2007-05-02
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of students of Years 5/6/7 from the Anula Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Kim Bond, Mrs Elizabeth Andrade and Mr Matt Bennett. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the future of our CBD is a critical issue, and a major challenge for government, council, business and the broader community and, of course, something that our young Territorians are very interested in: the city of the future. Last week’s urban planning forum in Darwin was an important step in meeting this challenge.
The CBD is a focal point for both our growing local population and the increasing number of domestic and international tourists who visit the Top End each year. It is a great place to shop, relax, be entertained and, of course, it is the place where many of us work and do business, and where more and more are choosing to live. The way our city develops depends on the action we take now. The urban planning forum was all about planning for the future, and coming up with specific recommendations that will have an immediate impact on the development in the CBD and its surrounds.
As you know, last October I launched Creating Darwin’s Future – A Tropical Harbour City which set out 93 separate proposals for the future development of Darwin. Last week’s forum was one of those proposals. We have just completed six months of consultations and, during that time, we have heard many views and ideas about the future of our capital city. It has been a great response, and everyone agrees on one thing: the opportunity is here to create an even better tropical harbour city. There has been strong community support for some of the key proposals outlined in Creating Darwin’s Future such as a ring of green around the CBD, a city centre that looks outward to the harbour, vibrant community spaces and attractive streetscapes, and buildings that complement the look and feel of our city. If one message has come through loud and clear from the consultations it is this: we need to act now and get things moving.
The forum was very well attended with 200 stakeholders participating in the plenary sessions, and an additional 30 people attending the evening community session. A summary of the stakeholder and community views from the forum were displayed at two community information and feedback sessions that took place at Raintree Park in the mall on Friday last week, and at Casuarina Shopping Centre the following day. The feedback from the community at these sessions, and via the dedicated website, will feed into an action plan covering the way in which future developments in the CBD will be undertaken. It will contain a set of specific recommendations focusing around the design of buildings, streetscapes and open spaces to help shape the future of the CBD.
In the meantime, government and council have identified the following priorities will have a more immediate impact on development in the CBD and its surrounds: continue our approach of engaging with the community and encouraging a diversity of views on how our capital city looks and functions; incorporate Darwin City Council’s streetscape strategy into the NT Planning Scheme; combine streetscape and landscape master plans to develop a coordinated approach to greening Darwin; work together to develop a ring of open space, pedestrian and cycle ways linking the CBD with Myilly Point, Frances Bay and the waterfront; plant more trees in public areas; amend the NT Planning Scheme to ensure new buildings contribute better to street life; mandate awnings on all new developments which front the street; prevent new car parking at ground level in new development or require screening from public view; review the extent of the central business zone to ensure we maintain a vibrant core; encourage developers of commercial buildings to incorporate change rooms and bicycle cages to encourage cycling or walking to work; and work together to make better use of the Esplanade for recreational activities, for example, in storing access to services such as power and water.
Madam Speaker, the government will keep the House updated on the outcomes of the forum and the progress we are making in the coming months on what is a very exciting, timely and important project that is creating Darwin’s future.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome our school students. As I did in Alice Springs, for their benefit I will tell them about ministerial reports. This is the bit when the government comes in and, as you would have seen, they read, as the Chief Minister did, a speech. We do not have any notice as to what is going to be discussed. We only have a couple of minutes to respond. Some people …
Mr Henderson: Talk about Darwin. I know you don’t know much about Darwin.
Ms CARNEY: … might take the view that given that this is the only parliament in the country where this happens …
Mr Henderson: You obviously do not know anything about Darwin – that is why you are not talking about it.
Ms CARNEY: … that it might not - I will come to that, sport - be as fair as it should be.
In any event, having made those remarks, the Leader of Government Business, that fellow over there, always gets himself into trouble. I am sure as school students you would have been told to always think before you speak.
It is the case that I welcome what the Chief Minister had to say. We have had a number of people report on the forum last week and most of those reports were largely positive. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend but I did ask a member of my office to attend and his reports were also very favourable. It is also the case that urban enhancement is something that I believe most people would agree with. Most governments around the country have come pretty late to the concept of urban enhancement. It really has just captured governments’ attentions, perhaps, in the last five to seven years only.
Darwin lends itself to the tropical environment, and what can be done about it, and it lends itself to people thinking about how else it can be improved. As the Chief Minister said, the opportunity really is here to create an even better tropical centre. I am not sure that everyone agrees with the Chief Minister’s view that Darwin should look like Singapore but I certainly agree with her that the opportunity is here to make Darwin even a better tropical centre. I thank the Chief Minister for advising us that she will report to us again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minster’s report. However, as Allan McGill said at the same forum: heard it once, heard it twice, now heard it again and nothing has happened. I can give you a classic example which Hans Vos mentioned in his article today, and the NT News mentioned in an editorial recently. That one thing was: the building of high rise buildings right up against the edge of streets. If you look at the 33-storey building at the bottom of Knuckey Street you will see it is even over the street. I went to the Development Consent Authority when that building was suggested for development approval and said there is no way we should allow those sorts of buildings to go right up against the edge of the blocks, take up the full envelope of the land, and to have five storeys of car park. You have two 33-storey buildings there now with car park as the only thing you see from the street. Hans Vos said today that it is not an issue of whether the building is tall, it is what you see from the ground level, and we have spoilt Darwin by allowing that to happen.
I pleaded with the Development Consent Authority not to allow that to happen. However, it was approved. What is happening is that we have a vision that is not backed up by the rules to make sure that vision is in place. Unfortunately, we have had plenty of time to change it and we have not done it and, in some cases, it is now too late. We should have had a vision. I put forward a vision for Darwin Harbour to keep some of the harbour as national park. What have we done with the middle of the harbour? We have scraped the guts out of it. It is now going to be industrial land. Why could we not leave the Middle Arm peninsula? It was said at the planning authority that the harbour is the very part that makes Darwin an attractive city and yet we are going to develop it into industrial land right in the centre.
That is the vision we should be having. We have not had it. There has been no vision coming from the government, unfortunately. We need to take this vision into the suburbs as well. We should not have streets where you cannot park your cars or turn them around. We need to make sure our suburbs are also well planned.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his constructive comments, and the Opposition Leader for her whingey-whiney approach to Darwin city. We have seen the ads, Opposition Leader. We have seen the ads with the challenge to me asking what have I done for Darwin and the Territory, with you standing in front of the waterfront. We have an opposition, young Territorians, which does not like the waterfront development. It is going to be a wonderful convention centre and the wave pool will be terrific. There will be lovely open areas where you can go and have fun with your families and there will be restaurants and little cafs. The wave pool will be terrific. However, we have an opposition which does not like it. It is very sad. All you have to do is look at the television ad. It says it all.
The CBD planning forum is about getting community views so that we can give good, solid direction to the DCA. It is important and it is going to happen.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, in this year’s budget, government has increased health funding by 73% since 2001. These extra resources have allowed us to increase our medical workforce by over 100 full-time equivalent doctors and, similarly, we have 270 more full-time equivalent nurses working in the Territory health system than we did in 2001. These achievements are something to be proud of, but there is more to do. Demand for hospital care is increasing across the world and the Northern Territory certainly is no exception.
In the Territory, we face additional drivers on demand; for example, the fact that we have a much lower proportion of private general practitioners than other jurisdictions. Fortunately, this government’s sound and sustainable financial management has given us the means to address increasing demand for our hospital services.
Budget 2007-08 increases the Department of Health and Community Services’ budget to $838m, an increase of 73% since 2001. In particular under this budget, this government will provide an initial $27.8m for our five public hospitals and associated facilities. The extra money will be used to address increasing demand, but also to expand the services available to Territorians at their hospitals.
I draw members’ attention to the promise we made before the last election; namely to open an extra 24 inpatient beds at each of Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital over the course of this government. Last year, we established an extra six fully funded and staffed beds at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I am pleased to announce that the coming financial year will see an additional $5.3m for 12 extra fully staffed beds at Royal Darwin Hospital and 12 extra fully staffed beds at Alice Springs Hospital. That equates to approximately 50 extra staff across those two institutions. The extra beds at Royal Darwin Hospital will be complemented by the expansion of the Rapid Admission Unit, which provides better access for patients to the care they need and reduces waiting times in the Emergency Department. $4.7m has been allocated in the coming financial year to expand the unit from nine to 24 beds and fully staffing it to around 80 full-time equivalent staff.
There are a number of smaller but also significant initiatives in this budget. For example, there will be funding of $500 000 for the placement of social workers in the Emergency Departments to assist clients with a range of issues, but particularly domestic and family violence, a key concern to health professionals and the community alike.
There is also funding for a blood transfusion nurse, for expanded palliative care services, aeromedical services and improved rehabilitation services in our hospitals.
Our commitment to treatment and caring for people with chronic diseases is borne out in our further commitment to renal dialysis in this budget. Funding for renal services will be increased by $700 000 for operational and staffing costs for the eight extra dialysis chairs opened at Alice Springs Hospital this year. Over a four-year period, we have made a commitment of $24.4m for both the primary health care and acute sectors in relation to renal services. This will enable an extra 32 patients to be treated in Central Australia to meet the increasing demand for that service. Those funds I talked about also relate to smaller hospitals at Gove, Tennant Creek and Katherine, which provide excellent regional services within the hospital network, and each will benefit from extra capacity at the two major hospitals.
Budget 2007-08 also continues the dramatic upward trend in hospitals’ own budgets under this government. This year, each hospital’s resources will be increased as follows: Katherine Hospital to $24.4m, an increase of 72% since 2001; Gove District Hospital to $17.8m, a 60% increase; and Tennant Creek Hospital to $10.6m, which represents a 74% increase.
There are also some major capital works planned for the coming financial year, including $6m for an upgrade of the Emergency Department at Alice Springs Hospital; $1m for improvements to Tennant Creek Hospital’s fire safety; and $1.9m for an extra renal dialysis facility.
Madam Speaker, a properly resourced hospital sector is essential for good health and Budget 2007-08 delivers that in spades.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will be slow and considered. The government is cashed up; we all know that. In the five or six years since the change of government, we have $1.1bn more than ever. That is about a third more - no, 50% more - than they had when they first came to government. That is a significant amount of money. It is not about cash. What the minister so hurriedly tried to tell us is that he has put lots of stuff out there and lots of money. Let him do it. I congratulate the government for being prepared to put their money where it is needed.
When you listen to the AMA and the ANF, the two peak bodies in the Northern Territory representing the industry that this minister is in charge of, they are all concerned. Money is not the issue; it is about the mismanagement of the health service under this minister. We put the questions: why is the Emergency Department reception area converted to holding bays? Why are patients remaining on trolleys and being managed in the back of ambulances? Why is the establishment number of nurses kept artificially low, so that the nurses have to work long and excessive hours and overtime? Why is the morale so low for doctors in the public system? These are the questions that need to be asked. These are the symptoms of a system that is in trouble without the leadership that should be there under this minister. Unless the minister takes responsibility, nothing that is good will come out of this. The money will be spent, frittered away, and there will be nothing there at the end. The person on the ground, the Territorian, will not get the benefit of the huge amount of money that has been spent. The AMA said: ‘Make sure it gets down to the man on the ground’.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, yesterday, the minister spoke about the equality of health services. Today, he spoke about increased funding of 73% since 2001. He also said today there is $27.8m extra being spent this year on health services. Yesterday, when I mentioned the possibility that we could have an appropriately qualified nurse full-time at the Farrar Medical Centre, or the St John Ambulance Centre, to supply a service to Palmerston and rural areas, the minister, instead of answering that question, said: ‘It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to provide a GP’. Not getting into the argument of why you funded that GP for two-thirds of that period, or even more than that, and why he all of a sudden dropped it, I am not asking that question. I am simply saying there needs to be some service for people in the Palmerston area so that people and families can go there after hours to get treatment, instead of having to travel to RDH.
Surely, the government can find, out of the $27.8m, the 73% increase in funding since 2001, a little money to provide a service for those people in the rural and Palmerston areas, to provide the comfort that is needed for people who live on their own - maybe the husband is working elsewhere on an oil rig or on some construction program somewhere - when a child is sick at night, or bumps their head and needs some stitches. That is the sort of comfort people in Palmerston and the rural area need instead of having to travel all the way to RDH.
By having that attached, for instance, to the St John Ambulance service, if there is a requirement for more treatment, if it is an urgent matter, they can immediately be sent to RDH or be told to go there . There is a service required there. You can argue until the cows come home who needs to pay for a GP. In the meantime, the government could do something to help people in the rural area and Palmerston with a very much needed service.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I addressed the issues raised by the member for Nelson yesterday. We are working constructively with the Commonwealth to raise GP numbers in the Territory. I specifically mentioned Palmerston and the rural area in my conversation with Tony Abbott. That is an important issue.
The member for Greatorex talked about catch-up by this government. Certainly, we have had to catch up. After the CLP stripped out 200 nursing positions in their last years of government …
Dr Lim: What a lot of rubbish!
Dr BURNS: Of course, we have. We had to put nursing and medical resources back into the system.
The member for Greatorex mentioned issues surrounding bed block. I can give an undertaking to this House that I am firmly focused on addressing those issues around bed block. The extra beds that I have mentioned and the RAPU go a long way to addressing those issues, but further work needs to be done.
I acknowledged all the way through my report that much has been done, but there is much more that has to be done. I am more than happy, and am committed to working with the ANF and the AMA to resolve issues around the hospital, staffing issues, and I meet with them on a regular basis. I am committed to making our hospitals a better place ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, the focus of Disability Services is a focus on the quality of life of people with a disability and their carers. I acknowledge the efforts of the former Ministers for Family and Community Services, the members for Nightcliff and Arafura, to address historical underfunding and unmet need.
In our first term of government, Labor set in train significant reforms in community services, a serious response to child protection, repositioning mental health services to support people in the community, cutting-edge policy on petrol and alcohol abuse and, of course, significant budget growth. The total Family and Community Services budget has increased from $88m under the CLP to more than $193m this year.
In 2005, I was privileged to be appointed Minister for Family and Community Services. From my past employment in the disability sector and my contact with many people with a disability and their carers, I knew there was an expectation for Labor government reform and growth in Disability Services. I proposed to Cabinet that the Disability Services budget needed additional funds but, just as importantly, needed a long-term reform plan. The government agreed to commission the KPMG review of Disability Services last year. This was the most comprehensive review of Disability Services ever undertaken in the Territory. The review team travelled throughout the Territory consulting with stakeholders, people with disabilities, their families, their carers, service providers, and both frontline public servants and their colleagues in the community sector.
In December last year I received the review. Its recommendations were indeed wide-ranging. In effect, a total reform of Disability Services was proposed. The review also identified that this would require significant budget increases to provide services to an increasing number of people in the Territory with disability. I am delighted to advise the House that Cabinet endorsed all of the recommendations of the review and that Budget 2007-08 commences that process. The government will inject an additional $26m into Disability Services over the next five years.
