems in Palmerston? But it does not suit your political agenda. ‘It is okay in Alice Springs; we will use it as a test case, as the guinea pigs of this whole thing’ has been your approach.
You have not stuck with anything. You have not stuck with it; you have just adjusted you policy to the polls and to the public sentiment over the course of the last 10 years. In fact, it has not really been 10 years, because you did not start taking alcohol policy seriously until quite a few years into your first term.
That is a commitment from a potential Country Liberals government: we will firm up a rock-solid alcohol policy which is being developed as we speak. We will announce that as we get closer to the next election. We will take it to the next election. If elected to government, we will introduce that and then we will stick with it. You have to stick with it to start getting real data and real results.
As you know, we already have our Defeating the Drunks policy, removing and rehabilitating street drunks - pretty simple. That included anyone picked up for public drunkenness three times in six months will be declared an habitual drunk - not ‘may’, will be declared an habitual drunk. An habitual drunk will be issued with a control order to keep them off the streets and require them to undergo alcohol rehabilitation. Breaching that control order will trigger an automatic prison sentence. This is backed up. We say prison but, essentially, it is rehabilitation. This will involve literacy and numeracy, and some life skills and work skills. People have to be able to have a meaningful contribution to life.
This is the answer. The answer is not just turning off the tap. You have all these supply measures. It is just staggering the amount of supply measures you have, yet your demand and rehabilitation measures fall well short of anything acceptable. Yet, you still sit there and say you spent $642m a year on addressing it. Alcohol rehabilitation, yes, it is very expensive. It is expensive to put clinicians into these places. It is expensive to build these facilities throughout the Northern Territory, whether you have a small one on a community, or you have a big one in a regional centre, or even in Darwin. It is expensive, but what is the cost? We are already spending $642m a year addressing the problem, paying for this sort of stuff. Surely, that money could be better spent literally building these facilities around the Territory and employing the right sort of people - real clinicians, real people.
I talk to John Boffa from Congress quite a lot, in his role at the PAAC. At first, John was a bit sceptical about our rehabilitation program. He said: ‘You have to stick with rehabilitation. If you do not stick with it, the success rate really is not that great. The success rate is not overly convincing. You have to stick with it’. He said it is very expensive. I said: ‘John, what if we were to pay for it? We are spending this much money anyway on the problem. What if we were able to save that money by spending the money on the facilities and keeping people in rehabilitation, and putting the right clinicians in there, and putting the right people and the right rehab stuff together?’ He said: ‘Oh gee, that might work, that will be pretty good’. I do not think anyone has ever said to him: ‘What if we are prepared to actually pay for it?’
All people say is: ‘It is too expensive. How can we do a hotchpotch job so it looks like we care about rehabilitation, looks like we are really trying to do it? We cannot commit hundreds of millions of dollars to it. We could not possibly do that’. But what if we were to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this sort of stuff? We are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars addressing the effects of alcohol; what about putting the hundreds of millions of dollars into real rehabilitation, real stuff that works? I have to say, guys like those from the PAAC and Congress and a whole raft of them, have been actively campaigning on alcohol issues for a long time,. They say: ‘That would be great, it might actually work. Gee that would be good, I am really pleased. Now you are talking’ ...
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Well, whatever. I do not know what that is supposed to mean. At the end of the day, I have my conversations with those guys. If they are happy to stick a knife and twist it behind my back, that is their problem, not mine. But they have not said anything untoward to my face, and I have had numerous conversations with those guys over the course of the last few years. That is what they are telling me; that it has to be real rehabilitation …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are in need of a quorum. Ring the bells.
Mr Giles: That is how committed they are. They do not even listen to the debate. They do not care about alcohol reform in the Territory.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. We have a quorum.
Mr CONLAN: This is the most important bill of the 21st century, and I thought you guys might show half an interest, to be honest ...
Ms Lawrie: It is fascinating.
Mr CONLAN: I know you do not like to hear it. The member for Karama does not like much at all. In fact, I wonder what it is like to have that much hate. What would it be like just to have that much hate and anger inside you? You just want to take her outside and open up the sunshine and say: ‘Please, it is not a bad world after all. It is actually a really nice world and the sun is shining and the birds are chirping ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: ‘Come on, just get with it. Get over all this hate and this anger deep inside you’. Maybe you and the member for Arafura could get together and go to a retreat or something over Christmas …
Members interjecting.
A member: A health farm!
Mr CONLAN: A health farm. There you go, that is what we need: a health spa, have a manicure, have a pedicure, have an eyebrow tint, or something, and have a makeover …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex! Order! Resume your seat, please. Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51 about interruptions. Member for Greatorex, I remind you of Standing Order 67 around digression from subject. We have a bill before the House. Resume on that topic, please.
Mr CONLAN: Anyway, a makeover would be good. That was a good one; that was the best one. Anyway, that is where we are.
It is about real rehabilitation and investing in rehabilitation and doing it properly, not token stuff with ‘may’. It is about actually getting in and doing it properly and spending the money. We are prepared to do that, but we are also prepared to get tough on the offenders on the streets. So, our policy we are developing as we speak is pretty comprehensive, as I say, and we will be bringing that to the election in 2012.
It is also worth pointing out, how can you believe any commitment by this government when it comes to alcohol strategies, alcohol management plans, or whatever it might be, when it is actually ripping money out of alcohol? All you have to do is have a look. If the government is so committed to alcohol - it sits there and professes it is the biggest problem facing the Northern Territory, affecting so many lives and it just does not know what to do, and it is costing the Territory $642m a year. However, what do we see under the Department of Justice when it comes to licensing regulation and alcohol policy? The government has ripped $3m out of licensing regulation and alcohol policy. This is hardly a commitment by a government which professes to be across the issue, or experts on the issue. All it can do is strip the Department of Justice licensing regulation alcohol strategy, of $3m. That speaks volumes of their commitment when it comes to licensing and alcohol strategy. To remove money from the actual portfolio does not seem to make a much sense. But, there it is right there in the Budget Paper 2011-12. Have a look at page 77.
It has taken this government 10 years. It has now introduced the greatest bills of the 21st century - hardly a ringing endorsement by its own members who do not seem to be overly interested in the debate, but …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, I was trying to do a quick count. How many do we have?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. We are lacking a quorum, ring the bells.
Thank you, we have a quorum.
Mr CONLAN: I would have thought the member for Fannie Bay would have shown a little more interest in this considering what takes place in his own electorate.
We have identified a number of differences. This bill does not go far enough by any stretch. The government has stripped $3m out of the portfolio - it shows barely a commitment. We strongly support a bill that would have an end consequence. If you continually breach the alcohol notices, the banning notices, or whatever they might be, there has to be some end consequence. People cannot keep getting away with things. Fines are not always appropriate. People need to have a value. Money holds little value to the targeted group in this environment.
Of course, it is not just about restrictions - the supply and demand measures. There are bigger things here which the government has failed to act on, investigate, or seriously debate. That has to do with welfare quarantining. The member for Port Darwin put it very well; the federal government spend hundreds of millions of dollars pouring money into the Northern Territory through welfare and, then, we spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars every year dealing with the effects of that sort of thing. It does not make much sense. I do not know what negotiations are under way between this government and the Commonwealth government, but I know Tony Abbott is very interested in welfare reform of sorts, such as work for the dole where people have to work.
That is really one of the keys to getting your life back on track, particularly with health outcomes. When it comes to health outcomes, people need to work and people need a job. It is incredible what a job can do for your self-esteem, for your back pocket, for your life, your lifestyle - the whole gamut. It plays an important role in a person’s development and, if a person does not have that, then we see the effects of what happens, particularly when you are a large disadvantaged group …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: If people are not engaged in work it has an enormous effect on their social wellbeing, particularly when you are a disadvantaged group like so many Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Let us be honest; this is the group of people we are talking about. I really want to make it plain because, sometimes, it is so difficult as a white fellow from the leafy suburbs of Brisbane.
I did not see a blackfella until I was 20. I never professed to be this great friend of the black man. It was not until I came to the Northern Territory that we socialised, mixed, and lived with each other in the same community. The difficulty is when you are trying to identify a group or a person, it is hard to say it without people thinking you are being very general in the way you speak; you are generalising. It is not everyone. As I said, there are 540 000 Aboriginal people in this country, and 340 000 of those are living perfectly happy, healthy and successful lives. We are talking about a small group. We allude to about 70 000 of that 540 000, and a large majority of those live in the Northern Territory. That is the group these laws and alcohol restrictions, this rehabilitation - this is where we need to be. This is where the Territory can lead the way, and the Territory can punch above its weight.
The member for Karama does not like to hear it. She does not like any real, meaningful debate in this Chamber. I am attempting to make a contribution here. As I said, from someone from a different world, essentially - and I do not buy into this business of ‘I was born here so I am better than you’. I am Australian first and foremost, and I care about every township or every city in this country, first and foremost. It does not make any difference to me where someone is from in this country; we are all Australians first. The Northern Territory has a great opportunity to punch above its weight and to really set the stage when it comes to Aboriginal disadvantage and, particularly, alcohol abuse.
I do not know why we are lagging behind. I do not know what it is going to take, but I do not think these bills are going anywhere near addressing it. I wish they did. If they did, you would get the support of the whole parliament.
Alice Springs people, as the member for Araluen alluded to, support something that will address the problems on the streets of Alice. People from Alice Springs are from all over the place, including a large majority from Alice Springs. People who live in that community are well aware it is not the lush, leafy suburbs of the North Shore of Sydney. Living there comes with some trade-offs. It is a remote town; there are law and order issues, and there are even cultural issues. I believe people are more than happy to accept that, because the trade-off is you get to live in this wonderful part of Australia which is Alice Springs. People are not stupid, they are more than happy to put up with a restriction here or an intervention there. By intervention, I mean an intervention into alcohol supply or demand, whatever it might be.
People are more than happy - or more than prepared might be the better way to put it - if they are seeing results; if they are actually seeing an impact. Unfortunately, we are not. Any statistic will tell you the current restrictions are not having the desired impact. If they did, people would support it. Tony Abbott said the other day that restrictions need to be enforced. Yes, restrictions do. If we have restrictions, let us use them, let us enforce them, let us not tinker around the edges and put everything on the shoulders of the licensing. Licensing seems to get stuck with everything. There is a problem with this, so, okay it is up to Licensing to come up with a plan. The restrictions currently in place need to be enforced. If they cannot be enforced, there needs to be a complete rethink of the policy.
That is exactly where the Country Liberals are. It is worth pointing out the Country Liberals are not going to just junk every government policy because it is a government policy, because it was conjured up, dreamed up by the Labor Party. There might be elements of the restrictions that are working, and in some areas there probably are. It is not that we do not like it because you thought of it. We are not that churlish. It is not a case of because you thought of it, it is your idea, or a Labor Party thing, we do not like it. We understand perfectly, as I said in my opening remarks about restrictions, there are some restrictions, around alcohol particularly, that are necessary for a civil society to exist. We will be looking at all those restrictions. We will be looking at all the ones in place. We will be looking at all the real data from those, and we will move forward accordingly and present our detailed policy closer to the election in 2012.
We have made it clear that, unless the government supports our amendments - I do not know, has the government given us any indication, fellow members, whether it will support our amendments, which are pretty good amendments? It takes it just that little step further. I know you guys do not want to take it that little step further, although I do not know why. I do not know what is wrong with that. What is wrong with having an end consequence? The practicalities of this bill will not match the rhetoric you guys have been touting in the media. We will be back here again in a year or two, tweaking this bill, amending another one, introducing another one. As I said, there has been bill after bill after bill, after speech after speech after speech, for the last five, six, seven years, claimed to be the toughest new alcohol measures the world has ever seen. You have lost 10 years, but really, you did not get serious on alcohol until quite a few years into the first term.
Madam Speaker, I know there are still another couple of bills to go. I have a stack of stuff to talk about, so I might leave the remarks to the next bill. There is another one after that as well. There are three big bills to be debated. Why are they coming on, on Thursday? Many people have much to say on this sort of stuff. Why you are bringing three - you are saying it is greatest thing since sliced bread, they are very important and they are going to reshape the Territory, yet you want to somehow ram it through in five or six hours. Why were these not brought on earlier so everyone could have an opportunity to speak? I notice not too many people on that side are speaking, which is curious. I believe it just demonstrates the tokenism of this by the government. They are not really interested in talking about it.
In the meantime, I suggest the Treasurer go off and have a makeover. Maybe that is what she needs: to go to a health farm and detox - the toxins out of your body that is - and that would be …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is straying into personal territory. It is not needed. He needs to tail off his remarks and let us just move on with our business.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps we can just leave it at those comments.
Mr CONLAN: I stand by what I said. Thank you, member for Johnston, it is okay. We were just having a bit of a joke before. I think the member for Karama appreciates that.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing the debate and these remarks when the next bill comes before the House.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, without a doubt, this could have been the bill of the 21st century. It could have been, but for the lack of teeth it has. Any bill that perpetuates itself every time someone commits another offence, for another after another order - no wonder people will be left confused by this bill.
The advisors on the fifth floor and the government need to listen to what the members on this side have said. One is left in a very confused state as to why they did not pull apart the 2008 election policies that dealt with antisocial behaviour, drunkenness, and the prisons policies. Why did they not pull them apart a little earlier and start to look at things and integrate them into their own bills? We have seen touches of it, but only after the community has suffered and endured more hard Labor. The community has really suffered through lack of action under this Territory Labor government.
There is no doubt, as the decades continue to wind past, every government can do better, and continue to do better. It is as simple as the fact that 10 years ago, the computers we were using on our desks were not a touch on what we have now. As time goes by, things change and improve, we hope. So should the tired, old stories this government will tout about 10 years ago the CLP did nothing, the CLP did this, and the CLP did that. You cannot ignore the time frame that has since passed; it has been 10 years. There has been 10 years in further research, further development in technology, particularly that further research into ways we deal with things, understanding patterns.
You had years of opposition where you could study the various pros and cons of the then CLP government. You should have come forearmed with a change and a plan to make a difference, to really step forward. If you believe the CLP had done the alcohol policy reforms and the alcohol position so badly 10 years ago, why did you not act the minute you got into government? Why has it taken you 10 years to introduce these strong bills? If you listened to your own spin and rhetoric that suggest we got it so wrong 10 years ago, what have you done for the last 10 years?
Ms Scrymgour: You could knock yourself out with your spin.
Dr Burns: I have been the truck!
Mr BOHLIN: You have been a’truckin’ along! The minister is an absolute comedian today. I am so impressed with his clear wit, but we are also aware of his clear failings. The minister needs to understand that in his time he has failed to deliver for the Territory ...
Dr Burns: That is a bit of a generalisation.
Mr BOHLIN: Toughen up the glass chin, minister. When you come into this Chamber and throw around your little antics, remember you had 10 years of your own working time in this government. If you point the blame beyond the previous 10 years, and you say it was wrong then, what have you done? What have your ministers done in the last 10 years to improve on the previous 10 years?
You need to look at your own blame and be gentle where you push other people’s blame. I know you understand that. I know you get it. I know it is just political spin from the Labor government, but there are members on this side of the Chamber who did deal with, on a day-to-day basis, the poor alcohol policy management and the inability to actually deal with the poor people who suffered from alcoholism, domestic violence, and poor health as a result.
There are members on this side who physically picked those people up, day after day after day, and put them into protective custody. Without a doubt, we can say there were times when I served under the former CLP government, and it was also not a correct stance. I do not have a problem admitting that. Do not come here and point the finger and say ‘You got it wrong 10 years ago’ because you have sat there for 10 years and failed yourself. Look at the policies; look at the amendments the member for Sanderson has brought in. Recognise there are some brilliant aspects to it. Recognise there are some failings with the policy you have brought forward.
Members on this side who served the Northern Territory public for so long as members of the police force of the Northern Territory had to deal with and work with the failed policies. We had to deal with picking up the drunks. We had to deal with giving first aid to those who were bleeding, wounded, near dying or, in fact, dying as a result of alcoholism. We had to deal with the anguish, and we carry that with us today and understand there is a need for change ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BOHLIN: It is amazing the government can continue to poke fun and play games. If it was serious, this grandiose 21st century bill would have been brought in yesterday.
We know you must have a consequence at the end of your various programs. You cannot have an order on top of an order, and it continues on. People will get dizzy because it will be like a roundabout. There must be an end stop. There must be a line drawn in the sand.
I was talking to the police recruits in the gallery earlier today, and I told them they should be proud they will be standing on a line no one else will stand on. It is up to the lawmakers of the Territory, the members, the ministers in this government, to ensure that line is drawn clearly. When you introduce a bill like this which does not have a clear, defined end-stop line - a consequence at the end - how will they be able to enforce that? It is a continuing roundabout.
I applaud you for bringing in some amendments; some changes that are starting to make the right journey. However, include some consequences. Put a line that actually stops somewhere because, as the members opposite know, we are dealing with people who are such alcoholics they do not care if you give them a banning order. They do not care if you have banned them from X or Y or Z because they will find the grog - no different to when the Northern Territory was a dry place. When there was prohibition in the Northern Territory grog still flowed into the Territory, even though the entire Territory had prohibition.
It does not take long to talk to a few long-term Territory residents and you will find someone, or a mate who knew a mate who knew a mate, who was involved in the smuggling of alcohol into the Northern Territory during that time. It was extremely well organised as it was in America. Prohibition itself does not work; you must deal with the individual person. If you want to truly help people you must deal with the individual person, and they must have a consequence. There must be an end point.
America is willing to send some of its rich, flighty little actresses and actors into mandatory rehabilitation. It is good for the flighty little actresses and actors in America to be sent to rehabilitation. Why are we not brave enough to do it here? Why not be brave enough to say to the people who most need our help …
A member: They are nothing like Lindsay Lohan.
Mr BOHLIN: They do not have the millions, for starters.
Why not say we will give them that help? We will mandate and control their life enough that they will have the time, the concentrated effort, to get some rehabilitation; to be given the one-on-one help they need to give them some life skills. It will not hurt them, it will improve their life. It will improve their life expectancy, it will help close the gap, it will make a difference. As the member for Greatorex said, it will cost money but the savings in the long run to the community will be massive.
Former Superintendent Greg Dowd of the Northern Territory Police was formerly in charge of the Katherine region. I cannot remember what rank he was when he left the Territory police. Going back to around 2006, he put out a paper similar to the terms of crime prevention through antisocial behaviour - antisocial behaviour crime prevention. It ended up being a back-to-back paper which was easy to show to the police officers and to demonstrate and outline for the officers the various steps and relevant consequences or actions and reactions of certain things. What it did was explain to people the importance of targeting antisocial behaviour and drunkenness at the very early stages on a day-to-day basis. It actually demonstrated that if you got hold of someone before they became heavily intoxicated, it would reduce assaults, rapes, murder, unlawful entry, criminal damage, drink-driving - a whole raft of crimes that cost a lot more money for police than dealing with an individual before they get to that point. The antisocial behaviour is gone and society is a better place because of dealing with it at the right time.
It is very bizarre that that policy document seems to have vanished from within this Labor-driven system. It seems to be something they do not want to reappear because it actually supports our basic philosophy of a consequence. It shows the real outcomes that being serious will actually have. I am surprised that in this day and age there are such cover-ups.
Around the same time, when I was the Officer-in-Charge of the Kintore Police Station - 2006 through to May 2008, I think it was 2007 - I went to a national drug and alcohol forum held in Alice Springs - the first time ever in Australia’s history where representatives from all states and territories were present, which was run by Commander Jeanette Kerr. She ran it, she should know where the reports are, she should know where the notes are. We had people from Alcohol Policy, the whole gamut of so-called experts. We had Indigenous leaders. Do you know what that document, in the end, supported? It supported our basic principle that opening hours earlier prevents problems later. But, guess what? That document has been hidden as well - gone, vanished. Maybe I should start ringing some of the other interstate police forces where governments have changed hands and they have gone back to a Liberal life. That has been hidden. I urge the commander to bring that document forward. Prove me wrong. Prove me wrong that what was in that document was actually totally contra.
It said a few other things as well. It suggested that maybe drive-through bottle shops are not the best idea. If you go to New Zealand, where my lovely daughter lives in Auckland, there is not a drive-through bottle shop to be seen. A person has to park their car, get out of their car, make a deliberate act. They cannot take the taxi through. It is easy to see the people who are intoxicated. It happens in New Zealand. It is an idea. There is something out there; there are other ways. That was brought up in that national alcohol and drugs in community forum. It was paid for by this Northern Territory government. The document seems to have now been snowballed, hidden, trashed, because it is not in line with what you said. However, I tell you it was a genuine first-time ever national document.
There was a lot to be learnt from that, and there still is today, so dig for it, find it. Fifth floor, open up the computer, send the e-mails, find out where these documents have gone - both documents from Greg Dowd and Jeanette Kerr. Find out where they have been hidden. Find out what you can learn from them. Read through these amendments, find out what you can learn from them. Be serious for once. It is all great to listen to fancy interjections. Who cares? If you are serious, you might actually listen, and you might actually take notice of things and make some changes ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: You might listen. It is interesting. We have said alcohol restrictions do not work by themselves. They certainly do not work at the moment. In fact, I was very much gobsmacked to hear the Chief Minister during Question Time say we do not have any formal policy on this. The Chief Minister needs to attend to some paperwork laying around the place - it is blue in colour by the way. It is the amendments on your policy. I find it absurd that the Chief Minister would dare come into this Chamber and say we have put nothing forward. Or did his advisors not give him the amendments? Is he that blind, that shielded from the reality of life? Is the Chief Minister that blind and shielded from life that he did not even bother to review the 2008 Country Liberals’ policy launches? Is he that blind that he has no idea what is happening around him? There are policies already out there and they deal with just this.
Our drunks policy deals with the individual person. It delivers consequences for the individual person. But, do you know what? For all the consequences it gives help, assistance, rehabilitation, life skills, job opportunities through education, all whilst getting that rehabilitation and having a consequence in place. Perhaps it is so logical that is why you do not want to listen to it. It actually makes sense.
Have a nice calm barbecue and chill out, relax, and talk about and discuss it with your friends and ask: ‘Do you think we are going to have a consequence and we are going to take someone into our care and custody after they have made the choice not to take self-help? Do you think that maybe whilst we have them in our care and custody we should help them with their education, we should find out what their education levels are and help them with that? Do you think we should help them with their alcoholism? Do you think we should help them with their drug addictions? Do you think we should help them with some of their life skills, demonstrate and assist them with understanding why hygiene is very important and why even the simplest things like brushing your teeth can help reduce disease?’
This is all whilst being reformed, all having a consequence. We might one day be touted as the bad people because we are going to be hard and have a consequence. But, do you know what? For that consequence, there will be every step of assistance all the way to a longer life.
I know you get it; I can see it in your eyes. It is about helping people, but there has to be a consequence.
Our prisons policy was launched in 2008. So, to again hear the Chief Minister say we have no policy - gee whiz, that came out in 2008. Our prisons policy has the same basic intent; if we are going to have someone in our care and custody, let us actually do something with them. Let us find out if they have educational issues. Let us assess them individually because they are individuals; do not lump them as one thing. Let us help educate them, so when they come out of the prison they are in a better place where they have had education tailored to them.
The member for Johnston, of course, has one education level. Every one of us in this House has a different education level, because we are individuals. It is best, if possible, to be at least tailored within a group that is very similar to our standard. There would be nothing worse than to try to run an education program - whether in a rehabilitation facility or a prison’s facility - lump everyone in the same education class and say: ‘Guess what? You are all going to learn the same’. That does not work; we know that now.
But, whilst they are there, we are going to ensure they get the drug and alcohol reform. We are going to give them more of those life skills. Madam Speaker, if you had not learnt those life skills as you grew up, you could also have a poor quality of life.
That is why there are programs in place to help the illegal immigrants and the genuine United Nations refugees. We give them those life skills, but we do not do it for some of our people. It makes a difference.
I was speaking to a friend two or three weeks ago who was talking about the time they helped out with the United Nations refugees. That friend was saying one of the tasks she was teaching people was basic cooking; another one was using a stove. Another was using a kitchen bench instead of a kitchen floor to prepare food. Another was using a toilet appropriately - keeping it clean, and keeping themselves clean. Another skill - would you believe? - was using an iron and ironing board. My friend said it was amazing. She was asked to teach one person how to use an iron and ironing board and, when the lesson was about to start, 20 to 30 people rocked up. She said it was amazing; they all wanted to learn.
It is strange; we will help some people and not help others. We will not be strict on some people; we will be strict on others. Sometimes, you have to be strict. Sometimes, there has to be a consequence. Whilst we enforce those consequences, let us ensure we deliver real advantage for those people. Be bold and say: ‘We have to teach you some life skills; we have to provide some education; we have to teach you some work skills’. It is important and is something I am passionate about. In fact, I know people rope me into these arguments at times because I am so passionate about it. I have seen it.
When I was in Kintore I saw the difference it made. One beautiful lady in that town was immaculate every single day, and her husband was immaculate every single day. Her kids went to school every day and were immaculate every day. Her story is that her young kids were sick all the time - pus in the ears, runny noses, traditional type of illnesses. The health practitioners out there really drummed it into her - really got her focused and said: ‘You have to clean your house. You have to give them clean sheets and a bed’. And that is what she did. Martha did that and she proudly will tell you, in front of any crowd you like: ‘My kids are no longer sick, my kids go to school. My kids are healthy’. She is amazing.
There are consequences wherever you go. I have a mate, Chris, from Zambia. He has certain learning problems but he is a brilliant man. He is so brilliant that when I caught up with him the other day he had started his own business in Australia. He is an immigrant and he made the decision to do something for himself. He knew the consequence. He knew the effect of sitting back sinking too many tubes and doing very little was not going to let him succeed in his life.
Ricky is a fellow I have known since he was younger than eight. He is a local, traditional boy from the Cox Peninsula area. He works his fingers until they bleed, literally, and is an extremely talented automotive painter. He had a choice. He could sit back and sink tubes every day, but he did not.
It is a choice, but there have to be consequences in life like those people I mentioned whose mothers ensured they had the right consequences. You miss consequences, therefore, your bill will not be as effective as it should be. In fact, it will lack any teeth. Look at these amendments; accept them ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. It is a very important debate. We all know alcohol affects so much of the Northern Territory, particularly where I am in Alice Springs in the seat of Braitling, which incorporates the CBD of Alice Springs and a number of licensed premises and areas where there are concerns regarding alcohol consumption.
We do not support this bill, and we will be putting forward amendments, as my colleague, the member for Sanderson, said. It is not to say we do not want action on alcoholism and alcohol reform. I take things as requiring a balance between demand and supply-side measures. There have been a number of supply-side measures put in place in the Northern Territory, particularly Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, for a number of years.
This government has been in power for 10 years; things have continued to get worse and worse. Now, it stands here on its high horse saying it is our fault and that we are trying to put more grog down people’s throats. That is completely not the case. This government has had 10 years - almost a generation - to get this stuff right, and it has actually become worse.
The government is afraid to address anything from a demand-side perspective, or try to get people not to drink in the first place. In this debate, there has been a lack of focus on the individual who is a substance abuser. I see people who have chronic alcohol problems as substance abusers and, if you replace or remove a substance, people just change over to another substance.
I would have liked debate about the correlation between Opal fuel, ganga, petrol, speed, ice, and so forth. I am really keen to understand the people who were sniffers in Central Australia and other parts of the Territory where Opal has been rolled out. When that supply was taken away from those sniffers, where did those people go? What did they actually do? Has there been a longitudinal study? Even though it is only over a few years, has there been a longitudinal study about where that population has actually gone to in substance abusing? Maybe they have gone into training and employment, maybe moved interstate, or maybe moved to other areas where people can actually drink. It is important to have a look at that, rather than just focus on more supply-side measures.
There are a few things I will speak on; I have written a couple of notes. I will say I am not a supporter of new laws that replace existing laws that are not being enforced. There are laws in the Northern Territory now about alcohol, and none of them are enforced. That is some of the frustrations we face: laws are not being enforced. I heard the Chief Minister reference Tony Abbott’s visit last week and he spoke about some of the things that Tony said. I can tell you what Tony said. He said if you have the laws there, start enforcing them. If it is a dry town, enforce the dry town. If you have a town camp where you cannot drink, send the police in there and tip all the grog out. You do not have to go anywhere. Around the corner from my office, in Railway Terrace, people sit there every day drinking a bottle of wine - every day. The police drive past every day, all the time - never tip it out.
We can debate having tougher supply measures here but, if you have laws now that are supposed to make change, enforce the laws. This is why people get cranky in Alice Springs. You are all wondering about Action for Alice and this community uprising. This is why people are frustrated, because there is inaction by government. For the sake of a few, you penalise the majority, then you do not even apply those penalties to the few. We have these ID scanners where we all get our licence scanned. As the minister said, it is not too much of an inconvenience. It may not have been a minister, but somebody said it is not too much of an inconvenience. And it is not that much of an inconvenience, but it is an impingement on our rights. It is attacking us as individuals. We do it, everyone does it.
It might stop a couple of people, but it is not stopping the person who is being supplied alcohol. It is not stopping the person from breaking into premises to get alcohol, or who runs in there, grabs a 1.125 litre bottle of Jim Beam and runs out of the shop. More crime, it puts prices up - all these sorts of things. You are not attacking the person from a demand-side perspective. You are putting punitive pressures on people who do the right thing. We, as a society, are quite prepared to have measures put on us for the greater good. However, when you are not actually addressing the greater good, that is why we become frustrated.
This idea of having ID scanners everywhere that sells alcohol takeaway - everyone gets it. So, if you are a hockey association where you can sell a six-pack to someone who happens to be a member, you now have to get an ID scanner. If you are Nick Hill who owns the Alice Springs wine club, a friend of mine, he does not do any over the counter sales at all. He does every order by fax or by telephone call, and then he sends it out within Central Australia. He is being provided with an ID scanner. Even though he has no retail outlet, he has an ID scanner. Someone has to scan a photocopy of their ID to him. He then has to scan it, put the licence on the little scanner in his premises where he runs his business, check it, fax it back and then send the goods out. Does a wine club have to have an ID scanner? That is absolutely crazy. What a waste of taxpayers’ money sending an ID scanner to a wine club. You will not send it to any of the interstate wine clubs where much of the grog in Alice Springs comes from, but you will penalise a local business and waste Territory taxpayers’ dollars doing it.
The prison officers club now has to have an ID scanner put in. I do not think there will be too many prison officers on the banned drinkers register. This is the worst one - the police officers club. The police officers club now has to have an ID scanner if they give a member a six-pack to take home. That is fact. That is happening right now; it is being rolled out right now. This is part of the reforms. This is part of the Enough is Enough reform - the flyer that was sent out in Alice Springs. Use your brain! We will all work together, but that is just ridiculous.
The millions of dollars spent on this roll-out across the Territory, the good folk will have their rights, their freedoms, or their liberties impinged upon, and you will not put it down on the people who really matter. You are saying that it is about mandatory rehabilitation. The Country Liberals have a policy of mandatory rehabilitation, yours is not. You call it mandatory rehabilitation, but people can opt out. That is not mandatory if people do not have to do it. This is just crazy. I cannot understand the approach you take on this. I cannot understand it at all.
I spoke a little about Action for Alice. They are a group of people - and I will tell you how it all started, so that it can go on record. I was getting calls every single day from a number of people about break-ins that were happening all the time, before the traditional owners took people back out bush, before it got cold and things quietened down. I said: ‘Let us convene a meeting’. So, I called a meeting of a few business people whose premises were continually being broken into - people such as Geoff Booth, Rex Neindorf, Andrea from the Memorial Club. There were a number of people; about 30 of us. We went into the Andy McNeill Room at the town council. We discussed these issues and worked out some ideas about how to change, and what we might be able to do, as an intervention, to try to fix things. I said: ‘I will leave you guys to do your thing so it is not politicised, and I will go and do my thing’.
These people formed a group with some 300 or 400 members, or whatever it is now. They have taken action. They have put advertisements on television because they want government to do something. You all know what happened with those ads - the ads the member for Stuart, the member for Arnhem and everyone else was trying to get taken off the air? These people were crying out for help and, now, people from right across the Territory are saying: ‘We want help. We want the same action in our areas’. In Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston, Darwin, they all want action.
The member for Port Darwin issued media releases that might seem a little funny to some people, talking about people using shopfronts as toilets. That is what they do. At the back of my office, people are defecating every day. Every day, I have to walk over faeces. I wrote a letter to the Chief Minister two years ago when the Chief Minister’s office was in my building. I said: ‘How can you be implementing your policies when you cannot stop people going to the toilet at the back of your own office?’ This is what happens. We want action. I am getting phone calls from Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston and Darwin about these problems. They want me to come up and help them set up their action groups.
On Tuesday, the member for Fong Lim and I were in Palmerston looking at issues, identifying antisocial behaviour, seeing crime. I have to say there was one particular incident when we were driving around a few streets, seeing that everyone has to have padlocks on their gates during the day. What sort of a society do we live in when you have to have padlocks on your gates? That happens in a few houses in the area of Larapinta which is part of my electorate. Seeing it widespread through Palmerston is just crazy. What sort of a society is this? This is because you guys do not enforce the law. That is what this is about: enforcement of law. You will not do anything on the demand side, but now you want to put in more punitive measures on people - measures that are stupid and cost a great deal more money.
I commend the member for Sanderson for bringing forward some changes. However, in regard to these action groups, I will support and help anyone set up action groups in Palmerston and in the greater Darwin region. We need community uprising because people are not standing up representing the views of businesses and individuals in the community who are sick and tired of antisocial behaviour, crime, businesses being broken into, and drunkenness. In Darwin people call it ‘itinerancy’. In Alice Springs we call it ‘urban drift’. People are coming to town because you guys have not done anything out bush, from an economic development perspective, to make people want to stay.
You have brought in the shire reform - and all respect to the people who work in the shires - but you have disenfranchised all the Aboriginal people out in the bush. You will not talk about it, you have disenfranchised everyone. People have lost their jobs, they are wandering around aimlessly, people are moving into town - and not all for grog. They are not all for grog at all. It is only a small number that come for grog. People are coming into town, into urban centres, particularly Darwin and Palmerston, because they are sick and tired of being out in the bush and being disenfranchised with not much happening. People have mobile phones now, they have Internet, and they are starting to get access to greater information. They have lost their voice with the shires coming in. They have lost their jobs.
People want an opportunity in life and that is why they are coming in. With failure to provide housing solutions in the big towns, people are now sleeping rough with their parents and their children in overcrowded or homeless conditions, or conditions that are substandard. These poor living conditions are conducive to breeding social issues such as chronic alcoholism. Here we are trying to address alcoholism when the fundamentals of the problem are right back at the start where you should be doing things in the bush locations.
I have to say I was surprised when I got off the plane on Monday night. I knew things were getting bad in Darwin when people have been calling me up and explaining the problems, but to see the number of itinerants and vagrants walking around the streets in Darwin amazed me. They are sleeping in all the parks. I went for a walk at 6 am today. There are people sleeping on The Esplanade - more people than I have seen before. They are sleeping on The Esplanade down the front of the hill, at Lameroo Beach.
This is happening because failures in your policies in the bush are driving people to town. No one can afford to rent privately here. There is not enough temporary accommodation, and that is what leads people to go on the grog and cause problems. This is not a problem because of the itinerants and the vagrants and the long-grassers - every person in the Territory is a victim. The people who do the right thing are evicted because of the punitive approaches, and the people who are doing the wrong thing are victims because of your failed policies. This is exactly what is happening. I know you do not care. Your job is trying to stay in power.
I have put out many offers of bipartisanship to try to make changes in this area. I have put forward some very sound ideas about economic development, about land tenure reform, about how to get businesses – I put forward the idea of an innovation trade and development committee yesterday to try to bring industry into some of these growth towns. You do not accept anything. You will not do it. If it is not your idea, you will not do it. I know the majority of you do not have the conceptual ability to be able to understand some of these economic opportunities that are actually out there, but you have to go out on a limb.
Recognising that people’s voices have been lost, I was very interested to be a witness to some of the things that have happened in recent time in regard to Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, and traditional owners in Central Australia. I have seen the letter. I have a copy here of the letter that Tony Abbott sent Julia Gillard on 18 March 2011. In that first letter from Tony Abbott to Julia Gillard he offered a bipartisan approach.
I have also seen the letter from the traditional owners to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and to Tony Abbott. I will quickly read it out:
- Dear Prime Minister,
As traditional owners and elders from Alice Springs and surrounding communities we wish to assure you that we are upset with the events and actions of some people and responses by some government in Central Australia. This is our home and it deeply saddens us that such events are not being reported and therefore tarnishing our reputation, but are unfortunately continuing to occur on an almost daily basis. It is not just an Alice Springs issue, but Central Australia, and it comes from government taking away our voice and not assisting us to develop socially and economically in the bush.
As Aboriginal elders and residents of Alice Springs we are pleased to learn that you are proposing to visit our communities to discuss solutions to the problem. We strongly urge you to come with Tony Abbott and sit down with us together in the dirt with no media so that we can all talk about the issues together and come up with plans that will be supported by all federal political parties.
We accept that it may take some time to fix the problems but fear that this may never be achieved if you are unable to work with and include the opposition in any visits to Alice Springs.
We urge you to consider our request and come and meet us in Alice Springs together with Tony Abbott so that an apolitical solution to our problems can be developed, owned by the Aboriginal traditional elders for the future.
Yours sincerely
It was signed by a number of people and was copied to Tony Abbott, Jenny Macklin, Nigel Scullion, Paul Henderson, Adam Giles and Alison Anderson.
That was a true offer of bipartisanship to Labor, which owns the Aboriginal vote and continues to keep Aboriginal people down so they numbingly turn up at a ballot box and vote for Labor.
I spoke to Lindsay Bookie, Chair of the Central Land Council, about an hour ago. Following that letter, I know of at least two occasions where Tony Abbott rang Lindsay Bookie direct: ‘Thank you for that letter. Can I arrange to come out and visit?’ From my conversation with Lindsay Bookie I know Julie Gillard has not rung him. She has not rung any of those traditional owners who signed that letter. She does not care; will not sit in the dirt; did not take up Tony Abbott’s offer.
That meeting was established by some of the traditional owners. It was well attended last week. I understand there were about 70 people there on Thursday. It was a good meeting. Not everybody was there - it was called fairly quickly by word of mouth. The member for Macdonnell was at the meeting. I am not sure if she will talk about it, but it was a positive meeting. It was not designed to be well publicised. It was a confidential meeting with traditional owners and the two leaders. Unfortunately, only one turned up, apart from us.
People would know I have not done any media for a couple of weeks. I did no media around this and I know the member for Macdonnell did no media also. It was not designed to be a stunt. This was designed to put back the cultural authority of those traditional owners whose voices Labor has taken away. They have peppered away at removing the voice of Aboriginal people in the bush. The shire was the last straw. You took away their voice, their jobs, and their integrity. That is what you have done. This is whining away; it is eating away.
The traditional owners up here in Arnhem Land, the Roper, the Daly, and in the Top End are calling: ‘Adam, can you come and help us? Why did we not have a meeting? Can you help us set another one up?’ ‘I will help you’. I will not do media around it. It is not about me; it is about the people in the bush; it is about fixing the Territory after Labor’s failures. That is what it is about: it is about fixing the Territory. I call on every person living in greater Darwin and Palmerston, if you have had enough of this antisocial behaviour and crime, create an uprising, create an action group. Come out and fight against the government. Get a voice. That is required. It is all related to this alcohol policy.
I heard Tony Abbott, in a media conference recently, talking about getting people to accept some social responsibility. I have had this conversation with my federal counterpart, the federal shadow minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, who is also the Territory Senator for the Country Liberal Party. We discussed a few of these issues. The idea of applying social conscience in this area from a number of bodies is important. Woolworths and Coles and the big liquor retailers must stop selling cheap alcohol. I do not support a floor price; I do not support bans on different types of grog. You really have to question them continuing to peddle cheap $2 bottles of wine. They are just peddling misery.
Coles and Woolies are continuing to peddle misery in Alice Springs and other locations across the Northern Territory by peddling this cheap grog. It is helping no one. It is bringing misery and dysfunction to too many families, and it has to stop. Companies such as Coles and Woolworths like to parade around - and I am not attacking them as organisations, but just some of their policies and practices locally. Companies such as Coles and Woolies have reconciliation action plans, and they walk the corporate sector, parading their success and their integrity on Aboriginal affairs. However, here we have something that is local, and two of the most profitable Coles and Woolies liquor outlets in Australia, where people are peddling cheap grog. I call on those two organisations, Coles and Woolies, to take away their cheap grog, to reflect upon the reconciliation action plans and all the interventions they have tried to provide from a corporate, social responsibility position, have a look at their policies on selling cheap grog, and have positive outcomes for Indigenous Australians. If you want to make a change, have a look at that.
I may not be popular calling for that but, if you want to have a change, start there. We could start marketing Central Australia and parts of the Territory as a place where we do not sell rubbish grog; we do not have cheap wine. We have decent wine. It might be dearer. We are not going to put a floor price on it, but we can have a different way of looking at how things are done. Get rid of the cheap stuff. That is what we have to do; get rid of the cheap stuff.
I go back to this bill more directly and say you cannot keep punishing people who do the right thing. You just cannot do it. You have to start getting on to demand-side strategies. That is the reason people are losing faith in Labor - not just because you keep putting rules on them, but because you are not investing in the good things. You are not investing in any of the good things. I made a point of order against the minister for Construction today during Question Time when he was talking about the record infrastructure spend that is going to be mentioned in this Friday’s Tennant & District Times. Of $36.5m-plus that was spent on SIHIP in Tennant Creek, you did not build one house - not one extra house. What changes? What changes to those people who are still living rough in Tennant Creek? You ran out of money and did not even finish your works anyway, but we will get to that in estimates. You have to ask: what is your commitment?
How many jobs have you really created in the bush? We know how many people you have sacked with your shire reforms. What are you actually doing? How many private companies are out there in the bush? I know I work so I cannot drink during the day. What do you not try to get other people working because when they are at work, they cannot drink. Or get them training or get them doing some community participation because, when you are doing things, you cannot drink. Instead, you let people keep drinking. Instead of this bill focusing on some small supply-side measures that are going to impinge on everyone and not really help anyone, I would like to see a broader strategy.
I would like to see us start debating whether selling takeaway alcohol, as opposed to alcohol in a regulated environment, is the way to go, or whether we should be trying to encourage more people to drink in regulated environments such as pubs and clubs, rather than drinking at home through takeaway sales. That is a pretty good debate. I do not know the answer to that debate, but that is a good debate. There is so much alcohol that is sold through takeaway venues, maybe we should be starting to move towards getting people to drink on licensed premises. At least there is security and regulation, you can encourage people to eat, you can ensure people are clean when they come in, and they have the proper attire. There are ways you can try to change things. We know, with what is commonly referred to as ‘the animal bars’, people fill them up, and fill themselves up. When the takeaway opens, they leave because the alcohol is cheaper. Maybe we could try to remodel that. That is not just about the opening hours, but maybe the cost structure and the amenity of clubs, so people want to drink inside regulated premises rather than buying takeaway alcohol all the time. All takeaway alcohol does is just move the problem somewhere else where you cannot see it.
I am not saying ban takeaway by any means - I buy takeaway myself. Perhaps having smaller clubs is better than having fewer bigger clubs. In other parts of Australia, they are moving towards that; trying to bring back the corner pub, which is like a community setting. They have the footy tipping competition, they provide back to the community. There are some of those ideas, as opposed to having people sitting at home at night drinking a carton of XXXX, which is not that healthy for you, rather than having a couple of schooners. It may change things. I support reform in that area and having the debate about how we might best move forward.
There is much debate about opening and closing times of takeaway outlets. I support moving the takeaway opening times forward. People should be able to buy alcohol whenever they want. People should be able to do that. It is a free and open economy, it is a free and open market, we should be able to do that. But in the environment we are in, we have restrictions in place, we are trying to improve things. In Alice Springs, where the bottle shops do not open until 2 pm in the afternoon and they shut at 9 pm at night, I believe the idea about opening earlier is a good idea - that is our policy. It is a good idea for the short term, because what it tries to do in opening up the supply earlier, is allows those people - who you are not going to address through demand-side strategies, because you are not doing demand-side strategies - to get drunk earlier, so the police can manage it. So, from a management point of view, from a policing point of view, it is better to get people drunk earlier.
I hate talking about that in that way, because we should not be trying to work out how we can get people drunk at the right time of day so it is easier to police – it is harder to do at night. However, the fact remains, you will not do anything on the demand side, you will not try to get people to drink less, so we have to try, in this instance, to get people drinking earlier rather than later, because otherwise it gets tougher. In the same regard, I am amenable to a debate about shutting the takeaway shops earlier. I believe they are a significant problem in our society, and I speak more particularly about where I am in Alice Springs. There are too many people, black and white, who drink too much grog at night. I know I have narrowed it down, and I have not provided an explanation why. However, I personally feel we have too many people in our town who drink too much at night and find it difficult to get up to go to work the next day with a clear enough mind and perform as they should at work and support the growth in our economy, which is what they should do. There is an opportunity to say: well, let us open them earlier, but maybe we can just wind it back a bit at the end.
That is a debate I am happy to have. I am happy to converse with anyone about that, particularly regarding during the week. We want people getting up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for work the next day. Well, if there is an opportunity to sell a little less grog at night so people do get up the next day, it is not such a bad debate to have. I am prepared to have that debate.
I have said a few things tonight. I want to see a community uprising. I want to see a creation of action for Palmerston, action for Darwin, action for Katherine, action for Tennant Creek. I will assist to facilitate the creation of that from a non-political point of view, because people need a voice. They want action, and no one has been assisting these people. There needs to be a community uprising in that regard.
I will not be supporting the bill in its current form. I will be supporting my colleague, the member for Sanderson, the shadow minister for Licensing. I commend him on the approach he has taken on this bill, and the hard work and the tenacious efforts he has put in. Whatever we might come up with, some more reforms in this area, on supply side, until you start making demand-side changes, nothing is going to change; it will get worse. It has become worse in your 10 years of government. Things are much worse than when you came to power. You have not actioned anything in the slightest. Your political, philosophical structures of not getting people off the dole into work are limiting your ability to change the way people drink in the Northern Territory, and the chronic actions of alcohol abuse.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not go on any further; I have said what I wanted to say. I look forward to participating in the committee debate tonight. I believe we are in for a long, hard night. It is something we need to talk about because this is a serious issue that affects our broader society and our broader community. I would like to be a part of it. I look forward to the member for Sanderson’s contribution through the committee process.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to the members opposite regarding their contribution, and I have to say I was fairly surprised by their contradictory contributions.
I will set aside the first contribution from the shadow because he has some amendments I will go to. I want to start though, with sincerely thanking the member for Macdonnell for her support for the legislation, the PACSM bill we have before us. I have cause for support of the SMART and the Liquor bills that are consequential, albeit separate bills because of their bulk.
I have to say, from my long association with the member for Macdonnell, she has been consistent on the subject of the scourge of alcohol and what it does to Territorians; consistent in calling for strong and very strict measures in tackling chronic alcoholics, and understanding that there is a significant health issue to be tackled here. She has been very aware of the people who work in the health sector across the Territory, very aware of their views, and very tuned into their views. Their views line up with the government’s position in the Chamber today, rather than the views of the opposition who are out on their own.
There is not one health organisation in the Territory supporting the opposition’s amendments - not one. The liquor stores association - no support for them. The Australian Hotels Association - no support for them; they are on their own. The Australian Medical Association, AMSANT, NTCOSS - all the stakeholders in this debate recognise there are two significant cohorts of people we are dealing with here. We are dealing with chronic alcoholics who have a significant health problem who need to be treated in that way. Then, we are dealing with criminals, people who commit grog-fuelled violence, who ought to be dealt with through the criminal system, the court system. That is why we have two separate pieces of legislation to be debated in the Chamber. One deals with the non-criminalising of the chronic alcoholic who has a health issue but does not commit criminal acts. Separate is the SMART Court legislation that will be debated after this legislation, which deals with that alcoholic who commits criminal acts.
People at the coalface of the debate - be they working in the health sector or in the liquor industry - actually understand and can discern between the two. They can actually understand and discern why you would have a non-criminalisation of those habitual drunks, the ones who are not committing offences. I make a very clear distinction about that. An offence of defecating in public is a summary offence. That is an offence and they ought to go to court. They will go to the SMART Court and they will be mandated into treatment and, if they do not do this, they will be dealt with by the full force of the court and the law.
A chronic alcoholic who is not committing an offence but is consistently drunk and is consistently being put into protective custody for their own protection, is a drunk and will be dealt with through a health model; through bans, turning them off the tap, and mandated treatments. I will refer to the section of the legislation in the community stage debate, because it does say they must attend. The orders and the powers of the tribunal say ‘must’, not ‘maybe’, not ‘might’. ‘Must’ – it is mandatory.
You are right, we are not criminalising people. If they fail to undertake the order, we are not then criminalising people - they stay off tap. I know that is the policy, an ideological point of difference between the two, but I remind the members opposite in this debate, the Australian Medical Association, the Aboriginal Medical Services of the Northern Territory, including Congress, including all the alcohol lobbyists in Alice Springs members opposite referred to, all support our government’s approach, not the CLP’s. The liquor industry and the hotels association support our approach. They have not said: ‘The CLP - habitual drunks, lock them up, put them in. Yes, that is the way to go’. No. You have failed as an opposition to do the hard yards and convince people your alternative policy is the right way to go. You have completely failed. It is an embarrassment. You are a failure of an opposition in the most critically important debate we could have in this parliament and, indeed, in the broader community. It is a debate we needed to have. We have stepped up to the plate and we make no apologies, through 10 years of government, continuing to try, in policy development and in law, to tackle the scourge of alcohol in our community. I will go into some of the issues around the alcohol management plans in my debate.
The member for Macdonnell supports - and I am so grateful for her support, her consistency and her true and deep understanding of the issues. I agree with her. Let us look at the issue of humbug for money, and how we can, in a promotional or advertising sense, send simple messages to people: do not hand over that $3; do not hand over that $5. Yes, care about the person but do not hand over cash. I am absolutely prepared to look at and consider how we could design a campaign that could not be construed as racist or paternalistic, but genuinely let people know what us long-term Territorians know. We do not hand over money because that bit gets added to the next bit given to them, which gets to the next bit and, then, they have enough to buy grog. You are not helping that person or their friends.
I thank, too, the member for Nelson. In the 10 years I have been in this Chamber there are two people who stand out for me with their consistent calls for tough action to reduce the scourge of alcohol. The member for Nelson is one and the member for Arafura is the other. They are consistent in the path they have walked down. Two members of the opposition sought a couple of briefings and went back to find out more - the member for Port Darwin, and the shadow, the member for Sanderson. The other members who were consistent in delving into all of the reforms and the legislations were the members for Nelson and Arafura. Quite aside from all the briefings I gave my Caucus and Cabinet colleagues, the member for Arafura kept delving through the detail, as did the member for Nelson. They have been both consistent in their desire to turn the scourge of grog around that they have witnessed for decades and decades and decades in the Territory.
The inconsistency I heard from members opposite was the chest-beating and the weird ideological utterings and musing of the member for Port Darwin, who is very sure it is not going to work. Then, some members opposite said this might work; it is worth giving it a try. I say to those members opposite who said that: support it, vote for it. Give it the try you said it is worth. Try it; vote for it. It is to your eternal shame if you do not.
I invite anyone and everyone in this Chamber to continue to participate in this debate. This is not going to end, by any means, when this legislation passes. I do not care to what hour we debate this legislation. I am standing here saying we have absolute strength to stand here and have whatever length of debate you want to have, opposition. We know your tactics; it has been conveyed to us. You are a rabble; you are divided. We have been told each of you will talk to the clock as much as you can through the three different pieces of legislation; that you will drag out committee stage for as long as you can. You will take this as late as you can. Well, I am here to say, fine. If that is the level of foolishness you want to treat these serious pieces of legislation with, shame on you. But, that is fine; we are up for it.
This legislation will pass, and we will drive its implementation. Not only will we drive its implementation, we already have implementation teams set up. We have already bought the ID scanners. We have already consulted at all the takeaway shops that will be affected in the first roll-out. It is a machine that is occurring through the public service, headed up by some incredibly effective public servants across all the teams. In the enforcement, police are absolutely on board. There is not a shadow of a doubt that none of this could or would work if the police were not behind it. I can tell you, from the Police Commissioner down through the ranks, the police are fully supportive of this ...
Mr Styles interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I can also tell you, member for Sanderson, former police officer, I do not know who you consulted on your amendments because they do not like your amendments. The police do not want to do the work you want them to do through your amendments. I wonder if you consulted. However, let us have that debate in committee stage; I have some questions for you on that. They do not want to do it. They actually agree with the tribunal process we have embedded in here in people being able to self-ban.
I guess that, fundamentally, is a difference between the two parties - the government and the opposition - where you look through complex policy and you strike a landing point. What we choose to do then is consult. The history of this legislation has been that it has evolved through the knowledge of the work of all the previous Alcohol Policy ministers of our government - the work the former member for Nhulunbuy did in policy changes and settings; the work the member for Casuarina did in policy changes and settings; the work the member for Johnston did in policy changes and settings. We could not have this raft of legislation, this raft of the most significant changes in alcohol policy in the world, debated and accepted to the extent it is in the Territory and in this parliament today, if we had not journeyed down the path of the policy settings my Alcohol Policy predecessors had set.
If we had not done the alcohol management plans, put the supply measures in place, not had ID scanners in place in Alice Springs and Katherine, not had the permit system operating in Groote, not introduced the permit system operating in Nhulunbuy - if we had not done all of that work for all of those years in the past - none of us would be signing up to this here today, because it would have been a step too far because it is so radical.
Have a look around, folks. Where in Australia is anyone willing to put their hand up and say we will have ID scanners at every single takeaway outlet? We will have automatic bans issued by police over protective custody. We will set up a tribunal that has automatic bans. We will have a tribunal that has powers to mandate treatment. We will have a court to mandate treatment. You can be turned off tap forever. We are going to get you on secondary supply and turn you off automatically. We are going to hike up all the fines in the Liquor Bill so, if you are sly grog selling, you will get stung with not $1000, not $2000, but $26 000. I am sorry, there is no parliament in our nation prepared to go where we are going today.
Wake up to yourselves, opposition. You are kidding yourselves if you think you can come in here and say: ‘It is not this, and it is not going to work with this because nothing else has worked, and you are still trying to tinker’. This is not a tinker, this is a dramatic change - a dramatic change built on the knowledge of all of the work that was done by the Alcohol Policy ministers who have gone previously. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Living with Alcohol under the CLP - good on them; the right thing to do. But, guess what? We do not have the power to levy. It was based off a levy. The court said you cannot do it. It was stripped away. Once the levy was stripped away, the policy and the funding went with it.
I am absolutely prepared to say the knowledge and the journey the Territory has gone down in the past - whether it was the CLP’s Living with Alcohol policy, the alcohol management plans, the supply measures, the permit systems, the banning systems, and the ID systems that have been an evolutionary journey in the Territory - has all gone to inform the three bills, the raft of legislation, and the policy reforms we have before us today.
I have no problem and no issue that there is a fundamental, ideological difference between the opposition and the government. The opposition believes in locking up a drunk. A drunk has a health problem; they are not a criminal, they are not committing criminal acts, but the opposition wants to lock them up. You stand on your own on that one. You do not have the medical fraternity, you do not have the AOD sector, you do not even have the AHA and the Liquor Association support for that one.
There is no argument from anyone in here about locking up a criminal offender - not a stitch of an argument, and that is what our SMART Court legislation does. We have broadened the scope of it, we have broadened its powers. We all know it comes down to enforcement. We all know it comes down to the administrative processes that support the legislative framework we are going to be putting in place.
I will give you the tip: our eye is absolutely on the enforcement ball. It started before I finalised the concept of this policy. I was not taking it any further until I had the Police Commissioner’s view. He is the first person I road-tested this with, before I took it to my Caucus or Cabinet, because I know, through experience, if the police will not sign up and absolutely pursue and do this in the way we have structured it, it would not work. That is your failing: you have not done your homework. You have not found out whether the police have signed up to this. They have.
You asked questions in the Chamber today of whether or not we are funding the police to do this work. We handed the budget down two days ago; it is in there. The dollars are in there, the dollars have been in the pre-budget day leak announcements. We had the Chief Minister and the Police minister out there. What part of nurses in watch-houses did you miss? What part of auxiliaries did you miss? What part of the biometric tools did you miss? Where have you been? These have all been announced pre-budget stories. Just in case you missed the announcements pre-budget, they are in the budget books I handed down on Tuesday. Why did you not go straight to that, knowing we were having this debate today, knowing that you are leading with your chin with amendments on how you think it could/should be done, and that you were going to ask about the resources for it? If this is not a level of incompetence that is somewhat gobsmacking, well, I will go he, to quote the former member for Nhulunbuy. Unbelievable!
The member for Nelson was bang on when he said there are about 800 people who will be affected by this. We checked through all the information and the data. We have a very clear idea of who the frequent flyers are, who the police are always picking up and putting into the watch-house, not ID-ing. Then, they clear them out in the morning to have another day’s drinking. Or who is going in and out of the sobering-up shelters. The police know who they are. The service providers know who they are, but they have not had the tools to automatically turn them off tap, to ban them from purchasing, possessing, or consuming.
That is the difference between this and the ID systems in place in Alice Springs and Katherine today. These ID systems support people who have been before the court who are on prohibition orders through the court. The ID systems in Katherine and Alice Springs today support the supply measures where you are not allowed to buy more than a cask a day. The member for Araluen said she has never seen anyone be rejected. Well, okay, fair enough, maybe you do not go to the bottle shop that often. We had 9009 rejections in a year. I dare say there are a few going on every day. But, that is okay if you have not noticed it, member for Araluen - 9009 rejections for the sale in Alice Springs based on the ID system. They do not have these automatic bans attached to them. It is okay if you missed that. It is okay, too, if you missed that when it has been leading debate in this Chamber in the last sittings, that is fine. However, ignorance is not going to stop us from doing this. Petty party politics and meaningless waffle is not going to stop us from doing this. Absolutely we are going to ensure this is enforced and implemented. The structure we have set up in the implementation teams is phenomenal. I sincerely and deeply thank the officers of the Department of Justice, including Racing, Gaming and Licensing, because they have been absolute champions in working with us on the policy formation.
We have road-tested it up hill and down dale internally, amongst each other, because it is pretty hard when you are creating something that has not been done anywhere else. We kept looking back at the evaluations of the AMPs, what is occurring in Groote, what works at Groote, where the flaws are in the existing systems, what is working in Nhulunbuy, what has been working in Alice, what has not been working. We looked at it all. I spoke to key alcohol researchers interstate. I spoke to John Boffa. I listened to the guys: Russell Goldflam, Dr John Boffa, Stephanie Bell, Donna Ah Chee, Jonathan Pilbrow. They have been doing this for years. Why do you not just sit down and listen to them?
Then, after I had listened to all of them and looked at all of that - at what we have done in the past, at how far our community had gone in its intolerance to drunkenness, in its acceptance that maybe we might have to have a less than seven-second inconvenience of swiping our card to literally have a banning system - maybe they were all up for this automatic ban. No ifs, buts, or maybes - you are off tap. All over the Territory. If you are off tap in Alice, why not move up to Tennant and have a drink? If you are off tap in Nguiu, come into Darwin and have a drink. No, no, all across the Territory. That is what was missing before. We had AMP over here, AMP over there, working in that localised area. People were just following the pathways of grog. Little Children Are Sacred - pathways of grog, rivers of grog.
We looked at all of that in structuring this. It was not just throw some darts at a dartboard and let us have a guess. Listen to the experts, road-test your thinking through the process and, when you have landed on a point where you actually think you are pretty confident, based on evidence, it might work, you then seek out the people you are going to rely on to make it work. The Police Commissioner was my first port of call because, without him and his police officers, none of this is going to work. Then, you ask the health sector what they think, because these guys know this stuff. They are dealing with chronic alcoholics all the time. They get it. They know what works and what does not work.
Then, we did not just ram it through. We announced it in September of last year in as much detail as we had - fact sheets, workshops, forums across the Territory - laid bare every detail saying to people: ‘We think this is it. We think this is going to work based on all of this information, based on all of this knowledge. But, you tell us. Let us know because we are open to that debate and discussion’. I promised: ‘We will give you detail. We will actually write the legislation, introduce it to parliament in October as exposure drafts so you can really test all the details, so you can really tell us, seeing all of the detail, what you think’. We ran all the consults after the exposure drafts in parliament in October and November. I cannot count the number of meetings I have had and where I have travelled across the Territory to do this, and I cannot count the number of meetings the officers of my agency have been on and the amount of discussion we have had with the different people and organisations. We brought it all in as we said we would.
We genuinely reopened, with open eyes and open minds, and revisited where we had started, and we made some changes. The bills we introduced in Alice Springs last sittings are not identical copies of what we introduced in October. We made some changes based on good advice from the Chief Magistrate, from the health sector, from a raft of people. The arrogance of the opposition is they think, in their thought bubble, in their little world, in their little back room, what they think will work. But, who do they consult with? Who do they have on side?
The debate in the Chamber today was incredibly contradictory. The member for Araluen was saying: ‘I think this might work; give it a try’. The member for Port Darwin was saying: ‘It is not going to work. You guys are just ideologues. You would not know what you are doing. You are just lefties, and we are right wingers and right wingers, of course, are right’. What the hell kind of debate was that? Are you kidding me? You guys are embarrassing. If you are going to run it, get some consistency and understand what you are doing, and please, could you at least tell your own side what you policy is because I had to tell the member for Araluen what the policy was.
That is embarrassing; amateur hour. With your weird tactic of: ‘Let us talk for a long time; let us keep it going’, I will give you the tip, there are many departmental officers listening to the debate because it is their job. They are all probably listening and going: ‘Oh, my goodness, do these guys actually know what is in that legislation because they do not seem to know their own policy’.
The member for Nelson made the point - and I am so glad he made it because it is a point I make whenever I am doing a presentation – that it is not just Aboriginal people. Non-Indigenous Territorians drink at 1.5 times the national average. Indigenous Territorians drink 1.7 times the national average. But, guess what guys? There is not much difference between 1.5 and 1.7. We all have a drinking problem. There is a culture of drinking in the Territory; we grew up with it, we know it.
The member for Port Darwin went on radio saying when he was a policeman he climbed through the air-conditioning vents at SKYCITY in his underwear. He knows he had a drinking problem. He said he turned up to work drunk when he was a police officer - an out-of-control drinking problem. But, he got his life together. He cleaned himself up, he sorted himself out. He became a teetotaller - good on him.
Member for Port Darwin, some people need assistance, which is why we have treatment and why we have funded treatment. A $32m funding of treatment was announced in the budget. A total of $32m over five years is no mucking around, no small bickies; no $2000 here and $100 000 there. There is $5.2m this year alone in treatment - and not just the normal treatment we have always had, because if you keep doing the same thing in the same way you are going to get the same results. It is different. Again, listening to the health sector, we have modelled it quite differently. Yes, we are funding additional rehabilitation beds into the rehabilitation institutions which do a great job in the Territory. However, we have integrated case management funding, we have withdrawal support funding, we have funding that will go out into the AOD and wrap around a client in the remote or regional areas. We have the after-care funding that has been missing in the past. It is a whole different raft of treatment options and funding, funded not for one year, not for two, but for five years. This is not going to change people’s lives overnight.
Regarding treatment; mandatory or not, it takes several times in and out of a treatment facility for most people to succeed in their battle against alcohol. Run that one politically against me if you want boys, feel free, but that is the reality. Spend some time at the Salvation Army. Ask them what they are doing with their new facility. Spend some time down at Kalano, CAAPS, CAAAPU, or FORWAARD. Ask them. They will all talk to you about their programs. They are pretty happy to talk to a politician about their programs because they do not see many.
Thank you to the members for Macdonnell and Nelson for your support. It is genuine; I accept that and I embrace it. Two people who have been in the Territory - one born here and one who has been here for decades and decades and worked with the people, knows the people, know the lives. It does not necessarily suit the pure politics to support us, but they are ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Araluen, bless her and her contradictory comments. Yes, there is a need for strong and consistent enforcement; that is why we have the police on side. That is why we went as far as we went in how we structured it: we have the police on side. The amendment you have before you from the member for Sanderson - I do not know if you did your homework with the police, member for Sanderson, because they do not like it. Did you talk to them? Did you get them onside? Or were you arrogant enough to think that what you think is what goes?
How do we intend to enforce the new laws? Not only do we have enforcement teams already in place - a combination across a range of agencies including police - and not only are we already talking about what training and what workshops will occur with all police so they know exactly what these new laws are and how to work them, we funded the biometric tools in the watch-houses, the nurses in the watch-houses, and the additional auxiliaries. They are front and centre writing operational procedures to make this work. It is real.
It is interesting when you look at the amount of police time that is spent on alcohol-related issues and enforcement. Around 60% of police time is spent dealing with alcohol-related issues. Think about it for a moment, folks. If you are turning people off tap, putting people into treatment facilities, there might just be a little extra time in the policeman’s or policewoman’s day to be doing more of this enforcement. But, hey, that might be just too big a step of logic for the CLP! Regardless, we gave them additional resources because we want this to work. The member for Port Darwin called it a social experiment of welfare, health before security. What a lot of rot! We are fair dinkum. We are over the violent crime; we are over the antisocial behaviour.
The violent crime is the worst end of it. We have seen way too many women beaten. We have seen way too many children be in the way of those domestic violence incidents and get hurt. We funded our child protection reforms because we know you have to stop it at the source. You do not want to patch up with child protection afterwards. We will do that, we will keep doing that. You have to stop it at the source. That is why the SMART Court is dealing with that in a legal court sense - not PACSM. This PACSM bill is just for the drunk who is not committing an offence. Do not give us the health before safety spin; it is insulting to people’s intelligence.
Then one-pin Bohlin came bowling in with his strange musings about New Zealand – interesting. I have taken note of all of that. I am letting the Liquor Association and AHA know the new alcohol policy coming their way - because we hear from the member for Greatorex it is still being formulated - from the opposition is banning drive-through bottle shops. Bless you, one-pin Bohlin!
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: He is a truck. He talked about police protective custodies and his experiences as a police officer. Did he miss the bit about the automatic ban after those three times in and out of police protective custody? You do not go off to court and have an argument about whether you are banned – you are banned. That is it!
You know what? At any stage, the police – it does not have to be Stage 3 where we mandate they have to refer them to a tribunal - even before a ban they can refer someone to the tribunal for treatment orders. So, Stage 1. Stage 2 they have to think about it. Stage 3 they must. But, at any stage, a police officer, a member of the family, a health practitioner - that is how we pick up the sobering-up shelter guys - can refer someone to the tribunal, from day 1! We know who the frequent flyers are, and they know who the frequent flyers are. And the family members know who they need to get banned.
A family member who wants to be banned because they do not want to be humbugged, can be banned, but not through the police system you want, member for Sanderson. The police do not want that; that is not their job. The tribunal people need to know - because they are going to become the AOD specialists in the Territory - who is fronting up to self-ban, where, and for what reasons, and for whom. It informs the tribunal. There is rhyme and reason, and thinking behind all of this - not a thought bubble!
Oh yes, and no argument, member for Drysdale, yes, we all want people to have living skills. We want them to be off the grog, have living skills, get into education, get into training, get into a real job, and have an aspiration and an opportunity in life. You cannot do that when you are in a grog haze ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Actually, that is the point. But it took genius one-pin Bohlin to tell us all the point, bless him.
The member for Braitling is not happy because we are saying the opposition policy is to pour more grog on the streets, and we keep highlighting that. Well, why wouldn’t you? You wanted to extend your trading hours by four hours in the town which has a problem with grog-fuelled violence. You have to point it out because if you do not point it out, you are not doing your job. When Abbott said he does not particularly agree with that, well, you would point that out too, would you not? Their federal leader does not agree with them. What, we are not meant to point it out, and he gets a bit upset that we are? Oh, please, spare me!
So he is now open and alive to the debate that if you open up bottle shops for four hours in the morning, maybe you close earlier. I will ask in committee stage what your policy is about, what that earlier closing time is, member for Sanderson. I will give you the tip so you can start to think about it, because the Liquor Association and the Hotels Association are going to want to know the answer. I am probably already sending that little contribution from the member for Braitling off to them. They will want to know when you are expecting to shut down, because they will then want to check what the trade in the afternoon and evening in their premises is, and do some calculations. I am assuming that was not policy on the run. I am assuming you have had a bit of a caucus about your formulating policy.
So far, it is closing the drive-through bottle shop from the member for Drysdale. It is reduce the trading hours in the afternoon and evening from the member for Braitling, because he does not think people should drink at night. I do not know about you. I do not drink during the day. I will go home and have a glass of wine, but it is night time. I am open for that debate, as bizarre as it sounds.
I am glad, though, the member for Braitling’s contribution included that ID scanners are not too much of an inconvenience. That was a bit of gold coming from the member for Braitling. Thank you for pointing out what we have been pointing out to the opposition for months: it is not actually too much of an inconvenience. If it is going to turn people off the grog and stop the problem drinking, great. And, yes, sly grog sellers will pop up. We are going to hit them, $26 000 fine, thank you very much, and we are going to have police going out after them.
Secondary supply, yes, thank you, we are going to be banning them. Our understanding of how secondary supply has worked in Groote has been good. I have been open with everyone and industry in saying, we are going to watch this very closely. People are inventive and creative and, when you do one thing in one space, they will start to move into different spaces to try to change and get around it. We know that. We are going to be watching for wherever the movements are going, and we will be back in here to do something about that movement. Not a problem with that, actually. However, it will not be making someone who is a drunk, who is not committing a criminal offence, be locked up. It is a health problem; it is not an ideological standpoint. There is a whole raft of national and international studies that tell you that. It is not a lefties point of view, it is the truth.
I could talk about the structure of the legislation, but through my responses to the members, I have. Three times in and out of police protective custody, you are automatically banned. No, ifs, buts, or maybes - you are off tap. Do it again - first time you are banned for three months, second time you are banned for six months, third time it is a year. At any point, police can refer you to the tribunal. Family can refer you to the tribunal. This legislation sets out the bans, it sets out the tribunals. We have the SMART Court legislation and the Liquor Legislation to come, and it all fits together into a massive alcohol reform package to tackle the scourge of grog in our society. We are giving it a go. We are not going to take our eye off it. We have big enforcement teams, and we have the support of everyone except the CLP.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr STYLES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move to the member for Port Darwin’s chair to conduct this.
Leave granted.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Bill 2011 (Serial 158) together with schedule of amendments No 60 circulated by the member for Sanderson, Mr Styles.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr STYLES (by leave): Madam Chair, I move the schedule of amendments No 60.
Minister, the amendments we are proposing aim to address a number of flaws the opposition has identified with this legislation. The first is that there are no punitive measures associated with breaching BAT notices, GAP and BADT orders except placing a person on yet another notice or order.
When you wrapped up debate just a few minutes ago you were talking about people going on mandatory rehabilitation. Minister, what happens if people choose not to go on mandatory rehabilitation under the orders?
Ms LAWRIE: You well know because you have had two briefings so far. So, you well know and you are here to convince me to accept yours. Okay? So you have to switch the thinking around in this particular committee stage. I am not leading amendments, you are. I will make it clear: I know you know it. I know it is a rhetorical question. The sanction is that they stay on bans. They cannot purchase, consume, or possess alcohol.
Mr STYLES: Madam Chair, what we are proposing - and I will work through some of these. In clause 4, we would like the government to take on board these amendments and put in here the voluntary alcohol prohibition notice which comes under section 34. So, if we work through these, I suppose there are a number of mechanical things that have to occur.