Budget 2007-08 marks a start of an era of Disability Services delivery in the Territory. The 10 recommendations of the review are wide-ranging, but they have a simple focus: the improved quality of life for people with a disability and their carers. That is why this government has decided to fully implement the findings of the KPMG review.
I want to outline to the House the detail of how this $26m will be spent. In this coming financial year 2007-08, government will increase expenditure by $2.3m and establish an Office of Disability within the Department of Family and Community Services. This funding will rise to an ongoing additional $8m each year for extra staff and resources to support those with a disability.
In the first year, we will spend: $300 000 to employ an additional four allied health positions to provide therapy and important applied health services; $300 000 this year for additional critical respite places; $300 000 additional support for post-schools options, providing another 12 places within the popular post-schools program; $180 000 for transition care for people exiting hospital, which equates to an additional 16 places; an 11% growth, some $200 000 per year, for the equipment scheme known as TIMES, the Territory Independence and Mobility Assistance Scheme, which will reduce waiting times for access to equipment that people need to live independently in our community; a 5% growth, or $25 000, for the Taxi Subsidy Scheme to ensure that the real value of that taxi subsidy is maintained, the most significant increase in the taxi subsidy scheme; $500 000 for accommodation and support packages; and importantly, $500 000 for the continued growth of our Home and Community Care program which supports people with a disability to live independently in their own home.
Disability Services is about quality of life. The initiatives I have outlined are about improving the daily lives of some 39 300 Territorians who have a disability. The aged and disability budget for 2007-08 is $71m; that is more than double what the CLP had in 2001. This government is about a fair go and dignity for people with a disability. That is why we have delivered record funding in Disability Services and, importantly, a long-term plan to improve the lifestyles of people with a disability and support for their carers.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I can say this about this minister: I believe she wants to do the right thing for community services and she attempts better than her colleague, the Health Minister, who fails to effectively manage his department. Having said that, this is where providing for community services will benefit the community. The money goes down the track to the people who really do need those services. I commend the government for putting the money into it to ensure that people with disabilities get the services and the equipment that they need.
Sadly though, when it comes to having enough professional people in allied health such as speech therapists, audiologists, psychologists and the like, we continue to be well behind the demand that is there in the Territory. We cannot meet the demand. Parents continually complain that they are unable to get the services for their children. When the minister talked about putting other money into substance and alcohol abuse, again I believe she means well and she will try to do what she can.
I was amazed to hear the Health Minister saying you have to drink two litres of Listerine before you will get drunk. That is …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not say that. That has been misreported in the press. In fact, I never spoke to that particular reporter. I will be clarifying that particular issue on the record in the media today. I ask the member for Greatorex to withdraw that assertion.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, if I may, that assertion is made because this was reported in the media. I am repeating what is reported in the media. If the minister has a problem, he has the right to make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to reword. Minister, I ask you to approach me to make a personal explanation at a later hour. Please continue.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. For anybody to get up and assert that you have to drink two litres of Listerine before you get drunk is just not acceptable. When it is a minister of the Crown who passes information that is so misleading is a real problem ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I never passed any information of the kind. I ask for some respect from the member for Greatorex. I am telling this House that I never said that to any reporter.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw.
Dr LIM: I withdraw. And say …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has now expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for his support for the reforms of Disability Services and the significant funding injection into the delivery of these services. The creation of the Office of Disability will be found from within existing funding. That will not take funding from the additional funding we are putting into frontline service delivery. That is important.
In respect of the shortage of allied health professionals, that is a nation-wide shortage; we are acutely aware of that. Part of the reforms include a new graduate program to be introduced where we will be attracting graduates from the allied health professions, having incentives in place to keep them here in the Territory. We are very aware that we need to be more competitive in recruiting allied health professionals.
The member for Katherine has pursued the issue, quite appropriately, of the need for speech pathologists in Katherine. I can advise we have had a visiting schedule because we are short speech pathologists there. We are getting a locum in place for three months in July. We are trying to fill our allied health professionals permanently. Where we cannot, because we have been consistently advertising nationally, we put locums in place. So there is good news for the families in Katherine regarding that.
In Alice Springs, we have been using the locum program again, putting graduates in place. The aim of the graduate program is to anchor these skilled professionals in the Territory, and we have a raft of initiatives to do that within our employment contracts.
I thank the opposition for their support. I want to note that across the Disability Services sector, the reforms have been broadly welcomed. They have been embraced. It will include reforms of the sector itself, that is, the service providers. They have all put their hands up and said they will participate.
Mr McADAM (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I am glad to report to the House that Territorians have been visiting the National Treasures from Australia’s Great Libraries exhibition in droves.
The exhibition opened at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory on 14 April and, in the first weekend, over 2000 people came to see the treasures for themselves. The free National Treasures exhibition will remain open until 11 June, and I urge people not to miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to see some of the items that have shaped Australia’s history.
Over 170 items are included in the treasures, and it is a rare opportunity for people to see them in the one exhibition. There is something for all, both young and old. Items include the helmet of Ned Kelly and Sir Donald Bradman’s bat stand on display with Captain Cook’s Endeavour journal and the last remaining convict uniform. Other items included in this unique exhibition are draft versions of Banjo Paterson’s Man from Snowy River, Governor Arthur’s Proclamation, and original drawings of the EH Holden. There are items of real significance to Territorians as well. Of most interest is the Cyclone Tracy evacuee list, which features the names of Territorians who were evacuated during that period.
Other items of significance include photos from the Bombing of Darwin, the diary of Harold Lasseter on his quest to find his fortune in Central Australia, diaries from the Yuendumu nurse, Sister Eileen Kettle, and the log of the HMS Alligator that records the founding of Port Essington.
This is the first time that the National Library has worked with all of the state and territory libraries to put an exhibition of this type together. Most would assume that items on display are from museums when, in fact, they are from our libraries. The National Treasures started touring in Australia in 2005, and Darwin is their second last stop before they complete their tour in Perth.
The Northern Territory Library has done a terrific job to bring the treasures to Darwin and, together with the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, they have been able to find a safe and secure place to temporarily house these items, many of which are considered to be priceless.
I thank Jo McGill and Melissa Reiter and their team from the Northern Territory Library for their hard work to get this exhibition to Darwin.
The Northern Territory Library is also running a complementary display of more treasures from their library to coincide with the touring exhibition. These may have been items that did not make the final cut, but they are items of importance to the Northern Territory. I encourage people to visit the NT Library at Parliament House to see them as well. I also thank Anna Malgorzewicz and her team at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory for helping organise and host the exhibition. The National Library also played an important role in coordinating the treasures project and delivering it to all states and territories.
I had the pleasure of meeting the National Libraries’ Ms Helen Konn, the Assistant Director General, and Mr Nat Williams, the Director of Exhibitions. I thank them on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory and government for their commitment. They were thoroughly impressed with the display in Darwin, and the professionalism of the NT Library and the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
I acknowledge and thank the sponsors of the National Treasures, especially the major sponsor, AAMI. This is a wonderful exhibition. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and I urge all Territorians to avail themselves of this unique opportunity, particularly our young students. If you have the opportunity, do take it up.
Madam SPEAKER: The overall time of ministerial reports has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act to require disclosure of all electoral expenditure of individual candidates by political parties for Northern Territory elections.
The Northern Territory has had a number of Independents who have made a strong contribution to debate and reform over many years – nine in all. However, many requirements under the Electoral Act laws favour the major parties and often disadvantage Independent candidates and Independent members. For example, only incumbent Independents and members have access to the electronic version of the electoral roll – this is just an example. It is not available to Independent candidates, and hence does not allow them to access voters in the electorate they are standing for. Major parties are able to purchase electronic roll data for all electorates.
The disclosure requirement for election spending often works in favour of major parties as they do not have to disclose spending on each individual candidate and their electorate. It is hidden in annual returns that require only a global figure for expenditure. There are no details of party expenditure supplied. Voters are swamped, as we know, by party advertising as well as advertising specific to their candidate, but parties are not required to separate this spending to show precisely how much they are spending on each seat. This, in effect, means the public is not informed, or is not made aware of how much a political party is spending on individual candidates or their electorates during an election campaign. This may not seem significant, but it goes against the principles of transparency and honesty in our democratic system.
It also seems to suggest that parties are not complying with section 200 of the act, which says that details of all electoral expenditure must be disclosed. This disclosure in party returns ends up as a one line total expenditure and, as I said, no further details are provided.
Section 199, Definitions, however, states, and I am referring to the current act:
If section 199 sets out all the details that must be disclosed, why does this not apply to political parties, but only to Independents and individual candidates?
The purpose of this amendment to section 200 is to insert 200 (1A)(a) and (b) - Returns of electoral expenditure. The amendment states:
This amendment is to ensure all expenses, as set out and detailed as I have just done in section 119, are declared and not hidden in the annual returns registered by parties. The annual returns only require those parties to list in detail donations or monies received over $1500, and the total amount paid in expenditure during that financial year and any other outstanding debt.
The Stuart by-election disclosure is the classic example of how expenditure is not detailed. You could be led to believe the current member for Stuart sitting in this House spent nothing on his campaign as he passed in a nil return. I will refer to that return. Gary Cartwright, the Independent, listed his expenditure; Anna Machado listed her donations and her expenditure; Karl Hampton - nil return. I seek leave to table that return.
Leave granted.
Mrs BRAHAM: The Northern Territory Electoral Commission, in its latest report yesterday, tabled in the House, made the comment:
The recommendation came from the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. This may have been prompted from the many questions I have asked them. It is recommended that the financial disclosure provisions be amended to set a specific Territory threshold and that the returns be redesigned so as to draw identical information from both endorsed and unendorsed candidates. It will be interesting to see whether the government takes up that recommendation.
Referring to that return of disclosure for the Stuart by-election, I notice that no returns have been received to date from the CLP candidates, or another Independent who may have been a CLP candidate anyway, despite the requirement that returns have to be submitted within 16 weeks of the end of the financial year, and despite section 215 of the current Electoral Act, that failure to provide financial disclosure return without reasonable excuse is an offence, with a penalty for a natural person up to 200 penalty points or imprisonment of up to 12 months and, for a body corporate, a penalty of up to 1000 units which is possibly $100 000. It will be interesting to see whether the so-called independent Electoral Commission enforces its act. However, I digress slightly from this amendment.
This amendment I am proposing adds a new subsection specifically stating that reporting agents must provide a return stating details of all election expenditure that was authorised by the party and was specifically attributable to each of the party’s candidates for the election. What has prompted this amendment? Because if it applies to all non-party candidates then it should apply to all candidates. That is what our system is all about - equity. If government will not support this amendment then, perhaps, it is time they had a good hard look at their act and amended it to reflect what they really intend, and as recommended by the Electoral Commission report yesterday.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that, pursuant to Standing Order 107, I have received written advice from the member for Nelson postponing the presentation of the bill contained in Notice No 2 until the next General Business Day.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, I further advise honourable members that, pursuant to Standing Order 107, I have received written advice from the Leader of the Opposition, postponing the moving of the motion contained in Notice No 3, until the next General Business Day.
UNIT TITLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 96)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Before I commence, I understand the Leader of the Opposition will be making her address in reply to the Appropriation Bill at 11 am.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct, member for Greatorex. I will indicate when you should pause.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, 18 months ago I raised this matter in this House, seeking support from the Northern Territory government for amendments to the Unit Titles Act to enable bodies corporate to enforce lawful parking within their premises. At that time, the government responded in the negative. I will address those issues presently.
I raise this again today because in the eight months since the last attempt nothing has eventuated. If the government was doing something, the industry is not aware. The industry has not been appropriately consulted and the government has not provided any indication of what progress has been made. I raised this 18 months ago and I am raising it now because of complaints I have received from people who live in apartments and units which have bodies corporate to manage the common areas.
The worst problem is when unlawful parking takes place in an area that is designated as a parking area for a tenant or the owner/occupier of a unit or apartment. Those parking areas are usually clearly indicated so that there is no confusion as to who owns that particular parking space.
I sought industry consultation in 2005 and have since consulted industry again and indicated to them that I will be raising this matter today. Again, I have received support from industry that this is something that is needed. I urge the government to consider this again and in a different light to what it did previously. At that time they said they were not going to support it for various and quite spurious reasons. I will proceed with arguing for the support of this again.
I received an e-mail from a very angry owner of a commercial premises. He was prepared for me to mention who he is and to identify his location and his problems. He wrote this e-mail on 21 November last year and addressed it to several people including me and members of government. I will read this to indicate his problem. This e-mail also was published in the NT News as a letter to the Editor:
He provided me with a photograph of the offending vehicle and how it impacted upon four parking spots in his body corporate area. I seek leave to table that photograph.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: I will read again:
They had gone through this same absurd procedure in March 2004 with an abandoned van, and I table a photograph, also provided to me by this person, indicating the van had been parked unlawfully on the body corporate premises.
Madam SPEAKER: Do you seek leave, member for Greatorex?
Dr LIM: I seek leave.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: Thank you. I will keep going with this e-mail:
Then he went on to say he had been told that a politician in the past had proposed a bill to resolve this problem, but was voted down.
He went on for a couple more paragraphs and then said:
This man approached many people, including me, before Christmas last year. I believe he has been to his local member and sought advice and assistance to get the currently abandoned vehicle out of the car park that he is entitled to use for his business. The advice from his local member was astounding. The local member said to him that he should push the vehicle out of the car park on to the public road, to park it by the curb-side on the road pavement. This gentleman, fortunately, realised that to do that was an illegal act. He was not allowed to tamper with the vehicle in any way and had he pushed the vehicle on to the carriage way, parallel parked next to the curb and there was an accident because of the vehicle, who would have been liable for that accident? He would have been the one who placed the object on to the road. So to advise anyone who has a vehicle that is parked unlawfully in a body corporate area is, in my opinion, improper and no one should be advising people to commit an illegal act.
I come to why this amendment is drafted the way it is. At the moment under the Unit Titles Act, the body corporate has no legal power to deal with a wrongfully parked vehicle. You can ring the police, but, as we saw in this instance, the police did not want to know about it. They can ring the council and the council will tell you that it is on private property and will not do anything about it. You ring a tow truck company, and the tow truck company says: ‘No, we are not going to do this, we do not want to be involved. If we touch the car at all in any way we could be charged with tampering with a motor vehicle’. The tow truck company will not want to take illegal possession of the vehicle anyway if they towed the vehicle away. In the event there was any incidental damage in the towing process, the tow truck company would also be liable for that.
Nobody wants to know. You are the rightful owner of the parking allotment, or allotments as in this case, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place and you have nowhere to go at all. The government knows that this is a problem. It admits it. In the former Attorney-General’s response to this amendment bill more than 12 months ago, he admitted that this is a problem. So we need to reapproach this issue from a completely different perspective.
Let me now go through the process and how this amendment will address the problem. It is constructed in such a way that there is an escalating level of penalty for wrongful parking of a vehicle in a body corporate area. The legislation empowers the body corporate to do several things to address the protection of the rights of the rightful occupants or owners of the parking space.
For instance, you come home one night after work, you drive into your block of units to approach your rightful parking area, and you find a vehicle parked there and that prevents you from parking your own car. Your concern then is where do I park my car? Do I park my car in another spot that does not belong to me? And, in doing so, I will pass that same problem to the rightful owner of the car parking allotment that I have now taken. Sometimes there are no parking spots left in the body corporate area because of this strange vehicle. So you are compelled to park your car on the road, on the curb-side, if you can find a parking spot there because there are probably many other cars parked there anyway. Then all night you will be worrying whether your car will be safe out there, whether it will be vandalised through the night. You wake up in the morning, go to work and, going out to your car, you are wondering if the car is still there, if it had not been stolen - just like the owner of a Mercedes the other day, when the three kids absconded from Don Dale. An expensive Mercedes was stolen and wrecked.
It is important to ensure that people who have lawfully allocated car parking areas in the body corporate area have the right to access those areas without any hindrance. When the person comes home and sees that the car park is taken up, the thing for the offended person to do is to report the incident to the body corporate managers. Then, the body corporate managers have a series of actions that it can take. The body corporate manager can, first of all, follow up with the complaint by placing a sign on the car explaining to the unlawfully parked vehicle’s owner that that is not the rightful place for their vehicle and the vehicle should not be there. I believe that a gentle reminder to the owner of the offending vehicle will be a very appropriate and friendly way to get the vehicle to vacate the space.
However, if the unlawful parking continues, the body corporate is empowered by this amendment to seek the name and contact details of the registered owner of the vehicle from the Motor Vehicle Registry, on the undertaking that that information as provided by MVR is only to be used as a means to contact the lawful owner of the vehicle.
Following that, the body corporate may then issue a penalty notice, not exceeding one penalty unit or the equivalent of $110, to the registered owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle for each day that the car is unlawfully parked in that spot.
It is important that the body corporate is empowered to obtain the name and contact details of the registered owner of the offending vehicle because, currently under the Information Act, specifically under the section titled ‘Information privacy principles’, MVR may not provide the name and contact details of the registered owner for privacy issues ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to continue your remarks after the Leader of the Opposition’s reply to the budget.
Debate suspended.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Wanguri for one hour to attend a funeral.
Leave granted.
Continued from 1 May 2001.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the alternative government, unlike this government, will support Territory families. Accordingly, this budget reply focuses on Territory families, who deserved and expected so much more than was contained in the Treasurer’s budget yesterday.
Territory families want relief from the ever-increasing costs of living, from the high cost of fuel - and hope that they or their children have a chance of the great Australian dream of home ownership. However, before I announce just some of the things my government would be doing, it is important to look at the size of the Territory’s budget and Labor’s performance over the last year.
This government has more than $1.1bn to spend this year than it did when it first came to office almost six years ago. Yet, we continue to see media release after media release claiming credit for the booming economy - a booming economy that at least their minister for Mines is prepared to acknowledge has nothing to do with their good economic management. What we do have in the Territory is the highest inflation, but no media release in sight outlining how government is going to deal with it except, of course, the media release last week telling Territorians that this Treasurer has increased their power, water and sewerage charges.
In last year’s budget reply, my colleagues and I made four very important promises. They were: a 50% increase in the number of police cars per sector; the introduction of a HECS repayment system for health professionals for every year they stayed and worked in the Territory; the introduction of the lifelong learning program including the Chief Minister’s reading reward program; and a reduction in the number of public servant ‘fat cats’. With the exception of delivering a pale imitation of the reading reward program, none of those initiatives have been picked up by government.
This opposition has demonstrated over the last 12 months that it has plenty of ideas and that we are willing to put them to the Territory public well ahead of the next election, and we will continue to do so.
In contrast, there are many aspects of the government’s performance over the last 12 months that are concerning. The number of senior public service ‘fat cats’ has grown over the last year despite the Treasurer’s assurances that something was going to be done about it. The blowout in public service wages continues again in this year’s budget - another $55m. Another 20 or so senior ‘fat cats’ have been added to the ranks. Where, we ask, will it end? The Chamber of Commerce is just one group that would like to know, and who would like to be told the truth. While there has been a recent and somewhat desperate attempt to regain some credibility on this issue, new targets have been set by the Treasurer but, we, the Chamber of Commerce and others will not be holding our breath.
Yesterday, we heard the same old rhetoric from government about making our streets safer. We are compelled to ask: how exactly is government making the streets of the Territory safer? The government’s own crime statistics tell a story different from the one the government spins. The Chief Minister and her Cabinet colleagues got a taste of the reality that is the streets of Alice Springs a couple of weeks ago.
Crime rates, both personal and property, have continued to rise and people know it. Even government members such as the member for Daly who, on radio only a couple of months ago, acknowledged that people are not reporting crime, so crime is likely to be even higher than the recorded figures. How is it exactly that this government is making Territory streets safer?
So many Territorians are asking what has happened to our health system. Our major hospitals are bursting at the seams, nurses are persistently working excessive overtime hours, and doctors - many of them - have no confidence in the government. Yesterday, there was, of course, much cheer about the increase in funding for the health system. Sadly though, what was missing was any mention of how the elective surgery waiting lists over this time had doubled, or how St John Ambulance staff where not allowed to bring non-critical patients to Royal Darwin Hospital only several weeks ago and, given the relatively poor outcomes in the area of primary health, how it is exactly that this government is building a better health system.
Mums and dads, couples, single people, young people and old people alike, do not, in our view, care too much about the thumping, great big numbers that get bandied around by the government on budget day. They do not care about percentages of increases in spending because they are smart enough to know that this government should have a lot more money to spend - a lot more. In this budget, the government has $1.1bn more to spend every year than it did six years ago. Yet, under the stewardship of this Treasurer and this Chief Minister, they failed to meet the reasonable expectations on what are the core functions of government. What Territorians care about is what impacts on their family budget and what the government can do to help them.
If they need to go to a hospital, they do not want to wait for hours. They do not want to lie on hospital trolleys in the waiting room, or be treated in the back of an ambulance in the car park. If they want to walk around at nine o’clock at night, they want to do so safely and without returning home to find the kids’ bikes pinched or the family car broken into. If they want to buy a house and cannot get into the housing market, they want to know why. If their kids go to school, they want to know that that school has the resources it needs to provide their kids with the best education possible.
It seems as though, in the hustle and bustle of talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and percentage increases without, I might say, any acknowledgement of the abundance of GST revenue this government has received, what Territorians want, deserve and expect from government has been forgotten by the Treasurer and his Chief Minister, once their heroes but heroes no more.
Madam Speaker, what this government has forgotten, as it is increasingly consumed by its own importance and re-election, is not forgotten by the Country Liberal Party.
Today, I announce that a CLP government would put in place three important new initiatives in education that will be of great benefit and great interest to families. These would cost $11m over three years. The foundation of economic and social prosperity is a society’s support for education. My colleague, the member for Blain, is acknowledged on both sides of this House as a passionate advocate for education and for all who teach and are taught in our education system. His contribution to these initiatives has been invaluable.
First, the Country Liberal Party believes that this budget needs to contain a top-up fund for primary schools for the next two years while the transition to middle schools is being conducted. The funding should be available from 1 July this year. This is funding that would not be counted as part of the normal allocation and would require each school council to apply for the funding. The application would need to address certain criteria in respect of the purpose of the fund and the timings of expenditure.
Each year, each school would be able to apply for an amount of up to $30 000. This money could be used for such things as improving literacy and numeracy; addressing IT needs; establishment or expansion of special programs - for example for language, music or sporting programs; or even to assist with operational things such as casual staffing.
A serious review needs to be undertaken into the allocation of funding to the frontline services in education. It is clear that the process of moving to middle schools has pushed the Education department to almost breaking point and, in some areas it has, in fact, broken. The opposition, together with numerous education experts and practitioners, stated last year that middle schooling was supported, but not at the pace the government wants. There are serious concerns about the training and professional development being provided to teachers, the impact on access to certain schools in areas across Darwin, and the structure of education in these schools. What is also seriously concerning is that many schools, particularly primary schools, are not being provided with the resources needed to undertake the basics needed. This was highlighted by the recent report on the appalling state of literacy and numeracy reported in Territory schools.
This two-year top-up fund is designed to give a helping hand to the schools that need it most and assist those schools that are working to develop ways to improve literacy and numeracy rates in the Territory. Concurrently, a substantive review of funding to our primary schools needs to occur. This program would run for the next two years at a cost of $6.3m.
Second, it is critical that with having responsibilities that come with the management of our schools, government gives these people the opportunity to have the skills necessary to execute these functions effectively. It is not appropriate to take the view that people who give their time freely to assist in the management of the schools should not be supported with access to training on the expectations and demands of them as members of their school council.
For some time, COGSO has been seeking funding support to run training courses for school council members. COGSO is right to be seeking this funding and, as part of our continued support for the roles of parents in education in both the government and non-government sectors, the Country Liberal Party will provide this much needed funding support. A Country Liberal Party government would provide up to $500 000 to both sectors for annual training and development programs for current and prospective school council members. As part of this training program, we would work with CDU to see that such training programs could be recognised as part of other accredited training.
Madam Speaker, as a community we have high expectations of our teachers and our schools. With such high expectations, government cannot continue to ignore the value of this training. This program would cost $1.5m over three years.
In 1980, the then Country Liberal Party government established $1-for-$1 funding for schools that undertook fundraising. This was a good initiative at the time and continues to be utilised by schools across the Territory. Unfortunately, both sides of politics have neglected this program and it has not seen increases to match the increases in the increasing costs and the nature of costs over the years.
This is the third part of our education initiative that a Country Liberal Party government would introduce. It would more than double the funding from $6000 to $15 000. This will give active school councils that are currently raising more than $6000 per year extra and much-needed support. School councils do a great job in supporting their local schools and they should be encouraged and supported by government. A Country Liberal Party government would not only give primary schools some extra support during the transition to middle schooling, but we would also support all schools in their fundraising efforts. The cost will be $3.2m over three years.
These are sensible and much-needed initiatives that should have been announced yesterday, but they were not.
I now move to first homebuyers. Last week I announced that first-time homebuyers would receive a $100 000 saving on the price of building their new home. A CLP government will establish the Territory Housing Land Corporation, the THLC. This body will, with a joint partner, manage all new housing land releases offered by government. In doing so, we will offer to first-time homebuyers blocks discounted by around $100 000. This will see about 15% to 20% of new development blocks being offered to first-time homebuyers.
This model is not a new model; it is one that is currently being used at the Lyons release with joint partners DHA and CIC. If this model were adopted by this government now, it would be possible for the upcoming Bellamack release, for instance, to target 100 of the 600 blocks for sale to first-time homebuyers with a $100 000 reduction in the price of those blocks. This saving will go a long way to help first-time homebuyers enter the property market and have a shot at the great Australian dream of home ownership.
The current shortage of building blocks in Darwin is adding further heat to the market, and it is important to stabilise the market in order to avoid a potentially devastating future market correction. We have spent a long time developing this model and, despite the Labor government’s best attempts to say that they will bring down the overall market value of land and houses, they know that their fear campaign will not wash. They do know that it is possible to target assistance specifically at first-time homebuyers and, in doing so, not affect the rest of the market in the way that they will have Territorians believe.
The THLC would be established through a loan from government of between $50m to $70m, which is expected to be repaid within six to seven years. This should be familiar to government, because this government has a joint partnership arrangement to build luxury apartments and commercial facilities at the waterfront. The difference here is that this is designed to assist those struggling to enter the housing market and it will not cost Territory taxpayers over $500m.
Importantly, the THLC will have two other functions. First, it would report publicly at least twice annually on the effectiveness and efficiency of government departments and agencies in managing land release and land development. This will also expose government in respect to any inefficiencies without there being any fear of reprisals. Such exposure will spur government into action. We all know of the increased complexity that represents the tangled web of development approval even for just residential land release approval in the Northern Territory. We also know that the Territory is a small place, and that developers, more often than not, cop it sweet rather than risking not getting further contracts by speaking out about serious problems they have encountered with government agencies ...
Mr Stirling: I am reminded of the old silver circle, the silver circle that we destroyed.
Ms CARNEY: You had a good go yesterday.
We also know that promise after promise is made about addressing red tape, but these promises always seem to fall a little short of actually being addressed. The THLC will be the development partner and, thus, will not be worried about future contracts. This will see the real truth being told about the effectiveness or not of Territory departments and agencies, and the public reporting of this will see any government take action. Consequently, everyone will benefit, and those who will save will be Territorians looking to buy or build a new home.
The second additional function will be that of reporting of market demand and supply pressures. This will be significant in the key objective of stabilising the Territory housing market. The THLC will give hope to the great Australian dream of home ownership, and it will do so without bankrupting the government and without negative effect on the real estate market. The THLC will be established with a sunset clause of 10 years. It is envisaged that it will have achieved its core objectives within that time.
Madam Speaker, I now move to HomeNorth. The government’s changes to the HomeNorth Scheme is a poor attempt to play catch-up on the issue of offering relief for first-time homebuyers, a poor cousin. The government’s changes to HomeNorth, while it will help some Territorians, do not go anywhere near far enough. Unfortunately, they are also likely to create further upward pressure on unit prices. There was only one house in last weekend’s NT News real estate supplement that was accessible to first homebuyers under the new rules. This illustrates why so many first-time homebuyers are increasingly being pushed into the unit market. If this government was serious about stabilising the market, and offering some assistance to first-time homebuyers, it would address the land demand and supply imbalance issues. Once they are dealt with, a much more comprehensive and meaningful overhaul of the HomeNorth Scheme could be contemplated. I will have more to say about this and what a future CLP government would do later this year.
I say again that the changes announced yesterday by the government will help some people. However, the Treasurer missed the opportunity to do more at a time when so much more should have been done. If this was his best budget, I would hate to see him deliver his worst. Of note is the fact that, in the Treasurer’s haste to put his plan together, he has, in fact, disadvantaged some first-time homebuyers who, in some areas of the Territory under the new 85% cap, have just had their borrowing limit reduced. Alice Springs is one of those areas. I also fear, like the last stamp duty reductions and HomeNorth changes, that these savings will be factored into market pricing before too long. Let there be no doubt about this fact: we support a comprehensive overhaul of HomeNorth but, first and most importantly, the demand and supply imbalance, especially with respect to land, must be addressed.
I now move to fuel prices. The cost of transport in the Territory is high, and there is no doubt that we use our cars a great deal, perhaps even more than we should. However, the Territory is a big place. We have some of the highest petrol prices in this country. When in opposition, the now Chief Minister made much of the price of fuel when it approached $1 per litre. It is now significantly more. Indeed, she went to great lengths to lead Territorians to believe that she would take action. Now, in the driver’s seat as it were, she can take action but she has not. Her silence resembles that of a hybrid electric car – and I note with interest that my office has one of those, and hers, I am told, does not.