One of the reasons that we want to put this in is to remove section 9(2)(b) which relates to secondary supply, and actually make it an offence where there is some monetary penalty, and even time served in prison, for secondary supply. In relation to selling alcohol without a licence, as you say, there is a $26 000 fine, but there is no penalty for simply breaching these BAT orders and giving secondary supply where you pass on to someone who has a BAT order. There is no penalty, so we are proposing you include some sort of penalty provision.
Ms LAWRIE: All right. Member for Sanderson, you used, in your contribution to debate, the example of you having a back yard barbecue, you have some mates over, having a drink. Unbeknownst to you, one of them is banned. You are secondary supplying them. So, you are proposing that you could face gaol?
Mr STYLES: No. We are saying the problem is where you have someone who is unaware - there has to be provisions for natural justice to prevail and you will have to prove that someone knew.
Ms LAWRIE: Where are those provisions?
Mr STYLES: Under clause 72, we would say:
- A person must not supply alcohol to an individual if a GAP order, a BADT order relating to alcohol or a BAT notice is in force for the individual.
The fault element there is the person intentionally supplies the alcohol to the individual and knows the order or notice is in force for the individual.
You would have to prove intention and know there is an order in force, so that would take care of that. However, it would be a deterrent and it might make people think about whether or not to supply people if you are not aware of what the circumstances are.
Ms LAWRIE: In your scenario with your back yard barbecue, you have a mate over, did not know they were banned, you get done for secondary supply, you are taken to court, and you would have to prove in court you did not know?
Mr STYLES: I suggest those gathering the evidence in the situation would have to have some statements; they would have to have some evidence before they take you to court. Police officers, or anyone empowered to make those investigations, are obviously going to have to have some cause to take you before a court. If you have no evidence and nothing to substantiate the charge, obviously, you are not going to take people to court.
Ms LAWRIE: Essentially, where we are on this – just to facilitate, and I am assuming through moving the entire schedule you are proposing to deal with all the clauses as a whole rather than individually because they are interrelated?
Mr STYLES: Yes.
Ms LAWRIE: That makes sense. We are not going to accept them for some fundamental reasons I will take you through. First, our bill does not criminalise breaches of bans. This government is committed to not criminalising alcohol misuse and drunkenness. We have said alcohol misuse is a health issue not a criminal matter. The inclusion for breaches of bans treats alcohol misuse and drunkenness as a criminal matter. As you said in your response, you go to court. You are off to court - you have to prove.
Our bill’s aim is to improve health outcomes for people who misuse alcohol or drugs. The objects of the bill support family and social welfare and improve the health and wellbeing of people in the Territory by providing a legislative framework that prevents the commission of alcohol-related offences, reduces excessive alcohol consumption, benefits people who are misusing alcohol or drugs by facilitating clinical assessment and appropriate treatment, and reduces the harms caused.
Your proposals criminalise alcohol misuse and drunkenness by penalising people who have been banned from drinking, for breaching the banned and drinking, or being in possession of alcohol. Criminalisation of breaches does not fit with the objectives of our bill. Your proposed penalties will likely result in prisons overflowing, as imprisonment is an option for the first offence, and is mandated for breaches of second and third BAT notices through a minimum sentence of at least 14 days.
Your proposals do not reduce supply through the banning of a secondary supplier, they just criminalise that supply. It does not reduce the supply; it criminalises that supply.
The bill bans secondary suppliers which reduces the capacity for banned persons from getting access to alcohol. That is what we are doing. There is a group of drinkers - banning, banning, banning - harder and harder and harder for them to get the alcohol.
Mr Conlan: That is what you say.
Ms LAWRIE: It has worked in Groote. We have seen it ...
Mr Conlan: It is a bit different in Alice Springs.
Ms LAWRIE: There is a 75% reduction in assaults. Member for Greatorex, you think the groups of drinkers in Alice Springs are so different?
Mr Conlan: A big difference.
Ms LAWRIE: People sitting round drinking in their social networks, in their drinkers groups are so different?
Mr Conlan: It is all right to sit there on your arrogant high horse.
Madam CHAIR: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: I can deal with the other ones as a whole too because we are dealing with it as a whole. Regarding the voluntary alcohol prohibition notices - the VAPs, clause 32 the bill provides a person can apply to the Alcohol and Drug Tribunal to obtain a BADT order and voluntarily seek a ban. You say this is cumbersome and a waste of the tribunal’s time and resources, but you do not actually propose to remove the tribunal’s capacity to ban a voluntary person.
While the process for entering or removing a voluntary applicant on a banned drinkers register should be simple, making sure the person knows what they are doing and the consequence of the application is actually important. The proposal would allow police to issue a ban on the spot to someone who has walked into a station requesting they be placed on the banned drinkers register. For example, a night in Alice Springs, a person has come in from a community, wants to refuse to buy alcohol for others, and being able to prove they cannot by being placed on a banned drinkers register. They do this by going to police.
The process proposed is just as cumbersome. Proposed clause 45B requires a person to fill out an approved form containing information, much like what is required for the tribunal, and include information necessary to support the application. This indicates police must consider the application. However, the following proposed clause 45C provides the police must immediately give a voluntary application prohibition notice without having considered the information contained in the notice – a bit of a flaw.
The proposed amendment also provides the request can be made in relation to all or particular licensed premises, or to all or particular takeaway premises. This is not possible under the current ID system and will require a significant restructure of the banned drinkers register. The proposal was raised with police and they see the process as problematic. Police experience with orders has shown that, sometimes, when an order is not convenient to protected people, it is ignored. If they are caught breaching the order, they either request the order to be revoked or altered to suit the feel of the moment.
The tribunal is the most robust mechanism of banning people. The tribunal is best placed to assist people with such a request. It will have sufficient information to inform itself about the reasons for voluntary applications, and can make sure the person seeking a voluntary ban clearly understands the consequences of their request. We do not support that amendment.
I will go on to the tribunal membership proposed amendments. The inclusion of a requirement that at least two of the tribunal members are health practitioners with ‘health practitioners’ defined in the section as medical practitioner, nurse or Aboriginal health worker, is unnecessary. The criteria for membership is broad and intended to capture health practitioners among others who may have qualifications or experience relating to the tribunal functions as members. So, we support those amendments.
Turning to the annual report. Clause 71 provides that an annual report on the tribunal’s operations must be provided. This is not an uncommon provision and reflects the annual report requirements of other independent decision-making bodies such as the Ombudsman, the Community Justice Centre and the Anti-Discrimination Commission.
The opposition believes the bill should specify what is contained in the report, so as to compile some really meaningful statistics on alcohol and substance misuse. There are already ample meaningful statistics on alcohol and substance misuse available, including the report commissioned by the Menzies School of Health Research released in September 2009, Harms from and Cost of Alcohol Consumption in the Northern Territory, which has significantly informed the development of the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms and the bill. We do not support those amendments.
Mr STYLES: Minister, in relation to a couple of things when you say we intend just to lock drunks up. It is not quite the case. In our policy, which you said we do not have; we went to the 2008 election campaign with an habitual drunk policy. It is, basically, still out there.
What happens is the people who have a problem and need help quite often do not really understand they need help. What we intend to do - which is different to the government’s plan - is offer people voluntary rehabilitation programs first. If they choose to go onto that program, then there are a few boxes to tick. If they finish that - great. Hopefully, they are on the road to recovery or can go into other programs that can get them back on the straight and narrow.
We are not unaware this is a health issue as well. The problem is these amendments go to the core of what is a major social issue we have in the Territory where we need to fix some of the antisocial problems we have. Quite often, all people who are addicted to drugs sometimes become a little difficult to manage. They choose not to seek help, because some of them do not think they need help. The majority of people in our community feel they need some help. So, through these amendments, we are trying to get some teeth.
It is all very well to put up these amendments. I am supporting anything I think is going to work to fix this problem. However, throughout my response to your second reading speech, I pointed out a number of problems we have on board we are aware of. You suggested we have not done any homework. Well, we have actually spoken to some people. I will not be mentioning who those people are, but we have done a considerable amount of homework, and there is considerable support for the many things we have put in here.
Ms LAWRIE: Do you have the support of the police for this amendment?
Mr STYLES: I do not have the support of the Commissioner of Police. I have not discussed this with the Commissioner of Police, but I have spoken to police officers.
Ms LAWRIE: Have you had the support of the Police Association then?
Mr STYLES: I am not prepared to say who I have support of at this point in time.
Ms LAWRIE: Right. So you have not spoken to the Police Commissioner and do not have his support, and you have not spoken to the Police Association and do not have their support, yet we are meant to believe, on your say, that you have spoken to some people you will not name, and you have their support?
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Chair! Who is under interrogation here? Who is asking who questions?
Ms Lawrie: They are his committee stage amendments. You idiot!
Mr TOLLNER: He is asking you questions, drongo.
Ms Lawrie: No, no. They are his amendments.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order!
Mr STYLES: Minister, I have spoken to a number of people in relation to this. Those people will remain anonymous at this point in time.
Ms LAWRIE: Just to clarify, did you speak to the Police Commissioner and seek the Police Commissioner’s support?
Mr STYLES: No, I have not spoken to the Police Commissioner, and at this point in time …
Ms LAWRIE: Did you speak to the Police Association and seek their support?
Mr STYLES: At this point in time, I have spoken to a number of people, and I am not prepared to say who I have spoken to.
Ms LAWRIE: I need some clarification here. Did you speak to the Police Association to seek their support?
Mr STYLES: I have spoken to a number of people, minister, and that is my answer.
Ms LAWRIE: So I will take it as a no, then?
Madam CHAIR: Minister, resume your seat. Member for Sanderson.
Mr STYLES: You can take it as you please, minister, but my answer is that I have spoken to a number of people. That is my answer.
In relation to the tribunal, we tried to get a balance across the tribunal and actually get the police onto the tribunal. I believe they have a need to be there, and it is good to actually have the presence of a police officer on it as part of the permanent member of the tribunal; that being the commissioner or his delegate. It would appear to me, from what you have said, minister, there is absolutely zero support for these amendments.
I accept that you are the government and you have your own agenda. We have tried to encourage you, both prior to this legislation coming to the House and, also, by various speeches we have given, to raise issues and concerns we see out there. We are very aware alcohol is a major issue in our community; that it needs attention. I am not saying the government - you people on that side of the House - are not aware. I realise you are trying to do everything you can to do the very best for the people of the Northern Territory. However, we have some other information and ideas how we might be able to do it in, what we believe, a better way.
Obviously, you have the numbers. When we vote on this, I am asking you to consider that these are legitimate concerns of members of the community and people in industry who wish to remain anonymous. However, they have made comments on various things. We hope, if you do not support these amendments, at some stage in the future where you see issues arising which we have actually raised, you might take on board some of the ideas we have proposed.
I believe you mentioned, at some stage during today’s debates, this is not something each side of the House should try to score political points on. On that, I agree with you. This is a serious issue facing all of us, our families, other people in the Territory, and businesses. It is a terrible situation, so we should try to work together to resolve this. These amendments have been brought in very good faith. I hope the government’s initiatives work because this is about your kids’ future and my kids’ future. We should be working together to do this.
If you do not support these amendments, as I said, if there is an opportunity to look at some of these things in the future if your policies are not working or are not working as well as you would like them to, I would be very happy to sit down and try to help formulate policies from both sides of this House that can actually fix this problem. I do not know whether there is any point in saying any more in relation to these amendments, as you have made it very clear you are not supporting them. We can probably get on with debating some of the other issues in this House ...
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Sanderson, I have to make it clear. You have come in here with proposed amendments that do not have the support of the Police Commissioner, do not have the support of the Police Association, yet it goes to …
Mr Conlan: He never said that. He never said it does not have the support of the police.
Mr STYLES: I have not said that.
A member: He did not say that.
Ms LAWRIE: Hang on a second.
A member: Rubbish!
Ms LAWRIE: Yet, it goes to the powers and the administrative workings of the police, and we are meant to take that on and say okay. Have you spoken to the Chief Magistrate regarding the process of referral of people to offences and proceedings in court? Have you spoken to the Chief Magistrate or the magistrates and sought their views and support? Because that is what you are asking. In all seriousness here, you are asking a government to change processes that affect the police and the courts, without giving any advice to us whatsoever that they are on board with that.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, regardless of the technicalities of what we are talking about, I believe what the member for Sanderson has proposed does contain some good ideas. Also, I got that this morning. I have been working on this for weeks. I have been out to FORWAARD and CAAPS and St Vincent de Paul, and talking to the Police Commissioner, talking to members of the police, and talking to the Police Association. It is a complicated issue, but I say thank you to the member for Sanderson, as he has raised some issues I actually agree with. However, sometimes, the nuts and bolts have to be sorted through more carefully before we head off down the path of introducing legislation ...
Mr Tollner: You can run for parliament now.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. No, no, I am just saying – well, anyway, I did speak to the member for Sanderson before and, on some issues, we certainly agree. I agree that parliament should try to work together. This is a difficult area.
My question to the Treasurer is in relation to Part 2, clause9(3). It is in relation to giving a BAT notice, and is only a technical query. It says:
- For subsection 2(a)(i), a person is held in alcohol-related protective custody if the person is held in custody under Part VII, Division 4, of the Police Administration Act because of apparent intoxication by alcohol.
The only reason I am asking this question is in the bill you have coming up later on, you have basically changed ‘an intoxicated person’ to being ‘a drunk’. For the sake of uniformity - as we are dealing with bills that are related – should that term, ‘intoxication by alcohol’ have actually been more in line with the definition you are putting forward in the amendment of the Liquor Act?
Ms LAWRIE: It is because the definition of ‘protective custody’ includes ‘intoxicated’ and ‘drunk’. That is why it is written in that way to capture that quite specifically.
Mr WOOD: Is there a difference between ‘intoxication’ and ‘drunk’ that I do not know about?
Ms LAWRIE: ‘Intoxicated’ captures drugs, ‘drunk’ captures alcohol. So, it is capturing both.
Mr WOOD: All right, that was my ...
Madam CHAIR: That is all?
Mr WOOD: Yes, thanks.
Schedule of Amendments No 60 negatived.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ALCOHOL REFORM (SUBSTANCE MISUSE ASSESSMENT AND REFERRAL FOR TREATMENT COURT) BILL
(Serial 159)
(Serial 159)
Continued from 30 March 2011.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, this bill and the briefing have all been done by the member for Port Darwin, so this is going to be handled by the member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have looked carefully at what the government is preparing to do here. The SMART Court, as it is proposed in this legislative instrument, has a history in two other guises in this jurisdiction. Once again, I do not particularly want to focus on the bill so much as the thinking behind the bill, because it is that philosophical position we have to deal with.
The underlying philosophy of this bill is the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence. I note the new Chief Magistrate in the Northern Territory, Ms Hannam, is a person who has a strong therapeutic jurisprudence background. I also note the new Justice in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Justice Blokland, also has a great sympathy towards the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence. Justice Blokland, before being Justice Blokland, was Her Worship the Chief Magistrate, who introduced one of the courts I wish to talk about.
The courts – sorry, Madam Speaker, I just lost my train of thought ...
Members interjecting
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry?
Ms Lawrie: You must be watching Channel 9 news.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I have not seen it. What was on?
Ms Lawrie: I heard it was a shocker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Come on, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, was it? All right.
I thank the members for their interjections. They have me completely rattled now, Madam Speaker.
Anyway, the two courts to which I refer are the Alcohol Court and the credit court. Speaking about the Alcohol Court first, I remember when the former Attorney-General, Dr Peter Toyne, was in the Attorney-General’s chair, he worked very hard to bring his flavour of thinking to the role of the Attorney-General. Indeed, I know many people in the department quite enjoyed working for Peter Toyne because he was a good and effective Attorney-General, and he pursued those things which were important to him well and passionately, and he did so with integrity. You may say many things about Peter Toyne, but integrity is a word I would happily apply to him. Moreover, he was a man who cared. In fact, I suspect that sort of thing truncated his political career to a fairly large extent.
He was the sort of guy who would genuinely be worried about the appropriate shade of red for a fire hydrant on a street corner if that was the issue that was concerning him. Indeed, I would not be surprised if, at 3 o’clock in the morning, he would still be worried about something like that whilst lying in bed. It was clear from the physiological changes in Dr Toyne from the time he entered parliament to the time he left parliament, that he carried the burden of the Attorney-General-ship very deeply.
However, he introduced the Alcohol Court, and it was going to be the great repair job for alcohol problems in the Northern Territory. We may well remember the media releases and the like that came out with the Alcohol Court, such as we were going to be tough on alcohol, we were going to be passionate about alcohol, we were going to sort out alcohol, and this Alcohol Court was going to change everything.
The media releases were not consistent with what was in the bill at the time. The media releases talked about being tough on alcohol, tough on grog, and tough on offenders. But, what was actually in the alcohol bill or the Alcohol Court Act was simply the concept that a person who would be found guilty of a particular offence could then, rather than going to gaol, be directed into another form of correction other than gaol. The effect was, in reality, the offender actually had another way of getting out of gaol.
I remember the Northern Territory News ran a story on the legislation with some relish, because the former member for Goyder, Peter Maley - who went back to practice law after he finished in this place - was one of the first lawyers to rely on the passage of the Alcohol Court Bill to use it in favour of keeping one of his clients out of gaol. Being the good lawyer Peter Maley is, he represents his clients in the very best possible way. It was not without irony that the man who spoke about law and order issues in here quite regularly was more than happy to use the government’s get-out-of-gaol-free card on that occasion in favour of his client. And so he should have done, because that is what a professional lawyer should do.
However, the Alcohol Court has become pretty much recognised as a disappointment for various reasons. It was a disappointment because it did not cover illicit drugs, dangerous substances, and those sorts of things. The response from the Chief Magistrate at the time, Jenny Blokland, was to also create a thing called the credit court, which, interestingly enough, she was able to establish without the requirement of any legislative instrument beyond the instruments that were already at her disposal, such as the Sentencing Act and such things. The Bail Act she could use in a different fashion. So the credit court was not actually constrained in the same fashion the Alcohol Court was and, eventually, became the more popular, as I understand it, system by which to deal with issues of therapeutic jurisprudence in the summary courts.
The SMART Court is an extension of that concept. The SMART Court is a vehicle by which people who would otherwise go to gaol can avoid gaol for certain types of offences, so long as they meet certain standards and expectations in the bill. However, the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence, as practised in other areas, may run into some difficulties in the Northern Territory. I have done quite a bit of research into the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence and, to over-simplify the concept, the idea is quite simple.
In a therapeutic jurisprudence environment, a person is steered away from their conduct. They find themselves in front of the courts; alcohol or illicit drugs have bought them in front of the courts. So, they have done wrong. They have committed an offence for which they find themselves in front of the magistrate. The magistrate is thinking: ‘I might put this person in gaol, as from my reading of the SMART Court legislation, it is not necessarily a get-out-of-gaol-free card’, because they can make these orders apply to people who may not necessarily go to gaol. In any instance, we want to steer these people away from their existing choices in life and we want them to wake up themselves.
I touched on this particular issue in the earlier debate. I discussed the idea of an expectation from government that people, through this therapeutic process being used in their banning orders, would suddenly have a ‘road to Damascus’ conversion and suddenly realise the error of their ways.
I have taken the time to sit in the back of the credit court as it operates. Indeed, I can well imagine why people are attracted to it. The magistrate takes on the aura of deep caring and those sorts of things, and there are these directions. Eventually, this person comes back before the court and reports progress on their rehabilitation. Basically, how the system works is, if you go through the process of rehabilitation, the magistrate may choose to show clemency, mercy, and exercise options in favour of the person having rehabilitated.
There is a package before us in relation to the alcohol bill, the bill that is coming up next, and this bill. Threaded through the whole package is this concept and idea that people who are touched by this legislation will fix their lives. I am concerned that this government is proceeding down the line of therapeutic jurisprudence where other jurisdictions have had some concerns about it. Whilst the idea might be attractive, it is a little like the intervention we have seen from the federal government in remote communities. Its application is something that concerns me. The idea of this SMART Court, or the intervention, was that there was going to be this tough response by government such as quarantining and those sorts of things and, as a consequence, people would change their conduct. But, in practice, particularly after the change of government when Mal Brough’s hand came off the tiller and the new government placed its hand on the tiller, it started to morph back into a welfare response.
I am concerned that this government has no track record in being able to demonstrate that its welfare-based systems of legislation work. If the Alcohol Court was such a fearsome organ of governance, why is it we have such clearly increasing numbers of alcoholics in our community, in our parks, and in our gardens?
I am sure the minister will talk about the success of the credit court and how the Alcohol Court was a good idea; but this is improving on it and capturing the concept of the credit court; it is all being rolled into this great package, the SMART Court; it is all working wonderfully well; and this is just a way of making it work better. But, then go to the Department of Justice annual report which talks about its strategies and how it is going to achieve certain benchmarks. Go through the budget papers and look at the line items and the key performance indicators and such things, and it is not long before you discover some of the key performance indicators in the annual report of the Department of Justice are not being met. We note there are even more court days being tied up, year in, year out, both in the lower courts and in the higher courts. The results we are seeing in the outcomes, as described by the department’s annual reports, are not being achieved.
I had the opportunity to speak to the CEO about this in my first briefing with him in relation to taking over the shadow Attorney-General’s position. I asked him about this briefly and, without reflecting negatively on him, he was not able to offer a clear answer as to why the strategies that were being outlined by government were not achieving their key performance indicators and the outcomes that were being reported in the annual report. The reason is because he, of course, is a servant of the government - and a professional servant of the government - so he places the government’s policies into action, and the government gives him what his key performance indicators are.
So, government then says: ‘We have this presumption which is that the Alcohol Court is going to achieve these outcomes, that our law and order policies are going to achieve these outcomes’. What actually happens is we do not see those policies achieving those outcomes. So, the government’s response is then to do, essentially, more of the same.
You only have to read the annual reports regarding their outcomes and their stated objectives and such things, to clearly get an understanding of how mismatched the outcomes are to the stated objectives. Government then has a choice. It can either choose to say: ‘We think our system is working and we just have to find another way to interpret these results’, or ‘We actually interpret the results in favour of common sense and we say to ourselves, okay, our policies are not working’.
The policies the government drives are based on certain presumptions and philosophies. One of the presumptions and philosophies, which they have now been advancing for several years, is this concept of therapeutic jurisprudence as expressed through both the Alcohol Court and the credit court.
This, then, comes back to that hoary old chestnut which is quite simple; if you do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, then you have successfully defined insanity. What we are being asked to do to support the SMART Court - and we heard in Question Time today from the Minister for Correctional Services all the courses that will be made available to underwrite the SMART Court and support the Corrections system as a whole - is all we have to do is the same thing again, call it something else, and we will get different results.
Crime rates, especially the serious assault rates, have continued steadily to climb under this government. The government blames alcohol but it does not seem to blame the offenders. We have a public drunkenness rate out of control and, so, it blames alcohol rather than the people who drink. Consequently, it tries to manage alcohol. This philosophy is serving the Territory poorly. It is not healthy to pursue this philosophy. It is not working; it has not worked. Yet, we see this relentless drive forward, particularly by the current Attorney-General, to pursue this concept.
There are reasons I suspect this concept of therapeutic jurisprudence does not work in the Northern Territory, and you can particularly find that in the nature of some of the offenders who come through our system. That is because we expect many of these offenders to have some sort of revelation that, if they stop this self-destructing alcohol abuse, they will realise their life will get better. How are their lives going to get better? People who, for arguments sake, live in Ntaria, Yuendumu or Kintore get off the booze; change their behaviour and find this new standard of living. But, what is there for them at the other end?
Okay, we have these courses says the government - and during the estimates process I will be exploring exactly how these courses are going to run and how they are going to deal with literally the hundreds upon hundreds of people who will be diverted to these programs. That is a matter for the estimates process; we do not have sufficient time to explore that here today.
What are the changes in their lives in places like Yuendumu, Kintore, Hermannsburg, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Spring or Darwin? In many of these places jobs are unavailable. Many of these people are so poorly positioned at the outset that they are not going to be able to change. Even if they change their world view, where is the job for them? Where are the outcomes for them? I predict the results of the SMART Court will see people being cycled through these treatment programs and, each time they come out the other end of these treatment programs saying: ‘Yes, I have a new world view’. However, it will not be that long before they come back again because the government thinks the money it is going to spend on some of this rehabilitation work and therapeutic jurisprudence outcomes will be sufficient to make therapeutic jurisprudence work. It will not. It is beyond the capacity of this government to do so, and I suspect it will be beyond the capacity of many of the people who come before the SMART Court to change and to take change seriously. Many of them are welfare dependant and are quite happy that way.
The government asks us to support this legislation and, in doing so, asks us to support a concept that will be very expensive to run – very expensive to run. It is going to cost a motza. We already see in the budget papers how much this is going to cost. I see very little evidence presented by this government to suggest this is going to be a good outcome for the people of the Northern Territory, and for those offenders.
One of the other issues I raise - and I raised this particular issue with the Chief Justice when I had tea with him the other day - is the general concept that we are, as a jurisdiction, soft on crime. Frankly, that concept and that world view is very heavily entrenched out there. The Chief Justice was quick to point out - and quite rightly so – that, strictly speaking, the Northern Territory probably is a more aggressive jurisdiction in imposing sentences. Nevertheless, the problem we have is the public, who expects sentences to be stronger, are still being the victims of crime and criminals. Many of those people have already gone through our court system.
We heard in the introduction of the bill today by the minister for Corrections that we are now going to have ‘home detention orders’ or ‘Corrections orders’ – basically, people are going to be in custody outside of gaols - because I suspect the gaols system is not coping. However, what is occurring is you see more of this concept of therapeutic jurisprudence percolating through that set of thinking. All the while whilst this therapeutic jurisprudence is operating, crime rates are climbing, assaults are getting worse, and alcohol abuse is getting worse. There is not an effective response from the courts.
In January this year, whilst it is outside the ambit of this particular legislation - I well understand that - there was a particular sentence which saw an eruption of anger from the community in relation to the Adam Sargent stabbing. That is very concerning, because there are people out there who are starting to lose their faith in the court system. The court system does not get its integrity from anything other than the public it serves and, if the public lose faith, then the court system will come under increasing criticism.
There is a public expectation that courts impose sentences which work as a punishment, as well as a deterrent for crimes. This concept of therapeutic jurisprudence steps away from the idea of punishment for a crime and of deterrent, and actually tries to embrace the individual and say: ‘You have to go and correct yourself and, once you have corrected yourself, we will be nice to you’. Unfortunately, we do not see that bear out when it comes to the nature of crime in our community.
Crime is going up, particularly violent crime. People are particularly unsatisfied with it. You only have to turn the television set on in Alice Springs. In Alice Springs, businesses have started openly criticising the government - and we all went through that process in Alice Springs. We saw the protests. This government has already played its social experiment with the people of the Northern Territory, and it has failed. It has not achieved what it promised to achieve. That is made clear by the outcomes in the annual reports, as it is made clear by the increasing public disquiet about what is happening on our streets, in our parks, and in our gardens. It is time to stop the social experiment this government is engaging in with the people of the Northern Territory. It is time to stop this soft-on-crime approach.
Whilst I understand what the government is attempting to do, it has already attempted to do it and it has failed to achieve its outcomes. It is time for government to acknowledge that it has failed, and the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence cannot successfully be applied in the Northern Territory for a variety of reasons. It is that failure of therapeutic jurisprudence which has seen the increases in crime that we have seen.
If the government wants to engage in a crime fighting policy, then the answer is very straightforward and very easy: create a work in an environment where people take on responsibility. Let the courts make people responsible and accountable for their conduct. Make changes in remote Aboriginal communities, and encourage changes in the Land Rights Act so more jobs can find their way into remote Aboriginal communities, because with people who have jobs, there is a very strong correlation between employment and living a straight life. There is a link that matters.
I urge this government to stop its social experiment. It has not worked. It has failed the people of the Northern Territory. I express my disappointment that the government will rush headlong into this process. It is not the fault of the department or anybody who works in the department; the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of a government that continues to see the Northern Territory as a laboratory in which it wants to experiment, and the experiments have failed.
Madam Speaker, to support this bill would be to support the ongoing failure. For my money and the money of the Country Liberals, we will not support this failure. We will restore the faith people can have in their court system and in their government; that they have a government that cares about their security and their safety.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support this bill because it gives me great encouragement to see that families can refer their own family members who have alcohol problems to the court. I take this opportunity again, Deputy Chief Minister, to congratulate you on your foresight. As you said in your closing debate in the last bill, you have spoken to many people, and it is really good that you brought in the professionals who actually work on the ground and deal with these issues.
This bill allows families to refer their own family members. It has taken the authority figure away. Previously, police always were doing this. It is now putting the onus and the responsibility back on families. It gives them greater power to deal with the issue as well. They can see their own families struggling with alcohol, alcohol abuse and, through that, leading to other things such as dysfunctional communities, children not going to school, domestic violence with their wives, or seeing their children or their relatives doing it. That really now puts the onus and the responsibility back on families. It puts the power and authority back into the people to take action as well, instead of always concentrating on government and the police in our communities. The police do a wonderful job. They are over-run.
As the Treasurer said before, we are talking about 800 people in our community, and these people are not criminals, they are sick. We cannot just continue to be locking these people up in the revolving door of the justice system and treating them like criminals when, in actual fact, they are sick.
It gives me great pleasure, Deputy Chief Minister, because it means I can now refer my brother, my nephew, and my niece without going to the police, to the court. That really puts the responsibility and onus back on the families and the communities now to do what they were not doing before. That will give them and the whole family structure greater power to have that relationship with people who are going through the crisis of dealing with alcohol. It will also give opportunities for families to get back together as real families that can deal with their own issues, instead of always outsourcing their problems and relying on other people to deal with it. This is the great satisfaction I get from looking at this bill.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the government for talking to different services, listening to them. It is a gutsy vision. I know Cabinet would have thrown this around. There would have been feelings; they would have had to go out to industry. They would have had to talk to social services; every service that has an impact on dealing with these people. I take this opportunity, once again, to congratulate them.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for bringing this legislation forward. Because I have some concerns about whether it should go a little further, I neither reject nor support the bills because I simply would like to see how it works. The government has said it believes it will do some of the things I am concerned about, and I am happy for that to happen. I would like to give it a go and then, perhaps, make comment one way or the other as time goes by.
This particular bill is about the SMART Court. It relates to those people who have committed a crime and, at the same time, that crime was, basically, caused by the use of alcohol. It seems to me, as I have said before, that we have to get people into permanent rehabilitation or involuntary rehabilitation through a process which says you must have committed a crime. I am not saying that it is not the right way, in the sense if someone has committed a serious crime they have to be punished for the crime. However, they also have the opportunity of rehabilitation and, to some extent, the carrot-and-stick approach is what I would prefer to see for the tribunal as well. That is where we have the difference.
Be that as it may, this is what the government is putting forward. I believe the process should be monitored, and it will be interesting to see how it works. Strong figures need to be collected. For instance, strong statistics to show if person A goes through the system, they avoid going to prison because they have gone through the processes of rehabilitation, which are fairly strict because the SMART Court can ask for reports. They can ask them to attend and say what stage they are up to in their rehabilitation process. It is not just a matter of saying: ‘Go out there and do something and goodbye’. There are processes which will occur on the way.
As with many things, it is about outcomes. In this case, we are talking about very important outcomes; it is about whether someone has been able to change their life around. We know that is not easy. You would be a fool to state that any of these things we are talking about in relation to alcohol is easy. It is quite difficult to overcome any addiction.
I would just like to talk a little more broadly. This debate has been going for quite a while but, I believe, to some extent the government has avoided some of the broader issues. The government might say some of them are not in its area of expertise.
I have always been concerned about the advertising of alcohol. We are looking at a certain part of the system, but you cannot just deal with that part without looking at everything from early intervention through to things like alcohol advertising.
I went to an NTCOSS forum recently and I picked up a book called The Social Context of Alcohol Use in Australia. It is an excellent book written by Ann Roche, Petra Bywood, Toby Freeman, Ken Pidd, Joseph Borlagdan and Allan Trifonoff. It is by the Australian National Research Centre on AOD Workforce Development. It is a great summary of some of the issues we are dealing with in relation to alcohol in Australia. I thought I would use some of the information in here, because it is important we do not think we are just dealing with a particular problem in Alice Springs or Katherine, or we are just dealing with itinerants in Shepherd Street, or whatever. We are dealing with a problem.
It is interesting to read in the executive summary, it said:
- Alcohol, No Ordinary Commodity ...
Alcohol is increasingly promoted and positioned within society as a commercial commodity, like milk, bread or orange juice with less consideration given to its potential harmful effects.
That is a very important statement. If you go to Woolies now you will notice the liquor outlet is right next to the groceries. We have a society which presumes milk, fruit, eggs and grog are normal. Years ago when I was a kid - admittedly I came from the city of Camberwell as it was called then - it is not called that now. There were no pubs in the city of Camberwell, but there were licensed shops that sold alcohol. However, they were not with the supermarket at that stage. We have change in the way alcohol is sold: in and next to ordinary commodities. It went on to say:
- The counter-argument is that ‘alcohol is no ordinary commodity’ because of its potential to produce or contribute to a wide range of social harms.
In essence, alcohol is:
That is a good summary of alcohol, especially in the Australian context.
In relation to advertising, I believe it is time governments tightened up on alcohol advertising. It is all very well to tighten up on tobacco advertising. Again, I will quote from this book because it probably summarises many of the matters I have raised before more succinctly. It is good to see someone else saying advertising has a fairly big effect on the amount of alcohol being consumed, especially by young people. That is part of the debate we have been missing out on; young people certainly drink in a different manner than they would have years ago. We know binge drinking is a problem in our society. It is not just down south; young people binge drink here.
I did a tour of Mitchell Street earlier this year, courtesy of the Australian Hotels Association. I am a non-drinker; I do not have a problem. I go to the pub at Howard Springs often and enjoy the company of people there. However, I find it hard to believe that - there is no other way of putting it - certain parts of the Darwin nightclub scene are simply there for people to get drunk. I went to the Vodka Room, I think it is called. I did not see any food. If there was, it was well hidden. There were purple and infrared lights, and all they sell is alcohol. There is a bit of thumping music going on, and all they are selling is vodka. I must admit it is a weird place; like something out of a Dr Who movie where it is all about vodka. There are some strange things. Perhaps I am an old fuddy-duddy but it did not look like it was about the good consumption of alcohol; it looked like it was about making lots of money.
Under Chapter 4, Commercial Aspects of Alcohol, the document raises some key points which are worth mentioning. There is:
Increased diversity of alcohol products for segmented markets.
You can see that yourself when you look at the shelves these days. There is:
Strong association between exposure to alcohol advertising and young people’s drinking.
Look at the advertisements for certain brands of beer on cricket paraphernalia:
Alcohol products and promotional materials are positioned carefully to gain optimal exposure.
Just go to the cricket. When you look at the scoreboard, see what is placed on either side:
Pervasive and prominent alcohol advertising is on billboards, bus shelters, buses and trains, where exposure to children is high.
Discounted alcohol products sold through off-premise outlets contributes to pre-loading among young people.
If we are serious about changing our culture - not just changing whether there are a few drunks down the road, or getting a few people off the road - then we have to be serious about changing the way alcohol is advertised. It is very good advertising from the point of view of selling a product. How many people laugh when they see a XXXX ad on television? It is funny, there is no doubt about it. Cooking a few chickens on the front of the Toyota relates very much to people in the Northern Territory. So, you enjoy the joke, but the subtleness is it is about selling beer.
That may not be an area the Northern Territory government, on its own, can do much about it - although I am interested to hear why we cannot restrict some of the advertising - but it certainly may be something it can push for when talking to the federal government or other ministers from other states when it comes to this issue. We all know alcohol brings in a great deal of revenue for states and territories. You have these clashing ideals. One is we need some money from alcohol revenue - whether it is employment or whatever - and the other is it is costing us money because of the harm associated with alcohol.
The other area is the price of alcohol. There has been much discussion about a floor price for alcohol. Some people say it does not work. I believe there is a political reluctance to bring in a floor price. However, I have to say, regardless of the social benefits, you have to ask whether the taxation scheme is actually fair.