Action can be taken, and action can be taken now. The Country Liberal Party knows this, which is why I announce today that a CLP government would put in place a $1200 LPG conversion rebate scheme. This rebate would be paid directly to the workshops which undertake the conversion work, and is added to the $2000 already announced by the federal government. These two amounts combined will cover the cost of converting an average-sized family car. Territorians would be able to immediately take advantage of the savings, which are estimated to be about $20 off the weekly fuel bill. Twenty dollars per week off the weekly fuel bill might not seem like much to this Chief Minister but, to so many Territory families, it will help. Finally, of course, this plan has the advantage of being a cleaner fuel - a cleaner fuel which, presumably, is of some interest to Peter Garrett but, apparently, of no interest to the Chief Minister.
This plan will also extend to NT Fleet. A CLP government would, over three years, convert one-third of the Territory government’s fleet to gas. This will ensure that the demand exists to increase competition, as well as the number of outlets that supply gas, and drive the per litre costs down. We will also convert another third of NT Fleet to low fuel usage and hybrid-type cars. This will mean that, when these cars go to auction, Territory families will again open up another avenue of access to lower costs for transport in the Territory. I look forward to having more to say about transport in the future. This initiative will cost between $15m and $23m over four years. However, this is not money spent, it is money invested in the families of the Territory.
The Treasurer’s budget is one of missed opportunities. It missed in a number of areas but if there was one group who missed out more than any other it was Territory families. This budget missed the opportunity to assist Territory families. It missed the opportunity to help parents with kids at school, as well as those working in and supporting our education system. It missed the opportunity to offer significant relief to the many first homebuyers who are priced out of the housing market. It missed the opportunity to help Territory families save money on their fuel costs. It did, however, deliver higher power bills, higher water bills and higher sewerage bills.
Madam Speaker, missed opportunities are lost opportunities. The irony is that when this Territory government has more money then any Territory government has had in our history, it makes those lost opportunities even more profound.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will resume where I left off a little while ago.
I have brought this amendment about to ensure that the MVR is able to provide information about the legal owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle without any restraint but on the proviso that the information may only be used by the body corporate to identify the owner of the vehicle and use that information to then contact the owner. This amendment specifically addresses that an empowered body corporate can get that information.
The body corporate may impose a penalty for each day the offending vehicle is unlawfully parked. The body corporate may also issue a seven-day notice to the registered owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle that it will be removed from the premises. This amendment empowers the body corporate to recover from the registered owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle all associated costs in issuing the penalty notices, including the penalty for parking unlawfully, and remove the vehicle. Finally, the body corporate may engage a towing company to remove the vehicle. Once the vehicle is removed, the vehicle would be a matter to be decided by general law.
I have deliberately constructed the amendment so that the police, local councils and the like are not involved in the imposition of the penalty notice nor in the implementation of the removal of the offending vehicle. We do not want to tie up our local government and police into what is, effectively, a civil matter.
Bodies corporate will then, under this amendment, be able to amend their articles and house rules to enable them to use the powers that are provided within this amendment. Bodies corporate can choose not to do that or, if they feel that they do not have the expertise to do it, they do not have to go down this path. Most properties that are in body corporate areas are managed by professional body corporate managers and they would have the expertise to do that.
At the start of my support for this amendment I did say that the former Attorney-General accepted that this was a valid issue to be brought to this parliament. It was something that the government was also looking into. Having said that, the government has its own process, and 18 months later nothing has happened. I wonder how important this matter is to government.
I urge the government to consider that many people in the real world are facing great frustration on a daily basis. As for the owner of the Tiwi Gardens commercial property, he has been frustrated by what appears to be an abandoned vehicle, and even the police have not been able to identify the legal owner. The vehicle has been there since November. Why does someone who is trying to run his business have to be so inconvenienced by an abandoned vehicle that is parked in his lawful parking area?
The former Attorney-General spoke about these sorts of provisions being provided by the Cullen Bay Marina Act. If that enables Cullen Bay Marina proprietors to have legislative support to control their body corporate areas, why not give it to everyone else in the Territory? We all know that there are many units and apartments going up in Darwin. The burgeoning growth is going to increase the problem of unlawful parking.
The former Attorney-General said of the amendment I put:
That is not true. As I described, the pathways where a body corporate can address this issue of unlawful parking, the body corporate has to first of all inform the registered owner of the vehicle that the car is parked unlawfully and then the body corporate has to give the registered owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle seven days’ notice before the vehicle will be removed. Steps are taken in an orderly fashion to ensure the registered owner of the vehicle is fully aware of what is likely to happen if the vehicle continues to be parked unlawfully.
The other comment of the former Attorney-General was, and I quote:
I beg to differ. I have sat on body corporate committees and have discussed and negotiated with body corporate managers. They have the expertise. As I said, for those people who choose not to adopt this facility, they do not have to; they simply do not amend the rules of the body corporate.
Will it be exposed to abuse? Every law is exposed to abuse. You make laws for most law-abiding people. Body corporate managers are very law abiding. They have to be law abiding to ensure that they do the right jobs for their clients.
The government says it will look at this in the broader issue of reform under the Unit Titles Act, but we have been waiting for a long while. There are people who are suffering economic loss as a result of the lack of good legislation to protect body corporate areas. To be advised by your local member to commit an illegal act is not on. Body corporate managers would like to see this happen. I urge the government to at least put this in place, support it, until your overall review of the Unit Titles Act can come into effect further down the line.
Once you do this, there is an opportunity for the bodies corporate to then exercise their legal rights to ensure that parking is done in a lawful manner.
Debate adjourned.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that, pursuant to Standing Order 107, I have received written advice from the member for Blain, Mr Mills, proposing to postpone presentation of the Firearms (Paintball) Amendment Bill to the next General Business Day.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Mr Stirling: Madam Speaker, I seek a point of clarification. Is this the bill about which you have met with the Solicitor-General? Same bill?
Mr MILLS: Yes, same one.
Madam Speaker and honourable members, the introduction of this bill is to provide an option to allow traditional owners or their authorised delegates, the land councils, to allow non-indigenous people to access inter-tidal zones. It is very important to understand the tone and the intent of this bill. It is to provide that option.
At the moment, the Aboriginal Land Act is very clear about the fact that, except for very special circumstances, non-indigenous people must get a permit before entering Aboriginal land. The legislation that sits within this parliament makes that very clear. That is the area that we will be directing our focus to; to provide an option, a legal option - and I reinforce that for sensitive members opposite. We are not seeking to assume power, or authority or control. It is simply to provide clarity and certainty, and to reinforce a legal option. As simple as that.
The decision of the Federal Court to consider the inter-tidal zone as part of the Aboriginal land is currently being appealed, and we are all aware of that. The Northern Territory government has lodged - and rightfully, with our support - an appeal, and so has the federal government. It is an appeal at this point. Whilst that is occurring, this government has sought to establish a permit or licensing arrangement with the Northern Land Council for access to the inter-tidal zone. This system adds another layer of complexity to going out for a fish. I know that members opposite, as well as the armies of legal experts, the Northern Land Council, traditional owners, and the Amateur Fishermen’s Association, are all jointly concerned about the implications of this decision; that is, the social and lifestyle implications, not just for now, and the rights that we once thought we had, which are, in the words of the Attorney-General at the Amateur Fishermen’s Association, a decision which is, in fact, political dynamite. It also has a very profound social impact and will require very careful and thoughtful management.
I am mindful that the Northern Land Council is equally concerned about the implications of this decision and how we, as a society, can accommodate this profound decision and the impact of it, up to this point, on the freedoms that we have perhaps taken for granted.
What we are endeavouring to do is to provide a legal mechanism, posed in good faith, to provide some certainty, at least up until the point that a decision is handed down. The opposition has taken the time - and with appreciation to the Attorney-General - to have a quality briefing from the Solicitor-General and other officers. It was a good meeting. The original discussion that was held at Alice Springs was based upon a misunderstanding. Perhaps, understanding the adversarial nature of our business in this House, it is almost instinctively seen in a particular way if the opposition comes to the plate with a proposition. It just seems to be: ‘Well, that is the opposition; it cannot be any good’. In fact, it was not properly understood, with respect. That was determined through the briefing. I am heartened with that. I am not saying that this is the be-all and end-all, but it is an important step if we are going to proceed towards this very important juncture in good faith, bearing in mind the profound implications that are contained within this decision.
With that said, I trust that honourable members will follow this debate in that sprit and tone, with great cautiousness and care about how we approach this. It is not just the Territory government that this weighs heavily upon. I can assure you discussions have been conducted at many different levels, also the federal government. I am sure the federal opposition also has a view on this.
We have worked hard to find a solution that does not require a permit or licence. It is important at this point. It is our belief that the issuing of permits and licences at this juncture when there is still a level of uncertainty is creating some unnecessary complexity and angst. It is at this point that we need cool heads and that clarity.
We are concerned that the system that has been proposed by the government could lead to people being caught unaware, notwithstanding the other implications that I have alluded to previously. By removing the absolute requirement for a permit - and please be careful in assessing what I have just said. If you have read the Aboriginal Land Act you will see in there an absolute requirement for a permit. That given, there must be something put in place.
What the CLP is proposing is that you can look at that absolute requirement for a permit system to be in place, and create the capacity through legislation for an option. Therefore, it is not an absolute requirement in this specific instance. We are not talking about anything other than the inter-tidal zone at this juncture, until the appeal has been heard. It is at this point, and only over that specific section, which is in the minds of many people; it is to provide that option.
By removing the absolute requirement for a permit and placing the choice as to whether people want to enforce the need for a permit in the hands of the traditional owners or their delegates, means that complexity can be avoided at this point - this very important juncture. A little goodwill would be useful in these circumstances. I am calling upon the government and the traditional owners to bring forward this goodwill at this point. This removes an impediment.
We are aware, as sensible citizens, that the law can create more problems than it endeavours to solve. If you sit at briefings and you begin to have responses thrown up in a legal context it makes some sense of that old saying that says the letter kills, but the intent - that which is behind it which, in fact, the law is designed to serve - brings life. There are so many impediments that are brought in through legal debate that stifle and constrict and cause people to be apprehensive. We should be bigger in many respects in our judgment and not be servants of the law but the law be our servant, so that it can be used to guide and direct sensible decisions in the best interests of our community. There will be 101 different legal opinions but, if you bring to the table goodwill and a desire to find a solution, you can use the law to serve that purpose.
What I am actually concerned about when I discuss and consider these things is my son and the sons of traditional owners. What will we be putting in place if we do not approach this with great care? We will be putting something that could actually create division if not handled properly. I am not speaking about the intent of traditional owners or the intent of the Amateur Fishermen’s Association, but the intrusion of layer upon layer, webs of legal intrigue, that causes a ‘confoundment’ when we are trying to find a way forward in good faith. Too often we find that the legal component has crushed the life out of these sorts of important discussions.
It is a simple proposition that we put. You remove the absolute requirement for a permit and then we can proceed in good faith, only in regards to this specific issue.
Once this permit threshold question has been answered, and this bill does that with a sunset clause until the decision of the High Court, then the traditional owners can make the decision as to whether they will let people fish in these areas: an important point. They will make the decision. They can, and they have the authority to make that decision. We remove the legal impediment but they can and they do have the authority. It rests with people, and they can. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act gives them that authority; it is respected. The Aboriginal Land Act requires an absolute necessity for a permit system: we make that optional in this point.
Once again, my comments reinforce the necessity for goodwill. Let me make it absolutely clear: this bill does not force anybody to do anything. What it does is create the opportunity for stakeholders to come together and deliver a simple solution while the court process continues through to completion. It is as simple as that. There needs to be certainty, there needs to be clarity now, so that we can sort this business out today. Then we will know what we are dealing with. In this point between now and until that decision is made, there is, I believe, unnecessary and very concerning complexity and confusion.
Notwithstanding the Federal Court decision, it is clear that within the existing Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and with this change that is proposed, there is nothing to stop traditional owners allowing fishing in the inter-tidal zone without the need of a permit. There is nothing to prevent that. In respect of the application of existing fishing laws, many of these take effect once people leave the inter-tidal zone. You understand that: to catch fish in the inter-tidal zone you have to cross vast expanses of water to get to the inter-tidal zone, you catch some fish there and you move back out of the inter-tidal zone. It is once you move back out of the inter-tidal zone that the fishing laws take effect.
Even if an unscrupulous fisher wants to exploit any of these loopholes as can be the case, legally, the answer is simple: the traditional owner or the delegate can remove their ability to access the area without a permit. The offender can be removed legally because they have that authority. So rather than create a system where no one can do it in case something happens, let all do it and, if someone offends, then we have the means to deal with individual.
Having run a school playground, that is what you do: you can either deal with the individual, or you say no one can go there because something might happen. You can deal with the individual and allow an encourage freedom. It is a far better way to operate within society. You recognise and reinforce freedom and deal very seriously with an offender. Then you reinforce the underlining principles that hold the whole show together rather than be fearful of things going wrong and restrict and diminish our dignity as a community.
There are underlining principles here that will require some genuine leadership, which should be provided by community leaders and not lawyers. Lawyers are there to serve the best interests of the community. It should be led by leaders of the community who have confidence enough to say yes or no and to cut a path through.
There is going to be plenty of legal advice flying around. I am sitting on the outside in many respects of this, and I can imagine the volumes of conflicting and complex legal advice that will be flowing through the Attorney-General’s office. I can only image it, and I am sure it is the case. I have spoken to others who are involved in this at many different levels. It does require a cool head, sensible mindset, and the courage to cut a path and to take some risks in the interests of moving the show forward.
Madam Speaker, I believe that we have found an effective solution as an important initial step offered in good faith of which government could take advantage. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Present Bill and Pass all Stages – McArthur River Project Amendment (Ratification of Mining Authorities) Bill (Serial 99)
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly –
(a) allow the Minister for Mines and Energy to present a bill, without notice, relating to mining and the McArthur River Project, forthwith; and
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the McArthur River Project Agreement Ratification Act to address the technicality identified in the decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in the matter of Lansen and Ors v Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy and Ors delivered on 30 April 2007.
The court ruled on Monday that the 2003 authorisation for the McArthur River Mine, granted in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Management Act, did not authorise open cut mining at McArthur River because the mining company’s application was limited to underground mining activities. The court also ruled that, as a consequence, my acceptance of the amended Mining Management Act was of no effect.
Honourable members will be aware that the mine expansion was subject to a thorough environmental assessment, in accordance with both Commonwealth and Territory environmental assessment legislation, and that the recommendations of these assessments were considered in my approval of the Mining Management Act, which was given on 13 October last year. Following an exhaustive assessment process, I was satisfied that the company’s mining management plan addressed the protection of health and safety of persons and of the environment at the site. My decision was made after a thorough and transparent process, which included an environmental impact statement, EIS, and supplement, as well as a subsequent public environment report.