I was listening to ABC about two weeks ago, late at night. There was a gentleman who was the economist writer for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald who spoke about the unevenness of tax when it comes to alcohol. He mentioned the Henry tax review. As much as this is written in taxation-style language, it is an important document. Regardless of whether you think we should have a floor price, you would have to ask why we have uneven taxation of alcohol problems. Why is beer taxed at a far higher rate than wine? Was it that the wine growers were all fairly upper class or members of the Liberal Party at some stage in their life, and believed the beer industry was a threat and lobbied that wine should not be taxed anywhere near as much as beer? I do not know. Perhaps I should ask people in the Adelaide Hills, Yarra Valley, Hunter Valley, or all those lovely places where people produce wine. Why are they taxed differently than beer? This is an issue. If governments are a bit concerned about going it alone and saying we should artificially bump the price of wine up, the question really should be: why is there an uneven tax basis for alcohol?
For example, it says under Chapter 8.3 of the Henry tax review ...
Ms Scrymgour: It is a federal issue.
Mr WOOD: I know that, but you cannot isolate yourself from alcohol issues just by saying things in the Northern Territory matter. Our ministers meet through COAG and all those things. I am not saying …
Ms Scrymgour: But she has done it.
Ms Lawrie: I have.
Mr WOOD: I am not being critical here, I am just raising some issues. The issue of a floor price has been debated in the community. We are talking about trying to reduce the effects of alcohol. We need to also say these issues are Australia-wide as well. We might do a bit here to change things but, if we are going to try to change the culture, surely this debate and those such as the carbon tax, for instance, is not just about the Territory; it is a matter for the country as well. In the Henry tax review, he said:
- The social costs of alcohol abuse by individuals are not effectively targeted by current tax and subsidy arrangements for alcohol. In particular, the wine equalisation tax, as a value-based revenue-raising tax, is not well suited to reduce social harm. For example, a two litre wine cask costing $10.99 includes roughly $1.59 of wine equalisation tax. An equivalent volume of alcohol in full strength beer would attract $7.48 in excise, and in spirits, $16.49.
I will not go through the whole document, but later he said:
- A common volumetric tax on alcohol would better address social harm through closer targeting of social costs. The rate should be based on evidence of nett social cost. Moreover, by removing the distinction between different manufacturing processes, the compliance and administration cost of the existing excise system would be reduced.
Further on he said:
- A common alcohol tax should be phased in over a long time, to ensure that sudden price rises or price falls do not adversely affect production or consumption decisions. However, shifting wine taxation from an ad valorem to a volumetric basis should be pursued as a priority.
Madam Speaker, I raise that as an issue. It is not just about the Territory. The federal government should simply be asked, when it reviews the Henry taxation later in the year …
Ms Lawrie: October.
Mr WOOD: Yes, in October. … why it allows a different form of taxation for alcohol. What is it about? Why? Is someone getting a benefit that other parts of the alcohol industry are not getting?
Madam Speaker, I still believe we have a society where we have allowed drunkenness to be the norm. I still say it is time we said drunkenness should not be the norm. We go crook at people for losing the plot, you might say. We wonder why we have domestic violence and violence in our community. Much of it relates to alcohol and excessive use of alcohol where people simply lose control.
I was trying to find another section in this book which relates to some of these issues as well. It is an area I believe we need to promote, in a sense, to say drunkenness is not cool. What we have moved to over the last few years, especially with young people, is we are basically saying drunkenness is cool, and to go binge drinking is a form of entertainment. How much health damage and social damage is occurring at the same time? I believe that is an area which is not necessarily popular; people obviously enjoy having a good night out. However, I believe it is an area that we, as a parliament, need to be saying is not necessarily a good thing.
The other area is about hours of operation. I went to Newcastle and looked at the changes to the hours of operation. I believe that is an area we should not shy away from. If the studies show that, in Newcastle, where a reduction when you can have shots, when you can leave a pub and not re-enter a pub, and at what time the pubs are actually closed, can make a significant difference to violence in that particular city of at least 37%, you have to ask yourself why it is not being implemented elsewhere. There is no doubt the Australian Hotels Association and the liquor industry are extremely powerful. I know that, because I receive feedback from those people who fought hard to get changes to closing hours in Newcastle; you are dealing with a very powerful industry. It can be very influential, especially in the political area.
We need to ensure that decisions we make are not about protecting the alcohol and liquor industry. It is about what is good for society and reducing the cost of harm. In Newcastle, they were able to get the nurses, the doctors, the police, and the ambulance people to join forces and say to the New South Wales government: ‘We have had enough’. That is what happened. I believe we must also include those people in discussions about changes and the effect alcohol abuse is having on our society. They are the ones on the front line. They are the ones who have to put up with people in accidents, or the people flattened outside a shopping centre. It must not be a very pleasant job at times, and much of it has to do with alcohol.
I only raise these matters because, if we do not look at the total context, we do not do this debate any service. By all means, we look at a particular aspect that the government is bringing in. It is saying if you cannot handle alcohol then there will be certain restrictions on what you can do: you will not be able to drink, you will have to go into rehabilitation and, if you are involved in a crime you will be sent off to the magistrate who could send you to the SMART Court.
That is fine, but we need to do more to try to reduce the need to have all these things. We need early intervention just as we need after-intervention. The member for Sanderson and I believe we should have special places where there will be involuntary rehabilitation for those who have tried - and there is no doubt it can be very difficult - but there comes a point when people cannot help themselves. We should have a place which helps people from a medical point of view.
At the NTCOSS conference, the speaker there - whose name I cannot remember at the moment - was a professor from Sydney who has been very much involved in these issues through the Matthew Talbot hostels in Sydney. He said that most people who are very dependent upon alcohol have both a mental and physical illness. So, we would have to set up places that made sure those people were cared for, for those particular illnesses as well.
I believe we can do it. I am certainly willing to see whether the government’s amendments will actually do something instead of having to set these places up. I am willing to let the government have a go. I congratulate the government for having a go. If you do not have a go, you will be criticised for not doing it and, when you do have a go, you are criticised because it is not exactly the way other people might think it should be. All is fair in this business: we give the government a try; we ensure the government comes back on a regular basis showing whether its legislation is making a difference and, if it is not making a difference, the government has to be prepared to look at adjusting it, changing it, reviewing it, amending it, or repealing it - whatever is necessary to make this work because this issue about alcohol in our society is getting worse. There has to come a point in time where governments have to get tough. We will see how this goes.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I will pick up on a couple of points. I appreciate the member for Nelson indicated he wanted to speak on some broader policy matters. Before I go to the SMART Court I will touch on those.
We have had discussions about hours of trade, and I have made it very clear I do not support reducing trading hours arbitrarily because that is harming everyone when the government’s whole policy position with these three bills is going actually after the person who has the problem with the drink. That is our point of difference with you on that one, member for Nelson.
Regarding the volumetric tax, I am a strong supporter of the volumetric tax. I agree with the Henry tax review recommendation and call for a volumetric tax. I have expressed that publicly on every occasion I am asked regarding those broader policy settings and issues. As Treasurer, I am very keen on the Commonwealth’s Tax Summit, and I have it fairly and squarely on the agenda to ensure it is clearly put and our views are known. There ought to be a volumetric tax. The revenue raised out of tax absolutely ought to go to harm minimisation measures - no doubt about that. The $76m package we have to support these reforms across all the harm minimisation measures in these reforms, quite frankly, should be coming from the volumetric tax. I have no problem whatsoever with that argument.
I am not in favour of a minimum floor price because that is the profit staying with the retailer, and it is not being turned into harm minimisation measures. That is the difference I have with the minimum floor price and volumetric tax argument. I have been clear about that. The entire health lobby sector knows my views about that. The Commonwealth government knows my views about that. I have had these discussions with the federal Treasurer, the federal Attorney-General and with other federal ministers. They know my views about the volumetric tax. I will advocate for it, as the Treasurer, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Alcohol Policy.
You are right, that advertising is a national issue, but sometimes we do not recognise the work we are doing here. One advantage of being a small jurisdiction is you can deal with issues on a local basis and do what you can. They are not going to be as broad and expansive as people would expect because advertising is a national spend, they are national companies and all of that. That being said, Fosters did the right thing. When there was an attempt to run down beer prices and carton prices they said: ‘No’. So, you are not going to have some sort of crazy sale on that price. They did the right thing; they stepped up at the time that issue arose and they made it very clear to their distributors: ‘No, you are not going to do that’.
Whilst we like to point the finger at the big manufacturers and distributors, I have seen some behaviour, particularly in the last two years, where I am seeing the industry recognising the role it has to play in harm minimisation. I have congratulated the industry when I have seen it.
I have had my stoushes; I am the only minister in Australia who was prepared to use their statutory powers to ban a particular product. There are plenty of ministers around Australia having a complaint about the Vodka cranberry casks. No one was going to sign off on their statutory powers to do it. I had the statutory power on my desk to sign whilst I was still having an argument with that particular distributor. They pulled the product from the Territory because I was signing that statutory power. They threatened all sorts of things, but they pulled the product from the Territory.
All the other ministers around Australia were happy to run arguments in articles and newspapers saying what a terrible thing it was pitching to that young market, but they did not do anything. We did in the Territory. That product is not sold in the Territory; it is being sold elsewhere. I sent a very clear message to the distributors of alcohol there is behaviour we will not accept and you can keep it out of the Territory.
I have had countless meeting with the large retailers and small retailers. The Liquor Stores Association and I meet on a regular basis. The Australian Hotels Association and I meet on a regular basis. I meet with Woolworths and Coles here and in Sydney. I am not just dealing with the local guys; I am dealing with the senior guys about retail behaviour in the Territory. They need to step up to their responsibilities, as an industry, when it comes to harm minimisation. My experience is they have been more prepared to do that here than I have seen in their practice elsewhere.
Credit where credit is due. The Australian Hotels Association did not have to, but negotiated a Darwin CBD liquor accord. There is a whole raft of items in that accord that go to refusal of sale to drunks and intoxicated persons, and all their procedures and practices in how they operate as hoteliers in the CBD. One thing they put in - and some of the things you see in other accords across the Territory; they captured all of that and went further. No 1.3 in that accord is restricting activities that encourage drinking excessively. That came from the licensees from the Australian Hotels Association. I believe credit where credit is due. They agreed to:
A. Prohibit promotional pricing of alcoholic drinks:
1. within and immediately outside their licensed venues including, but not limited to, spruiking, TV screens, posters. For example, no drink price specials or discount advertising will be permitted;
2. in all venue advertising, including but not limited to print, the venues or other websites, radio and TV, but not including bottle shop promotions where applicable;
3. for the purpose of this clause promotional pricing:
(a) includes:
(i) advertising of prices for any alcoholic products; or
B. Prohibit the use of promotions or advertising that encourages excessive alcohol consumption.
D. Ensure happy hours are finished by 7 pm and no advertising of finishing times.
F. Serve drinks at standard measures.
G. No servings of doubles unless explicitly requested by the patron consuming the drink.
H. Comply with the code of practice to assist in the responsible promotion of alcohol contained in the schedule.
I. Licensees support the Sober Bob campaign by offering free post-mix soft beverages where available for designated drivers all year round.
In their accord, the hoteliers in the CBD took out the promotion and advertising. It has not happened to my knowledge anywhere else. They stepped up to the mark, along with a raft of other activities in the service of alcohol and intoxicated persons: ensuring bottled water is available for purchase and free tap water is available; notifying crowd controllers of patrons who are showing signs of intoxication so that crowd controllers can monitor and manage the situation; having crowd controllers there to refuse entry; refusing the service of alcohol to persons intoxicated; and issues around underage drinking. They packed together an accord and, in that accord, importantly and unrecognised, is they took out their promotions and advertising. All those happy hour signs outside, and two-for-one specials have gone from Mitchell Street. They are not promoting and advertising.
You are right, it is a national issue. Sometimes, we forget the good work that is being done in our own back yard. I believe in credit where credit is due. Good on the publicans of the Darwin CBD for striking this accord, which is pretty comprehensive. That was struck on 14 December 2010, and it has been signed off by all of the licensees in the Hotels Association along the Darwin CBD but also - I am just going to the Accord Steering Committee, which includes a representative of the Northern Territory police, a representative from licensing and regulation, and there was a representative from each licensed venue that is a member to the accord. They signed up. They are stepping up to the plate.
At the same time, they introduced the unbreakable glass after 11 pm, and the plastics as well. That was something I was absolutely insistent on. I kept pursuing it, did not let it go. We were sick of the glassings. Touch wood - and it is a terrible thing to say - but there has not been a glassing since. You hate to say it, because you go: ‘Oh my God, is there going to be one?’ Some of those glassings were earlier in the evening, at 5.30 pm.
As you know, and as the industry said to you, the really nasty violence that occurs is not just grog-fuelled. There is an absolute imperative for us to continue the crackdown on the use of illicit drugs. We have created not an alcohol tribunal, it is an Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. Going to legislation before us is not an Alcohol Court, it is the Substance Misuse and Referral Treatment Court, which takes the drugs in as well. We are packing together the issue of substance misuse, alcohol, and drugs, and tackling it together, because a lot of the violence being fuelled, which is simply easy to blame on grog, particularly in the nightclub districts, is fuelled by the very nasty illicit drugs.
The member for Port Darwin talked about new policy around using precinct bans to deal with drugs. Well, that can occur now under the existing precinct bans within the Liquor Act. It is not related to the alcohol substance, it is related to the behaviour ...
Mr Elferink: I did not talk about them.
Ms LAWRIE: Though you did not talk about them in the debate, I have heard you talk about it on radio. I am happy to provide further detailed information and advice to you on that.
We have not rushed headlong into the SMART Court or into therapeutic jurisprudence. The consultation for the SMART Court started comprehensively with a discussion paper that went out in 2009 - sorry, just checking my dates here of the Alcohol Court discussion paper. I launched it in Alice Springs, as minister. We ran the public consultation on the Alcohol Court discussion paper. On 29 October 2009, we went out with the Alcohol Court discussion paper and sought comments around the operation of the Alcohol Court on issues regarding alcohol dependency. As a result of the feedback coming back, we have broadened out the scope of the Alcohol Court; for example, to include a significant change. It is not just alcohol dependency, it is alcohol misuse. One of the things we know about drinking behaviours in the Territory is many of the issues are with binge drinkers - not people who are necessarily alcohol dependent. We have captured that in the change in the scope within the SMART bill, as opposed to what was in the Alcohol Court. So, we have put a whole range of changes in scope and orders.
We make no apology for recognising the importance of therapeutic jurisprudence. Much evidence is flowing through of the better results you can gain out of it. Packed in here within the SMART Court is, if it does not work, well, off to gaol ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, after they commit a second offence.
Ms LAWRIE: No, not after they commit a second offence. There are some very strict provisions in here. It is one of those things where, yet again, unsurprisingly, we are agreeing to disagree. However, I point out the Law Society and others actually think this is good. We have it in writing they are supportive - absolutely supportive of this. The member for Port Darwin said: ‘No, it is not going to work. It is not good’. The judiciary: ‘Yes, it is going to work. It is the right thing to do’. The Law Society: ‘Yes, it is going to work. It is the right thing to do’. Member for Port Darwin: ‘No’ ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, on the balance of that, I will err on the side of the judiciary and the Law Society on that one, quite aside from all the great knowledge of the legal policy within the Department of Justice ...
Mr Elferink: I listened to people beyond the legal profession, and they are not quite as happy in the profession.
Ms LAWRIE: I am pretty confident about the advice I am getting from all of those knowledgeable, practising lawyers ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, and lawyers, but the point is, have you …
Ms LAWRIE: It is interesting, that one. They have actually had experience. They have been in court and seen what happens. They have had years of experience. The Chief Magistrate has had significant experience, and is a specialist in this particular area. I will take the advice of the Chief Magistrate any day over the pearls of wisdom coming from the member for Port Darwin.
We have two committee stage amendments. Because this has been a comprehensive raft of reforms, we have some minor amendments. In clause 4, we need to insert the word ‘detention’, because this captures juvenile offenders. A new clause 26A has the powers to bring the offender back before the court for failure to comply. I am grateful for the advice from the member for Sanderson that the opposition has no problem with these amendments and I propose we go to committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 61.1. This amendment invites the inclusion of a new definition in clause 4 of the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Bill 2011. The reason for this amendment is to allow for detention of youths when sentencing under Parts 4 and 5 of the bill. The jurisdiction of the SMART Court is intended to include youth offenders.
Without reference to detention of youth, a youth may not be able to be sentenced under clause 21 as the proposed clause refers only to imprisonment. This was an unintended oversight during the drafting of the bill. The insertion of a new definition ‘imprisonment’ in clause 4 to include detention of a youth under Parts 4 or 5, will ensure that a youth can be sentenced to detention.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 26A:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 61.2. This amendment inserts a new clause 26A into the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court) Bill 2011. The reason for this amendment is to ensure an offender who contravenes a SMART Court order can be brought back before the court. The current provisions of the bill do not make it clear about how a person may be brought back if the SMART order is contravened.
While the provisions of the Bail Act and the Sentencing Act provide mechanisms for the issuing of summons and warrants for arrests of defendants, new clause 26A provides the SMART Court with a clear power to issue a summons or warrant for arrest of the offender.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I will keep my comments short. Part of the problem I have with the process we are engaged in is this is a serious plank for government. It is hanging its hat on this whole policy reform package, yet, it holds off the introduction of the discussions of these bills past the budget day, past Wednesday, to the Thursday of parliament. The government has been anxious to drive this matter forward, and I can understand why because it has to get this thing running and performing, as it believes it will perform, by the time the next election rolls around. We are well aware that the people are deeply concerned about what is happening in the community. It concerns me, however, that the government waits until the Thursday and, then, simply comes into this place with a couple of amendments because it still has not covered all the details.
If this package was so important to this government, which it is, then one would hope it would have been much more careful about putting these bills together. I am concerned because amendments are still being made at the final hour. I know that happens from time to time. However, an amendment as important as clause 26A means there was something not covered in the original process in the haste to bring this forward. These bills have to get passed tonight because the expenditure out of the budget depends on the passage of these bills in relation to the programs that surround these bills.
Madam Chair, I place on the record that there seems an element of angst on the part of government to push these things through and get them operating. I hope it does not expose mistakes in the bill.
New clause 26A agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the remainder of the bill but I would like to speak to it. Yes, at the moment but I do want to speak to one of the clauses. Okay, I will do it now.
It comes to page 21 of the act in relation to consequential amendments. Clause 44 refers to the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act which is amended as a consequence of this. Do you have it in front of you? Clause 44, sort of oddly numbered it goes 141 …
Ms Lawrie: We found it. It is on page 23.
Mr ELFERINK: I have it on page 21 on mine …
Ms Lawrie: I have it on print version. That is why it took me a little longer. I was on consequential amendments but I was on the incorrect …
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. So now we have a slightly different …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, Prisons (Correctional Services) Act amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, clause 44 says:
- (1) This section amends the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
(2) Part 27, Division 4 …
Ms Lawrie: Yes: ‘repeal, insert Division 4, SMART orders requiring surveillance’.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. We are talking about the same thing. That is good.
I have a small problem and I would like the minister to guide me on this. I have taken the time to open up the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act and read Part 27, Division 4. The only problem is I found Part 27 Division 1; Part 27 Division 2; Part 27 Division 3. I am wondering if the minister can guide me to Part 27 Division 4.
Ms LAWRIE: We are getting the relevant act now. If you have any other questions, we can go on with those and come back to this one.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason is because I checked the legislation website, and there does not appear to be a Part 27 Division 4.
Ms LAWRIE: As I have said, I am getting the legislation now. So, if you want to move on to a different question, I will get back to that one.
Mr ELFERINK: I just want to ensure I am reading this correctly, and I can be guided by you, minister, that I am reading this correctly. You want to amend Part 27 Division 4. I would like to know, if I am reading it correctly, that there is a Part 27. There is Part XXVII in Roman numerals in the act.
I will check to ensure I have the right act. Yes, Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. I am looking at the index at the moment, and it is Roman numerals Part XXVII - which is XVII. Division 1, Division 2, Division 3, Part 28. Could you please direct me to Part 27 Division 4?
Ms LAWRIE: Well, if there is not, obviously what this does is insert a Division 4 into it. If you look at it, it is titled ‘Division 4’. It is SMART orders requiring surveillance and, then, it sets out the provisions. As I said, I am checking because we are inserting here. That is what we are doing. We are …
Mr ELFERINK: No, we are repealing it. Read it, it says: repeal and …
Ms LAWRIE: It says: ‘repeal, insert’. Okay? So we are inserting …
Mr ELFERINK: Tell me about repealing. What are we repealing?
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, just your normal stuff, John, calm down. We are inserting Division 4, SMART orders requiring surveillance. What I said to you a moment ago is I am currently getting the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. I do not currently have it before me, but I have officers and advisors getting it. I will be able to respond to you as to whether there is a Division 4 or not. I do not physically have it in front of me yet. However, regardless, I am showing you we are inserting a Division 4.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but you are also repealing a Division 4.
I am curious about this because, as I read it, Division 4 talks about leaves of absence: Division 1, Leave of absence within Territory, Division 2, Supervised interstate custodial permits, and Division 3, Leave of absence to give evidence at foreign proceedings or assistance at foreign investigation.
Surveillance of offenders subject to SMART order does not quite flow on the first read of it. Is it in the right place?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. At this stage the advice is, with the changes as a result of the new era in Corrections, it is in the right place.
Mr ELFERINK: The changes in the new era of Corrections, is that a bill that is currently - yes, it has just been introduced today. Are you amending a bill that has not been passed yet?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. Obviously, the legislation before amends the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. I am getting advice on the amendments in the bill introduced today. Obviously, we are not incapable of knowing what we are doing in amendment of the head act and ensuring the amendments we are doing in this raft of changes fit within the amendments of the other legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: So I understand it properly, you are attempting to amend legislation that does not exist. Is that correct?
Ms LAWRIE: No, that is not correct, and you know it. You are doing your normal twist.
Mr ELFERINK: No. Then, explain it to me slowly and carefully, so I can keep up.
Mr Knight: That is the best card you have?
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. I would like to know if this stuff has been properly pursued by this government. The fact that I cannot get an answer instantly to say this is what is happening is of concern. Surely, the shadow Attorney-General, whilst we are scrutinising these bills, has the right to ask these questions? There is a reference to a repeal of a section of law, and I cannot find that section of law we are repealing. I am curious about what is happening. Surely, that is not a ridiculous question to ask?
Ms LAWRIE: We are just getting that information through from Parliamentary Counsel. As I said, if you want to go on with a question on another section, we will get back to you on that one.
Mr ELFERINK: This is my question and I am asking you the question. Now, we have to get advice from Parliamentary Counsel about what is going on. I presume we have now read the act at this stage? Have we someone who has looked at the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act?
Ms LAWRIE: You are asking a question that goes to drafting. It is absolutely appropriate to go to the drafting ...
Mr ELFERINK: Are you telling us there is, potentially, a drafting error here?
Ms LAWRIE: No, I am not telling you that. I am telling you I am doing a thorough check.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. What about Part XXVIA, minister? Does that give you a hint? Oops, oops, oops.
Ms LAWRIE: You are referring to Part XXVIA of which?
Mr ELFERINK: Of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
Ms LAWRIE: I was going to assume that, but I wanted to check.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. That does have a Division 4 and a section 94G which can be repealed.
Ms LAWRIE: All right. In the explanatory statement, Part XXVIA has been renamed as Part 27 by the Statute Law Revision Bill (No 2) of 2010. So, Division 4, SMART orders requiring surveillance is in the right place.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry. XXVI, the explanatory statement? I am looking at the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, the explanatory statement is tabled with the bill, so you have that. So, within Part ...
Mr ELFERINK: The explanatory statement is not law.
Ms LAWRIE: The explanatory statement explains to you that the Statute Law Revision Bill (No 2) of 2010 renamed it as Part 27.
Mr ELFERINK: Renamed what as Part 27?
Ms LAWRIE: Renamed Part XXVIA.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, okay. So, that has all been done. The question I have now is: has that been enacted? When was that particular legislation passed? The problem is, according to the statute books that are on the record right now, there is a Part XXVIA in the existing act.
Ms LAWRIE: What I am advised is that the Statute Law amendment will pass in August, and they can still come into effect, the numbering will just …
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, it will pass in August. So, when you bring bills before the House, we are still changing legislation that does not exist yet. Whilst I …
Ms LAWRIE: No, we are changing – hang on, let us be reasonable about this, member for Port Darwin. The Statute Law Revision Bill has been introduced, it has not been passed. So, do not say it does not exist. It does exist …
Mr Elferink: Well, it has been introduced.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … it has not come into effect.
Mr ELFERINK: It has been introduced. Are we talking about Statute Law Revision?
Ms LAWRIE: It was introduced in November.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, are we talking about Serial 140 - Statute Law Revision Bill (Serial 140)? Is it Serial 140?
Ms LAWRIE: I do not have the serial number on me.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. So are we talking about the Statute Law Revision Bill which is currently …
Ms LAWRIE: The Statute Law Revision Bill, introduced in November, on the books.
Mr ELFERINK: Has it been passed?
Ms LAWRIE: It has not been passed. As I said, the advice from the Department of Justice is we are quite capable and able to do this. The advice from Parliamentary Counsel is we can do this. It is in order.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, but it makes it a little difficult when you have to trudge your way through this stuff. When you are looking at current legislation, assuming we are amending current legislation, not legislation that may or not pass through this House ...
Ms Lawrie: Are you kidding me, an SLA?
Mr ELFERINK: I have to say, Madam Chair, the fact that it took them so long to figure this out and what is actually happening is cause for concern. It shows the Northern Territory government is rushing this through. It is anxious to push these things through. It is clearly a disappointment to me that the government has chosen to push these things through without effectively explaining to people what is going on. I have no further comments.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ALCOHOL REFORM (LIQUOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT) BILL
(Serial 161)
(Serial 161)
Continued from 30 March 2011.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, this bill achieves a number of functions. One, it inserts penalty provisions into the body of a number of sections, in some cases resulting in substantial increase in monetary value of the penalty. It makes licensees more accountable to breaches of legislation. It clarifies the powers and functions of the Licensing Commission, and inserts the definition of ‘drunk’ into the act.
This bill introduces what appears to be a much-needed clarification on the powers of the director and the commission in relation to handling complaints and taking actions against licensees.
I note there are some amendments the minister has put forward. I must inform the House we will not be arguing against those amendments. They all seem to be in order, so we will not be challenging them.
There are a number of issues I would still like to raise in relation this particular issue on alcohol reforms; that is, things about reports written by people, in particular, Sara Hudson. I go back to that most recent report where she speaks about the necessity to have enforcement.
We see that in the previous legislation which was passed just a little while ago in relation to BAT orders and things like that. The argument from our side was run along the lines of you need to have some teeth in this legislation so those people who choose not to look at the issue they have, or are unable to look at the issue in a reasonable manner, actually have some mandatory rehabilitation.
What we have is, for the other people in our community, monetary penalties and imprisonment penalties. You can do a whole range of things and be fined seriously. So, you have the good people in our community again being subjected to fines if they step out of line. If they do not do certain things and orders are made, then they get some pretty serious consequences, not only to themselves in monetary terms but to their businesses. ‘Double standards’ is probably too strong a term, but we have a difference where the good people in our community are fined. Perhaps the small minority of people who are not so good are actually infringing upon the good standards of our community, basically, just get one order or one notice after another without actually having any serious penalty.
I note the minister, in the previous debate, talked about Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. I do not recall anyone on our side separating the two. Our idea is we have to look at everyone who has an alcohol problem - be it whatever ethnic background, race, religion, etcetera. It is with that in mind I ask again that the government looks at seriously reviewing what it has proposed.
We are aware that the government will put this particular bill through tonight as well. I seriously hope that when things do not go as planned, the people who are listening to this in the departments and the minister’s office might actually look at some of the stuff we have suggested.
There is not a great deal more I want to say. I wish the government well and I sincerely hope what it puts forward works. I have some serious reservations about that occurring, as my colleagues have said. There are many people in the community who have serious reservations about whether this will work. I note the member for Nelson has also expressed serious reservations.
It really goes back to the core of how you philosophically deal with a particular issue. The issue here is there is a very small minority in our community who have a problem, and we are going to penalise the rest of the community for the behaviour of a minority without actually holding the minority to account. It is about making people accountable, responsible, and aware of real consequences of their actions and the way they conduct themselves in our community.
I mentioned in an earlier debate this evening the issue about those people conducting themselves where they live or where they visit. If I go from where I live in Darwin to Alice Springs I am expected to conduct myself in a reasonable manner that reflects the standards of the community in which I am present as a visitor, or by the reasonable standards of the community in which I live. When these people step outside those boundaries of reasonable standards of the community by participating in behaviour and conduct that is offensive to the majority of people in their own community, or in the community they are visiting, we start to have problems.
The issues raised by the opposition would go some way to placating people who are the taxpayers, the good people in our community, who are simply trying to get on with their life, to be able to send their kids to the shop to get the milk and bread without being humbugged or harassed by anyone - Indigenous, non-Indigenous, Asian, Russian, Chinese or Mongolian; it does not really matter. It is conduct we are targeting here, not necessarily any particular person. The conduct of these people may be because they have a terrible affliction; that is, they are addicted to alcohol.
I reiterate, you can enact all sorts of legislation but, unless there is a deterrent factor, one suspects it may not be that effective. In this House, we have to look at ourselves and the upbringing we had. We have all had different upbringings but, essentially, we have all reached a point where we understand what is expected of us in relation to our behaviour in our community. We understand if we breach those standards there will be some consequences for us.
I heard the member for Johnston say yesterday that we, as parliamentarians, have a higher standard. One would assume people in our community who have to abide by even ordinary standards would do so, and understand they cannot just go out and continue to do the sort of things they are doing where you have the majority of the community up in arms about their behaviour.
The minister said this evening that people are on board; they agree with all of these measures. Well, she may have some groups on board. In fact, she mentioned quite a few industry groups, but there is another group of people out there called the wider community. It is the wider community I talk to, and I mentioned this previously. When I am out talking to people - I am sure the same people are talking to government members as to members of the opposition. These are Mr and Mrs northern suburbs, Mr and Mrs suburban Alice Springs, Mr and Mrs Katherine. They are talking to people about fixing the problem. They do not care how we do it, and I am sure they may not take much interest in the debate that occurs in this House. What they are looking for are real solutions and real options. They do not want it to take too long; they are demanding action now.
What I hear when I have been talking to various people - and there have been a number of people in industry, in private enterprise, in government. Many of them will have to remain anonymous because the only way they will talk to you is if you guarantee anonymity. They express concerns about some of these things. I will repeat something I said earlier. I would like to see anything work because this should be an apolitical argument we are having because it affects all of us and has some very serious implications if we do not get it right.
We have a different philosophical view from the government as to how we might achieve the outcomes. I am sure all in this House want a very positive outcome from whatever it is we do. We have said so much on this issue.
Madam Speaker, we do not have any huge problems or issues with the current amendments to the liquor legislation. Many people out there are grateful for the fact the government has listened to them. It is good that governments do listen to industry and those associated with it. The government has acted, so it is with that in mind we do not have much more to say, and we will let it go through on the numbers.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, we will be going to a committee amendment stage on this liquor legislation. I thank the member for Sanderson for his support for that. I also note the member for Sanderson, obviously, has picked up the industry support for the legislation we have before us. It goes to the heart of addressing a series of problems that exist with enforcement of the structure of the existing act. It addresses issues in respect of the provision of liquor to minors. It introduces, importantly, a new regulatory framework for liquor licences to create a more flexible, responsive, and modern compliance regime in the Liquor Act. There had been some gaps and ambiguities in relation to the role of the NT Licensing Commission, and these are addressed, as well as the inconsistencies in relation to the existing penalty structure.
It was a very comprehensive overhaul we undertook in this framework. We did so with thorough consultation. I put on the record my sincere thanks to the officers of Racing, Gaming and Licensing, the Department of Justice, and Parliamentary Counsel, who all worked tirelessly and in a very efficient and effective time frame to bring forward all of these changes. I set them a significant task. When I looked at the raft of reforms we were bringing through with the PACSM and SMART bills, I saw there was still this significant issue of the regulatory framework that needed to be addressed. We needed to introduce a range of penalties that really did send very clear messages about the seriousness with which we view breaches of the act and, also to capture where I saw some weaknesses in the low penalties that existed for things such as unlicensed sale of alcohol - the sly grog.
One of the things you pick up in all your consultations and listening to members of parliament who have contributed to lively debate is what is actually happening out on the ground. The member for Macdonnell has been one who has been on the public record talking about the sly grog sales she saw in Alice Springs. We had low penalties for unlicensed sale. It just seemed to be something we absolutely needed to pay attention to. This was the start of the genesis of genuinely looking at the Liquor Act and what the range of breaches were in the Liquor Act, what wider enforcement tools were available in the imposition of the fines, providing enforceable undertakings, providing infringement notices, to make it easier for the licensees to be more accountable, provide the community generally with a more effective, efficient, and flexible transparent regulatory framework, provide greater clarity for licensees, improve the enforcement in relation to licensee breaches but, also really tightening up on those other areas such as the offences relating to the sale and supply of alcohol to minors.
We are moving into a policy realm in relation to supply to minors that is starting to become part of a national move. It is to our credit in the Territory that we have moved more swiftly than other jurisdictions around our nation in regard to ensuring the irresponsible supply of alcohol to children cannot and should not occur, and there are breaches accordingly.
I recognise we have captured significant new penalty regimes in here. They were pretty low penalty regimes in the past. It sends a very clear message how serious our government is regarding the sale of liquor, the activities and actions of licensees but, equally, how we will get our own house in order within Racing, Gaming, and Licensing in the enforcement and the tools, clarify the role of the commission, and remove the double jeopardy that had existed, quite unfairly, and put in place the definition of a drunk to ensure there is clarity of irresponsible sale to an intoxicated person. We have captured all of those issues that have been kicking around out there with concern to people on both sides of the debate. We have picked up all of those and put them into this bill.
We did look at grog runners and at trying to split out sale and supply, and possession. That is really the genesis of why I am bringing the committee stage amendments before us, because we do want to send a very strong signal about just how tough it will be for people who are trying to pedal grog out into remote and regional areas of the Territory. It is just a no-go zone as far as we are concerned. It is tough. We are repacking those penalties to a fairly significant maximum penalty of 100 penalty units, or imprisonment for six months around what we are proposing in the committee stage amendments.
I acknowledge the tremendous work done by my colleague, the member for Arafura, with me on this legislation. It has been fantastic. I really enjoy being able to work with colleagues who take these matters incredibly seriously. My Cabinet colleagues have pored over all of these reforms and all this legislation, and have been rock-solid in their support for what our government is doing here, through all of the legislation we have had debate on in this Chamber. Whether they are in Cabinet or Caucus, it has been a significant team effort, I have to say, of everyone in government to pursue these reforms, and get some rigour, clarity, strength and enforcement into this very serious issue of liquor in the Territory.
These are fair, sensible and enforceable changes that are occurring in the regulatory framework, also recognising we want the toughest penalties available for going after the people who are trying to do the wrong thing - whether they are a licensee, or whether they are unlicensed and trying to get around what are the laws of the land.
I reiterate my sincere thanks to Racing, Gaming and Licensing officers, the Department of Justice officers, Parliamentary Counsel, to my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues. I thank the industry. They have stepped up to the plate again on this one. They recognise there are some absolute tests and standards that are required if they are going to be in the business of selling alcohol in the Territory. I thank the Australian Hotel Association and the Liquor Stores Association for showing a significant level of maturity in recognising the need for harm minimisation and just how serious the issue of alcohol is in the Territory.
This has been one of those rare occasions in politics - extremely rare - where you have both sides of the debate on a very serious topic lined up and agreed. From the Australian Hotels Association and the Liquor Stores Association, through to the Australian Medical Association, the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, and right down to the service providers in the AOD sector, to the Law Society - I thank them for their support throughout this whole process as well - through the practitioners, the judiciary, the police, all of those non-government organisations such as the Northern Territory Council of Social Services. I sincerely thank them for their steadfast support for all of the work we have brought before the parliament in the three bills.
I have been strengthened by the fact that it has been a significant consultation process. Everyone has engaged with goodwill to try to get something that everyone thinks is absolutely going to work, to literally save the lives of Territorians. That is what we are about here. We do not want the crime. We do not want the antisocial behaviour, and we are not going to put up with it. That is why we titled these reforms ‘Enough is Enough’ - we are all heartily sick of it.
I recognise the sentiment is shared on the opposition benches. We will have a view on the differences of the pathways and how we go about it, and we will continue to debate that, no doubt whatsoever.
To all of those critically important stakeholders across the service sectors: the people doing the hard yards on the front line from the police officers to the people in the sobering-up shelters, the people in the rehab centres, the people who would have provided that post-support care, to the industry associations and the people in the medical and health sectors – I thank you sincerely.
This could not have been done without an incredible amount of work that has been undertaken by the Department of Justice. First and foremost, the Department of Justice staff have stepped up to an enormous body of reform work in excruciatingly tight time lines. They have worked significant lengthy hours through the days and the nights to get this body of reforms done. We have had countless meetings, consultations, forums, and debates internally as to what detail we get down to and how we do what. I am very proud of all of the people; the enormous teamwork and effort it has taken to get to this.
I put on the record my thanks to staff in my office. Not only have we had an incredible load in getting the Northern Territory Budget 2011-12 put together in the same time period, in the lead-up to these sittings - and that work started intensively last year - at the same time, much of this work started intensively. So, it has been an enormous effort from all of the staff in my office. Jo Martin, who is in Adelaide, will be delighted and thrilled when she hears about the passage of the legislation because she put an enormous effort into it.
As I said, I could not have done it without the teamwork, the support, and the tremendous strength and rigor of my parliamentary colleagues. I was sincere in thanking the members for Macdonnell and Nelson for their support. It is difficult, when it is so complex and so groundbreaking, to be able to stretch yourself out in that political domain. I sincerely thank people and propose to move to committee stage for the amendment.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Alcohol Reform (Liquor Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011 (Serial 161), together with Schedule of Amendments No 62 circulated by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, Ms Lawrie.
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, given there is agreement between the parties and the Chamber, I propose to take Schedule of Amendments No 62 as a whole, if there is no objection to that.
Mr Styles: No objection, Madam Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay, if there is no objection, I move Schedule of Amendments No 62.
Schedule of Amendments No 62 agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: We can move straight through it, because I moved the entire schedule.
Madam CHAIR: Oh, we have moved the entire schedule.
Amendments agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
_________________
Automatic Adjournment
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to standing order …
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I indicate on behalf of government that there will be an extension of the time and we will not be adjourning at 9 pm.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I put the question that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move that the question now be put.
Motion negatived.
_________________
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Power and Water Corporation - Statement of Corporate Intent 2011-12
Power and Water Corporation - Statement of Corporate Intent 2011-12
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table the Power and Water Corporation Statement of Corporation Intent 2011-12.
The SCI is the annual performance agreement between the corporation and the Shareholding Minister on behalf of Territorians as owners of the corporation. As members are aware, the Power and Water Corporation became the Territory’s first government owned corporation (GOC) on 1 July 2002. The 2011-12 SCI is, therefore, the corporation’s tenth.
Consistent with previous years, information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the SCI being tabled today on the basis it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information that no private sector business would be expected to release.
The 2011-12 SCI continues the largest ever capital and maintenance investment program in the corporation’s history. This investment is important to enhance reliability of supply and respond to growing demand across the Territory, and forms a key part of this government’s strategy to grow the Territory. A $1.272bn capital investment will be made between 2011-12 and 2015-16. In addition, some $459.1m is projected to be spent on repairs and maintenance over the SCI period. Whilst this critical capital and maintenance program, together with weather-related reductions in revenue and renewal energy credits cost increases - increases outside the corporation’s control - will inevitably mean the key financial sustainability measures will be marginally below that recommended by the Reeves report, they are certainly not anywhere near to the point that would render the corporation financially unsustainable.
All utility tariffs in the Territory remain at previously announced levels which, for electricity and water, are the second lowest in the country. This means not only is the Henderson government, through the provision of debt for equity swaps announced last year, assisting the corporation in maintaining financial sustainability but, by keeping tariffs, supported by generous subsidies, amongst the lowest in the country, we are reducing the cost of electricity for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, as the 2011-12 Statement of Corporate Intent will be considered by the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, I will not go into any more detail now. In accordance with section 39(7)(a) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, as shareholding minister for the corporation, I table the Power and Water Corporation 2011-12 Statement of Corporate Intent, and I move that the statement be referred to the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee for examination and report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, it would have been nice to have had some notice, not only of the Statement of Corporate Intent, but also the fact the motion was going to be moved to the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee for further discussion ...
Ms Lawrie: It always is.
Mr ELFERINK: I beg your pardon?
Ms Lawrie: It gets referred to the scrutiny committee for discussion every year.
Mr ELFERINK: Fine. It would have been nice, though, if you had given us some notice so we would have known what was going on. I had no notice from the members opposite in relation to this. Whilst I appreciate what the minister is doing, it would be better to see better levels of communication across the House.
The motion to continue the Appropriation Bill was not discussed; it was simply dropped on us - and now this. I ask the government to tidy up the way it communicates with this side of the House so we know what is going on.
Motion agreed to.
APPROPRIATION (2011-2012) BILL
(Serial 163)
Continued from 4 May 2011.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Brennan has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Thirteen minutes! Can I not buy a couple?
Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to pick up a debate you started, got on a roll with, and so forth. I have a few notes here, and I have gone through some of the budget papers over the last couple of days.
No matter what side of politics you come from, you certainly welcome money spent wisely. I note there has been an increase in most of areas in education for this budget, and welcome the money. More importantly, Territorians expect - and so does wider Australia - any money that is spent is well spent, and the stated outcomes achieved.
This budget this year reminds me of last year. I heard the Treasurer say the reason things are revoted so much in the Northern Territory is because of the Dry Season, and that most of the works are carried out in the Dry and not so much in the Wet. I understand it but it is disingenuous to present it in the final figures. The only figures that seem to get into the media are the record budgets. Last year, it was a $1.8bn infrastructure budget - this year not so much. When you look at what the revoted works are, it over-inflates the truth. There is nothing wrong with being truthful in the glossaries - that perhaps $1bn is being spent this year and the rest is revoted. There are many revoted works this year.
In the Northern Territory, the biggest cost to government is recurrent funding. When you add the interest on borrowings the Territory has taken, and will continue to take into the future, it leaves less and less for infrastructure and, of course, new programs.
We have heard much about debt over the last few days, and debt ratios, and the number of people who live in the Northern Territory. The bottom line is we need to live within our budgets. We demand that from people who live in our communities. I know too well what it is like to have a credit card debt - a terrible situation to get into and a hard situation to get out of. It is like having an anchor thrown over the boat as you are trying to cruise along. No one likes debt. I can understand what the Treasurer said about going into debt for specific reasons, and I appreciate all that. I know previous CLP governments have gone into debt, probably to build this place. There is a reason for going into debt at certain times. There are many areas where real savings could be made you get a little frustrated and think that we did not have to go into so much debt. I understand why we go into debt. No one likes to have a mortgage, and particularly credit card debts and car loans. But there is smart debt and there is wasted debt. I suggest someone buying a suit on a credit card is not a wise move, particularly if you can pay cash for it and if you have saved for it.
The years are gone where we put things on lay-by. I remember mum and dad would lay-by a toaster, or a pair of shoes, and pay it off over three months before the item came into the household. Today, it is too easy to whack out a credit card to pay for those shoes or toaster. I suggest, though, that toasters were made to last a little longer years ago than they do today, but that is another story. You need to understand debt: what is good debt, and what is bad debt.
Recently, this House debated the carbon tax. I am an environmentalist at heart, and would be the first person to sign up to a carbon tax if I thought it was going to make one bit of difference or improvement to our environment. But, it will not do anything to improve our environment. You cannot take money away, which adds to the cost of something like electricity, and then give it back and expect people’s habits to change. If there was a tax that increased electricity by 25%, people might learn to use electricity more wisely: turn lights off, close doors, and have air-conditioners on a little warmer than cooler. However, when you are going to give that money back, you are not going to change people’s habits, so it will not make one iota of difference. All it will do, particularly here in the Northern Territory, is place an additional impost on families, and they are already struggling.
I will go directly to the budget. A few areas highlight my earlier concerns about revoted works. Department of Education and Training: $109.905m for total infrastructure programs, of which $58.605m is revoted. There are some wonderful schools programs such as new buildings but, when you total all the infrastructure works, or nearly all of them, you notice there is a little one there, and it is all to do with the BER. From the $109.905m and $58.605m revoted, when you take out the Commonwealth money, which is $34.937m, you actually only have $23.668m of new money. Interestingly, there is $33.919m earmarked for repairs and maintenance. There is not much new money for infrastructure when so much of it is, indeed, Commonwealth money. We understand we get so much money from the Commonwealth, but to pad the budget in the Northern Territory with Commonwealth money makes it appear that more local money is being spent than really is.
The Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport - I have missed a page here - total infrastructure program, $65.657m. That sounds impressive but $44.416m is revoted. That is a remarkable amount of money to be revoted; the majority of the total budget is from revoted works. From the government’s perspective, they had a chance to gloat about it and make announcements last year, and they will have the same opportunity to gloat and announce these programs again. There is probably nothing wrong with many of the programs in here but how many times do Territorians have to be told about them before they are actually delivered …
Mr Wood: Reinforcing.
Mr CHANDLER: Is that what it is? Reinforcing. Thank you, member for Nelson.
One of the big issues we have spoken about in this House before - and, whilst not directly under my portfolio it was mentioned by the member for Drysdale - is the $30m that has disappeared from the Darwin Port Corporation’s budget for a conveyor belt. Had it been constructed when the money was first allocated and promoted by this government, we may not have had some of the tragic spills we have had at the port. To see that money taken away from the budget this year does not send a good message about how we should be protecting our environment. There is a great deal of talk but there is little substance to what is actually delivered. The government says how important the environment is but, when it comes to actually delivering, delivers little.
I am the first to congratulate the government for setting up the EPA, and last year supported amendments to strengthen the EPA to give them those teeth. But now, as I said the other day, you have given them the teeth, they have taken a bite, and there is no indication yet from government as to how seriously it is going to take the recommendations and what action it is going to take. We will wait with bated breath and I hope the government is serious about looking after our environment.
I also noted under the Department of Education and Training a massive reduction in support for non-government schools, from $166m down to $140m, and that has much to do with the BER funding from the Commonwealth.
Fluffing up the figures in the budget papers last year with all this extra Commonwealth money and, then, in this year there is a big reduction, is why we have spikes and troughs and peaks in our budget cycles. This is where businesses go bust because we might have spent a lot of money for a few months or over a 12-month period and then, all of a sudden, there is nothing left. All those companies working hard on those programs last year find that all of a sudden there is no money this year. Perhaps the money should have been shared out a little better over a number of years.
Something the member for Nelson asked for the other day, and the minister stood up in this House and, without batting an eyelid, said he would ensure these attendance figures are put into the budget papers in future and, magically, they appeared. Here on page 101 are all the attendance rates and so forth ...
Mr Wood: Details that used to be there.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, it is still tragic to see. It is not for the lack of trying. This government has certainly tried with programs over the years. It has introduced recent legislation to improve attendance. I only have a few minutes to read out some of the horrendous attendance rates. There are several stark reminders of how successful the government thinks its programs are going to be. Looking at middle years education, attendance rates are around 89% for non-Indigenous and 70% for Indigenous - that is on page 102. The estimate for 2010-11 is 89% and 64% which, going by that, the Indigenous side of things is up on what they expected. However, if you have a look at 2011-12, they do not expect any improvement in their figures. In 2010-11, the figure is 70% and in 2011-12, they still expect 70% ...
Dr Burns: What number are we on again?
Mr CHANDLER: Page 102 in Budget Paper No 3. I do not quite understand. We have introduced new legislation that is going to achieve results; we are told it is going to achieve results. In our budget forecast - and I understand it is a forecast - you would think there would be 1% or 2% improvement in there to demonstrate the government feels it is going to get a dividend from its investment - a dividend from this new legislation. It is one of those areas where you wish there was a little more work on the vision, and some kind of willingness and understanding that the programs being introduced are going to work. I do not see it here.
There are other areas I would like to cover, but 10 seconds is not enough. It is an interesting process with the hospital. We certainly welcome a new hospital in Palmerston. I do not quite understand …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, your time has expired.
Mr CHANDLER: … the dichotomy between different governments in this country.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, today I talk on Budget 2011-12 …
A member interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: The member did not want an extension, young boy. Interjecting from the crowd like naughty little children.
It is a tradition of a Labor government to spend its way into deep debt. It is, unfortunately, not its debt; it is debt for all of us. It is not their credit card, but our liability. We are told $200 000 a day in interest is not that bad. The Treasurer said it is not that bad. As mentioned in Question Time today, in Victoria, per capita, the deficit is $287 this financial year. That will be going to $234 per person next financial year. In the ACT, it is $401 this financial year, growing to $944 per person next financial year. By contrast, the Northern Territory is not that badly off. The per person deficit is $1283, growing to a whopping $1683 per person next financial year. Apparently, that is not a bad spot to be in compared to some of the other states - Victoria is going to be only $234 per year. A bit of a difference - not too bad.
We see we are not too bad on the global front. We are only marginally behind the economic basket cases of Greece and Ireland, and worse than Portugal - as mentioned in Question Time today - and all of these countries have been begging the EU to save them. We are right amongst the mix in debt per capita, per Territorian, right amongst the worst in the world, and this Treasurer wants Territorians to believe we are not doing too badly; that we are doing pretty well. We are amongst the worst per capita in the world. Not that flash, but can be understandable at times.
In my electorate I welcome the upcoming water park. Thank you for putting it across the road from my electorate office - it is perfectly positioned. I can go for a quick swim, maybe a quick paddle. I can get out there and have a splash at lunchtime; keep up the physical training - fantastic. It is a great bit of entertainment. Not a critical piece of infrastructure, but definitely a great piece of entertainment for Territory people. I thank you for the sporting facilities in my electorate of Drysdale. They are great community facilities. I brought a motion before this House about sporting facilities, and that active kids and active minds deliver better education outcomes so, I certainly support greater facilities for our sporting teams in Palmerston. The rest of Darwin and anyone who wants to visit from Central Australia will also benefit from these facilities.
I am concerned about further changes in the budget to the cost of the water park. It is a fantastic entertainment facility. We have seen budget-on-budget changes to the figures surrounding it - the real cost. We see more costs this time to include the cost of an access road. This is, unfortunately, a systemic failing of Labor in failing to plan for something properly and missing a few things out. In the case of the water park, first, you failed to actually advise the owner of the land, to advise the council, and work out what exactly you wanted and, second, you have come to the point where you brought out your secondary crayon drawing and you failed to plan for the road access and car parks - pretty important things. I have seen the plan and quite like it; there will be some good stuff there. It will be quite enjoyable to use - and across the road from my electorate office, so that is fantastic.
The Arts and Museums area this year is down $2.4m, from $46.074m to $43.68m. Unfortunately, the arts sector continues to sit in a holding pattern with this Labor government. Libraries, a foundation stone of knowledge, history, and the future, remain in a holding pattern, even though all the costs have gone through the roof - electricity and water, and books cost more. There probably will be carbon tax on them too - you never know. Transport costs to get the books here will be more. I am proud to be one of the new generation of politicians who delivers books during Anzac Day ceremonies and on Remembrance Day. I see many people doing it, and I encourage that. It is adding to our history, our knowledge, and our education.
Houses and electricity cost more under this hard Labor government. Sports and recreation is down $8.3m. Territorians, however, are going to get some much hard-fought-for facilities. I am going to highlight some of them. These are positives. I just mentioned the Palmerston facility is a positive ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is a very important speech my colleague is making.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, we lack a quorum. Ring the bells. Thank you, we have a quorum.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and member for Braitling ...
Ms Scrymgour: If you said anything intelligent, we might be in here.
Mr BOHLIN: If that member could ever keep her mouth closed, it would be a miracle, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Palmerston sporting facilities are a plus but, if it not for the persistence of the presidents and committees of those various sporting clubs, they would have had fewer facilities because the government failed to plan in the first place during their election campaigns. It failed to plan an appropriate facility. It would have, if it followed the original government crayon drawing during the election campaign …
Ms Scrymgour: The crayon?
Mr BOHLIN: The crayon drawing. We kept them for you to prove you got those crayon drawings wrong. Instead of the Palmerston Magpies having a training oval and a main oval they would have had a game oval only. They would have had their practice oval turned into a Rugby and joint soccer field by this government. However, the presidents stuck in there as a community group, and worked well with the government to deliver some fantastic future facilities. We saw another great government spin on the news today, with the minister for Sport trying to kick a soccer ball. He missed it, he dropped it and, then, he nearly dropped his heart at the same time. The Palmerston Soccer Club is one of those going to benefit at the Gray Primary School.
Another positive is the Darwin Squash Courts, a facility that is fully booked most opening hours of most days. It is a well-used facility. I extend my congratulations to the Darwin Squash Association for its hard work and dedication, working with government and the opposition. It has achieved a great result, but it was public persistence and a very high-profile public campaign against the government to ensure they got their squash courts. I commend the government for listening to the public. Well done, three cheers ...
A member: Hip, hip!
Mr BOHLIN: Hooray, hip, hip, hooray! We will stop short of the extra one.
Minister for Sport, I note there is a loss in Sports Development of $3.3m. So, let us see a glossy media release advertising which developmental sports programs are going to be wiped from your scoreboard. Let us see a few media releases about the good news you have created there. We see a media release for everything else, so let us be honest and up-front. Let us see the media release detailing which sporting development program you will be cutting from your $3.3m.
Defence Support and Liaison: I am only going to mention one little part of this, but this goes back to when I worked on trucks in the Defence Force. As a former Defence member, I got my trade in the Australian Defence Force as a mechanic, working on trucks. The Defence Force is about to progress a roll-out of light and medium vehicles, a new fleet. It is vitally important the Territory government gets in there with local businesses that have been getting subcontract work to service, maintain and repair those vehicles, to get the appropriate lead in, through the feds, to get the training with the new Mercedes fleet that is coming through. They need to have the work. I was one of the first 12 Australian Defence Force mechanics trained on the ASLAVs when they first came in, and we were lucky. I do not care if I work with the ministers. Give us a call, Hendo - I withdraw that comment, sorry - member for Wanguri, give us a call, and let us talk about it, see if we can ensure the businesses get their bite, not just of the cherry, but a whole slice of the pie because, without the training, they will miss out. That was missing when we had the Land Rover roll-out from the Land Rover Australia, or Jaguar Australia, program. We need to watch that space and ensure we fill it properly, so businesses currently getting subcontract work continue to get subcontract work, and get whatever appropriate assistance is required.
I extend the hand of common work, and almost friendship, to work through some of this, since I have an understanding of the mechanical side, and of the new vehicles. Let us work together. The offer is there and it is yours for the taking, so we can work with businesses and the Defence Force to ensure we get something for them.
The Construction and Infrastructure portfolio is spread around and it is a difficult to chase all the bits and pieces. I note in Victoria, there was a $650m spend for flood repair relief to deal with the flood damage. In the NT, after Cyclone Carlos and the much-touted very long Wet causing flooded roads, on top of poor routine maintenance and poor routine substantial sealing of our major and minor roads, we see a national network cut of over $1m. It is not a big budget piece to start with; it was $20m last year and is now around the $19m mark. That is a cut to the repairs and maintenance; it is not the new works, which has a good chunk of money. It is the repairs and maintenance. That is the television ads the minister is wasting money on, telling people how they are fixing potholes. You have over $1m less this year! You cannot afford to be wasting it on television ads. That is crazy! We would not come in here and give you a little slap around if it was not for something as stupid as putting out television ads when you should be spending that money on doing repairs! It is ludicrous. We see a marginal increase on our Territory roads of $14m. This is the repairs and maintenance. This is not for new parts, but repairs and maintenance. We have had the touted Wet, the big Wet, and it is going to cost a lot of money to fix. We have seen communities entirely cut off. It is going to cost a lot and you are only throwing another $14m at it. In Victoria, after their floods, and in this Budget 2011-12, they are going to spend $650m just on that aspect of it. It had to be done. It is not a want, it is a need, and it had to be done.
If you look at photos like this of the Gilbert Swamp incident, just out of Alice Springs, that is not a big road …
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: Just out of Alice Springs, mate. Member for Nelson, I have driven that road a few times. As far as I am concerned, that is just out of Alice Springs - it is not far; it is not a big drive. Maybe for people from the southern states it is a big drive, but not here.
There is flooding and a washout near Wycliffe Well, literally at the front door. There is a major section of road totally ripped up, about 10 km north of Hi-Way Inn. The Arnhem Highway has spent an extraordinary amount of time under water. I know there is some money there for 20 km of particular upgrade - good stuff and about time. Let us see some detail. How high are you going to raise it? What is the detail? Is it going to become flood proof? Is it really there? It is important. It would be good to see it.
What about our cattle roads and our mining roads? Where is the next road delivering actual finance money back into the coffers?
If we go to the Darwin Port, on its infrastructure side - whilst we have engineering firms falling under the stress of the GFC and other business dealings, and business and employment under stress in general, and environmental spills, this government has pulled $30m from the overhead conveyor system. We still see the engineering and design work for a new overland conveyor – that is $3m. However, the actual spend for the engineering should have happened two years ago during the GFC when those engineering companies needed it. You had the money already allocated, so you should have spent it. You should have delivered it, and we may not have seen some of these environmental spills, we may not have seen the port corporation trotting in and out of court today. But, $30m has gone missing, ripped from the budget, ripped from the engineering companies that were ready and waiting to do that project. They were thinking about it. They knew where they were heading. They were forward planning for it. They saw you had it on the table, and were keen to do it, and they had the expertise in the Northern Territory to do it. Where has that $30m gone? I would like you to stand in front of those engineering companies and explain why you have pulled this when you planned for it two years ago. Explain to them and their employees why you have continued to put them at risk.
I will finish with some great news in response to the Country Liberals’ 2008 election campaign: the public’s passion and drive, commitment, signing of petitions, joining of Facebook pages, radio, Palmerston City Council driving it. The announcement of the new Palmerston rural hospital is great news, and I am sure they will not prevent rural people using it ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: I am sure you are right. Maybe the location is not the best, but at least we are getting something. It said $110m - $70m of federal money and $40m of Northern Territory money. It is, unfortunately, what the former Health minister called a cruel farce during the 2008 election campaign. Tut, tut, tut - naughty man. Well done to the Commonwealth for stepping up and seeing the public need. Well done to the Territory residents, the Palmerston residents, everyone involved, the radio stations, the council in Palmerston, for their efforts to get that hospital, and well done to the government for coming to the party in the end …
A member: Accepting the money.
Mr BOHLIN: For accepting the major part of the money, but still accepting it needed to happen. You cannot knock it back. It is brilliant news for Territory people. Even though it is not in this year’s budget, it was still a great announcement the day after the budget. It is a fantastic highlight for this time of the year.
The rest I will leave until estimates. I look forward to chasing that $30m you have now ripped away from the engineering companies, the continued spills you have been having, like Sunday at the port corporation, and where we see our roads going. The member for Braitling has been there. I have seen some photos of him there. I have been there, and I want to correct the record. The Construction and Infrastructure minister, the member for Barkly, suggested I get out of my air-conditioned office. On the last two weekends, I went down that road. I had a great time with some country people. I saw some of the upgrades and some of the pothole fills. The minister needs to pull his head from beneath wherever it is hiding and get on with the job.
Ms Purick: Hey! You were not even going to speak.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): You encouraged me to speak, member for Goyder.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a few words on the budget. Much has been said and the budget will be analysed in more detail in the Estimates Committee.
The government announced approximately $10m for a shires funding package to improve Indigenous employment opportunities in shires, including a $1.6m contribution from the Commonwealth, which I gather is part of the attempt to keep the CDEP program going. Whilst I welcome the contributions from the Commonwealth and NT governments, there are still many people on welfare. This process has been stop, start, stop, start. Over the last couple of years, money was invested and then the Commonwealth pulled out. More money was invested in CDEP and this is another attempt to keep the CDEP program going. The Commonwealth and NT governments need a long-term assessment of welfare and employment in remote communities. The shires funding is welcomed, but I would like to hear the NT government policy on welfare for people in remote communities who are either working for the dole, or not working at all. There is an opportunity to use our local government shires as a means of providing valuable employment and training. Welfare, as it is, is detrimental to the Northern Territory and continues a cycle that has continued far too long. If we are to give some hope - and I think the member for Drysdale spoke about it earlier - the welfare system has to change.
In relation to health, many people have spoken about the new hospital. It is surprising that one day after the budget no one seemed to know about it, and there is no mention of it in the budget. I am not sure how things work, especially if the NT government is putting $40m into it, one day after the budget. These hospitals just come out of the ground like mushrooms! That is why I ask that the Public Accounts Committee look at this issue. I am a supporter of a hospital, but the problem with announcements such as this is there are good feelings and nice words said, but there should be an independent assessment of the hospital. Is it going to be situated in the right place? What type of hospital is it going to be? Who is going to supply staff for the hospital? Where are they going to come from? We now educate our own doctors, but will there be enough to supply the medical staff required for the hospital? What is going to happen to Royal Darwin Hospital?
Many issues require assessment and this is a project the Public Accounts Committee should consider. This is $110m worth of public money, and we want to ensure we get the best value for that money. We should look at the potential growth of the Darwin area, including Weddell. We should also consider that the rural area will be growing - some say it should be grown maturely and retain its rural amenity. Regardless, there will be much growth in the rural area. For example, Coolalinga is growing exceedingly fast. The member for Brennan mentioned the opposition was considering a heritage site on the Stuart Highway, where the old United States hospital was, as a possible site for the new hospital. I do not want to be too parochial, but 100 m across the road on top of the hill on the corner of the Howard Springs, Lambrick Avenue, and Stuart Highway intersections is a large block of vacant land zoned Commercial. It is on the main highway near Palmerston and close to Howard Springs, Coolalinga, and Bees Creek residents. The new hospital site should be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. I would also like to know why the government announced the project, yet there is no reference in the budget.
A large amount of Commonwealth money and some Territory money is allocated to Remote Indigenous Housing through SIHIP, but I am concerned about communities that are not regarded as growth towns. I have still not heard a policy from the government. Page 113 of Budget Paper No 3 says:
- Provide and manage public housing to ensure Territorians in remote areas and town camps have access to safe, healthy, sustainable and affordable housing, including appropriate tenancy management and maintenance. Meet the needs of Indigenous and remote communities by providing new and upgraded housing and related infrastructure.
That worries me. If one read this document in isolation, it would appear the allocation will meet the needs of Indigenous and remote communities by providing new and upgraded housing, but it does not specify whether this will take place only in growth towns. There is a dire need for government, including the Commonwealth, to tell people in those communities what their future is. If there is no funding for new houses on places like Nauiyu, community morale will decrease. Nauiyu is a beautiful community, which had a healthy housing building team working for many years, but has built only one house since 2002.
I am interested to know where there are new houses at Nauiyu and how they have been funded. Peppimenarti, Palumpa, Milikapiti, Pirlangimpi, and many other communities, which you would not regard as outstations today, do not seem to have a future when it comes to housing and there is nothing in the budget to show they will get those houses. These are key issues the government needs to address.
It is good to see the government highlight a few matters relating to resources, or primary industry. The budget shows $3.5m to provide access and security of tenure for exploration, mining, petroleum, and geothermal activities, which I support. I hope geothermal energy becomes commercially viable because it will be good for the Northern Territory. There is also $5.3m to provide new generation geoscience data and to promote investment under Bringing Forward Discovery.
There is $1.75m to provide quality assured veterinary laboratory pathology and virology services to support diagnostic and research programs, and regulatory requirements in terrestrial and aquatic animal health and production, and a further $1.6m to support plant industries with entomology, plant pathology and agricultural chemistry services. These are basic industries that help our economy, are important for our economy, and it is good to see the government is putting money into those areas.
There are a couple of small questions. The Police budget shows the proportion of drivers breath tested who were detected for drink-driving offences. Budget 2011-12 says 4% for this year and the same next year. We have just introduced alcohol reform bills and I would like to see if that figure drops. A key indicator of whether the new alcohol legislation is working will be the proportion of drivers breath tested reducing from 4%. These figures will help us assess the workability of that legislation. Police also show the proportion of calls answered within 20 seconds at 80% for this year and next year. This is the first year of Territory-wide call centre monitoring. I rang the police number in Alice Springs a few months ago and, after five minutes, the phone rang out. I will be interested to see whether that figure stays at 80%, now that the statistics cover the whole of the Northern Territory.
There is money in Budget 2011-12 for special education, but the Prime Minister announced yesterday there would be funding of $200m to provide extra funding for students with disabilities. Is that money the same money shown on page 98 of the budget or is this new money? Special education requires more money because, whether you like it or not, special needs education is growing.
Regarding local matters, it is good to see money going to the swimming pool, the $1m hole as someone said in the NT News. It is a beginning that rural area people will welcome. I welcome the extension of the Girraween bicycle path that connects with the Coolalinga park-ride, which is due for completion by end of this month. There is money, some of it revoted money, for Freds Pass, which continues as the jewel in the crown for rural area sport.
Infrastructure improvements are needed, and the minister has accepted an invitation to view the traffic problems on Howard Springs Road. Things often change quickly and government needs to respond. Good Shepherd School – a middle- and secondary-school is growing rapidly. It is growing so rapidly that there are heavy traffic problems on Whitewood and Howard Springs Roads caused by Palmerston people dropping their children at the school and returning to Palmerston.
Police, Fire and Emergency Services is putting out a tender for a new aircraft. I wonder whether it will be a single engine or a twin engine aircraft? I also wonder about the location of the new Berrimah Fire Station. Many are hoping it will not be at the Wongabilla horse training area and I query why the minister did not tell us the location of the new fire station.
Budget 2011-12 is a budget, which I would refer to as ‘one back from the last budget before an election’. The history of budgets suggests it was not going to be a super-spending or necessarily popular budget. There are cuts in places. Next year you will be able to compare the two and observe that budgets go in political cycles, rather than economic cycles …
Dr Burns: Always political, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Budgets are always political, and it is not just this government - it is any government. You have a tough budget when first elected, followed by a couple of moderate budgets, keeping a few specials up your sleeves for the election. That is normal and the way it goes. We are in debt and need to repay the debt without too much strain on the economy, because we are a growing economy.
If you go back to the CLP days, tourism got going by the Territory government going into debt to build the Crowne Plaza – which was the Sheraton Hotel at the time - and the Ayers Rock Resort.
Governments sometimes have to go into debt to keep the economy going. It will be a matter of balance to ensure the debt is not a burden on future generations. If we keep the economy going in preparation for a boost when INPEX arrives, there will be less drain on government because the economy will drive itself.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will consider the budget in greater detail at estimates and will push to have the new hospital scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee before any hard and fast decisions are made.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am concerned about this year’s budget, particularly the projected doubling of nett debt from $1.1bn to $2.2bn over the next four years, even after per capita handouts from Canberra that are more than five times higher than most southern states. So much could ride on the resources boom into surplus. It might be the NT misses the mining boom altogether. The projection of a recurrent deficit of $387m for 2011-12, not including capital spending, should also ring alarm bells.
I will provide brief comments on my shadow portfolio areas and a few comments on areas pertinent to my electorate in the rural area.
The resources industry and associated downstream processing at Alcan’s Alumina refinery and Conoco’s LNG plant underpins our economy, and will continue to do so. Alumina and LNG production are in manufacturing figures, rather than resources industry figures, but the feedstock of bauxite and gas are included, and are closely related.
Contribution to gross state product stands at 25%. Mineral royalties account for $162m, and the resources industry is a major user of products and services across the economy. Whilst the resources industry is not, and does not claim to be, a big employer due to its capital-intensive operations, it is responsible for considerable indirect employment and regional development, including the development and construction of ports, airfields, and telecommunication links in remote parts of the Northern Territory.
The Territory is blessed with an abundance of both mineral resources and potential for further mineral and petroleum developments, which is well-known and well-documented. In past times, we were fortunate to have many mines, most small to medium, that allowed towns to develop and prosper and hopefully will continue to do so. Some projects exhausted their resource and closed, and some fell foul of global prices and management complexities. Over the past 15 years, the Territory’s resources industry has weathered many storms, but the environment is getting tighter and more competitive. We need to be aware of the challenges ahead and the impact these challenges will have on the resources industry in the Territory.
Exploration is fundamental to the success of the resources industry and no exploration equals no mining. A key factor is geology but companies also look for enabling irregularity and taxation frameworks. These factors will drive exploration in the Territory, especially for the smaller explorers, or junior companies, as referred to by the industry. I will come back to that either at a later stage or through estimates.
Currently, there is a level of uncertainty regarding the future of the exploration industry, from which the Territory is not exempt. Despite an increase in mineral exploration levels, real mineral activity, measured in actual metres drilled, is well down on the record levels of the 1990s. Most Australian and Northern Territory major projects were discovered during the 1960s exploration boom: Gemco, Alcan, McArthur River, and Ranger - Ranger is perhaps a little later.
As I said previously, we have small to medium mines that come and go, but we are yet to bring online a new world-class deposit, such as Jabiluka, and look where that project sits currently. We need long-term mining projects and the economic stability from a 20-year-plus mine.
In addition to lower drilling levels, the industry is focusing more on brownfields rather than greenfields, exploration. New projects are more likely to come from greenfields areas where little or no exploration has taken place, and that is what we need to encourage.
There is an Australia-wide move towards bulk commodities exploration, such as iron ore and coal, which are not, or are not known to be, in abundance in the Northern Territory. The trend is away from base metals and gold, where we do have a good level of mineral occurrences.
I encourage the minister to obtain a copy of an industry paper titled Exploration Policy – A Response to the Policy Transition Group Issues Paper. Perhaps he has it already. This paper details the future challenges for exploration, and is a very good report by the minerals industry. The minister and the government needs to heed the warnings in that report as they are real and might have serious implications for the Territory and its future industry.
Another report the minister is aware of, has read, and used widely in his comments and debates, is the Fraser Institute report. The report contains specific examples of where the Territory does well. It also contains examples where we did not rate well. In the past two years, we rated poorly in relation to government policy and taxation regimes; notably, when the Commonwealth government proposed the introduction of a mining tax. It will be interesting to read the latest report with regard to the mining tax, coupled with the prospect of a carbon tax.
I welcome a further round of funding commitment to the geological survey exploration program in this budget and commend the government for again committing to a three-year cycle. It is important to maintain our minerals competitiveness against the states, and minerals competitive countries, because we not only compete for the exploration dollar in Australia, we compete with overseas countries and states.
Intense competition for the exploration dollar means government has a key role to play in providing an environment conducive to exploration expenditure investment. This program provides that incentive and, given the issues I previously highlighted, it is imperative that this government-sponsored program continues. I know the minister understands this position, but I am unconvinced that his colleagues fully understand.
Regarding the proposed establishment of a Central Australian mining team with a price tag of $0.69m, I query what the team will actually do and what value it will add by its location in Central Australia. Why is there suddenly a need to have a team in Alice Springs? I understand there are departmental staff based in Alice Springs so, who are these proposed people, where are they being sourced from, and what will they be given to do, given the government does not appear to support exploration in Central Australia - notably by its collapse of support for the Cameco Paladin joint venture?
My shadow responsibility area of Fisheries includes both commercial and amateur fishing. I stress the commercial because, at times, the minister takes his eye off the importance of the commercial fishing industry. His comment at a public meeting that commercial fishing people ‘just over-fish’ was unsupportive of the commercial seafood industry.
Fishing people will welcome money allocated for work on improvements to boat ramps and associated facilities, and equipment for the Palmerston boat ramp area. I do not see plans or proposals for new boat ramps. Where is the planning for new boat ramps, given the strong growth of our recreational fishing industry. I see no reference to plans or funding commitments for the many commercial fishing charter industry operators. They, too, have their challenges regarding the current regime, and access to areas and docks.