Initially, the Environmental Protection Agency flagged several issues of concern in the EIS submitted by McArthur River Mine. These issues were subsequently dealt with to the satisfaction of the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage through the mine’s public environment report. My approval of the Mining Management Act addressed a range of issues which included: an independent monitoring process for the life of the mine; a $55.5m security to cover rehabilitation of all mining operations; and research for the revegetation of the river diversion.
We have rigorously followed due process when it comes to the environmental assessment of this project. Our public consultation process has been thorough. The decision of the court, which found that my approval of the amended Mining Management Act was of no effect, was based on a technicality and in no way has any bearing upon the extensive environmental assessment process, including consultation with traditional owners or the general community about the mine expansion.
The bill operates to overcome this technicality by removing the limitation placed by the court on, and ratifying the operation of, the original authorisation made under section 36 of the Mining Management Act and dated 21 January 2003, as varied by a further authorisation dated 13 October 2006, together with my approval on 13 October 2006 of a mining management plan to open cut mining at McArthur River.
The bill also includes, in addition to the existing comprehensive provisions in section 4B of the principal act, to include this ratification in a class of actions for which just terms compensation is payable should an acquisition of property be affected.
In recognition of the urgency of this matter, I extend an invitation to the opposition and Independent members to receive a briefing on this bill. Members can contact my office to make the necessary arrangements for this to occur, and I would strongly encourage the opposition and Independent members to take advantage of this offer.
Madam Speaker, I recommend this bill to honourable members and table an explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I put this amendment on the table today because I feel that the Northern Territory ought to have registered nurse practitioners amongst its cohort of health providers.
When I went through the Health Practitioners Act 2004 I was quite uncertain as to why, throughout the whole act, there was not one mention of nurse practitioners. Yet, within Schedule 7 of the Health Practitioners Act 2004, under ‘Protected titles’ in the column under ‘Nursing’, nurse practitioner is mentioned. That is the only mention of nurse practitioner in the whole act. No other reference is made. I have to assume, somewhere within the department and in government, that there may be a desire to create a category of registered nurse practitioner some time in the future.
I am also aware that, currently, there are nurses who are practising in this sort of ‘capacity’ in our urban and remote areas. Through their years of experience in their respective fields, they have become particularly good at those fields of nursing. In fact, some of these senior nurses would have information and knowledge about what they do at much higher levels than very many junior and middle ranking medical practitioners. There are nurses in the Territory who are working in that capacity.
If they are, are they authorised then to work in those capacities? When I checked to see whether there are any nurse practitioners registered or authorised to practise as nurse practitioners in the Territory, the information I had is that there are none. If there are none, one wonders why the Health Practitioners Act refers to nurse practitioners.
I believe it is important to create this new category. It is a simple amendment to the act. I seek that this government looks favourably at this. I wrote to the minister a few days ago, attaching with the e-mail my amendments and notes accompanying the amendment, to explain to him why this is not only important, but also a useful thing to have.
Going through the Health Practitioners Act 2004, it appears that it is not a particularly difficult amendment to create. At present, the Health Practitioners Act provides registration for all health practitioners in the Territory. The way it is structured, it is not confined to categories of health practitioners, or specifies the qualifications required by a category of health practitioner to obtain registration. The registration is to allow them to practice in the Territory. The Health Practitioners Act creates different categories of health practitioners, and then says we will have a board to oversight those practitioners. For example, the Medical Board will oversight medical practitioners, and the Nursing Midwifery Board will look after nurses. It is then up to the respective boards to determine the level of qualification a person must attain before they can seek registration of their qualification. That makes the act quite simple to amend and also to then enforce.
I will read some notes from what I have provided to the minister:
We then ask ourselves what we truly understand by the definition of a registered nurse practitioner. Much work has been done by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council. They have published a paper titled National Competency Standards for the Nurse Practitioner. This was done, I think, in 2004 or 2005 - I cannot see the date. The other document that was published was provided by the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council titled National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce, Nurse Practitioners in Australia. This paper, done through the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council, went to great lengths to map Australia, state by state and territory by territory, to identify how different jurisdictions have gone on to provide registration for registered nurse practitioners.
Turning to the National Competency Standards for the Nurse Practitioner paper, first of all, let me say that the ANMC is the peak National Nursing and Midwifery organisation established in 1992. It is a very learned body that has taken on the task of ensuring uniform standards of nursing across Australia. It tells us why we need to have uniform standards - and we can all understand that nursing standards should be uniform across Australia, and every jurisdiction should adopt a similar form of standards. If there are overseas nurses who apply to work in Australia in any jurisdiction, their skills would have to be comparable to the standards set by the ANMC.
The ANMC defines ‘nurse practitioners’ and I read this paragraph:
When I put my proposal to both the AMA and the ANF, and to many other senior nurses across the Territory, I received good support from the ANF and qualified support from the Australian Medical Association. The qualification by the AMA - and I ask the minister to also check with the AMA himself so that my words that I attributed to the AMA would be verified by the AMA – is that it believes that nurse practitioners should be working within a health team context where the nurse, while able to perform to some degree of autonomy, would always have a health team to refer back to at all times to ensure that whatever clinical decisions the nurse practitioner makes are based on good information and advice. I do not believe that any nurse would object to that and neither would the ANF. They feel that it will be a good thing that a nurse practitioner works within a health team.
The paper published by the National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce, as I said, identified that there were currently no nurse practitioners registered or authorised to practise in the Northern Territory. Obviously, they are no nurse practitioners registered because we do not have such a category. Some jurisdictions, while they do not have the capacity to register nurse practitioners, have gone through a semi-formal process whereby a nurse may apply to the appropriate nurse registration authority stating clearly what the nurse’s qualifications are and seeking to be registered in the registered nurse practitioner’s category.
Methods of assessment by the registration authorities across all the jurisdictions are inconsistent. While there are lead times of up to three months, some jurisdictions require a minimum of only six weeks to provide the assessment. At the moment, it is not a consistent process.
While there are no registered nurse practitioners in the NT, there are thoughts about the Nurses’ Board authorising some nurses to be nurse practitioners, being distinct from registered nurse practitioners. At the moment, there is some consideration of providing nurse practitioners in areas such as rehabilitation, mental health, high dependency, community health and primary health care, women’s and children’s health and in the medical and surgical fields. On top of that, there is also the rural health and remote practice field. This is quite extensive, and I am certain that the Nurses’ Board will be looking very hard at this to ensure that when nurses apply to be registered as RNPs, they have the criteria tightly designed.
Because we do not have a category of registered nurse practitioners, it makes it hard for the Nurses’ Board to decide which way they go. That is why, I believe, if we create this registered nurse practitioner category, it allows the Nurses’ Board to proceed with all the formal processes that it needs to undertake to then create the category, providing a clear set of criteria with which nurses comply when they apply for the category of registered nurse practitioner.
The notes I have provided to accompany the amendment bill are self-explanatory and I urge members to read them. There is no value in me reading them because it would be purely repetitive. If and when - and obviously I am concerned that the government will not support this amendment - this is passed, there are guidelines that need to mandated by government so that the board can take them on.
We have to ensure that the guidelines as provided by the National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce are taken on by the board and, through negotiations with local tertiary education providers such as the Charles Darwin University, to provide advance courses to allow registered nurses to undertake studies to qualify them to be registered nurse practitioners.
Once a nurse practitioner is registered, the legislation will allow them to prescribe from a formulary, very much in the same way as this government did recently to allow optometrists to prescribe from a restricted formulary. That, I believe, would have support from the whole of the industry. Obviously, there are medications that are quite complex regarding use and may require the expertise of a medical specialist to prescribe. Obviously, those medications would not be available to a nurse practitioner, neither are they, in fact, available to medical practitioners without authorisation from the Pharmaceutical Board. A formulary would have to be developed and then, at that stage, the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act would need to be amended as well to ensure that the formulary is provided for nurse practitioners. That is the next step after the Health Practitioners Amendment Bill goes through to create the registered nurse practitioners category.
There is a flow chart which was provided by the National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce. It gave some indication as to how the Northern Territory thought it could register nurse practitioners. In this diagram, it shows that the registered nurse seeking authorisation - or I should say, registration in this instance - as a nurse practitioner makes application to the board. That nurse has to submit evidence and a portfolio. The evidence could include a higher qualification than just a Bachelor of Nursing; it could include evidence of exemplary practice, testimonials and letters, statement on the current scope of practice, clinical log book, reflective journals that the nurse might have kept, and published articles and conference papers that a nurse might have done in the course of studies.
While all this work can be provided as evidence of higher level of training than just the Bachelor of Nursing, many authorities now feel that the nurse would need to do a Masters degree, which is seen as the next level of qualification, before an application would be sought by the nurse to be an RNP. Once all those evidences are provided, the assessment committee would review the application and the portfolio of evidence. If the applicant also has a Masters degree, then the process will flow quite smoothly. If the applicant does not have a Masters degree, there must be a mandatory interview of the nurse by the assessment panel.
I believe that is the grandfather clause pathway. That is not supported much by many registration authorities. Perhaps in our instance in the Territory, that pathway should also be denied, to make sure that all nurses go through a Masters degree and that will give them a secure pathway into becoming a registered nurse practitioner. Once the board approves a person is qualified to be a nurse practitioner, the registration is provided and the person can then practise accordingly.
Then there is the issue of indemnity. Who indemnifies a registered nurse practitioner in the event that there is an adverse reaction through the cause of the nurse practitioner’s work? My thoughts are that a registered nurse practitioner would more than likely work within the public sector in the Northern Territory. If that nurse practitioner is employed by the Northern Territory government, the Northern Territory government would indemnify that nurse practitioner in the same way that every other nurse who works in the public sector now is being indemnified by the government. Also, a registered nurse practitioner could choose not to work in the public sector but work with a health team, say, within a general practice or a specialist practice in the Northern Territory. Again, that registered nurse practitioner would be working within the framework of a health team, where the health team is indemnified by the principal of that health team. That could be the specialist surgeon or physician or whoever the doctor may be, or the group practice that employs this nurse practitioner.
People need to understand that this registered nurse practitioner is not the equivalent of a practice nurse - or should I say a practice nurse is not automatically synonymous to a registered nurse practitioner. A practice nurse is a nurse who practises within a group practice and would perform all the functions of a normal nurse. A registered nurse practitioner is a highly-trained individual who has professional autonomy to a degree which allows that nurse to prescribe, to investigate, to refer the patient that the nurse practitioner sees to an appropriate specialist.
It is most important to understand that registered nurse practitioners are not created to replace doctors. This is not a cheap way of providing health care to the people in the Territory; this is to create a highly specialised category of nurse who will complement the medical team. That is important to understand.
Too often, we find that there are conflicts between doctors and nurses, and it is possible that nurse practitioners and doctors might suddenly confuse their roles within the health team and cause conflict. If these definitions of roles are clearly identified, I believe there ought to be no confusion.
I have spoken about the formulary for nurse practitioners to prescribe from. This will be the next step after the creation of a new category of registered nurse practitioner. Do that first and, once that is approved and passed and assented to, the next step that I will be bringing forward will be an amendment to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, with a formulary that registered nurse practitioners can prescribe from. Also, not so much a formulary, but a list of investigations that a nurse practitioner can order - some blood tests that can be done on a reasonably routine basis, maybe not so much the complex blood tests ordered by specialists, but some blood tests regarding blood sugar levels and measurements of kidney functions could be done, and that should be quite readily available to registered nurse practitioners. X-rays is another one. There are some X-rays that could be easily and appropriately ordered by a registered nurse practitioner and, again, there will be a restricted list of X-rays that the nurse practitioner could order.
It is important, and I would like to refer back to the very beginning, when I said we should create this. I know of instances where doctors have signed blank pathology forms, blank X-ray forms, and left them at health clinics or even in urban general practice, and the nurse then fills in the type of blood tests, X-rays, or ultrasounds the nurse believes needs to be done on the patient. That is technically illegal. No doctor should be signing a blank form; that is the first thing. You sign a blank X-ray form, or you sign a blank blood test form, then somebody else fills in those forms and it is quite obvious that the two handwritings are different. If the authorities were to be stricter where this is done then it would be seen as an illegal act.
By creating this registered nurse practitioners category it will prevent all those sort of things from occurring. It will enable our nurses to perform at a much higher capacity. I believe patients in the Territory would receive a better level of health care than is currently available to them. The final benefit of that is we will have nurses of various levels of expertise working together in a health team with medical practitioners who would be there to provide strong support for them. If we can do that we will certainly move a long way towards providing better health care for the Northern Territory.
I sent the material to the minister. He will, obviously, adjourn the debate to another time so he will have time to consider this amendment bill. I am pained to urge the minister to allow, or to negotiate with the Leader of Government Business, to allow this bill to come forward in June so that it can be debated through and, hopefully, gain government support. Soon after, we can have legislation to enable Territory nurses to become registered nurse practitioners and fulfil a role that is desperately needed in the Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That -
Madam Speaker, this motion has been put to the government today due to the fact that I believe existing changes to the Traffic Act are making little difference to those drivers, appropriately called hoons, who are putting not only their lives at risk but also passengers, their friends and other road uses. This is never more clearly seen in parts of my electorate, especially Howard River Park which, unfortunately, is starting to look like Howard Rubber Park. There are also other areas in the rural area affected and, from reading the text messages in the NT News lately, the suburbs are not exempt from this type of behaviour.
Besides the issues of public safety, there are issues relating to public nuisance, noise, smell, and side effects like the difficulty in selling property where this type of behaviour occurs. If you live on a road which has been subject to burnouts and donuts, potential purchasers are not going to be too impressed. The roads are supposed to be subject to road rules to protect people when they go for a walk, ride a bicycle or a horse, or take the dog for a walk. Children catching the bus to school or walking home in the afternoon can be at risk. It seems that some hoons deliberately pick this time to impress someone.
Unfortunately, there is a small minority who believe that they can do what they want whenever they want, knowing their chances of getting caught and charged are remote. Just late last week, I was contacted by a resident of Howard Springs who lives on Whitewood Road and was seriously concerned about her safety and possible damage to her vehicle when, in broad daylight, a driver was driving - if you can call it that - sideways down the road towards where she had stopped in her driveway entrance. She reported it to the police but, the next day, it happened again.
In February 2003, I introduced legislation to this parliament based to some extent on a Queensland model. This bill amended the Traffic Act to impound vehicles for hoon offences described as burnouts, speed trials, racing and deliberately damaging road surfaces. I should say to the Leader of the Opposition that, no, I did not pinch this idea from the bill the Leader of the Opposition is introducing today; it was in my original legislation in February 2003. The Queensland model, which I copied to some extent, allowed impoundment of a vehicle for 48 hours without application to the local court. It allowed forfeiture of a vehicle through the local court on the third offence. This was also part of my legislation.
When I introduced this legislation, the government decided to introduce its own version, which it did in November 2003 and was debated on 18 May 2004. The main difference between the bill I introduced and the one the government introduced was that the government decided not to allow for the impoundment of a vehicle on the first offence, but only allowed impoundment on the second offence and only through the local court.