I query the total cost of the Blue Mud Bay settlement proposal. We know government wants to register boats, so how will this be implemented, what will it cost, how will it be achieved, and how will it be regulated? What will be the impact of the Blue Mud Bay settlement on the commercial seafood industry? These are questions I will explore during the estimates process.
Regarding the pastoral industry, there is a paltry amount of money for beef roads – a disgraceful level of funding! Serious damage to the road network by this year’s Wet Season has elicited no government commitment to fix the main roads used by the pastoral industry. Large washouts, potholes, shoulder edge erosion, and the generally poor state of the roads will affect travel times, and wear and tear on pastoral industry trucks and vehicles. What is the government’s plan to fix our main highways and main roads? Will it support the pastoral industry by providing serious money to fix the roads?
I welcome money allocated, as it should be, to biosecurity, vet labs and research. We need these types of government activities, to work with industries, and to grow and prosper these industries. There is little further mention of the agricultural industry, so I am curious about funding for new crop research, outside of the $180 000 for rice trials, and funding commitments for the mango industry and mango research and development. I welcome that funding because mangoes and bananas are the two products most likely to sustain agricultural industry growth and development.
I reserve my comments regarding Building Advisory Services for estimates.
Regarding my electorate, Palmerston gets a $12.5m water park with slides and, no doubt, free entry. The rural area gets $1m for earthworks, or a hole in the ground, which, if we have a big Wet Season, will probably fill up and we will have our own swimming pool. Will the minister and government fully commit to building a swimming facility in the rural area, though through my consultations and discussion I am advised there will be no change out of $67m. $1m is a start, but is a long way short from the rural area getting a safe and secure swimming facility, particularly for schoolchildren. Currently, if a rural area school embarks on a swimming program, they incur additional costs to transport students to the closest swimming pool, which is Palmerston.
More money for Freds Pass Reserve is good news, as this reserve is an excellent sports and recreation facility. I urge the government to consider additional assistance to some of the groups based at the reserve, as club facilities are old and in dire need of upgrade, including the Southern Districts Cricket Club and the Litchfield Bears. Both those clubs presented written proposals to government with strong support from communities, the members for Nelson and Daly, and from me. I encourage government to seriously consider the proposals and open their coffers to help the growing number of people in the rural area, particularly juniors, who are taking up sport and recreational activities.
I noted funding for preservation of the World War II site at the 17 Mile, which is good news. The member for Nelson advised me that it is not actually the 17 Mile, it is Palmerston – part of the old hospital site on Lambrick Avenue. I do not have a problem with claiming Lambrick Avenue as part of the rural area, but believe the location should be accurately stated. It is important to preserve our history, and recognise our war involvement, so I thank the government for putting funding towards that heritage site.
Extra funding for special education at Taminmin College is welcomed as many rural area colleges and schools require extra funding for a range of activities, including special education. Taminmin College and the community will be appreciative. Next year, we might see a commitment for more money for the community library, or facilities associated with the library, given that it services the college community, and the residents in the Taminmin area.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave my comments about the budget there. Much more could have been done, particularly for the rural area. Times are tight in our economy, but regarding statements by the Treasurer about the global financial crisis; that is gone, and we need to move on and stop harking back to it. We need to plan better for the future, particularly for the development of the rural area, because that is where most pressure will come in regard to future developments - whether it be development of land; or provision of essential services such as power, water, and sewerage. I look forward to the Estimates Committee and asking more questions of the ministers in my areas of shadow responsibility.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, once again this Labor government rolls a budget into parliament and expects the community to believe that it can deliver it; to believe the spending commitments and the revenue forecasts; to believe in the infrastructure investments and the debt calculations. Can I believe that as I pick up this document? Can I believe that it is all in here? Well, no. This is a budget of deficit, debt, and deceit. While you might expect me to talk about the debt and the deficit, I will first talk about the deceit. The deceit so manifest in this government that it cannot go one day after the budget before breaking its promise to Territorians. That promise is about the truth, honesty, and debt.
The government would have Territorians believe that yesterday’s Palmerston hospital announcement was a bolt out of the blue, that weeks or months of negotiating a $100m investment and delivering a huge budget promise just happened the day after the Territory books were tabled for 2011-12. Are we expected to believe …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We lack a quorum. Ring the bells, please. A quorum is present.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are we expected to believe the Commonwealth treats the Territory like the US-Pakistan relationship? In the Territory’s case, the government was hoping for a helicoptering in of cash rather than troops, but, when the rubber hit the road, the Territory government was caught with its pants down.
The Palmerston hospital announcement is a deliberate attempt to deceive the Territory public, to keep $40m of extra debt and operating costs off the books in the forward estimates, to attempt to gazump the opposition’s budget reply. One expects that of the Labor government’s spin factory and its federal Labor mates,, but that is not the only game the Labor government is playing. It is keeping its new gaol and the aeromedical contract out of the books. The deceit goes further than that. There is no mention of the aeromedical contract in Budget 2011-12 in terms of a line item in Budget Paper No 2 or No 4, but it is mentioned in the regional highlights, Katherine region page 11 under Better Health; $31.6m to acute care services including patient travel, road and aero- retrieval transport services provided through the Katherine Hospital. If it rates a mention there, why is it not a line item in the budget?
Mr Knight: What about rating a mention in personal explanations about the Ombudsman’s report?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Knight: It did not rate a mention in your personal explanation. You are a bit of a carpetbagger.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Daly!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Tens of millions of dollars in debt to deliver a core service that should be in the budget and in these books, but instead we have deceit. Critically, for the future of Territorians, we have debt, absolute mountains of debt, debt to rival the world economy basket cases of Portugal, Ireland, and Greece. While the EU is bailing out the PIGs, the Territory government is likely waiting for the Commonwealth to bail us out, to take on more responsibility than the current 82% Commonwealth funding we receive, more responsibility than the intervention or progressing statehood, more Commonwealth responsibility than Territorians should tolerate.
The Territory Labor government rolled over on the mining tax, but slugged our own miners 2% extra last year. It rolled over on the health and hospital network, and it is rolling over on Territory debt.
I spoke earlier about the PIGs and the government, and they are one and the same when it comes to debt. Portugal has a national debt of 88% of GDP, Ireland has a national debt of 99% of GDP, and Greece has a national debt of 158% of GDP. The Territory has a debt and liabilities bill of 169% of GDP, which I will follow up on later. The comparison is: Portugal owes $20 000 per person and the Territory in 2011-12 owes $26 000. That will blow out, so we will owe $31 000 in a couple of years - almost as bad as Ireland which is currently $39 000 per person and Greece at $45 000 per person.
Regarding the budget deficit, our allocation from the GST pool is $2.657bn and our own source revenue is $864m, a total of $3.521bn. Where is the rest of the budget spending - the $5bn expenses in 2011-12? It is capital investment, the money from borrowings, and it is delivering more than $800m in Commonwealth partnership spending. The Treasurer will confirm the Territory does not make a profit from delivering Commonwealth services and national partnerships. It is money in and money out, and no debt is created as it is attributable to the Commonwealth.
What state would the Territory be in if it was also racking up credit card debt for the Commonwealth? If the NT spends more on linking in with the Commonwealth’s $872m spend, it does so from its discretionary income or by adding to its debt. The same applies with infrastructure - it pays for it from discretionary GST or own source revenue or from debt. This year, the budget deficit is projected at $375m, so the discretionary spending is $3.521bn, and the government is spending unallocated revenue plus the debt, a total of $3.896bn.
The Commonwealth is not going to pay back the Treasurer’s debt with its tied grants. It is not like the EU bailing out the PIGs; it is your GST and own source income that will do it. In Budget 2011-12, the real ratio of deficit to earning figures is 10.68%. This government is spending 10% more income than it receives. It is maxing out the credit card and putting the Territory into hock. Treasurer, I will put that question to you repeatedly until you correct the public record and provide an answer. When exactly will you have a budget surplus? You refused to correct the public record about 2015, so when will it be? When there is a surplus you will have to deal with the accumulated non-financial public sector estimate for nett financial liabilities, which for 2011-12, is $5.946bn.
This year, we have $3.521bn in discretionary income and $5.946bn in liabilities. That is a true ratio of non-financial public sector nett financial liabilities to attributable income of 169%. Welcome to the PIGs, Treasurer. You are quick to point out that total debt is low compared to international basket cases, but what about per person? In 2014-15, per man, woman, and child, you are lumbering them with $31000 each. What about the ratios? A spend that is 10% more than earnings. What about liabilities at 169%? The Treasurer has put the Territory into hock and Labor does not have a plan to pay it back.
I spoke about deficit, debt, and deceit, which arise from your incompetence, and lack of commitment to save excess GST revenue and control ballooning expenses, and lack of commitment to productive investments in infrastructure. We have a government that simply lacks commitment. I am proud to say that the Country Liberals have commitment - commitment to deal with the mess the Labor government is delivering and to bring real action and direction to government.
I now turn to a centrepiece of the Leader of the Opposition’s reply, the sale of NT Fleet. NT Fleet has $90m in assets and earns $15m per annum, from which it pays $5m in tax. A $10m actual profit comes from income of $51m - a nice 20% return for the department. NT Fleet is a government body that charges other government agencies for providing services. It has an effective monopoly, and monopolies are inherently inefficient. NT Fleet does not profit from commercial activities or competition; it profits from the business needs of departments. One department pays another in a pseudo shell game, moving money around departments - something like the government’s shell game with national partnership payments, Palmerston hospital funding, and the aeromedical contract - which creates an impression but adds to deceit.
The Country Liberals’ concept is that departments will instead under-pay private sector suppliers to do the same task as NT Fleet. We recognise the efforts of the 33 NT Fleet staff, but I can think of at least one national leasing and fleet managing organisation with 10 times that number of staff and $1bn of assets under fleet management. Another has 30 000 vehicles under management. NT Fleet does not manage Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ vehicles, as it has its own arrangements. Can the Treasurer advise the commercial arrangements for departments that spend money on vehicles and what comparisons can be made with NT Fleet?
Let us get the best deal for Territory taxpayers. If you do not open the fleet to competition, you cannot realistically say you are getting the best deal. The sale of NT Fleet is about debt. We estimate NT Fleet has an enterprise value of at least $150m, estimated in two ways. The first is the amount of debt that $10m in after tax income would service. At 5%, that $10m will service $200m of government debt. At 7%, it will service just under $150m. That is one figure; a range bound by high and low valuations. Second is the return on assets. The assets of NT Fleet are $90m and a straight-out sale of assets would raise $90m, but this is an enterprise with a monopoly position and a monopoly profit, and it returns 11% on its assets. The real value of the organisation is well above its asset position, which we estimate to be at least $150m.
Selling NT Fleet for not less than $150m is no different to setting an indicative price range for the float of a national asset like Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, or Queensland Rail - all ex-government-owned companies - which have a return on capital and an expectation of a profit. We will take advice as to the upper target, but the sale will reduce debt, and improve efficiency and productivity through competition.
Good wages and jobs drove economic prosperity in the Territory until 2009, but the wheels have since fallen off, which is reflected in this budget. Our biggest contributing sector, mining, is providing lower than projected royalty payments this year, notwithstanding the 2% increase in royalty rates foisted on the industry. Property taxes are 20% lower and not forecast to recover in 2011-12. Gaming and gambling taxes are lower due to government policy and the inept introduction of smoking regulations. Own-source revenue is down 5% in 2010-11 and, you cannot trust that the books are representative if spending commitments are missing. Are the 2011-12 revenue projections believable? We had best hope so or the nett result will be more debt.
Other members spoke about the revote of works. In touching briefly on that, I turn to my electorate of Katherine to look at what the budget says are the infrastructure highlights and the items in A Working Future in the Regional Highlights document. Some infrastructure highlights ring a bell as they were in last year’s budget, and there are a couple that might have been in the year before. Construction of a high-level bridge over the Cullen River was promised last year but the money was not spent, which reminds me about the appalling state of the Stuart Highway. I recently wrote to the minister for Infrastructure regarding the state of the Stuart Highway. There has been some repair work, ,but when I wrote I was not necessarily concerned with the issue of the damage to the roads caused by recent heavy rains this past Wet Season, but rather the lack of strategic maintenance of the Stuart Highway over the past 10 years.
I have been in the Northern Territory since the end of 1984 and remember the days when you drove across the border from any other state and were met by absolutely divine Northern Territory roads. They were absolutely beautiful. There was not a pothole in sight and the Stuart Highway was something to behold. Since moving back to Katherine 10 years ago, and travelling often between Katherine and Darwin, I have seen that road slowly disintegrate. There are patches upon patches upon patches. Much of the Stuart Highway is in need of strategic repair. I do not mean putting a bit of bitumen in a pothole and tamping it down. This is about taking up sections of the Stuart Highway which are in need of major work and re-sheeting those sections of road. I have not seen any proper re-sheeting activities take place on that road for at least two years. There is no excuse for that. It is a federally-funded road, and unless funding arrangements have changed, the Northern Territory simply does the repairs and strategic maintenance, and sends the bill to the federal government. Is that correct?
Mr Tollner: That is correct.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. Unless there is an arrangement between the Northern Territory and federal governments to reduce spending on the Northern Territory’s largest and most important piece of infrastructure, then that is a question someone in the government might ask themselves.
Turning back to Katherine, I note other revoted works include the extension of renal facilities at the Katherine Hospital and associated renal services promised in Budget 2010-11. We have not seen that yet, but herein lies the deceit, the sneaky way in which the Territory government chose a site for the satellite renal unit in Katherine without any community consultation. The first anyone in Katherine knew about the proposed location for the renal unit was a planning notice in the Katherine Times, fortunately picked up by diligent locals, who made further inquiries. The deceit continues. The government has a planning process in place, so it can go through that process, consult with and obtain the support of the community or otherwise. In this case, the land requires subdivision. The subdivision application went before the DCA in Katherine yesterday and, if approved, will progress to a planning application for the actual building and the service.
If the process was transparent, and the government wished to be accountable, it would go through that process before it let the tender for those renal services. The tender document for the satellite renal services in Katherine shows the government decided - before it had gone to planning, before the subdivision approval, before any other planning approvals, before any consultations with the community, and before any feedback - that that renal satellite unit was going to be in Katherine East. The document says so. So even before any of the processes were done, this government had a tender document out for satellite renal services in Katherine East!
Are you trying to tell me that you did not know you were going to put it there? I am confused about the process. Not more than two years ago, the government sold a block of land on Casuarina Street for the purpose of a residential subdivision. Did they know then that there was going to be a proposal for a satellite renal unit in Casuarina Street, virtually right next door to the new residential subdivision? There was no mention of it when the land was sold to the developer. Where is the transparency in this government? I hear that the only criteria to be met for the site was that it was to be outside the flood zone. Never mind that it is next door to a residential subdivision. Never mind that it is opposite a primary school and an early learning childcare centre.
Going back to electorate issues, much of the other work listed under A Working Future is revoted; SIHIP, revoted; Yarralin airstrip, I am pretty sure that is revoted from last year; the same as the Lajamanu airstrip; and upgrades to the Buntine Highway. There is little in here for Katherine that is new, and Katherine needs new infrastructure to promote growth.
We are a town of 10 000 people that cannot grow because we have had little land released over the past 10 years - the last lot was the first land release in 10 years. Katherine is not on the planning map for this government and there is no strategic plan for Katherine. Tim Baldwin, the then minister for Lands and Planning, or Planning and Infrastructure, or whatever it was in 2001, published the last strategic plan for Katherine 11 years ago. I presume this government knows about the document, but it probably sits on a shelf gathering dust. The proposal for a renal unit in Katherine East does not fall within the guidelines of that plan, so if there is another plan, I would love to see it, but that is not in the government’s thinking because Katherine is often left out and thrown the crumbs.
I am not the only person who thinks that about regional parts of the Northern Territory. Yesterday, the executive officer of the Cattlemen’s Association said on the ABC, with respect to regional roads and cattle roads, regional Northern Territory is being thrown crumbs by this government, and I agree. The Treasurer and those opposite are happy to trot out the nice, positive comments from industry groups around the place, give them a little pat on the back, tell them what a great job they have done, but there is someone in the Northern Territory who is happy to speak up and say it like it is. The Cattlemen’s Association chief executive described it as a disgrace – and it is an absolute disgrace!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a great honour to respond to this pathetic budget. The Treasurer has proved she is a master of spin and one could mistakenly believe it is all rosy in the Northern Territory.
I quote from P J O’Rourke:
- Giving money and power to government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys.
He should have said that giving money and power to Labor governments is like giving whisky and keys to teenagers, as proved by this Labor government, which is drunk on spending and has no answers to anything other than spending money. The shadow Treasurer was dead right when he said it is a budget of debt, deficits, and deceit. The deceit flows through this document and is alarming for the future of the Northern Territory.
Yesterday in Question Time, the Infrastructure minister was questioned about potholes in the roads. In Question Time today, he said I was well-travelled and well-balanced. A wonderful compliment, minister, and it is true that I am well-travelled. The past couple of months, I have been up and down the track of the Northern Territory, and I am absolutely appalled at the roads. It is no skin off the government’s nose patching up the Stuart Highway - it is the national highway. It just orders and has the work done, and hits the Commonwealth with the bill. It is as simple as that. It does not have to scrimp and save or find money to repair the Stuart Highway. But, as is the wont of this government, it cannot do that without an advertising campaign telling people it is fixing potholes – quite unbelievable! I found it most amusing that the government has stopped using Hector the Road Safety Cat ...
Dr Burns: He had his foot broken.
Mr TOLLNER: He was the flagship of this government. Hector might still be recovering after being hit by a bus whilst giving road safety lessons at Berry Springs School ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, do not pick on Hector. Get back to the subject.
Mr TOLLNER: The last time we spoke of Hector the Road Safety Cat, we learnt the minister had actually dressed up from time to time …
A member: Twice.
Mr TOLLNER: Twice, he tells us. He dressed up twice as Hector the Road Safety Cat.
In any case, the new pothole advertising campaign does not feature Hector the Road Safety Cat and we can only scratch our heads and wonder why. Perhaps he was not such a good advert for road safety after all, particularly after being hit by a bus at the front of the Berry Springs School - very sad.
As the member for Katherine said, road spending is paltry. The Territory relies heavily on regional, rural, and remote services. Much of our wealth and fortune comes from those areas. The least we can do, and what we need to do to build a future for the Northern Territory, is develop those areas. Sadly, there is nothing forward looking or visionary in this budget. It papers over problems, tries to hide mistakes, and comes out with titbits it can sell to the population - very sad, indeed.
A Treasurer concerned about the future of the Territory should identify threats to our economy, but it is not her wont to do that. You would think the first threat identified would be the proposed mining tax of the federal Labor government, but there is no mention of it. This Labor government is no friend of mining and has done whatever it can, for a long period, to make life as difficult as possible for miners. I see people smiling because they have been lobbying, working behind the scenes, trying to ensure some mines are inhibited. I recall the McArthur River Mine debacle. We wanted the government to defend the mine - a mine that is 5% of our GSP - and expected the government would be in there, boots and all, doing what it could to salvage the future of the mine. This government sat idly by and did absolutely nothing. It was caught up in internal bickering between a couple of progressive people and the anti-development, anti-everything majority in the party - terrible shame.
You would think carbon tax would be identified as a future threat. This is a great big tax on everything. If government believes Ms Gillard is true to her word, it should be identifying the carbon tax as a threat to our future. The Territory is a fledging economy. We have a lot of growing to do and it is difficult to do that with the shackles of the carbon tax hanging around our necks. The Treasurer should at least pass observation on it. I was disappointed today in Question Time, when I asked the Chief Minister whether he would be lobbying Canberra with the will of this parliament, because this parliament clearly demonstrated its will last night when it voted to support a campaign to have the Northern Territory exempted from carbon taxes for 50 years.
The government should take that on board and start a campaign, but the Chief Minister says no. He says we do not deal in hypotheticals. We do not know what is going to be in this carbon tax or what is going to be out. It is all hypothetical. As drafting takes place, industries, businesses, organisations, non-government organisations, and unions are in Canberra arguing for their fair share. What is our mob doing here? They are burying their heads in the sand saying: ‘Oh, no. It is all roses. It is nothing to do with us. This is just about dirty, brown coal-fired power stations in Victoria’. What a load of nonsense! This is a new tax on everything: everything we use, the services and products we buy, every time we drive somewhere. It is a tax on everything. The government has some responsibility for the future aspirations of Territorians, and should be ensuring we get a decent deal, not burying its head in the sand.
There is no agriculture support in this budget, but this government is anti-farming and anti-agriculture. It is not what it says, it is what it does. It shut down the Berrimah Farm research facility. That was shut down. It is almost impossible to get a drop of water out of the ground anywhere in the Northern Territory, which is an ongoing issue. Government talks nonsense like: ‘We do not want to see the Daly River turn into another Murray Darling’, or ‘We do not want to see the Roper River turn into another Murray Darling’. The Murray Darling has 64 000 farms scattered along it and produces almost half of Australia’s produce. There are not 64 000 farms in the whole of the Northern Territory, let alone scattered along the banks of the Daly River or the Roper River. We could almost pump completely …
Dr Burns: You almost said – you had better find another way around that now.
Mr TOLLNER: We can pump a lot of water out of those rivers with little effect, more water than any single farmer would ever need. In the Top End, our aquifers recharge every Wet Season, and we can pump water from them quite sustainably, but this government constantly prevaricates about allowing farmers and agriculturalists to take water.
There is going to be tree clearing legislation: ‘Oh, my goodness, we have wiped out most of the trees in the Northern Territory’. Get real. This is another attack on farming and agriculture. We do not clear-fell broadacre areas in the Northern Territory. It is madness to think farmers would contemplate doing that. The reality is, where trees are cleared in areas with arable soils, we need to be maximising those areas, getting them producing, and allowing mums and dads and organisations to make those lands productive. No one is advocating clearing the trees out of the whole of the Northern Territory, but this government acts as though that is the great threat, the same as it acts as though our waterways are going to be turned into Murray Darling-like rivers and resources. That is so far from reality, it is not funny.
These are threats we face. The budget is debt ridden with a huge deficit. As the shadow Treasurer said, with a budget of approximately $4.3bn, the government is spending approximately $5bn. Giving money and power to Labor governments is like giving whisky and keys to teenagers, it is complete madness. Throughout her speech, the Treasurer emphasised a responsible budget. Responsible - you have to be joking! Where is the responsibility? Where is the preparation for the future?
I was part of a former federal government which had a good name for economic responsibility and managing budgets. That government proved itself a responsible economic manager because it put away for the future. Not only did it deliver surplus budgets, but it hived money away at every budget for looming problems. The Future Fund was set up to cover the superannuation entitlements of Commonwealth government employees. Where is a similar fund being set up here in the Northern Territory? We have a looming superannuation bill and this government appears to bury its head in the sand and say: ‘No, that is not actually happening. Someone in the future can pay for that. Our kids can pay for that. We do not really have to worry about that sort of stuff now’. We set up a telecommunications fund to ensure funding for the telecommunications needs of people in the bush. The Commonwealth government put money into the HEEF fund, the Higher Education Endowment Fund, to provide for future higher educational services. Responsible economic managers set these things up.
What is this government setting us up with – a whole lot of debt. The Treasurer says: ‘It is not a big deal. We do not have a great deal of debt. Compare us to Portugal and Greece’. Goodness me, you could not find any more broken economies. How absolutely ridiculous! The PIGs, as the member for Katherine refers to Portugal, Ireland, and Greece, are broken economies, and this is what our Treasurer compares us to. Absolutely appalling stuff! This moribund government is fresh out of ideas - well, not fresh out of ideas; it has been out of ideas since the day it was elected, and it talks about being responsible.
The government spins that at breakfasts and the like and, quite rightly, people attending those breakfasts and lunches are thrilled that the Treasurer, and sometimes the Chief Minister, graces them with their presence. The Treasurer gives a flowery speech about a budget that almost no one has seen, or has had only a couple of hours to flick through, and they see only the headlines the Treasurer wants them to see, and the response is predictable. Government runs around saying businesses welcome this. Go down the track and ask farmers, miners or people in the tourism industry whether they welcome it. They will shake their heads and not know whether they welcome it or not because most people, at that stage, would not have a clue. Real, live Territorians often shake their heads and wonder what the hell this government is doing with all the money.
The Treasurer spoke about the cost of alcohol in our community and we had a big debate on the topic today. The Treasurer says alcohol costs the Northern Territory $642m a year. What is government’s response to that? The government’s response is the $10.9m Enough is Enough campaign; $5.2m for enhanced alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services; $4.7m for the banned drinker register and ID scanners; and $1m to establish an Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. Almost half the money is going into a banned drinker register; that is, we are going to belt the hell out of all decent Territorians who like to have a drink; we are going to inconvenience every Territorian because of the actions of a few. And what about those few? People bandy around the figure of 800 problem drinkers, maybe more.
Let us say there are 1000 problem drinkers. We are going to spend $5.2m sending them to rehabilitation for treatment, which is not compulsory. This government does not demand a person who has an illness, or cannot behave in the community, go into mandatory detention or rehabilitation. It will not come at that, but will spend a paltry $5.2m, which it could double by not penalising the hell out of every other Territorian. We all know who the drunks are. Talk to the police: they know who the drunks are and arrest them every night. Place those arrested half a dozen times over a few weeks into mandatory rehabilitation. Instead of a banned drinker register, put the money into compulsory rehabilitation services. It is ridiculous to spend half a $10.9m budget setting up a register, which inconveniences everyone. H ridiculous!
The current Housing minister has done a good job, and his vigour impresses me. I did not gatecrash his media conference today, but I did listen to part of it as I was due to speak to the media immediately afterwards. I heard the minister’s explanation to a reporter about the three strikes and you are out policy for people who muck up in public housing establishments. I was impressed because it was the first time in a long time I have seen a minister who appeared to have the courage of his convictions. When asked: ‘What are you going to do with these people once you have kicked them out of a public housing place?’ he said: ‘I do not care. They are in a taxpayer subsidised place, they are being subsidised by the taxpayer for their income, and if they are not behaving themselves they can get out, and what they do from there I do not care’. I thought: good on you, minister - a bit of tough love. In my electorate, I have made a couple of calls to the minister and he has been as good as his word. He has booted a few people out of Territory Housing units to the delight of the majority of the residents - some of the bad eggs have been moved on. So ...
Dr Burns: Too bad I cannot do it in here, hey?
Mr TOLLNER: I am sure you would love to do it in here, minister. The way this minister is doing his job in this area is quite good, but this is what the Treasurer said in relation to housing:
- This budget continues the $49 m commitment to build 150 new homes over three years, including the Larapinta and Bellamack seniors’ villages and 42 one- and two-bedroom units.
We are about 5000 houses short because this government flogged off so many of these …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Sales of public housing commenced under a previous government, but this government has done nothing to rectify the situation only aggravated the circumstances. The Treasurer said: ‘Oh, this is a great thing, we are building 15 new joints over three years’. Fifty a year will not scratch the surface. We speak of a housing crisis and an affordability crisis in the Northern Territory, but get caught up at times talking about land release, and forget other strategies that can improve housing affordability and housing availability. One of those strategies is ensuring adequate public housing stock. What does this government promise when we are right in the middle of the worst ever housing crisis the Northern Territory - 150 new homes over three years and 42 one- and two-bedroom units. How pathetic! From a $5bn budget, the best the Treasurer can do is 50 houses and 20-odd units in a year. How absolutely pathetic - and the Treasurer says it is a responsible budget!
This Treasurer would not present a budget without all the goodies racked in right at the back. There is $1m for site works for the Litchfield swimming pool. Well, my little baldy-headed mate who sits on my left, now has a $1m hole at Freds Pass …
Mr Conlan: Do not be too hard on us.
Mr TOLLNER: He could not even get the pool built in his own electorate. In any case …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not know if that was parliamentary, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: What is that?
Mr Conlan: Follicley challenged.
Mr TOLLNER: Walking on eggshells here, aren’t we? $1m for a hole in the ground. Goodness me, if I had the balance of power and had been stuffed around the way this poor bloke has for over a year-and-a-half, I would be giving the game away. People say: ‘What are we going to do about Gerry? We better talk to Gerry; we will get the government to do something’. A year-and-a-half or two years he has been in this job and the best he can manage is a promise of a hole in the ground - a $1m hole in the ground. By the time he picks up his super and goes, a future government might be talking about laying the concrete and tiles, putting a fence up, and filling this hole with water …
Dr Burns: From the Daly River.
Mr TOLLNER: Possibly, it might be the last of our water stocks. There is $8.1m for Rugby League, $4m for a 12-court squash facility, and good on the squash guys. They have done it hard and deserve a break. No squash facility in Darwin and we have a couple of Australian representatives. It is a feat-and-a-half to be able to play squash for Australia when you do not have a squash court in Darwin. There is $5.1m for tennis and netball facilities in Palmerston, and $4.3m for soccer facilities in Palmerston. I love seeing netball and soccer getting a bit of a go, because these sports are left behind. Netball and soccer are probably the largest participation sports in the Northern Territory. This money is not going out for free, they expect it to come back in votes.
The government will spend $10m for a Defence of Darwin Museum. You talk about revoted works and …
A member: Clare Martin.
Mr TOLLNER: I remember having discussions with Clare Martin in 2001. I suggested the museum should go to East Point, but she did a big study and it had to go anywhere but East Point.
A member: Next door.
Mr TOLLNER: I remember it was going next door. Poor old Clare got knifed and the new bloke suddenly decided to wind that one back, maybe we will go to East Point. I think we have a new federal member now, and the decision was changed. There were promises back in 2001 that they were going to build this Defence of Darwin Museum somewhere in Darwin, but we find it in 2010-11.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, time just flies.
I was talking about the Defence of Darwin Museum. If people believe this rot, they have rocks in their head. This has been promised in budgets going back 10 years but, in 2011-12, it is back in the budget again.
Recreational fishers are going to get $1.8m for improved fishing infrastructure, a new boat ramp, the Taj Mahal of boat ramps, at Palmerston. That was $5m, but this year you will only get $1.8m. There is roads funding in there for fisherman.
There is $12.6m for the Palmerston Water Park - I hope and pray for the people of Palmerston that this is not another Defence of Darwin Museum-type project appearing on the budget papers for another 10 to 15 years. You might be able to seek the influence of the member for Nelson so the government will dig a hole for you at Palmerston - $4m for the water park.
There is much detail about the goodies the Territory government is throwing around, but there is little detail on too many other things. There is no detail about putting money away for the future. There is a little detail about tax cuts, but the government simultaneously signals greater debt. It is a bit like me saying to the member for Port Darwin, look mate, I will pay you an extra $10 a week but, by the way, you are going to have an extra $100 000 in debt to your name. It gives with one hand and takes with the other, a sort of pea and thimble trick.
Madam Speaker, this budget is a budget of deceit, cover up, debt, and spending. It is doing what Labor does best: blowing the budget, blowing the books, ruining the fiscal position of states and territories. When I was fortunate enough to be a part of the federal government in Canberra, we had a responsible government putting money away for the future. Higher education fund, telecommunications fund, a whole range of areas where we were saving for the future, running surplus budgets, paying off Labor debt, and in a few short years we see where we are now. A federal Labor government, and surprise, surprise, it is doing exactly what this mob have done in the Territory for the last 11 years - 10 years. Spending money taxing people more, thinking up new ways to tax people, and there is a range of new taxes brought in by this new federal government. The Territory government is similar - all smoke and mirrors. I cannot believe people believe anything this mob says. There is a bunch of re-promised re-promises, a bunch of new debts with no thought about how we might repay that debt. The Treasurer cannot give, refuses to give, an indication, alleging the paper misquoted her when it said that she expects to be out of debt by 2015.
It was ludicrous to suggest we could be out of debt by 2015 under a Labor government. It is not something a Labor government could ever hope to achieve. Madam Speaker, it is a sham. This is a moribund, shambolic government with no ideas or direction.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I will not talk too long on this Budget 2011-12 as it is late on the last day of parliament. It is a beads and trinket budget. There is little on offer for Alice Springs, particularly in my electorate, and there is little infrastructure spending for Alice Springs.
When one reads the offerings in Budget Paper No 4, it appears this budget is setting up for next year’s election. The battlegrounds seem to be Palmerston and Litchfield, which are where the works are going - the water park, hospital, and any of the other works. That is where government is trying to fight because they appear to hold the greatest gains. Unfortunately, everyone else misses out.
There is $5m for the Alice Springs CBD upgrade in the current financial year, which does not appear in the budget papers. I do not know whether the cheque has been paid, or is about to be paid, to the Alice Springs Town Council, but the CBD has not been upgraded despite a 2008 election commitment. There is no mention of road upgrades, and the golf course and bowling club have not been fixed. There are many things we anticipated being achieved in Alice Springs, which have not happened, but will antisocial behaviour and crime continue? No doubt. Has Alice Springs Hospital been upgraded as it was supposed to be over the past few years? Not at all.
Regarding my shadow portfolio of Indigenous Development, in Budget Paper No 3 there are two areas with a significant increase in spending. The first is education, and investing more in early childhood years is a good investment and something we need to focus on in the Territory. There is an increase in spending across a number of line items within the Department of Education and Training, but whether the money will go to bureaucrats or hit the ground is another question. I am concerned because it is not about how much money you put in, it is about the outcomes.
On page 103 of Budget Paper No 3, Senior Years Education, Key Deliverables, there is a budget for total senior years student enrolments of 4900, which has been scaled back to 4580 for the estimate this financial year, and the budget for next financial year is less than the budget for the current financial year, which is not yet finished. How can the government set a budget for next financial year that is lower than this financial year which was based on a poor estimate? The same graph has students attending over 80% of the time. Government forecast 31% of Indigenous students would attend 80% of the time. It thought only 31% of kids would attend 80% of the time, but that was not the outcome. The outcome was 24.9% - which is a disgraceful figure. We won’t get into NAPLAN or reflect on how poor that is here, as most of the debate about portfolio issues should go through estimates.
There are many failures in the budget, but I did say there were two areas with an increase in spending and, for education, that is a positive. The other spending increase is in Corrections. We are spending a little money on education, a little money on Corrections, and cutting everything else. In Corrections, instead of trying to help people, we had a forecast this year of 1190 daily average number of prisoners. The estimate is we will achieve that number, and next year there will be 1280 daily average numbers of prisoners. Expected peak beds required 1300; an increase of 61 over the forecast and estimate for this current financial year. This government is investing more in Corrections than it is in Housing.
There has been a significant rollback in the amount of money to be spent in the much-maligned SIHIP, and other ancillary programs that come out of the national partnership agreement. So, a decrease in housing when we need a significant increase in bush housing.
I will focus on Housing in estimates. On page 113 of Budget Paper 3 is a forecast 5268 urban housing stock for public housing dwellings, but the estimate for the end of the financial year is 5186, so I am unsure where the additional 82 houses have disappeared. This government says the CLP gets rid of houses but, on page 113 Key Deliverables: Urban social housing stock, public housing dwellings reduce from 5268, as a forecast, to 5186. What happened to those 82 dwellings? In the same table, New households assisted in urban public housing - 618 was the forecast, but you have only helped 525, which is the estimate and demonstrates the performance of this government.
In remote Indigenous housing dwellings, there are strange figures, which I will have to get to the bottom of in estimates. Key Deliverables: Remote public housing dwellings - 4570 was the forecast, and the estimate has ended up at 5498 - around 900 additional houses. Where did those 900 additional houses come from? This budget forecasts an additional 1500 remote public housing dwellings. Where are those extra 1500 public housing dwellings going to come from? They are not coming from SIHIP, unless there is another golden goose that is going to lay a multibillion dollar program enabling government to deliver houses at an affordable price. I am not sure exactly what that refers to.
Communities and town camps receiving repairs and maintenance services has been scaled back by four, but I would like to know which four communities or town camps will not be receiving repairs and maintenance services any more, as shown in the forecast.
It is not beneficial to examine the budget in detail now. It is much better to wait until estimates to look at the budget in more detail, and seek further information.
Regarding the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, while the government is spending much more money on Corrections, it is scaling back investment in sport by $9m, from $34m to $25m. Isn’t it better to invest in children, in sports, and keep people fit, healthy, and active, but we have a budget of $34m being scaled back by $9m in the next financial year, which spells out the intent. This year’s budget is more false than last year’s budget, and I am quite disgusted by it. The revoted works in this 2011-12 budget carry promises from 2008 and beyond. The works have not been done, but government inflates the size of the infrastructure pie to promote it in the media rather than getting on with the work. ‘
The back of Budget Paper No 4 contains the fourth quarter projects that are supposed to commence April 2012, just a few months before the election. You can scrap these items: Fog Bay Road, upgrade and seal selected stream crossings, $4m. That is clearly an election promise to assist the member for Daly be re-elected and will not happen; Jenkins Road Stage 2 upgrade and seal, $6m - that will not happen because it will be carried over as another revote; and Department of Construction and Infrastructure, relocation from the Greatorex Building and fit out of new buildings, $4.4m - it will not happen. Government has done nothing in Braitling because it thinks Greatorex is an easier target, so they have used the word, Greatorex, which is how it thinks. Do not listen to what the government says, look at what it does. Taminmin College - who is Taminmin? Is that Kezia, the member for Goyder?
Mr Conlan: I guess so.
Mr GILES: I think it is the member for Goyder. Another election promise - $3m for a special education centre for Years 7 to 12. These things will come around next year, but nothing will happen. Nothing will happen at all.
In Budget Paper No 2, the revoted works from 2010-11 in Health is $134m, with new works for next year at $37m - $134m sitting there, not being used. When I was the shadow minister for Infrastructure - and I know the current shadow has done a fine job in attacking his Infrastructure portfolio in this debate - I remember talking about how it was revoted last year, and the year before. It was revoted, and revoted.
The Alice Springs Hospital: fire protection, air-conditioning and remediation, a fit out for relocated staff from the administrative ward, relocate and upgrade the emergency department. I have heard the member for Greatorex talk about this. If you just keep revoting it and revoting it and, if you revote for three or four years in a row, all of a sudden you have a $1.5bn infrastructure budget, but you have not done anything; you just keep making announcements. We wonder how much money is in the bank.
Regarding yesterday’s announcement of a $70m hospital at Palmerston with 60 beds, we had the man with the moustache, the broomstick there, with all his colleagues, his mates, making this announcement. Whereabouts? Palmerston, the battleground for next year’s election. The Chief Minister or the member for Johnston spoke about how that hospital will take two years to build. Of course, it will not be built before August 2012 because that would be before the election, but he will make sure there is a shovel in the ground for a photo just before that election, so you can put out a flier to say: ‘We are building this new hospital’.
Some of the other works that have not been done include works at Royal Darwin Hospital: $16m for the 50-unit patient accommodation complex; the electrical system, $41.5m - revoted works. You just keep announcing; you do not have to do it. That is how it all works.
In Lands and Planning, revoted works include: Canteen Creek airstrip; Utopia airstrip - $181m in revoted works; Johnston sewer pump station; Palmerston East headworks; Cullen Bay pontoon; and $15m for Stokes Hill Wharf restoration. Remember when government announced it and said: ‘We are going to fix it up’. There was a bit of media, a bit of publicity, but it did not happen. Budget Paper No 3, page 253 refers to the Darwin Port Authority. Government was supposed to be putting an extra $15m into Stokes Hill Wharf restoration, and it has come as revoted works. Regarding the port’s performance, East Arm Wharf appears to be performing in the positive with a nearly $4m surplus, but navigation and pilotage is going backwards - minus $1.357m out to $1.4m in the budget. The city wharves show a $2m loss, blowing out to a $3.5m loss. One wonders what the government is doing when it loses money on these wharves all the time, and a potential investment of infrastructure for the Stokes Hill Wharf is not going ahead.
What happened to the $50m announced a couple of budgets ago by Anthony Albanese to fix up the Darwin Port at East Arm? We were trumped by Oakajee - Oakajee is getting all the investment in Western Australia. We received $50m to do a feasibility study, but money has just disappeared out of the budget. Whisky and keys for teenagers. The money has gone, the port is still sinking, trade is not improving as quickly as we would like, and navigation and pilotage are going backwards. We need to look at the economic fundamentals in the Northern Territory, and we have to get that right.
Where is the lobbying going on in Canberra to get money to drive the port, so we can get our mineral exploration out of the ground, our mining out of the ground, along the train line and off to the port, and into Southeast Asia or wherever we might send it?
I do not want to go on about this budget as I am very disappointed. This is trickery, thievery and, as the member for Katherine said, deficit, debt, and deceit.
In the estimates process, I will focus on the SIHIP dollars, and what has been happening. I want a full breakdown of the SIHIP dollars and the spending to date. Not just for SIHIP, but also the national partnership agreement dollars and where that money has gone, the investment in tenancy management and what has happened across the Territory. Government says it has built so many houses here and done so many refurbishments there, but I want to know whether value for money has been achieved, because I believe it has been appalling value for money. I want to know about the grants from SIHIP dollars - the direct grants. I believe it is about $50m this financial year, and I want to find out where that has gone, and where it is proposed to go next year.
I have serious questions about the homelands policy in the Northern Territory and what the government is going to do about people living on homelands. Government has turned off the resources tap which assist people to live on a homeland in a sustainable environment. People are moving into town and urban drift is happening everywhere. It is a problem for government because people are homeless, living in overcrowded conditions, everyone is a victim, and antisocial behaviour, violence, crime, and so forth are growing. Businesses are being broken into. The government knows the situation in Alice Springs, and it has not defended it, so I want to know the government’s policy and expectations for homelands. What is it going to do in those locations?
I am interested in the proposed $3.5m headworks at Kilgariff and if the government will get to that this year. A planning meeting was held in Alice Springs in June 2008 – just before the election – to make it look like the government was interested. Now there are design processes and so forth. Kilgariff was chosen over Larapinta, south Sadadeen, and a number of other locations, including Undoolya because the government believed it would be more affordable for Territorians - I think those were the words. There were estimates of $23 500 per servicing of the block for headworks, but apparently an 800 m2 block will now sell for $250 000. Government intends cheaply servicing blocks in Alice Springs, selling them for significant profit, price gouging out of pockets, out of mine and the members for Greatorex and Araluen, so it can come up here and spend money pork-barrelling election commitments to stay in power. I do not think that is fair at all.
I would like to have seen some money go towards some headworks at Larapinta. Sell those ones for $250 000 because I know it is going to cost $150 00 to $170 000 to do the headworks on those blocks. That is a different issue. Do the Larapinta headworks, and develop the 158 south Sadadeen blocks. There are things that could be done straightaway. I will passionately advocate the release of those two areas. In regards to Larapinta, I will advocate with my colleague, the member for Greatorex. Larapinta is his area but I also want it to develop and grow, and I want more land released there. I want to support industry through construction, which should have major flow through effect, and that is what I wanted to see in Budget 2011-12.
The government has done nothing in my electorate. Larapinta Seniors Village, another revote from last year, is yet to be finalised. Work is happening and we have discussed the delays, but it is another revote. We need to get things moving, including the CBD redevelopment. Stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on design plans for the CBD, and start the work. Open up the mall and turn the shops around so they are facing the river - I do not mind. There are massive opportunities there. $5m is a large allocation, but we need to get it off the ground.
Madam Speaker, I will not talk about Budget 2011-12 any more. It is a foolish budget which attempts to deceive Territorians by making it look like the government is actually doing something. Instead, the public service is ballooning, which restricts the amount of money for infrastructure, and the government just keeps making announcements and announcements, and rolling them over each year.
The federal money has slowed down since the economic stimulus and there is limited money for this government to spend. It is broke. It has put Territorians into debt and we are paying something like $200 000 a day in interest, which is an appalling figure for our small jurisdiction. Our economy is too small to generate our own income and we rely on the federal government. Until we get significant investment in infrastructure so we can develop our own economy and become self-sufficient or, at least, on the way to doing that, we will continue to fall a long way short. The deficit, which is forecast to be $295m at the end of the financial year, and the admission that it will soar to $387m, are of great concern.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is worth pointing out that by the year 2014, as a result of this government’s financial mismanagement, every Territorian will be $30 000 in debt. Every Territorian - every man, woman, and child. A total of about $3.87bn in the next few years, which is not a great look.
Lindsay Tanner exposed you all. He published a new book and spilled the beans on how these things work: how Labor governments fiddle the figures, bury figures in one output group, and slide them into another output group. It is difficult to find things and the language is not always straightforward. Things are promised and revoted down the track. There is a record budget for this, and a record budget for that, but the projected inflated figures mean that it is not really a record budget at all. Lindsay Tanner spilled the beans on Labor governments in his latest book, and the things he writes about are what we are seeing here today.
The announcement of a $110m hospital at Palmerston has been much spoken about in the past two days. This is the promise, the announcement. This government is very good at issuing media releases which, essentially, amount to policy. The announcement was about a $110m hospital in Palmerston, with $70m from the Commonwealth government and $40m from the Northern Territory government, and there is no mention of that $40m in the budget papers. Even the member for Nelson pointed out that, one day after the budget announcement, the Northern Territory government commits $40m to build a hospital at Palmerston. A much-needed facility no doubt, and the Country Liberals welcome the intent, but you cannot believe anything this government says.
One only has to look at previous announcements and previous promises. It took 10 years to build the oncology unit - the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre. In fact, it was longer than 10 years - about 11 years. It was a promise made by the then Opposition Leader, Clare Martin, and it was delivered and made operational with the help, thank goodness, of the Commonwealth government at the time. Tony Abbott as Health minister, and great work from the member for Fong Lim really got that up and running. They were let down, as were Territorians, by the Northern Territory government, and so were those people who needed it most. People requiring radiation treatment in the Northern Territory would have welcomed receiving their treatment in Darwin. They were let down most by the Northern Territory government. It took 10 years to deliver an oncology unit. Member for Fong Lim, how much did the Northern Territory government throw into the oncology unit, can you remind me?
Mr Tollner: It was a pittance.
Mr CONLAN: It was a pittance. That is what I thought.
Mr Tollner: It was about $1m out of $30m-odd; something like that.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, about $1m out of $30m-odd. The Northern Territory government provided the land and it was the great work of the former member for Solomon and the member for Warringah, the Health minister at the time, Tony Abbott, who managed to pull that off. Thank goodness for the people of the Northern Territory, they did, in particular those cancer sufferers in Darwin who desperately required radiation treatment in their own back yard. It took 11 years to deliver the oncology unit. It was promise after promise, and people were waiting for it. If it was not for the work of the Commonwealth government at the time we might still be waiting for that oncology unit.
The Palmerston Hospital allocation is $110m, of which $70m is a contribution by the Commonwealth. I wonder how those figures will change and flex over the coming years. I say years because that is how long it will take this government to deliver. Let us not get our hopes up. Talk about a cruel farce. We promised a hospital, and we would have built it; we would have delivered it. We had a clear plan to do it.
Dr Burns: By 2023.
Mr CONLAN: This government made an announcement and that is what it does; just makes announcements. It says: ‘Here is this wonderful media release, look what we are going to do; fantastic’. People have wised up to the Northern Territory government; they are a bit jaded. I cannot quite remember the phrase. People know that if the government says something, if it ever comes to fruition and government actually follows through on what it says it is going to do, it will take a long time. All the people of Palmerston - and I see a Palmerston resident in the gallery - who were here today in the Chamber, and who are listening to the broadcast, please do not get your hopes up under this government. The only way to get a hospital built, delivered, and operational in Palmerston is vote 1 for the CLP in 2012. We will build it, deliver it, and make it operational. Do not vote for these people, the government. Do not vote for them because you will not see a hospital in Palmerston any time soon.
This is what happens after so many years of complacency, laziness, and sloppiness. When you started you came out strong and had a good couple of years. Under the Martin Labor government you achieved some things. You have achieved absolutely nothing under your new man here, the member for Wanguri. You have been –what is it? – a moribund government, member for Fong Lim. I think that is your turn of phrase to describe the Northern Territory government …
Mr Tollner: Shambolic.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, a shambolic, moribund government. You had a good couple of years and people welcomed the change; a new era. This is a democratic country where we change governments without a shot being fired, and we are probably the best continuing democracy in the world. By virtue of that democracy, we change governments, and I do not think anyone begrudges a change of government as that is what democracy is all about.
After 27 years of the Country Liberals, people welcomed change - apart from those members who lost their seats in 2001. A large number of Territorians welcomed the change and you did not do a bad job. You got on with it and delivered some things. You built the convention centre, the wave pool, and the waterfront precinct, which was good. It was the biggest thing you have built since being elected. They were the best years; you had a couple of good years - your 15 minutes of fame is what it was. However, we really have not seen much in the last four to five years.
You had a Labor Party hero in Clare Martin; there is no doubt she was one of the great Labor Party leaders. She took the Labor Party from opposition, after 27 years, into government. You had a great front bench. The member for Johnston was in his prime in those days and he was good. He is a bit tired now and is looking at getting on the Zimmer frame express back to Nimbin. The former member for Nhulunbuy was also strong. He was experienced, heavy hitting, and knew his stuff. You had the member for Fannie Bay, the Labor Party hero, and the member for Arafura - what a talent – a talent that has been lost to the backbench. If you guys want to try, it is the last roll of the dice for you now. You have a little over 12 months to prove yourselves and ask Territorians to give you another four years.
It will be a big ask considering how badly you have let down the Territory and Territorians in this last term. It will be a big ask, and you will need all the big guns. The member for Johnston is going to have to dig deep, back to those glory days, and rise to the occasion one more time - like Bobby Simpson coming back to captain Australia. You are going to have to do that, member for Johnston, come back out for the side and lift. You will need to put the member for Arafura out the front again because she is a talent and knows her stuff. She is feisty, and I do not think there is much love lost on this side for her, but she has common sense and plenty of experience. You are going to need this team.
In those days it was a good side, but the government is a shadow of its former self. Not you, in particular, member for Johnston, but the team. It is a shame because the real losers are Territorians. They are stuck with a government, which has been strung together by an Independent. The place is essentially paralysed, and that is what we see in this budget - promises, after promises, after promises. The member for Braitling put it beautifully; you just keep revoting stuff, and promising stuff. It makes the figures look fantastic, but like Lindsay Tanner said, bolstering it up, looking fantastic, but nothing is getting done.
The hospital in Palmerston - great intent, great announcement, but that is all it is. This is just an announcement. Let the government be judged on its performance, not its announcements. The government must be judged on what it delivers. The people of Palmerston and the people of the Northern Territory, who will rely on the pressure being taken off Royal Darwin Hospital by this facility, will be relying on what you deliver for the Palmerston hospital.
It was mentioned in sittings that there is no money for aeromedical. Where is the money for aeromedical? The minister today advised that it is coming out of the Central Holding Authority, which I assume is a Treasurer’s Advance. It has to be in excess of $20m, because you cannot possibly run a decent aeromedical service in the Northern Territory for anything less, and I believe that is where the problem lies. The bids were well in excess of $20m, and the government has panicked and called in its so-called expert. I question the advice of the government’s so-called aviation expert - a self-styled expert. Government has gone to the expert and said: ‘You are going to have to fix this, because we just cannot afford it. We cannot afford to pay the amount that these guys have bid, so you have to go back and re-jig it’. Whether that means a compromise on the age of the aircraft, or whether it means contracting out the medical component, or whether it means utilising the Department of Health, there have been all sorts of goal post changes when it comes to the aeromedical tender.
The only people being let down are the people of the Northern Territory, who are relying on this service. We currently have a compromised service. It is not a state-of-the-art aeromedical service. It is not an ideal medical service operating in the Northern Territory. The interim contract looks set to be extended again because the Northern Territory government cannot make a decision. Yesterday, the minister mentioned the single-engine versus twin-engine aircraft business, which has nothing to do with it. Something about an engine failure in Western Australia is the reason for the delay. It is ridiculous because the single-engine bids were nonconforming anyway and are there as a secondary option. They will not get a look in, as is the case with nonconforming bids. All the conforming bids were for twin-engine aircraft, but some who bid with twin-engine aircraft also bid with single-engine aircraft. The stuff about the single-engine aircraft holding it up and is absolute nonsense. The self-styled expert has a problem with and does not like single-engine aircraft. He has been railroading the Pilatus and the PC 12 at every opportunity as he is a former Beech salesman, and his position is compromised. This is the advice the minister is taking, which is absurd.
The people paying the price for this incompetence and poor advice are the people of the Northern Territory, and it is staggering that the minister will not step up. Any minister worth his salt, anyone in such a position as the minister would be saying: ‘Come on’, because when it all comes crumbling down, it is not going to be the so-called expert or the bureaucrats who will take the fall. It is going to be the minister. It is his neck, his job, and his reputation on the line. If only for self-preservation, one would think he should be in there fighting and demanding that this gets sorted. It has dragged on for far too long and it is going to drag on again. I cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. It is not in Budget 2011-12, so you clearly do not foresee it. Will we have a tender announcement between now and the next budget cycle?
There are enormous implications for the order and purchase of aircraft. The service requires four or five aircraft. One would usually be off-line as a spare or backup, and the rest online. When a decision is made about the type of aircraft there will be a lead time for ordering, fit out, purchase, and delivery. One cannot simply go to a shop and say: ‘I will have four of those, thanks’. It takes a long time to secure delivery of four new twin-engine aircraft, and have them online, up and running, and operational. It is May now and it would be a miracle if they were here by Christmas. If you are going to announce this and need it up and running by July, you have obviously compromised on the age of the aircraft and all you are doing is messing everyone around. The people who submitted tenders have spent a year of their life on, and invested nearly $1m in, this tender process. They deserve answers and want certainty. Are they in, are they out? Are we still in with a chance, where are we? Have we done the right thing? Have you changed the bidding? Have you changed the parameters of the contract? It is a mess, but this is the hallmark of the government.
These are the second-termers. You have come in, you have come out, and you have played a beautiful first innings, but you are having a disastrous second innings. This is where we are at as a Territory, as a result of this poor performance in the second innings. The crowds go to watch a great match but they are not cheering. They are walking away wanting a refund.
The Alice Springs emergency department has been whacked in there again - $20m plus for the Alice Springs emergency department. When is this going to happen? When are we going to see the new emergency department in Alice Springs? What is the problem? Why can we not get the emergency department up and running? By virtue of its name, one would assume it is pressing. It is an emergency department, for crying out loud. The hospital is hanging off this stuff. Have you been into the Alice Springs Hospital - I am sure the member for Stuart has been there. The minister needs to sit in that emergency department any time of day, but particularly at night. There are often long waiting times, which are blowing out.
We know you are dragging the chain, but when it comes to this sort of stuff, dragging the chain is an understatement. What is the opposite to ‘leading the way’? ‘Dragging the chain’ is probably the best way to phrase it. When it comes to the rest of the country, we are second behind the ACT, and we play catch-up with the ACT. It is either them or us. Tasmania is in there as a jurisdiction of similar size. We have some of the worst emergency department and elective surgery waiting times in the country, and we have seen Alice Springs elective surgery cease for a week or two because of staffing shortages.
I have a copy of an e-mail on my desk sent around Alice Springs Hospital. The head honcho said there was an extraordinary amount of overtime and staff shortages, and thanked everyone for pitching in and helping to fill the roster but, unfortunately, elective surgery has been cancelled for a week. This is what we are facing at the Alice Springs Hospital and across the health sector, and it is in the figures. This is urgent. The emergency department is an emergency department and I would like to make it an emergency to get this going. Another $20m in the Health budget is fantastic, but will we see it any time soon?
I recall asking questions about health reform during estimates last year. I was asking about the acute side of it, and the minister or the CEO at the time said: ‘Not too sure; it is a bit hard to budget for that, or give an estimate for that, because of the health reform. It has thrown everyone into a spin. We are not sure where we are with it’. Twelve months later and we are no further down the track with health reform. Thanks to a sustained campaign by the people of Alice Springs and the Barkly we now have two local hospital networks. Thank goodness. If the government had its way - I remember the minister telling me: ‘No, we are only going to have one because you cannot have two, it is too small. It is ridiculous to have two, it is too small’.
The people of Central Australia, including Alice Springs and the Barkly said: ‘No, hang on; we need to have one for Alice Springs’. It is a First World hospital, a tertiary hospital, a teaching hospital - one of the most significant First World tertiary hospitals in thousands of miles. There is not much between Adelaide and Darwin and it is remarkable to have a facility like that in the middle of the country.
To suggest we do not need a local hospital network for a hospital of that stature or size, which services an enormous part of the interior is ridiculous. That was the minister’s first response. That was his gut feeling: ‘No, cannot do it’. That is the advice he has been seeking – do not have the population, cannot do it - without appreciating the significance of that facility to the interior of the country, not just Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.
There is nothing in the budget about that because it is business as usual. The local hospital network and health reform stuff is probably a federal Labor Party promise, like all the Territory Labor Party promises. It is a promise; it is something on a bit of paper. It was a Kevin Rudd dream. He came in, in 2007, and said: ‘We are going to fix the world. We are going to save all the hospitals. I am going to fix it by 30 June 2009’. That was a complete flop. By early 2010, he said: ‘Okay, we might be on it now. This is what we are going to do. This health reform is the biggest reform since Medicare’. You have to be kidding me. It is just a change in funding arrangements; it is not reform.
It has to be another promise because there is no detail in the budget, no detail from the federal government, and no further detail from the Health department of the Northern Territory government about exactly how this health reform is going to work. We do not have efficient pricing models on surgery or activity. How are Tennant Creek, Katherine, and the smaller facilities, going to fit into this health reform set up? Is it going to be an activity-based or a block-funding model? Again, the only ones who suffer are the people of the Northern Territory - the people who rely on their Northern Territory government to provide the best possible health service; the people who pay their taxes to the government so it can go forth and deliver these core services. To say: ‘We are spending all this money on health, $1.1bn, this is just fantastic, isn’t it?’ It is the government’s job; it is a core service. This is why the government is elected and it is what it is expected to do, and we are not seeing it. We are seeing a whole stack of announcements - Kezia, any chance?
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member’s time be extended by 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thanks, Madam Speaker. How time does fly; it is quite amazing, and still only up to Health. Announcement after announcement, and not much to show for it.
We have seen all the money going into alcohol. However, the government has stripped $3m from licensing and alcohol strategy. That is how important alcohol strategy is to the government, and how committed it is. The biggest problem facing us, it says. These are the most important bills and reforms in the history of the world, yet it has stripped $3m out of the Department of Justice to tackle alcohol issues. That is how important it is to government. It cannot be that important, and it is not much of an investment. Nevertheless, it is significant amounts of money in anyone’s books. Despite stripping $3m, millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is going into alcohol reform and what are we going to see? All this going into banning alcohol orders, or the banning notices, I think they are, member for Sanderson …
Mr Styles: Alcohol treatment orders.
Mr CONLAN: Treatment orders. It is another fancy word some spin doctor like Hawker Britton came up with, so let us use that. That is good language and people will buy it. Let us call it a banning alcohol and treatment notice. I did not get through all the stuff I received about alcohol. There has been much spin regarding your commitment to the alcohol management plan, and how tough you are on alcohol, and what you are going to do. Much effort has gone into painting us as cavalier and swashbuckling regarding alcohol, and portraying that we do not really care about it. That all we want to do is open up the rivers of grog and we could not care less. There has been much spin to pump up your arguments and try to diminish anything from the Country Liberals. Ultimately, we are not seeing much stuff on the ground, and we are not seeing many inroads or results. The spin you generate to bolster your arguments, and the media releases, the tens of tens of media releases - there would be at least a few hundred media releases on alcohol that you ...
A member: You put out a few.
Mr CONLAN: I have put out a few - most to counteract and dispel the myth you are trying to peddle to the Northern Territory public. When I see such injustice and government spin, it is my duty as a responsible citizen and member of parliament to try to correct the record, which I do via a media release. I have an enormous number of media releases on this alcohol stuff and I regret I did not bring them. They are in my office in Alice Springs and I forgot to bring them. They will sit there for another day, because this argument will not be going away. A whole stack about: ‘This is what we are doing. The great new initiative by the Northern Territory government to tackle alcohol and get tough on drunks’.
It would be great if you could get somewhere with it. Unfortunately, 10 years on, we are not. It is the second innings and you have dropped the ball, so you do not have any chance of getting anywhere now because you do not have the side, you do not have the team anymore. You did once upon a time. You had the side, and the chance. That was your chance. You came out a bit slow, you lost a few early wickets, but then in about 2003-04 you started to look at alcohol seriously and you had a pretty good team. The member for Johnston was in his prime. Boy, he could belt them over the fence in those days. The member for Karama was a good all-rounder. You had big hitters like the former member for Nhulunbuy. That guy was like the Lance Cairns of parliament - six sixes - I am sure he could give Garfield Sobers a run for his money.
Dr Burns: Why not add another six to it?
Mr CONLAN: What is that, seven sixes? I think you get the point. We could go on all day with the cricket analogy. You do not have the team, and I do not think you will achieve it with the side you have now. We are so crowded with this spin.
Dr Burns: We have Kim Hughes right now.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: I am not crying yet.
Madam Speaker, alcohol policy - it is a real shame because it is an enormous issue that affects the Territory and us all. The human cost is high and one cannot overlook the financial cost to the Territory taxpayer. It is becoming unsustainable and almost insurmountable.
I will speak about Central Australia for the next few minutes. I am only allowed one extension of time, is that right, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct.
Mr CONLAN: The member for Barkly was talking about roads today. You would agree, member for Stuart, that they are pretty ordinary. I was at Wauchope near Tennant Creek the other day and it is a shocker - really terrible. All the boys were staying at Wauchope, as was I, and we had dinner and a couple of beers. We had a good night - it is a great spot as you probably know. But they were shaking their heads about what was going on. You have been filling it up with asphalt. They were giving me all the technical jargon - I am not a roads master. There are 250 tonne road trains going over the top of this stuff all day long and the road is only gravel. They were saying: ‘We need to strip the whole Stuart Highway, put on a foot-and-a-half of concrete, and then asphalt the top’.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is called. Ring the bells.
Mr CONLAN: Can I keep talking?
Madam SPEAKER: No. A quorum is present. You may now continue, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I went to the youth hub and it reminded me of the show, Yes, Minister, where the minister wants to see the most efficient hospital in Britain. All the typists are there and the office is packed and he says: ‘This is pretty good’, and he sees the cleaners working hard. Then he goes into the wards and no one is there. He asks: ‘What is going on?’, and they said: ‘It is the most efficient hospital, as we do not have one patient!’ The youth hub has all these people working away and there is not one kid in the place. It is quite extraordinary.
I have 25 seconds left and wanted to talk about the Mereenie Loop, but it is not there; the police station relocation, hello, hello, that will have to be a story for another day, Treasurer, and, of course, housing at Kilgariff, Larapinta, and Sadadeen. I agree with the member for Braitling. The future development is marked on the planning maps, and CBD redevelopment, but they are stories for another day.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will concentrate on issues rather than how many dollars and cents the Treasurer and her Cabinet decided to spend on what.
In relation to my electorate and the local economy, I go to my shopping centres every Saturday morning. I rotate around them and I hear interesting comments from people in the electorate. They are ordinary people, they get on, they go to work, they pay their taxes, they try to educate their kids and give them the best possible life, but many of them are struggling. The government tells you that everything is great, not too many people are struggling, and the future is rosy. However, some people on the ground are very concerned.
All shops in the northern suburbs are experiencing serious downturn in relation to turnover. I am told people’s disposable income is down. Customers are telling shopkeepers that rents are high, and the cost of living on everything else is high. They are not going to the shops; they are not buying little bits and pieces. That is having a serious effect on businesses and employment.
Many family-owned shops have teenage family members working in the shops, and people are working extremely long hours in these supermarkets. The owners and business proprietors are working long hours and they are not employing local people, they are not employing young people in part-time jobs and providing some income to take pressure off their families. That is not occurring.
There are an increasing number of vacant shops in the city and other areas. That indicates the Territory economy is not in the shape portrayed by the Treasurer. I do not know if the Treasurer is talking to these people because she might see a different picture if she talked to people who have serious concerns about where the Territory is going. People have serious concerns about their kids who are still in school, and those who have left school but are still living at home.
My electorate has one of the highest proportions of young people still living at home with their parents. That will change as many are heading towards university these days, and in a number of years those people are going to be looking for their own accommodation and looking for jobs. I sincerely hope some of the Treasurer’s predictions come to fruition or we are going to have serious trouble with jobs and the cost of living. We will also have serious problems with an exodus of our young people.
I have made written requests to a number of ministers recently. One request was about a crossing on McMillans Road near Carnoustie Crescent. There is a six-lane highway at the intersection of Carnoustie Crescent with a hidden driveway as you come into it. It is an interesting design. A large number of people – I do not know the exact number - but half the Northlakes estate lives there, including many families with young kids. Many of those kids attend Anula Primary School and need to get from Carnoustie Crescent across McMillans Road to the park, which they walk through to access the children’s crossing on Yanyula Drive, and then into Anula Primary School.
The mornings, just before school starts, are one of the busiest times on the roads. There is heavy traffic outbound, but especially inbound, with traffic heading towards the CBD for work. The intersection is an 80 km/h speed zone. There are young people, and some primary school-aged kids on bikes, walking, sometimes with elderly grandparents taking them to school. These people have to negotiate three lanes of highway where the traffic is usually travelling at 80 km/h. Their only option is to walk from Carnoustie Crescent in an easterly direction outbound along McMillans Road to the shopping centre, and to the intersection of Matthews Road and McMillans Road. I calculate it is a distance of 496 m. Then they have to cross the road, which is about another 20 m or 30 m, and another 496 m back to the park. These young people and elderly people have to walk about 1 km to get across the road.
The area is serviced by public transport and there is a bus stop on the inbound side, so the people of Northlakes do not have a problem getting to that bus stop. However, if you are travelling in the other direction, these elderly people who cannot run across the road - we have many retirees in that area - would have a problem walking 1 km to a bus stop which, if you stand at the intersection, is about 120 m across the road and up the street.
In Malak, at the Malak and KOA Caravan Parks on McMillans Road, there is a pelican crossing for permanent caravan park residents whose children attend Malak Primary School, which is in the member for Karama’s electorate. There is a pelican crossing in the member for Karama’s electorate, which is well-used. Down the road are more elderly people and young children than there are in the caravan parks, who have to walk 1 km or mix it with the traffic. Most young people do not want to walk the extra 1 km and choose to mix it with the traffic. Parents and others in the area say they regularly have close calls and there could be a serious injury or a death in the not-too-distant future. I hope it will not take that for the government to consider the ongoing requests over many years. I have made noises in the last few years about getting a crossing in place and will not dwell on it further.
I have asked for trees to be replanted on McMillans Road to create a sound barrier and to replace the trees removed as part of the government’s culling process of apparently unsuitable trees. We have an enormous amount of coloured grass now. People on that stretch of road are not happy and would like the government to replace the trees with what it considers to be appropriate trees. The residents want some trees.
I have serious concerns about youth. On Saturday mornings at each of my shopping centres I talk to many young people who are buying breakfast and the paper. I talk to them about where they are going, how they are going, how they are travelling. There is a whole range of issues seriously affecting our young people. I estimate that young people make up roughly 18% of the population, but they are 100% of our future. If we do not keep these young people in the Territory, we are going to have serious issues with school shortages and people to replace their parents who, in many cases, when they retire have to relocate south because of the cost of living and the lack of seniors’ accommodation.
I stray into other portfolio areas here, so will stay on youth issues. At one of my shops last Saturday morning a young lady in despair approached me. Her partner has a good job in a mine, is earning good money, and they would like to buy a home. They were both born in Darwin - good Darwin people. I know the young lady; she is a former student from Sanderson High School. She is a lovely young lady who has two fabulous little kids. They are currently residing with her brother-in-law and his family because they cannot afford rent. They are desperately trying to save for a home. Even the extra $10 000 the government announced for BuildBonus will not help these young people and many others who find themselves in that situation. Home ownership is out of reach for them. To obtain the great Aussie dream of owning a home will be difficult. They pay exorbitant rents because we have not had timely land release, which has put pressure on housing. The competition for housing has driven prices sky high. What the government has done in the past has not worked. I know government has allocated money in the budget for headworks for new blocks in Palmerston East, but it is probably too little, too late.
Young family members who leave school or university, or are looking for a job, cannot afford to rent, and they cannot afford to stay here. If they are single, five or six or seven of them will share the rent and it is not so much of a problem. However, if these young people are in relationships and want to start a family, accommodation is often beyond their budget. The rents are too high and they cannot afford to. It is sad to hear what these young people say. They say they would love to stay here, as their mums and dads are here, but they cannot afford to. They want to start a life so they are moving south where they can find jobs, afford the rents, and even afford to purchase. We are losing not only their skills, but part of the social fabric of the Territory. I do not know if these kids will return once they go elsewhere, which usually means we will lose mum and dad who are our seniors and a stabilising influence in the community, usually forever .
There is talk of a mining tax. Many young people work in mines in the Territory, although there are many who have to fly-in and fly-out because there is no accommodation here, so government is killing mines. Recently, a mining company moved its processing from the Northern Territory to Whyalla in South Australia because of unfavourable conditions in the Territory. When we expose them, I am sure the government cannot say it does not know about these things, but one wonders exactly what it is doing.
____________________
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Fannie Bay and Member for Goyder
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Fannie Bay and Member for Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, do you mind if I just interrupt you? I have a document here for a pair between the member for Fannie Bay and the member for Goyder from now, 12.30 pm, to the close of the sittings. It is signed by both Whips. Thank you.
____________________
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, when we look at the budget, we see 150 houses over three years and 40-odd units, which I welcome, and thank the government for doing something. There is an enormous waiting list for seniors’ housing and I again think, too little, too late.
I know there is some argy-bargy between both sides of the House and this side accepts the selling of somewhere around 793 homes up until 2001. However, the Australian Bureau of Statistics public housing figure is 2016 or 2017 houses that this government has sold off. There just is not the housing stock any more.
We sold 700-odd homes and many were sold to low-income people to get them into the housing market. I have spoken to a few of those people when doorknocking, and they said they were very lucky. They have young kids at school and uni now. They purchased their homes 10 or 15 years ago and are eternally grateful to the people who facilitated the purchase. If not for those public homes, they would not have been able to enter the housing market. Many of those people are in an improved situation, they have stability, and they are not going to get put out of their homes. They can stay there and do whatever they wish to with those homes. They can stay there and have the kids or grandkids visit.
Madam Speaker, we move on to seniors. The greatest gripe from seniors that I talk to on Saturday mornings, at my office, or at seniors’ functions is: ‘What happens when we retire?’. Those who have retired are saying the same thing and they are referring to the cost of living and the cost of accommodation after retirement. Once they lose their weekly or fortnightly income, they have problems supporting themselves because it costs them too much to live here.
I note the government has put extra money into the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme, which has not been improved for many years. We still have a massive problem in providing seniors’ villages and seniors’ accommodation.
I know of retirees who live in the four-bedroom home in which they raised and educated many children - whom they had later in life. The husband has a medical condition and sleeps at various times of the day. She is in one room, he is in another, and they have a grandchild living there with them. They are close to the hospital, close to services, yet they were told they are a little over the income level to remain in their home. The house came as part of a job package and they cannot afford to move out. I am hoping for an urgent review by the responsible minister to consider what can be done to help them.
The issue is that even if you want to downgrade these people, we do not have premises to downgrade them to. Too many have been sold off and it is difficult to replace them as demonstrated by the announcement of only 150 homes and 40-odd units into the public housing stock. It is a problem trying to keep seniors here. I acknowledge that the government reduced stamp duty in the last budget to encourage people to move out of those big homes, freeing them up for young families.
Regarding Racing, Gaming and Licensing, I am assuming we will receive the standard answer from government - that it spends an enormous amount giving back to the racing industry. I do not have the figure with me, but the government takes a fair whack of tax out of the system and puts less back in. I have mentioned this before and it is timely to mention it again - regional race meetings keep families and bush people together. They give people a reason to go out, to feel proud of what they are doing. They are major community events in regional towns and areas. The Tennant Creek races have gone from two race meetings a year down to one, which is a shame because the people, especially the ladies in town, love to get dressed up to go to the races. Single girls meet single boys at race meetings, functions, and those sort of weekends. They meet potential partners and the next thing you know we have people getting married, having kids and staying in that regional area.