Although I supported the bill, and I was happy that we had some legislation and withdrew my proposed legislation, it seems the problem I have now is that the new law is not working. Why would I say that? Take the Howard River Park area. Residents have been writing, ringing or just dropping in with complaint after complaint about this behaviour and, although the problems can ebb and flow, there has been no major solution to hooning in this area.
I have been to the police a number of times and they are doing their best, but they need the power and the equipment that police have in Queensland if they are going to make a difference. In the past decade, all interstate jurisdictions have enacted anti-hoon legislation, allowing for 48 hours impounding on the first offence with more severe penalties for subsequent offences. Evidence shows that this has had a dramatic impact with many vehicles impounded but very few second offences.
In a recent letter from the minister regarding the number of anti-hooning offences since the law was introduced, the figures given were 128 infringements and 93 notices served, and not all drivers who had received an infringement were served with anti-hooning notices. The government might say that shows the law is working, but that is not the case based on evidence on the ground. Cars I have seen involved in hooning still drive the streets and if police do catch them they just get a yellow ticket.
In Queensland, in the first two years of their law’s operation, they caught 1739 and only 22 for the second offence. The police are not hampered by having to get a car off the road by going through the local court system but are able to do that automatically for 48 hours. The police can apply for a court order within that 48 hours. If you ain’t got a car, you can’t hoon and that means a more peaceful and safer neighbourhood. That is what people are looking for.
I would like members to look at the difference between our existing legislation and the other states. I do this, not because I think we should necessarily copy the other states, but simply because I believe we have not been tough enough on these issues. The legislation is quite interesting from state to state. In Queensland, the first offence is impoundment for 48 hours. In New South Wales, it is impoundment for three months on the first offence. In Victoria, it is impoundment, or immobilisation - which is a solution where it may be impractical to bring a car into an impoundment area; they impound it or immobilise it for 48 hours. In Tasmania, it says here, the car is confiscated for 48 hours. South Australia, impounded for 48 hours. Western Australia, impounded for 48 hours. In the ACT, you can apply to a magistrate to impound for three months. In the Northern Territory, you get an infringement notice. I believe that is part of our problem.
Other states have understood that this is a serious issue. You can even look at the New Zealand example – I am not necessarily saying we go down this path, but they have what is known as the Boy Racer Act, which is an unusual name – I am hoping the person who put forward the name was Mr Boy or Mrs Boy. It is actually the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Act. It states that a first offence attracts three months gaol, or a fine up to $4500, plus loss of licence for six months, along with possible impounding of 28 days at the owner’s expense. For a second offence within four years, the vehicle must be confiscated except in times of severe hardship. Since June 2004, about 2000 vehicles have been impounded.
It is obvious that this is not just a Territory issue; it is a national issue. As I said, I am not necessarily saying we copy other states for the sake of copying them, but I am saying that it appears as though, comparing what other states are doing, when you have a more severe penalty at the first offence, there is a chance of reducing this type of behaviour on our roads.
The legislation, of course, is only part of it. Catching hoons in the act is quite difficult. Residents will ring up the police and by the time the police arrive the hoons have gone or are driving around like angels. As soon as the police have gone, away they go again. Residents are asked to take photos or film the infringement, but I know that some of these hoons will intimidate those residents, enough to scare them off from taking pictures required to get these ratbags off the road. One case in Howard River Park involved the throwing of a type of incendiary device over the fence of a property where horses were stabled. This was because the owners had confronted the offenders.
The government needs to give the police the funds or the equipment to collect the evidence. If that means 24-hour camera surveillance on known trouble spots, then so be it. This will allow the evidence to be collected and, with the stronger legislation I am proposing, there is a chance that hoon behaviour can be curtailed. Although I have not written it in the motion, what I am saying today is there needs to be an effort by the government to ensure that police do have this type of equipment. It surely can be made available in known trouble spots so that the public do not have to try to take these photographs themselves, especially when they know there is a likelihood that they are going to be targeted by these people if it is found out that they were the ones taking the photograph. If someone was to take a photograph from a property, and the photographs were used in court as evidence, there is a fair chance that the offenders would know exactly from what property those photographs were taken. I can say quite categorically that, in parts of Howard River Park, those properties would be targeted, either by continual hooning or just giving people the impression that they were now being looked at and watched, and there would be public annoyance around their property. I know this is the case because people have come to see me.
The government needs to also be prepared to have areas set aside where young people can have a bit of fun with their car without interfering with neighbours or other road users. I know the minister for Sport announced that there will be some money for a drag strip upgrade in Alice Springs. I am not asking for a drag strip in the rural area, but there is potential perhaps - and this would require a lot of thought and planning - for a pad on the Sattler Airstrip which is quite a distance from residences. It was used as a bit of a hooning area some years ago. If you went down the Stuart Highway at night, you would see loads of young people. However, if it was done under the auspices of one of the groups that operates from Hidden Valley, with the police sanctioning what was going on, we would have strict controls over alcohol and the normal safety set-ups which are required for any race meeting, and it may only operate a couple of nights a week between certain hours. This may be an approach that is worth looking at.
It came about because I was sitting at a corner one day and a genuine hoon came up and saw me - because that is what he said he was. He had the flashest yellow Ford ute you would ever see. He was quite upset that there was a law in place that could allow his car to be confiscated. I said: ‘In the Territory it is a little harder. In Queensland and elsewhere, you will certainly get it pinched first time around’. He admitted he loved hooning up and down the road. I said to him: ‘I am not going to back down on the legislation, but I will at least put to the government that, maybe, we should look at some place where young people could gather and do a few donuts and burn-outs to their hearts content, but at least do it in a safe area away from residents and in a facility which was safe and well managed’.
I put that forward as something that the government may consider. Although I am talking about the impoundment of vehicles and increasing the strength of the existing legislation, we do sometimes need a carrot-and-stick approach.
The government has also said that it is doing something about antisocial behaviour. I know this is generally spoken about in the context of Alice Springs or Katherine. However, antisocial behaviour is not just limited to those areas. Antisocial behaviour includes behaviour on our streets and roads, and hooning is antisocial behaviour. If you have a look around at some of the crosses by the side of the road in Darwin and the rural area, they were not all there by just mere accident. In many cases they were people who were mucking about on the road. Unfortunately, this is what happens.
I remember the very sad case of two drivers who were dragging, as they say, along the Stuart Highway near the BP Palms Caravan Park. One had their lights off and they clipped a car. I believe one or two people were killed - not necessarily the driver. I know a couple of young girls were severely injured. The driver of one vehicle did not go to gaol. I must admit I made a statement at that time criticising the judge. I found out later I had not criticised the right person because the judge had his hands tied in relation to that particular incident because the offence was downgraded to an offence where the judge could not actually send the perpetrator to gaol. However, that is another issue. What I was highlighting is the tragedy of hooning. Not only is it a tragedy for the people who could be killed but also the victims who are permanently injured.
The government said it is fair dinkum about the Road Safety Report - but can it really say that if it does not do something about hooning? People in my area want something done before someone is killed. I know a number of people who would like to take the law into their own hands, especially as, just last week, some brainless person deliberately tore up beautifully maintained nature strips along Bronzewing Avenue in Howard River Park. I should also mention that the Saturday before last, just before the first cricket match on the Howard Springs Reserve cricket ground was to commence, someone ripped up that ground in a vehicle - the same type of attitude. This is going to continue, I am afraid, unless the government really does something.
I was in Melbourne around Christmas time and the residents did take the law into their own hands. They knew the people who were the perpetrators of the hooning in their street. They went down there and painted graffiti all over those cars and, in fact, one car was set alight. These things can happen. I am not advocating that but I can understand the frustration that people have day and night. Much of this activity is during the day, that you find this kind of behaviour occurring in one’s local area. It highlights the frustration that peace-loving residents find themselves in when nothing really changes.
I know the police are doing their best but they need more resources. I, once again, emphasise the need for video surveillance cameras. We need legislation to back that up. If the government agrees to this motion it will show the community that it recognises the legislation presently is not adequate. People are getting fed up with this type of behaviour and the government is serious about curbing this type of antisocial behaviour. If it does not, it will be sending a message that it is not listening to people like those in Howard River Park and other places.
I can tell you of areas in McMinns Lagoon, down in Acacia Road, Humpty Doo, and Whitewood Road, Howard Springs. They are just some of the areas I know. People will just have to endure this hoon behaviour until they pack up and move somewhere else a little friendlier and quieter. I mentioned before how this can affect the sale of land. I do know that there was a block of land for sale in a street in Howard River Park. The potential buyers drove down the street, looked at all the rubber on the road, turned around and did not come back. So, it has other effects.
Government, if you cannot agree to the exact words that I have put forward today, please do not wait for the five years that was written in the second reading of your legislation as the time to review this section of the act. Instead, review it right now so that something positive will come out of this debate.
Please do not give me the usual ‘because we did not think of it first we will not support it today and we might do it in the future’. I am asking the government to look at it today. Please show the community that you are serious about this and do something.
The reason I have not put it in a form of legislation is because it has come to me as an issue that requires some urgency. If I was to put it in a legislative form, as you know, by the time the 12 days have gone and the next 12 days are gone, I would probably be putting it forward to this House after Christmas this year.
I ask the government to at least consider what I have put forward. I do not put it forward as a silly idea. I bring the evidence forward from other states that this is the sort of restrictions we need to curb this type of antisocial behaviour. What will help remove this type of activity from our neighbourhood is simply that if people do not have a car, they cannot hoon around. They might borrow someone else’s - well and good, that will get confiscated as well. If their super-duper hotted-up motor car is the vehicle used in this particular type of offence, they know that they will be given a severe warning by having their car off the road for 48 hours, and they will know then it is serious because the next offence will be three months and the next offence will be forfeiture of the vehicle.
I am asking the government to support this minor amendment. It does not require a large part of the existing act to be changed. It just requires a slight change because all the other definitions and all the other sections of the act would stay the same.
Madam Speaker, I hope the government supports the intention of the motion and will give me some idea of whether they would consider changing this section, not necessarily to bring it in line with other states. If we do this, we have a better chance of curbing this type of behaviour.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his motion. The government does take the issue of hooning very seriously. Car hooning is stupid and dangerous. At the very least, it is antisocial and at worst, it causes death.
Anti-hooning legislation began in the Territory in 2004 and I acknowledge the role that the member for Nelson played in ensuring that it was introduced. Certainly, he used his important role through a private member’s proposal to focus government’s attention on legislative tools to prevent hooning.
Under the legislation that is currently in place, for a first offence of hooning behaviour, police can issue an infringement notice. The issue of an infringement notice will be taken as a finding of guilt by a court. Any subsequent hooning offence that is brought before a court will result in further convictions being recorded against an offender. When a second conviction has been recorded, the court can make an order to take the offender’s vehicle for 48 hours of confiscation. For a third conviction, the court can make an order to have the offender’s vehicle impounded for up to three months. For a fourth conviction, the court can make an order to have the offender’s vehicle forfeited to the Territory.
Since 2004, we have seen some 186 traffic infringement notices issued under this anti-hooning legislation. Government shares the member for Nelson’s concerns about the lack of applications to the courts for confiscation. It must be remembered that when police are dealing with a case of hooning, there are a number of options for police to charge the individual beyond the provisions of this act. I am advised police have used other mechanisms in the Traffic Act and Regulations to address this problem. For example, dangerous driving provisions under the Traffic Act include minimum periods of licence disqualification have been used.
Timing of the member for Nelson’s motion coincides with the first court order for confiscation of a vehicle under this legislation. It is hoped that with this court decision, there will be more applications for confiscation. The government wrote into the legislation that it would be reviewed within five years and, as we heard, the legislation came into effect in 2004, so it would mean a review around about 2009. As minister for Transport, I heed the concerns of the member for Nelson and I undertake to work with the minister for Police to ensure that the legislation is being better utilised by our police.
Further, I am happy to refer review of the legislation to the Road Safety Reference Group, which is the organisation set up by government to look at further road safety initiatives. I am happy to refer this issue of anti-hooning legislation to that reference group and seek their expert advice on whether we need to look at police operational issues or, indeed, whether there needs to be amendments to the legislation. I am not convinced there needs to be amendments to the legislation; I am more interested in finding out what operational issues may or may not exist at the police level regarding bringing matters before the court for forfeiture and seizure of vehicles.
The member for Nelson’s motion includes vehicles being seized for a first offence. The Territory government believes that an infringement notice is currently the appropriate way to approach a first offence. It is a warning and, if not heeded, as we have heard, it can lead to seizure. This is consistent with most other road offences in the Territory where first offences are typically dealt with by way of infringements and repeat offenders are dealt with by more serious consequences such as loss of licence.
I heed the member for Nelson’s quite appropriate concerns about hooning. As I said, it is dangerous, stupid and antisocial, and it can lead to death …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I will not pick up on the interjection from the Deputy Chief Minister who, I point out, drives a Corvette.
I understand the suggestion by the member for Nelson that we could be looking at areas set aside for supervised drag-style activities. I have been out to Hidden Valley and witnessed the drags that occur with the youth. The police have a fantastic program there working with young people who have those hot cars. I know the member for Nelson drives a Ford ute. I have a very dim view of Fords and I have always driven Holdens myself.
I appreciate that there are large sections of the Territory community who are extremely fond of their cars, who spend vast fortunes hotting up their cars, and do need the opportunity to test their engines in a safe, supervised, controlled environment to make sure there is no potential for injury and no disturbance of residential areas.
In that, member for Nelson, the government shares your concerns. We are happy to take on your suggestions. I am happy to say we will not wait until 2009 to review the effectiveness of the legislation. I will have discussions with the minister for Police about police operational aspects of why we are not seeing more second offences going through the court, and see whether there can be an issue around that. The member for Nelson raised some concerns regarding police resources, particularly the surveillance resources. I am happy to refer that matter to the minister for Police and get some advice from him on that to the member for Nelson.
I point out to the member for Nelson that legislation is not the tool. Police enforcement is the most effective tool in anti-hooning. It is critical that we look at the operational issues first and foremost in preventing hooning where possible, and cracking down on hooning where it occurs. It is incredibly dangerous and, I agree, it is very disturbing to the local residents.
I do point out, though, that this government has a track record of putting the significant resources into police - $75m additional into police since the beginning of government. We stopped the freeze on police recruitment that existed under the CLP in the 1990s. We have actively recruited some 200 extra police officers into the force. We have reinstituted the disbanded Traffic Branch, so we now have an active Traffic Branch for police. All of these measures go along way to addressing the concerns of hoons on our roads. We will look at the proactive suggestions of the member of Nelson; however, the government does not support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments in relation to how much money the government has spent on police. That is fine, no argument.