If we do not facilitate these events the social fabric breaks down, people tend to drift into larger urban areas, and you lose those bush people, quite often forever. They do not return. They find someone; they fall in love, marry a city person and do not move back. We need to do things, and I hope government notes the need to put more money into regional areas to ensure this social interaction occurs and facilitates the building of social capital and the social fabric in our regional areas.
Another of my shadow portfolios is Alcohol Policy, but we have said enough on alcohol policy today so I will skip that one.
Much has been said about transport and the state of the roads in the Northern Territory. I have spoken to trucking companies and the Australian Trucking Association about the conditions of our roads. The Australian Trucking Association says drivers are reporting extremely dangerous conditions because of the standard of maintenance on our roads. The minister and the Treasurer said: ‘We are spending lots of money’. We accept we had a severe Wet Season, and a long one, which has taken its toll on our roads, but the issue is about the ongoing maintenance of our infrastructure. Regarding the beef roads that were put in some years ago, various industry people have advised me of the cost of repairing and upgrading those roads. I was stunned by the amount. They said the cost of urgent repairs required on our beef roads in the Territory is $2.6bn, which is half of our annual budget. We are not going to see that money spent immediately, but it gives some idea of the amount of money required to keep regional and remote Northern Territory open for business.
The cattle industry and the mining industry - might I say, hopefully, the increasing use of those roads by the mining industry will contribute to tax dollars, royalties, and a range of income for the Territory, but we are going to have to invest that money into the road system to ensure it keeps going.
East Arm Wharf requires improvements, including extra container cranes. I went on a self-funded trip to Singapore recently and will give a report when I have the opportunity, though it is not required. Exciting things are happening worldwide which might interest members in the House, so we can consider what we might do with East Arm in the future, and shipping and transport generally.
One cannot discuss transport without referring to the carbon tax - the big new tax on everything. I refer to the Greens, who want to get rid of the fuel subsidies. I am concerned because when fuel goes up in the Territory by 5 or 10 a litre, or even a couple of cents a litre, people are alarmed. We have front page stories; we have people calling on politicians, especially the government. They want something done. People start ringing local MLA offices saying: ‘This is terrible. How can we do this; how can I run the kids to school; how can I do that?’ Even small increases are horrific. The Greens want to get rid of the fuel subsidy on a range of things, including agriculture. The subsidy for road transport is about 36.9 per litre. Almost everything we do here is courtesy of the trucking industry or rail. Trucks still carry the most, so we need the trucking industry to retain the subsidy.
Forty per cent of Territory houses have diesel-powered electricity, which means a likely 25% increase in the cost of electricity when fuel is one of the most expensive components. Where people and families are struggling with vehicle fuel costs and you start adding to the cost of transport, the cost of staples such as bread and milk will also go up because it is delivered by trucks that use diesel.
Agriculture: how to kill off an industry!. We have fledgling agricultural industries and people desperately trying to compete in an environment where everything else costs much more than elsewhere in Australia. If we want to have sustainable development of agriculture then we need to ensure the Territory government pressures the federal government on the carbon tax. Last evening, this House decided it would not support carbon taxes, and we should be lobbying Canberra to ensure we do not get a carbon tax, a mining tax, or any other great big new tax on everything.
Until we have a global agreement on carbon taxes and carbon pricing, and everyone is on the same page, the rest of the world must be laughing at us. We are going to give away our competitive advantage or kill industries while our competitors are in a far better position because they are not a signatory to anything like that which will apply in Australia. It behoves us not to do anything until there is complete agreement, everyone is on board, and we are all on the same page.
I move on to schools, especially the schools in my area. I attend school council meetings and listen to people’s concerns about student numbers, which affect staffing levels. We have a consistent situation in the northern suburbs. The Chief Minister said on many occasions that we have the lowest unemployment level in the country. That might be because if you do not have a job, you cannot last long up here because you cannot afford it. What I regularly hear is that someone has been put off, they lost their job, and they do not have a huge backup. Young people with families do not have a lot of money in the bank. They live from one payday to the next, and they struggle. However, what happens then …
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: I will not be too much longer, Madam Speaker.
I was on schools. Numbers in schools are affected by the high cost of rent and low disposable income. People cannot afford to stay in homes in the northern suburbs so they are moving out to the rural area where rent is cheap. They take kids out there and it is more difficult for them with high petrol costs, and they are caught in a vicious cycle. Numbers are down and we struggle to get people to come in and pay the higher rents. There are now vacant homes in the northern suburbs, which is not doing anyone any good, though it does bring down the cost of rent. With a bit of luck, the cycle will go around, but it poses a problem for people who bought houses in good times and paid big dollars. The house value drops or the rent is insufficient to cover their payments. It is going to put other people in difficult situations.
I ask the government to seriously look at housing affordability. It is doing bits and pieces but it needs to release more blocks faster. A figure, which I agree with, is that we are 5000 homes short here. That is because you cannot buy a block of land and young families cannot afford to purchase land.
I was doorknocking a street in my electorate recently and found a grandson living with granny, who said: ‘I do not mind living with granny and being here because she is on her own, but I cannot afford to live anywhere else. It is pretty cool, granny is cool. She is deaf. I can do whatever I like with my music and everything is sweet’. I went to another house and spoke to a young lady who is the daughter of a guy I have known for years. She is moving back home. She is an AO4 in government. She has a permanent job, a great job, but she cannot afford to live away from home. She bought a unit, but she is struggling and has to move home to rent the unit out. The lady in the next house is an AO5 and is forced to live there with three other women because she cannot buy a home on an AO5 wage. She is in her mid-30s and is struggling to stay in Darwin. She is an experienced public servant and she said she is thinking of leaving because Darwin is too expensive. So we will lose good people, which is not good for the Territory.
Recently, several doctors moved to Tasmania because they can earn the same money and buy a house. These are new doctors. We are not talking about doctors that have millions of dollars up their sleeve. We are talking about young doctors who would like to buy a home and have a reasonable lifestyle, who cannot find that lifestyle here so they move to Tasmania. We have nurses and tradespeople - I am stunned at the number of people who are moving out of town, which gives credence to our negative population growth at times. The government says it is cyclic, but it is happening. We are struggling to get tradespeople here. We are struggling to keep nurses here because they cannot afford to stay here.
Regarding infrastructure, we have deliberately gone into debt. It is an interesting concept and I accept the Treasurer has many supporting arguments. Perhaps the Treasurer should have squirreled away a few dollars in the good times so when the bad times come she can go to the piggy bank and pull some out. We have a huge investment required in infrastructure.
I am led to believe by various people Power and Water - and this would not be official - has a run-to-fail policy. I have people in my electorate who regularly call me, and I have a number of people to whom I say: ’Every time the power goes out, text me’. There are times when my phone rings all the time and the messages reads, ‘no power, power on, power off’. I receive text messages regularly where a crew is called out to replace fuses that should be part of an ongoing maintenance program, but it is not happening. The rivers of gold that came in during the good times were obviously not squirreled away for the bad times. There are simple lessons in life that we have all read about in nursery rhymes and animated stories about that issue, and yet we have not paid off our debt.
I am a Territorian, my kids are here, I have two little grandkids here and we are not going anywhere. When I retire from this job, or it is determined by the voters that I should not have it any more, I am not going anywhere, this is my home. I cannot go anywhere. I am frightened because by 2014-15, Territory debt will be approximately $6.574bn, divided by 220 000, which equals just under $30 000 per person. That is $30 000 per person and only four and a bit years away. It is a scary thought, because I have to live here, my kids have to live here, they have to survive and work here, and we will be saddled with this enormous debt; a doubling of debt in approximately four years. I do not know how the Treasurer sleeps at night because I would be concerned if I was running a debt like that.
Madam Speaker, I ask the government listen to the opposition’s concerns. We are in touch with our constituents, we talk to them, we doorknock, we stand at shopping centres and sit on street corners and, like the member for Nelson, we talk to many people. Our stories are not made up to fill space. These are legitimate concerns and I ask the government to note and address these things. If it does not take note this time, perhaps during preparation of the next budget it could acknowledge that people are struggling, want to be heard, and want a break. To quote the government: ‘Enough is enough’. People have put up with this and are sick and tired of it. We encourage you to look closely at programs that can help average Territorians.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Treasurer in her delivery of the Appropriation Bill and highlight key funding areas in my portfolios which I believe will deliver real benefits to Territorians.
Education and training are key priorities of the Henderson government and Budget 2011-12 reflects our efforts in this area. In 2011-12, we will deliver a record $930m education and training budget which will see more teachers in classrooms, improved infrastructure, and better programs to help students obtain the best possible education.
Teachers play a vital role in a child’s education and we want the best teachers in front of every class. Since 2002, we have invested strongly in an additional 400 teachers, principals, and support staff. In Budget 2011-12, we continue our investment in teachers with a range of new initiatives. The government is committed to providing an additional $14m in 2011-12 to improve teachers’ pay and working arrangements under the new enterprise bargaining agreement. This includes an additional $1.2m over two years to establish 50 specialist teacher positions, meaning more of our top teachers stay in the classroom benefiting students. $1.18m will provide teacher aide positions across all urban Territory schools. Teacher aides will be in transition classrooms giving teachers more support and focus on early literacy and numeracy development. They will benefit schools in Darwin and Palmerston, the rural area, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy, Batchelor and Alyangula. We know keeping teachers in bush schools, is important if they are to make an impact on students’ education.
The Territory government will include $100 000 to introduce a study reimbursement of up to $3000 for higher education loans program repayments in Budget 2011-12 to attract more teachers in hard to recruit to positions, particularly in remote locations. Budget 2011-12 completes the $246m four-year Territory government initiative to upgrade every primary and group school, with $7.2m to upgrade 24 schools. Schools to receive funding in Budget 2011-12 include: Alpurrurulam, Bakewell, Borroloola, Clyde Fenton, Driver, Durack, Gillen, Gray, Kalkaringi, Larapinta, Leanyer, MacFarlane, Malak, Milingimbi, Moil, Nakara, Nganmarriyanga, Nightcliff, Parap, Ross Park, Sadadeen, Stuart Park, Wanguri and Woodroffe. The Commonwealth-funded program of $268m for all Territory schools under the Building the Education Revolution will also be concluded in 2011- 2012 and will see upgrades for all schools.
The Henderson government’s commitment to improving infrastructure for our special needs students continues with significant investments in Budget 2011-12 including: $11.9m to relocate and build a new purpose designed Nemarluk School in Alawa; $3m for Taminmin College; $2m for Henbury School; $1.5m to continue works at Acacia Hill School; and $1m for Palmerston Senior College. In Budget 2011-12, the department will invest $2.8m to establish a regional school support structure to provide a more responsive support service to all Territory schools; $850 000 will be provided to commence stage one of the national curriculum implementation in all Territory schools helping to prepare our teachers and ultimately benefiting students; and $700 000 will also be invested to establish an engagement centre at Palmerston Senior College to improve outcomes for disengaged youth.
We know children must attend school every day to receive a good education which will set them up for the best possible life. We know school attendance directly impacts a child’s results at school, and our Every Child, Every Day attendance strategy is in place to boost school attendance, especially in the bush. In Budget 2011-12, we are continuing our investment in attendance with $3.2m to continue and expand student engagement programs including: rolling out the Clontarf Football Academy and Sporting Chance Program; $2.28m to continue enrolment and attendance initiatives under the Every Child, Every Day strategy; and $1.6m to fund attendance and truancy officers in all regions.
In partnership with the Australian government, the Territory government will continue improving educational outcomes of Indigenous students under the A Working Future initiative including: $10.6m for the Strong Start, Bright Future program; $6.4m to continue to enhance and support training programs in Territory growth towns; $8.7m to continue and expand ’virtual’ very remote early childhood integrated services hubs and Families As First Teachers programs; and $1.2m for additional teachers for very remote schools.
For early childhood, Budget 2011-12 continues the A Working Future upgrades, investing $16.4m to build child and family centres at Yuendumu, Gunbalanya, Maningrida and Ngukurr. An additional $500000 to expand the mobile preschool program to $3m to improve access to preschool services for children living in remote communities is also in the budget, helping prepare children for school.
The Territory remains the only jurisdiction to pay a childcare subsidy to help reduce the cost to Territory families. In Budget 2011-12, $4.3m is provided to continue to pay childcare subsidies for all children attending licensed childcare centres. Childcare places will be subsidised by $27.37 per week for children under two years old, and $20.20 for children over two years old. This creates significant annual savings for families.
The Territory government’s investment in training to build the workforce of the future continues in Budget 2011-12. It will support over 4000 apprentices and trainees in training across the Territory - an increase of 81% since 2001. This includes 1800 traditional trade apprentices in identified skill shortage areas. $21.8m will be provided for training and apprentices to grow a skilled Territory workforce, including: $8.5m for an employment strategy for local Indigenous people, incorporating $7.37m in CDEP transition and $1.1m for 16 full-time equivalent assistant teacher positions; $1.85m for 15 industry engagement and participation personnel to facilitate structured work placement programs for senior students; $1.3m to continue the Workwear/Workgear program to assist apprentices with the initial cost of work-related necessities during the first year of their apprenticeship; continuation of the $1m per annum for 10 000 apprentice and trainee commencements between 2009 and 2012; $900 000 Work Ready funding to help young Territorians transition from school into apprenticeships and traineeships; $800 000 in incentives for employers to take on apprentices and trainees in occupations experiencing skills shortages, or to employ persons from disadvantaged groups; and $250 000 to provide vocational education and training and work experience for students in middle years of schooling, with a particular emphasis on young Indigenous men.
Budget 2011-12 delivers significant investment in public and affordable housing, investing $539m for more affordable housing and accommodation across the Territory. Consistent with our Territory 2030 objectives, the government is committed to growing our housing numbers, improving access to housing, and building the capacity of the non-government sector to be involved in providing housing solutions for Territorians in need.
Urban public housing: the public housing construction budget for 2011-12 includes significant investments in urban initiatives including: continuation of the $49m investment over three years towards building 150 new public housing homes; continuation of the $11.6m investment to complete construction of 40 seniors’ units at Bellamack; $14.1m to complete social and affordable housing dwellings as part of the four-year $60m Australian housing stimulus package; $15.1m for repairs and refurbishments to existing public housing dwellings; $9.4m to commence a targeted upgrade program on urban public housing dwellings across the Territory; and $1m to redevelop old public housing unit complexes.
In Budget 2011-12, $1.2m is allocated to the new public housing safety strategy, including establishment of a public housing safety officer workforce in 2012. In addition to a construction budget in urban areas, we will continue to ensure that 15% of all government land release is set aside for affordable and social housing, creating real opportunities for low- and middle-income earning Territory families to enter the housing market. Additional affordable housing options for eligible Territorians will be provided in 2011-12 through the establishment of the affordable housing rental company. Work is already under way on the first project at the former Wirrina site in Parap, where 35 units will be available.
Supported accommodation: reducing homelessness will be addressed with $6.8m in Budget 2011-12 to operate managed short-term accommodation facilities in Alice Springs and Darwin including: $1.22m to manage the Alice Springs Visitor Park, a short-term accommodation facility housing up to 150 visitors; $1.22m to operate a transitional accommodation facility at Crerar Road, Berrimah; $1m for Percy Court Transitional Village in Alice Springs; $1.7m for tenancy sustainability programs across the Territory; and $1.25m for homelessness referral services and grant programs.
Remote Indigenous housing: our commitment to improving the living conditions of Indigenous Territorians in remote areas continues in Budget 2011-12 with $172m investment in the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program to construct new housing and upgrade existing housing, and $118m to provide land servicing and essential services infrastructure in Territory growth towns. Already, 1500 families have benefited from new and improved housing in remote areas and town camps, and this number will increase at a good pace this year.
Government employee housing: delivering key government services such as health, education, and policing in remote areas is vital. In Budget 2011-12, we will deliver $42m to build, replace, and upgrade government employee housing in remote areas so we are able to attract and retain the best teachers, nurses, police officers, and other government staff in our remote regions.
Northern Territory home ownership: buying a home is one of the biggest and most rewarding investments a person makes in their life. The Henderson government is committed to helping more Territorians become homeowners. In Budget 2011-12, significant changes to the Homestart NT scheme will help more low- and middle-income earning Territorians get their foot in the door of the housing market. Since 2004, over 1400 households have been assisted to purchase their own home. The Treasurer has made a number of announcements about lifting the income limit for people under the Homestart NT scheme, and that was well received at the budget breakfast with the Master Builders Association today.
Public employment: we continue to invest in our public servants. This year’s EBA demonstrated that we do value our public servants. We are also working towards completion of the new public sector management act, and negotiations are continuing.
Budget 2011-12 and the Appropriation Bill highlight this government’s commitment to Territorians in a range of areas.
I particularly want to compliment the Treasurer. It has been a long few months. Today has been a very long day, and night. The Treasurer started the day at the Master Builders Association breakfast before coming here and she has had a heavy workload with the bills she has put through parliament and committee stages - important bills about alcohol. She also has charge of the Appropriation Bill, and our Treasurer should be commended for this budget. It was framed in difficult circumstances. The opposition will have the opportunity to interrogate the budget during estimates. I commend the Treasurer for her energy, commitment, and intellect. At budget functions, the Treasurer has demonstrated detailed knowledge of all portfolios areas, and I sometimes think, my goodness me, I wish I knew as much detail about housing and some of those expenditure items as the Treasurer. You can quibble about it, but the Treasurer, when you think about the portfolios and detail she is across, it is incredible. It shows a Treasurer who is right on top of her portfolios, and everyone else’s. That is the difficult role of a Treasurer.
Madam Speaker, opposition members spoke during this debate. Some were humorous and some made good observations and critique of the budget. I was saddened by what the member for Katherine said earlier today. The member for Katherine, quite brazenly, spoke of deceit, debt, and integrity. I believe the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Port Darwin put him up to coming here today and using that sort of language in the parliament. If he was given that advice, it was not good advice.
It demonstrated that it was, at one level, cheeky, if you were going to be charitable. To me, it oozed hubris, it was contumely, if you want to look up the word and what it means. It had some arrogance about it. Yesterday, in a very important motion involving himself, the member for Katherine did not afford this parliament the courtesy of responding. He did not respond to allegations about deceit and debt on his part.
A major allegation raised against the member for Katherine was in the Ombudsman’s report, and I quote from page 6:
- It is alleged that S/Constable Westra van Holthe may have committed a forgery contrary to section 258(c) of the Criminal Code and an attempted criminal deception.
He admitted to the Ombudsman that he altered legal documents, transfer documents – not once, but twice.
In the view of the Ombudsman, quote:
- It is difficult to accept S/Constable Westra van Holthe’s denial that this was done without intention to deceive or avoid prosecution and penalty for not lodging the documents on time.
The Ombudsman found, on the balance of probabilities, that he used his position as a police officer to personal advantage and acted unlawfully.
The member for Katherine should have been chastened yesterday, but he bounced in here today and used words like deceit, deception, and debt. The Ombudsman’s report says the JRC understands that Senior Constable Westra van Holthe agreed, in an out of court settlement, to pay Mr Rowley $8000 for the sale of the vehicle. Remembering that he signed off at buying it for $14 000 from Rowley, that makes the total amount of monies received $11 000. Senior Constable Westra van Holthe effectively received $9000 from the sale transaction - a clear profit of $6000. Mr Rowley sold it to him for $14 000. He received $11 000 and the member for Katherine makes $6000 and still owes Mr Rowley $3000. He cleans up $6000 and the guy comes in here and lectures this government about deceit and about debt.
It is all a bit rich. I tried to handle yesterday’s debate in a gentlemanly and objective way, but I am offended, not personally, but on behalf of this House, that the guy came here today and said things like that after he could not stand in his own defence yesterday. It seems a bit rich. I was prepared to not comment yesterday that he did not get up because I thought this poor bloke is sitting there, feeling so bad and feeling chastised. He looked grave and I thought I would not sink the boot in. I had my say being the first say yesterday, and I took the foot off the accelerator in the second part in deference to the way I thought he felt. From what he did here today, he shows no remorse.
He is a bit of a joker coming here and talking about the sale of NT Fleet. That is a joke-and-a-half after listening to him rave on about the sale of NT Fleet. I saw it as provocation and I see the member for Port Darwin’s hand in this. He should be advising the poor old member for Katherine a bit better. The member for Katherine needs to show remorse because what happened today demonstrates that he has shown no remorse for what he has done, and he has treated this parliament with contempt. I am sorry to end on that note but that is the way I feel.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the contribution from all members of the Chamber in the budget debate. I look forward to the scrutiny of the budget through estimates. I have no doubt there will continue to be public scrutiny of the budget.
The opposition will say what it wants to say. I congratulate the member for Johnston, the Leader of Government Business, who pointed out the stark difference between government and opposition at this stage. The opposition has a deceitful, dishonest shadow Treasurer, and they sit there and accept it. In every other parliament in our nation, that member of parliament would be hounded out of office, let alone be allowed to remain shadow Treasurer. It is unbelievable.
I sincerely thank the Treasury staff who worked tirelessly with the staff of my office - and I sincerely thank them - in putting together Budget 2011-12. We are proud of the budget. It is a true, solid Labor budget in which we support families to get ahead. We are supporting businesses through the tough times. We are brave and bold enough to step into deficit country when we could have just sliced a bit off the infrastructure budget and been in surplus. We did the right thing, the responsible thing, the responsive thing in terms of need. The opposition members do not understand that. They do not understand what is occurring in the economy at the moment and where the growth needs to be filled from the public spend. Bring on the estimates debate. We all look forward to it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, this bill is now referred to the Estimates Committee.
Debate suspended.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at rising on 5 May 2011, adjourn until approximately 1.30 pm on Thursday, 23 June 2011, or such other time as notified by the Speaker, with one hour’s notice being given to government and opposition Whips and members by the Speaker, or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker, pursuant to sessional order.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, my concern about this motion is that the Estimates Committee worked in a particularly positive fashion last year. However, the government cannot but help itself to set the scene at the last moment with the Leader of Government Business continuing an attack he could not even sustain in this House on the member for Katherine. Again, he used the word ‘unlawful’ ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, this is a procedural motion regarding the next sitting day.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker, and I want to talk about the next sitting day and how that sitting day will proceed. I need to construct the argument and …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you might like to make that pretty fast; it is extremely late, and it is a procedural motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the minister should be less provocative. I have every right to defend …
Madam SPEAKER: Not during a procedural motion, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, speaking to the procedural motion, we are talking about the establishment of the next sitting day when we will deal with matters that come before this House. It is clear this government has established it is going to deal with that next sitting day in a provocative fashion. They are doing nothing more than continuing to stir the pot. If the minister believes what the member for Katherine said today was provocative, he is easily provoked. He sees all sorts of hands in conduct.
Madam Speaker, I accuse the minister of gross myopia ...
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are talking about a procedural motion about the Estimates Committee date, if the member could bring his attention to that particular subject.
Mr ELFERINK: I can tell you, here is …
Madam SPEAKER: It is a digression. However, continue for a very short period on this level of digression.
Mr ELFERINK: Here is the deal. Give me three minutes to get this off my chest, or you can have the argument for the next half hour ...
Madam SPEAKER: Is that a threat to me, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: No, I was looking directly at the minister for …
Madam SPEAKER: As you recall, all comments are directed through the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, Madam Speaker. The government has established its attitude. This minister was unable to prosecute his argument in this House yesterday because the motion was lost, but he continues to prosecute nevertheless. He has again accused the member for Katherine of engaging in unlawful conduct. And guess what? He applies unlawful conduct, which, in a court, requires beyond reasonable doubt. He changed it to balance of probability to suit his argument. You are guilty at a lower standard of conduct.
The minister makes these promises about how he conducts himself in the future. He says he took his pedal off the metal yesterday because he had some sympathy for the member for Katherine. No, it is because he knew he was going to lose the argument because he could not sustain it. The attacks on the member for Katherine are nothing but a smoke screen for the failures of this government and for its debt and desperate measures.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, in no way do I support the weak Rudd/Gillard Labor government border protection policies. I am a vocal critical of Labor’s failed policies. People have died travelling the high seas to get to Australia. Labor has failed, and continues to fail, on border protection.
However, it would be silly not to pursue economic opportunities following from Labor’s failures. It is a terrible situation to find ourselves in, seeking to bolster our economy from detaining illegal boat people, but facilities such as detention centres need to be established. It would be foolish not to debate the merits of such a facility in Central Australia.
Today, I have written to federal Immigration minister, Chris Bowen, asking him to consider the merits of building a detention centre in Central Australia. I have asked, if such an idea has merit, if I could arrange a community meeting to hear from a delegation of immigration officials to explain the pros and cons of such a facility. I recognise a similar opportunity has been taken up in Darwin at Wickham Point. In the two weeks before that announcement, I had been working with a number of people in Alice Springs discussing the merits of such a facility in Central Australia. Every conversation has seen the positive merits of such a facility.
I hope we have not missed the boat, so to speak, on the opportunity. In the interests of driving our economy, I will actively pursue the concept, and talk with the community about such opportunities. I would like to see a debate in Central Australia to gauge community sentiment about the merits of establishing an immigration detention centre. There is much community unrest in South Australia, Tasmania, and Sydney about current and proposed detention centres, which poses an opportunity for Central Australia.
If the community surrounding Villawood in Sydney, Pontville in Tasmania, and Inverbrackie in South Australia do not want these facilities then, maybe, we could step up to the plate and provide a service for a failed policy and support our economy at the same time. If the boats stop coming, we could use the facility for temporary accommodation or a workers village in a business model, keeping up the maintenance and ensuring the availability of the facility should it be required again with such failed Labor policies.
The building and management of an immigration detention centre would be an immediate economic stimulator for our local economy. It would help stimulate the construction industry, creating and sustaining jobs. Such a facility would see increases in demand for services which support competition and work towards reduced costs: laundry services, kitchen services, transport, airfreight - the list of services is almost endless. We could see an increase in demand for flights, which would work toward increasing the number of overall flights in Central Australia that could potentially create competition and drive down the costs of airline flights in and out of Alice Springs.
Central Australia would, obviously, need to bring in more staff to service the facility, thereby creating demand for housing and assisting to stimulate the housing construction industry - once again, creating jobs. This is a multimillion dollar opportunity which we should talk about as a community. If the majority supports it, we should actively pursue the concept.
Speaking freely, I do not support the failed policies of the Labor government of Australia. Its border protective approaches are not working, and we are all well aware of that. All Australians would agree. If it comes to the point where detention facilities are required, such as what is going ahead at Wickham Point, Alice Springs in Central Australia would be silly not to put up its hand.
I know it is a long shot, but I have written a letter today to the federal Immigration minister asking that we be considered. I am asking in good faith whether he will sit down with me and the Alice Springs community to work through a potential model for a detention facility.
I want to see Alice Springs look at this as an opportunity to support our economy, to help grow jobs, and to grow services in our town. With the continued frustration we see through media about proposed facilities in South Australia and Tasmania, and the riots that are continuing in Villawood which are causing significant community concern, it is an opportunity for us to welcome such a facility. We can send a message to the rest of Australia that Central Australia will provide the solutions, and a clear message to those illegal arrivals that if they come to Australia, they will be living in the desert in a facility. That is a positive approach to try to deter people from coming. Most importantly, I am here to stand up for business in Alice Springs and the community more generally to create a debate to get jobs into Alice Springs.
On a lighter note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate Rebecca Healy from Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory. I have been made aware this evening that Rebecca Healy, who was the NT Mother of the Year, has now been named the Australian Mother of the Year.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES: For a young woman from a remote part of Australia, Tennant Creek, that is a significant achievement - being named the Barnardo’s Australian Mother of the Year. I understand she is the youngest recipient in the award’s 16-year history. It was announced tonight at a gala dinner in Sydney. For her children, Blake and Chase, it is a fantastic award.
Rebecca undertakes a number of fine community services in Tennant Creek. She is a well-known Tennant Creek identity. The member for Barkly knows Rebecca well and, I understand, your wife is very friendly with her too. I am sure you and I both agree that she is a worthy recipient. It is good to see some attention going to Tennant Creek on a national level. I am sure Rebecca will be a long-term, passionate advocate of Tennant Creek and will try to advance Tennant Creek into the future. Once again, congratulations from me and my colleagues in the Country Liberals.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I thank my PA, Vishal Mohan-Ram whose last day at work in Parliament House is tomorrow. He is off to Government House.
I place on the public record my thanks to him. I am sure members will join with me in saying he has done a terrific job working for members in this House. He is always friendly and smiling, even though things may be going a bit pear-shaped in the office. He is a wonderful person to work with. I wish him all the best in his new job and career, working for His Honour, a well-deserved position for him. Congratulations, Vishal, and I hope you enjoy your new future.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the recent community events in Borroloola over the May Day long weekend.
The National Trust NT Gulf Branch Open Day on Saturday, 30 April commenced the weekend’s proceedings with the opening of the Gulf Heritage Arts and Community Festival. The festival commenced in the grounds of the historic Borroloola Police Station Museum where heritage displays, government and local organisation representations, and fundraising activities entertained the vibrant crowd.
The highlight of the day was the opening of the Borroloola Police Station Museum 25-year time capsule that had been buried under a formidable concrete pad in 1985. The contents of the time capsule were displayed on tables outside the museum. It was wonderful to see the community members, both young and old, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, poring over the artefacts. It was moving to see them reminiscing about that period in the 1980s where families and young adults were able to show their children and, in some cases, their grandchildren, photographs of themselves at school and in the community, including their school project work representing Borroloola and Ganjarani School at McArthur River Station.
The open day was complemented by the Waralungku art centre exhibition of works, including traditional and contemporary art sculpture, pottery, and weaving, with the representative group of artists cooking sausage and onion sandwiches served with icy cold soft drinks as a fundraiser to support their pocket money budget while on tour to London in 2011, exhibiting art work at the prestigious Rebecca Hossack Art Gallery.
Staff from the Borroloola School organised the photographic display representing many Borroloola sporting achievements over the past decades, with the outstanding Borroloola Cyclone Soccer Project instilling real community pride. The story of a fledgling school extracurricular activity commenced by the school janitor in 1997 has developed into an internationally recognised sporting program with representative teams from Borroloola competing at the Arafura Games and in Singapore.
The festival included Borroloola’s inaugural Golden Heart Awards on Sunday, 1 May 2011, that saw 120 residents dress up for a gala night of community awards and entertainment under the stars in the picturesque gardens of the Savannah Way Motel. The inaugural Borroloola Golden Heart Awards recognise nominees from across the town community in the categories of School Achiever, Local Hero, Best Employee, Most Valued Business, Best Police Officer, Golden Oldie, and Community Volunteer, with the final award recognising the overall Golden Heart For Outstanding Community Service. The night was an impressive turnout with fine dining, speeches, awards, and entertainment that set a positive tone in true recognition of the most important element of the NT growth town: its people.
As the MLA for Barkly, I was honoured to be invited to MC the event and took the opportunity to reflect on the community, both past and present, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and the colourful characters of the Gulf country who were being acknowledged for their many and varied community service achievements. My brief history in the town spans 30 years, and it was a proud moment to stand at the lectern and present Golden Heart Awards to friends and countrymen, including past staff and students of the Borroloola Community Education Centre, where I was the principal for six years.
The inaugural Borroloola Golden Heart Awards was the result of a small, but hard-working, committee that hosted the first event as a prototype for what could become an annual event for the Gulf country town. The inaugural committee gained the attention of the townspeople, who turned out in their finery to both enjoy a gala night and celebrate the unsung heroes within their community who are the backbone behind community events, successful businesses and community organisations which represent powerful, positive role models. The vibrations from the crowd made the event a great night out and a memorable and meaningful occasion for recognition of those community members who apply the ‘above and beyond the call of duty’ principle to their community engagement. That is the powerful aspect for the intrinsic growth and development of the people.
The Henderson government has commenced the bold and courageous journey, never before undertaken in the Territory, of developing our 20 growth towns across the Territory in A Working Future policy that has commenced with the important community consultation, planning, housing and infrastructure development.
The Gulf Heritage Arts and Community Festival in 2011, including the show, rodeo camp draft, NAIDOC Week, and the Golden Heart Awards in Borroloola, are examples of community development initiatives that grow the spirit of the people in parallel with the development of the growth town infrastructure and services. Growing community spirit is an important part of community development in relation to its healing potential, connection to true reconciliation among the people, and for achieving social harmony and community safety.
Well done, Borroloola, for your 2011 festival program, and congratulations to all those inaugural Golden Heart Award recipients. Best wishes, Borroloola, for the way ahead as, through the reflection on the positives within the community, we have already provided a resolve to strengthen the lives of more of the residents and build the important cultural and spiritual foundation representing an important community spirit that will underpin the social and cultural development of your growth town.
I also acknowledge the important volunteers and sponsors who work hard in the planning, development, and delivery of such community events, as it is their dedication and fine example that inspires others to do better.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I also share with the member for Braitling, and the members of this House, the excitement of my family, on behalf of Dawn McCarthy and me, when we heard today that Rebecca Healy was named Barnardo’s Mother of the Year 2011, following closely on her nomination and win as the Northern Territory Mother of the Year. Rebecca is a well-respected young woman in our community, and very much an emerging young leader in our community. I am sure she would be celebrating with her family and friends tonight on a national stage. Good luck to her. We hope to see her home soon, and we celebrate that marvellous achievement and recognition of an Australian citizen recognised for being the Barnardo’s Mother of the Year.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very late. A couple of weeks ago I was very honoured to be invited to the grand opening of the Driver Primary School Stephanie Alexander kitchen and garden. It was a very well-attended event. Fantastic facilities have been put together under the Stephanie Alexander guidelines. The school garden is magical. We have seen it go from a patch of hard rock and dirt 18 months ago when we began helping the school build a Stephanie Alexander garden, to a beautiful, lush tropical garden.
To see the way the kids interact in that garden is magical. I am sure there have been storybooks written about the magic garden. This garden is just that. I urge any other school considering it to find the time, space, and motivation to put together a school community garden. I know there are a few others in the Northern Territory considering it. Do it.
It is truly a place where you will see your kids, your students, blossom. We even had our young men do their version of the Haka. I cannot remember its proper name, but it was a bit like Old McDonald on the Farm Haka instead. Instead of the normal Haka, there were quack quacks here and the like. It was amazing. Those young men have changed their attitude towards school and it was fantastic to see them. That group of young men then served all the guests at the function. The food, made from the produce from the farm, was fantastic. I was very pleased to put forward a platinum sponsorship because I genuinely believe it is a great learning tool.
I also congratulate the Palmerston markets. They kicked off again last Friday and will be on later tonight in Palmerston. There is a new committee, a new person leading the show. I was very excited to be back at the Palmerston markets. I am able to see my students from the various schools on the Friday mornings, but I then get to see them on Friday night at the markets. Probably the most enjoyable part of my job is to have that community involvement. Well done to the Palmerston markets. It kicked off in a big way last Friday, and we look forward to continued support of the Palmerston markets. We have chipped in to sponsor the talent quest this year and we are looking forward to hearing - and sometimes not hearing - those various talents.
I am looking forward to going into the Gray Primary School this morning, which will be the first time I have visited Gray this year. They have a garden they are trying to establish, and I hope they can gather their inspiration from Driver. I will be helping to share that knowledge at the Gray Primary School. I look forward to being there in only a few hours.
To quickly wrap up, I also pass my congratulations to Ms Rebecca Healy who won the Northern Territory Barnardo’s Mother of the Year and has now gone on to win tonight - well last night now - the Australian Barnardo’s Mother of the Year. She is an absolute inspiration. Anyone who meets Rebecca comes away with the feeling that she has passed a little of herself on to you, and she has given you her time and full attention. She has more energy than almost anyone else I know. Well done, Rebecca, enjoy yourself and I am sure, as it was after the NT awards, you will be back home within a day.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016