It is really a side issue. The issue I am bringing forward today is that you may spend a lot of money on police resources but, in this particular case, it ain’t working. If it was working, I would not be getting phone calls, ore be asked to go to various places in the rural area to see what is happening in relation to this type of activity. I say to the minister: kindly have a look at Bronzewing Avenue, Parakeet Place, Wagtail Court, Sittella Road, and Gunn Point Road. You will see them covered in rubber, and these are the main roads that people use. This damage is being done not only at night; it is being done during the day. I have had a number of people ring me and say: ‘I just drove out of my driveway and this car came down sideways, in the middle of the day’.
Although the police may be doing their best - and I certainly thank the Palmerston police for the efforts they have put into it - the reality is, when you want to take a matter to court, you need evidence. It is very hard to get evidence in relation to hooning because they are here one minute and gone the next. By the time you have your camera - that is if you are brave enough in this part of the world, because if you are seen taking a photo I am sure they will be around to say: ‘What were you doing, madam?’, because they will intimidate those people trying to get the evidence. You need evidence to go to court; the police need the evidence to go to court.
What is missing in this debate here is, although you are putting lots and lots of money into police resources, we need the resource to catch them. As I said in my speech, yes, I can guarantee as soon as a police car comes around the corner on Bronzewing Avenue, every car that is involved in hooning will be driving just like angels ...
Ms Lawrie: Not every police car is marked, though.
Mr WOOD: That is true, but they do seem to know. Do not ask me how; they seem to know. They know the local cars and, if a strange car comes there then, all of a sudden, everything is quiet.
The reality is also that there is more than just the hooning; there is the intimidation. Police are looking at a particular case where there was an incendiary device thrown over the fence. There are also a number of rumours that there is criminal activity related to this; that we are dealing with not only people who hoon, but they are congregating at places where we believe there are other activities occurring which could be related to drugs.
I am talking from the local viewpoint. We have concerns regarding how these people who do not seem to have a job are able to drive these types of cars, wear out their tyres continually, while doing nothing during the day. Where do you get income from to do this kind of behaviour? It is not just a simple case of people doing a couple of burn-outs on a road; it is tied up with other more serious activities that are making life hard for people in parts of the rural area. I have no doubt, although I have been concentrating on areas in my electorate, that this is occurring in other parts of Darwin. Just look at the text messages that have been in the NT News. People are not happy about some of the behaviour. I believe that in Madam Speaker’s electorate there have been problems at times with people hooning near the Nightcliff jetty. I do not know whether that behaviour has been sorted out. It is not something that just applies to the rural area. It is a real nuisance.
Many people in the rural area ride horses and get out on their pushbike, and rural roads are not exactly the same as suburban roads. If you want to ride your bike you have to ride on the bitumen; there are no footpaths. Hopefully, one day the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport will tell me that there has been X amount of dollars in the budget to put a bicycle path down the old railway line. However, I digress ...
Ms Lawrie: I did have a look at that one.
Mr WOOD: Yes. And I gather there is a …
Ms Lawrie: I put the funding in the roads.
Mr WOOD: There is a promise, but there is not far to go before that promise needs to be fulfilled. However, I digress.
I know the minister also said that the police can remove a person’s licence and impose other penalties on people. As is shown from the facts from the other states and New Zealand, by having a 48-hour impoundment, you send out a clear message and, at the same time, you take a car off the road there and then. Therefore, that car that is a nuisance, that is causing a problem in the neighbourhood, is removed. It has a yellow ticket or a ‘see you in the court’ because, when the police give the yellow ticket that says ‘see you in court’, I bet you that car is still hooning. It removes the car that is causing the problem in the suburb or in the locality. It takes it away and gives people some peace and quiet, as well as sending the message to other drivers that this behaviour is not appropriate.
It is there for a reason. I do not believe suspending a licence is going to stop hooning. You will find that many of these cars are not registered. That is one of the problems we have with trying to get the evidence. If you have a car with no numberplates on it, you need some photographic evidence and also, possibly, photographic evidence of the driver. If you can photograph the car and identify it, at least we can get that off the road.
Minister, you mentioned that you will refer this to the Road Safety Reference Group. I welcome that. I hope that can be done as quickly as possible. I am certainly interested to see their report.
If you are looking for people to provide evidence of how big the nuisance factor is in their locality I can send quite a number of constituents; a couple of whom I was talking to today and last night. I am sure they will be willing to come. I can tell you now, these people I have been talking to are really cranky. I am not trying to beat about the bush when I say people are looking at taking the law into their hands if nothing happens ...
Ms Lawrie: Do not encourage that, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I am not encouraging it. I am trying to emphasise that is how serious it is. I am not encouraging that at all. It would be silly of me to say: ‘Oh, they are just hoping that something will happen’. They are getting to the point where the kettle is about to boil and I do not want that to happen.
That is why I have brought this forward today not as legislation but as a motion saying: ‘Please put the means to change this, bring in the legislation which makes impoundment possible, but also get the surveillance equipment’. Why can we not have surveillance equipment on well known areas where this occurs?
We are not talking about the East Arm area here. That is illegal and the police go down there and stop it. We are talking about a residential area and this is a major problem for those people. I have been trying to work through these issues with the police. I am not knocking the police at all, because they have lots of other things to do as well.
This problem has not gone away to the point where I can say people now have a peaceful area to live. Howard River Park is always regarded as one of the more modern subdivisions in the rural area where people can enjoy the rural lifestyle. The advertisements in the paper show someone sitting on a balcony with their feet up on the rail enjoying the rural lifestyle. Well, that is what many people thought it was when they moved out there. Now we have a number of people who have moved into that area who think it is their little drag strip.
I am not asking for a drag strip. It would be some sort of pad that they could operate from. I forgot to mention at the beginning that when I asked this young lad who said he was a hoon about Hidden Valley, he basically said for people in the rural area it is too far away. That is one of the other reasons why I have this option.
If you live in Girraween or Humpty Doo, Hidden Valley is a fair way away; it is half-an-hour away. If you provided facilities close by, you are also taking away the argument of: ‘What I was doing in my street just down the road, I do not have to do that now, because just up the road at a safe place I can have a bit of fun. I will be doing it in an area that is set aside, has the safety requirements and is licensed to do so’.
I thank the minister for her response. I will be asking her when she has referred it to the Road Safety Reference Group and when can I expect a response from the Road Safety Reference Group. I will be telling people in the rural area that the minister, although she has not agreed with what I have put forward today, has at least given us the courtesy to say she will put it forward to this particular group. As soon as you have something back from them, minister, I hope you can make a statement in parliament and I will pass the information on to the residents. I am sure if it is a very sensible Road Safety Reference Group, they will be looking for a change to this legislation.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to the Bail Amendment (Serious Sexual Offences) Bill introduced by the member for Braitling on the last General Business Day, I thank the member for her work in developing this bill. I also thank her for the bipartisan and consultative way in which she has approached this issue. The government certainly supports the intent behind the bill; that is, to protect victims and their families, to ensure witnesses are not intimidated and prevented from giving evidence. It also communicates the seriousness of these offences to the community.
This government feels very strongly that sexual violence, or violence of any sort, is not acceptable in our community. This is why the government has made addressing crimes and violence one of the key law reform priorities over the coming year.
An element of this reform agenda has already been identified as a review and amendment of the Bail Act as it relates to sexual offences. Accordingly, government has prepared its own draft amendment to the Bail Act. However, any change that affects peoples’ liberty requires extensive consultation and discussion to make sure we meet community standards and get the balance right. Accordingly, the Department of Justice is currently consulting widely with key organisations and members of the legal profession as to the proposal’s operation and effect. It is our intention to introduce that bill or a version revised following consultation in the near future.
One aspect of government’s proposed approach, the reversal of the presumption of bail for certain serious sexual offences, is similar to that proposed by the member for Braitling. However, simply reversing the presumption does not prevent bail being granted in some situations where a victim could potentially be put at further risk. That is why our proposal takes a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to the protection of victims of these very serious offences.
Under the government’s proposal, the criteria for the grant of bail will also be amended to ensure the court focuses on the need to protect victims when making any decisions about whether to grant or refuse bail. I look forward to bringing that bill before the Assembly.
In short, while we will not support this particular bill, we certainly support its intent and the government recognises the work of the member for Braitling in sponsoring it. I look forward to her support when government introduces its own planned amendments bill to the Bail Act.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, when I first looked at this bill some time ago, I was concerned it would take away the right of an accused person to ask for bail. That was the impression one got from the initial airing of this bill through the media. I would be worried if that had been the case, as there has to be a certain presumption of innocence in any case that goes before the court.
In the Bail Act there are two divisions which deal with this presumption. Division 1A deals with the presumption against bail for certain offences. Division 2 deals with the presumption in favour of bail. The member for Braitling has suggested that certain crimes, specifically those described as serious sexual offences, should be included in Division 1A. These sexual offences are all serious and that is why the member has asked that they be put in the same category of offences already existing in this division.
Let us look at some of the offences in Division 1A: murder, treason, and an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act punishable by a term of imprisonment for 10 years - and there are others. Surely, serious sexual offences are in the same category as the misuse of drugs. I would hope so! This bill does not presume someone is guilty or innocent, but it does allow a magistrate or judge to take into account the wishes of this parliament; that is, its inclusion in Division 1A and the reasons why the parliament has done this. It gives the judge the opportunity in the context of this division to weigh up the possible effects of the accused being allowed back into his or her community or the wider community. It will allow the judge to weigh this against the fear and violence that some in the community may have to endure if the accused is allowed out on bail. It will allow time for the community to have some breathing space and, of course, it gives the magistrate the right to grant bail.
I ask of those who oppose this bill: is the crime of murder not much different from these serious sexual offences? At least in the crime of murder, the victim has no more pain to bear although, of course, there are other victims. The victims of sexual offences bear these scars for the rest of their lives. Is that not at least on a par with murder? Surely, these crimes that the member for Braitling has classified as serious sexual offences should be included in Division 1A?
I support what the member for Braitling has proposed. I have given it a fair bit of thought and I have given it time to get a better understanding of what the member for Braitling was trying to do. It is a very good proposal. I am happy that the government is looking at something similar. The way things normally go here, this bill will be defeated and we will have to wait for the government’s version of it. I thank the member for Braitling for this important amendment to the Bail Act. I hope it is supported by both sides of parliament.
Ms CARNEY: (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome what the Attorney-General had to say. I note, if I heard correctly, there was a reference to protection of victims. I am encouraged greatly by that.
The member for Braitling’s proposal only suggested an amendment to one part of the Bail Act. My view was, and still is, that the amendment did not go anywhere near far enough. I recall, and I stand to be corrected, but I believe in the last Assembly, the member for Macdonnell proposed a bill reversing the presumption of bail; that was howled down then. The government may well be slow coming to things, but it is good to see that they are at least tackling this issue.
In relation to the protection of victims, which is section 23 or section 24 of the Bail Act, with respect, Attorney-General, I am hopeful that that is the section that you will be seeking to amend. Certainly, the present bill must go further. As I have said, I am heartened by what you said.
In terms of the practical ways in which victims could be protected, I ask you to consider revisiting some things that I raised on the Parliamentary Record several years ago, such as removing the offenders from community. If you are going to tackle this issue, you may as well get it right. Remove the violent offenders from a community, certainly while they are on bail. You might like to consider - and I wish you would - putting up safety houses or making areas in communities safe for victims, most of whom are women and children, as you know.
In the course of your review, you will presumably be inquiring as to whether adequate and proper arrangements can be made for the protection of victims. I do fervently hope, Attorney-General, that when you come back with a bill, which I hope is in a relatively short period of time, that you comprehensively tackle this issue, and reverse the presumption of bail in these cases, and ensure that adequate arrangements are made for victims to be protected.
I am greatly encouraged by what you have to say, Attorney-General. The devil, as usual, is always in the detail. However, I thought it prudent to make those comments, certainly in light of what the Attorney-General has had to say.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not surprised by the government’s reaction that they would not support this particular amendment. We are all aware of the ongoing problems in our society. The government has said that serious sexual assault was something that they really do care about, and the fact that they have indicated they will make changes is good.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her comments. Even though she said she would not support this, she obviously is supportive of any sort of act …
Ms Carney: I did not say I would not support it. Listen.
Mrs BRAHAM: You did not say that, but let me finish, thank you. The fact that you did say you would look at whatever government was going to introduce later on is good. Her comments regarding these suggestions for the safety of victims were very relevant, and she felt that this amendment did not go far enough. That sometimes does happen with amendments we introduce, because I respect the fact that the Leader of the Opposition does have a legal background and probably knows a lot more than I do when she is drafting a bill.
I thank the member for Nelson also for his comments. He does not give support lightly. Even though, as Independents, people may lump us together, we do not work like that. We both have different agendas and we often support or not support each other. He has taken time to consider it, his reasoning was quite sound, and he shows an understanding of the intent of this bill and the circumstances out there.
It is, in a way, disappointing that Independents cannot achieve. The member for Nelson’s last motion was a good motion, and he did get a considered reply from the minister, and that is good. I suppose it is good also that the Attorney-General has not wiped it out completely. He has not said no, has not dismissed us, and that gives me great heart.
We all know how the prevalence of serious sexual assaults and rapes in indigenous communities were highlighted by Nanette Rogers. The Chief Minister seems to have responded to that by holding an inquiry. We are all waiting to see the result of the inquiry. You could say that removing the presumption of bail would complement any approach the government has to addressing the problems out there. Perhaps one of the reasons there are problems with reporting abuse is because many people see offenders get bail and are free to return to their community.
I pulled these out. We all saw this headline: ‘Accused gets bail in boy rape case’. I wonder how that young lad felt. ‘Abused accused must go’, said people when the alleged offender was sent back to the community. It is headlines like ‘Parents fear for kids. Alleged sexual offenders allowed to return to community’ that say to the community something needs to be done. We have to understand that we are also here to meet community expectations. We need to read the message they are giving us and respond in an appropriate manner.
The Attorney-General also stated in his letter: ‘Safety of protection of victims in the community is a high priority for government’. I asked him to provide statistics and he stated that 70% of persons accused with selected sexual offences were granted bail in 2004 compared to 58% in 2006. A further breakdown in the cases show even more gloomy statistics of bail given: offences under section 127 of the Criminal Code, sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child under 16 years - in 2006, 70% were given bail; offences under section 131; a sexual relationship with a child - in 2006, 78% were granted bail; and section 192, sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent - 58% were granted bail. Those statistics ring alarm bells to me.
I also wrote to many organisations, as the Attorney-General said he has circulated his intent. I wrote to Criminal Lawyers Association, Victims of Crime - you name it. I also wrote to the ACT Attorney-General because I knew that they had amended their bail legislation. I will read from his letter:
The ACT made these amendments and has now said bail decisions have been more consistent with community expectations. I hope what the Attorney-General is now suggesting he will do will be in line with those sort of remarks.
As I said in my second read speech, this is not for my political gain; this is for the victims and for their peace of mind. I remind members of the plea written by a previous victim:
That is a very powerful letter. She contacted me because she felt that if, in this particular case, he had not been granted bail he would not have skipped the state and she may have at least got some satisfaction by at least getting him to court.
The government said they would adopt my amendments in their own terms and conditions. I am gratified that this will happen but how much more delighted I would have been if they had supported this amendment that I put up as proof that the Attorney-General said that the Independents do work hard and they do it to improve the community of the Territory. I suppose it is not disappointing to me, or unexpected, that the government would prefer to do it themselves. In closing, I say that if I have caused government to act then I have achieved what I set out to do even if I did not do it myself. I will wait and see the government’s bill and I hope they bring it on soon.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I guess this will not be passed but at least it has raised an issue and highlighted to the people out in the community that we do have concerns. I am pleased that government has taken it on board and we will see what happens.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Sentencing Act currently provides that the court may, when sentencing a person to less than five years imprisonment, make an order wholly or partly suspending that sentence. I make the point up-front that this discretion does not apply in relation to specified sexual offences with section 78BB of the act removing the courts discretion to wholly suspend a sentence. The discretion also does not apply in relation to offenders found guilty of a second or subsequent violent offence. The bill introduced by the member for Araluen proposes to override the provisions of the Sentencing Act as they relate to sexual and some other offences.
I now go to how suspended sentences work. I will also note before moving to the bill in question that a court does not order a suspended sentence without attaching conditions to the suspension. These stringent conditions may include, among other things, orders for home detention; orders banning communication with specified persons; or orders compelling the offender to undergo mental health or other treatment. A suspended sentence hangs over the offender’s head for a term specified by the court. If the person breaches a condition they can be called to serve the sentence in prison. Although sentencing is rightly about ensuring proper punishment and deterrents, it should also be about allowing suitable offenders the prospect of rehabilitation and escaping the re-offending cycle.
I have made it a priority to lower the recidivism rate in the Northern Territory. The recently announced big boost to Community Corrections is one example of this effort. The courts should have all sentencing tools available to them to assist in this goal in lowering recidivism.
As noted, section 78BB of the Sentencing Act already prevents the court from wholly suspending a sentencing imposed in relation to certain sexual offences. These offences include: sections 125B and 125C of the Criminal Code relating to the possession and publication of child abuse material; section 127 to section 138 relating to offences against morality particularly sexual offences against children; section 133 is not covered as this relates to behaviour in public rather than behaviour against a specific individual; section 188(2)(k), which pertains to indecent assault; and sections 192 and 192B, the offences of sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent, which is rape, and coerced sexual self-manipulation.
The offences cited in the member for Araluen’s bill to a large extent reflect the offences already listed as those where a sentence cannot be wholly suspended. The offences cited in the bill include an offence against Part 5 Division 2, which mainly relate to the possession and publication of child abuse material and sexual intercourse or indecent dealings with children, and an offence against sections 192 or 192B of sexual intercourse or gross indecency without consent, rape or coerced self-manipulation.
I note the slight expansion to include sections 188(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the Criminal Code, which deal with assaults where the victim is female and the offender male, where the victim is a child and the offender is an adult, or where the victim suffers from a disability.
I also readily acknowledge that some good has arisen from the introduction of the bill. In researching the member’s bill - and I asked that serious effort be put into analysing it because I do not dismiss a proposal put forward in the Assembly before having it considered thoroughly - the department has determined that section 78BB does not include section 125E of the Criminal Code relating to the use of a child for the production of child abuse material. This offence was inserted in the Criminal Code in 2004 as part of the government’s strong reforms relating to child abuse material. I consider that it should be included in the list of offences for which a wholly suspended sentence cannot be given, and have directed the Department of Justice to take immediate steps to amend the act.
I will turn again to the bill in question and some of the concerns I have with it. The member for Araluen made much in her second reading speech about offenders convicted of serious offences walking out the door of the courtroom. It is a problem the member purports to rectify through legislation, but it is her own bill that fails to tackle the issue. I state again that section 78BB already makes perfectly clear for the majority of offences cited in her bill, a convicted offender could never just walk out of the court because the sentence can never be wholly suspended.
Similarly, in introducing this bill, the member for Araluen specifically referred to the sentencing decision in the Alice Springs case of R v RL. In this case the offender pleaded guilty to unlawfully causing grievous harm to his young son, contrary to section 181 of the Criminal Code. What I find interesting about this is that the member for Araluen’s bill and the changes she proposes here, would not have made any difference in that case. The member for Araluen’s bill does not apply to section 181 of the Criminal Code, nor would it apply to a whole range of violent offences such as assault with aggravating circumstances other than the specific ones mentioned.
Indeed, under the existing provisions of the Sentencing Act, if the offender is convicted of a violent offence on a second or subsequent occasion, the court is already restricted in the type of sentence it can impose. It cannot set a wholly suspended sentence.
With these points in mind, the bill increasingly appears to be an emotive grab bag of offences while ignoring a large number of others. When it comes to taking a serious attitude against abhorrent offences this government has done much to combat violence and sexual violence in the community. The introduction of the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Act in 2003 is just one example of serious action taken by this government against abhorrent offences. That act saw the toughening up, including increased penalties, of laws protecting children and vulnerable persons from sexual abuse, and closing loopholes where laws failed to adequately protect children from sexual abuse. The Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Act also saw the introduction of new aggravated offences which attracted higher penalties, especially where the child is particularly vulnerable.
New offences involving aggravations include where the offender is in the company of others, the child is under the authority of the offender, the child has a serious disability, or the child is affected by drugs or alcohol.
Offences were also tightened under that act to further ensure that children were protected. The act made sure that, where there was doubt as to the age of a person, the onus would be on the adult to make sure that the person was not under the age of consent. It also removed the defence that the parties to an act are married, the last customary law defence still on this Territory’s statute books. The removal of this defence recognised concerns from indigenous women’s organisations and child protection organisations that traditional marriage should not be used to mitigate or excuse sexual offences committed against children. Doing so reconfirms this government’s position that, in a conflict between customary law and criminal law, the interests of the child must always come first.
Addressing crimes of violence is one of this government’s law reform priorities for this coming year. We will continue to bring forward legislative reforms that get to the heart of the matter, that address crime and the causes of crime in our community. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting this bill.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I can understand why the member for Araluen has brought forward this bill. I had researched suspended sentences because the community gets a message, reported regularly in our papers, that people receive a fairly heavy sentence but, for some reason, it is then suspended. Quite often, the community wonders why we have gone through the whole court process only to see people walk out the door, basically, or only be gaoled for a short period of time.
I wrote to the Attorney-General asking if he would set up a sentencing advisory committee, such as is in Victoria. In the reply I received from the Attorney-General, he did say, after examining the operations of the councils in New South Wales and Victoria, along with the Australian Law Reform Commission’s discussion paper, Sentencing Federal Offenders, it has been decided that, similar to the federal government, the Northern Territory has other bodies which can provide advice as well as perform consultation and research into sentencing practices. There are no immediate plans to establish an independent council. I was very disappointed with that particular response. The Sentencing Advisory Council in Victoria compiles statistics, and it was because of the statistics that they saw this trend for more and more sentences being wholly suspended that the government actually moved to introduce legislation.
Victoria is the only Australian jurisdiction that does not allow for suspended sentences for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape, and so on. It is my understanding that Victoria intends eventually to abolish sentences for even a wider range of offences than they already have which included incest, sexual penetration of a child under 16, making a threat to kill, and armed robbery. Victoria has recognised that there has been a trend over the years to suspend sentences more and more. They have responded in this way, by saying that they are responding to community expectations and the fact that they feel as though justice must be done. You may convict someone and sentence them; but to then turn around and say to them that you can go in two months or three months does not really send the right message to the community. It does not send the right message to the offenders, who quite often return to courts over and over again.
I believe New South Wales did suspend sentences in 1974 and interestingly, though, they reversed that policy in 2000. It is something that is continually in the community eye. Perhaps this government should provide this House statistics so that we can see the trend, whether it is going the way that it has gone in other states or there is a need for a bill such as this to ensure that there is accountability within the system, and also to ensure the community can have confidence in our court decisions. If you are saying you are happy with things the way they are, obviously, that is not the message the community is getting at the moment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps the Attorney-General could reconsider setting up some sort of sentencing advisory council to look at the trend in the Territory. He must have obtained the statistics he provided me from some area. It would be very hard for us to get a total picture of what is happening regarding wholly suspended sentences, or even partly suspended sentences. The intent of the bill is right; we should be looking at these problems. It sounds as though the government is going to defeat it anyway, but I thank the Opposition Leader for presenting it.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, similarly, I thank the member for Braitling for her comments. I note with great interest, despite differences, that the member for Braitling and I at least are consistent on this issue. That is in stark contrast to Territory Labor. We have a Chief Minister who was embarrassed into calling an inquiry into sexual abuse. It led to difficulties within her party which, I understand, are ongoing.
This week, we saw the handing over of the reports some 12 months after the Nanette Rogers interview on Lateline and the Chief Minister arrogantly said: ‘No, that is my advance copy. We cannot possibly photocopy or electronically disseminate copies of the report; I am going to hang on to it’. I know why she is hanging on to it: she needs to position herself and to square off her colleagues. I am not sure that she is capable of that. The member for Millner may have a different view. She needs to square off with colleagues and to position herself. Anyway, some of that detail can wait for another time.
It is extremely disappointing that this government collectively but, particularly the Chief Minister, has such difficulty with the issue of sexual abuse on children and, indeed, domestic violence against women and children - any forms of violence against women and children. She does not get it. That is disappointing. I am also disappointed that you, as a government, just do not get it.
I remember asking a former Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, in estimates perhaps two or three years ago, whether he would consider setting up an inquiry as the South Australians did in their parliament looking at the rates of convictions for sexual assault. ‘No’, he said, ‘we know everything. We will keep going, chugging away in the way that we do’. It is not good enough. Promote, do all your glossy brochures and go on your budget road show and do the things that you are really good at - you are really good at spinning. However, some of us would not mind if you attended to other pressing and fundamental matters on the way through.
In relation to the Sentencing Amendment Bill, obviously, I will read with interest the Daily Hansard of what the Attorney-General had to say. Notwithstanding some of his comments, it is appropriate for us to bring this bill to the parliament. I should put on the record that my hunch is that before the next Territory election there will be a bill a little similar to this one. Certainly, government media releases will be saying that government will be tougher on this, and that under Labor criminals are not going to be able to walk out the door, and there will be squillions of years for sentences with a minimum of thousands. That will be the spin. So this will not be the last time, I am sure, that the Sentencing Amendment Bill will be considered in this House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it was brought in good faith. I stand on my record when it comes to these sorts of issues. At least I have one, unlike the Chief Minister. With those comments, I conclude and I thank members for their contributions.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, the government took a very careful and considered approach to our road safety reforms. The government’s task force of long-term Territorians were experts in a variety of fields. The task force prepared a report that involved many recommendations. The report highlighted that speed, drink driving, running red lights and not wearing seatbelts were the major contributors to our road toll.
The government has responded to recommendations with a range of initiatives including legislative change. Implementing that reform involves further bills which I have put on notice for introduction tomorrow. We have followed a process and we are committed to that process. That is why we will not be supporting this bill.
In one respect, I am glad to see the bills from the opposition today. It is healthy that ideas to help reduce the trauma on our roads are discussed and debated. However, you cannot help but feel that these bills are all about a catch-up. The Martin government has shown leadership and made the tough decisions to help save the lives of Territorians, but there is a little of a ‘me too’ feel about these bills. One thing you can be sure of is that, had the Martin government not taken the lead on this issue, then I doubt whether the CLP would have had these bills before the parliament.
These bills today are largely an attempt by the CLP to cover up their ‘speed does not kill’ policy. The idea being put forward by the opposition is that speed is not a factor in the carnage on our roads - and that is absurd. These bills do not hide that absurdity.
The essence of this bill involves repeat high-level drink drivers having their cars confiscated. The first problem with this bill is that it only targets drivers a long way over the limit - 0.15. It does not address the fact that driving at a much lower level of 0.05 is still extremely dangerous and occurs far more frequently. The government’s legislation targets repeat drink drivers who are over 0.05. The second problem is that it does not address drivers who are not driving their own car or who have access to other cars. The third problem is that many Territory families have only one car. How is a family going to get their kids to school? This bill imposes a disproportionately harsh impact on people completely removed from the committing of the offence. Targeting repeat drink driving offenders is what the government believes we need to do.
I did much research in this area when I took on the Transport portfolio. What I found is that an alcohol interlock is a device that can cheaply be installed in vehicles which prevent ignition without first requiring the driver to blow a BAC within legal limits. The interlock can also randomly require the driver to pull over and pass the blood alcohol test, so the car will not start in the first instance if you are over the blood alcohol legal limit. Also, to ensure that they do not try to trick the system, the car randomly gets you to pull over while driving to test your blood alcohol. In other words, the drunk cannot get his sober mate to blow into the ignition because you will be tested randomly as the car is proceeding. Alcohol interlock systems are used in several other states in Australia and have proved effective in reducing drink driving recidivism.
I have asked the government’s road safety reference group to consider the introduction of alcohol interlocks into the Territory. In the vast majority of cases, a drink driver does not plan ahead to drink drive. Having a vehicle that prevents them from doing so is far more effective at stopping a drink driver than confiscating that vehicle.
The government will not be supporting the Traffic Amendment (Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) legislation presented by the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, a predictable response from the minister. It does not warrant a detailed response from me. I will simply repeat that the bill was designed with the philosophy that the law should punish the guilty and not the innocent. The government’s road safety policy is flawed in a number of ways although, obviously, not in every way.
This particular bill says that if you consistently demonstrate yourself to be the sort of person who cannot conduct yourself sensibly and reasonably on the road, then your car should be taken away. It is that simple.
There are a number of other parts contained in the bill, but it boils down to this: the Labor government has a fundamentally different view from the CLP when it comes to punishing the guilty. We are not prepared to stand by and not act for reasons that escape us and most other decent-thinking people. On the other hand, this government is prepared to sit by.
I drive on the Territory roads, and my friends do as well. Friends and family of everyone in this Chamber drive on Territory roads. We do not want irresponsible people causing a risk to not only themselves, but to everyone else. That was the spirit in which the bill was brought to the parliament. As I said, the minister’s response was predictable and weak.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said in debate on the previous bill, the government has a strong commitment to road safety reform. We have put significant effort into implementing recommendations of the Road Safety Task Force. I have said this is not a static situation. We will continue to improve our road safety record and take whatever measures are practical and responsible to ensure that we have safer roads for our public. The Traffic Amendment (Suspension of Licence) Bill sponsored by the Leader of the Opposition will not be supported by government.
This is a bill you have when you really support demerit points but you want to pretend you do not. The bill says that if you keep committing a range of offences and fail to change your behaviour, you will lose your licence, which is the same concept as demerit points. What is the difference? The government is introducing a simple demerit point system which targets the major contributors to our road trauma. The demerit point system targets speeding, drink driving, running red lights and not wearing a seat belt. The CLP’s scheme only applies to a 12-month period. It allows a repeat offender to wipe the slate clean within 12 months and then return to their offending behaviour.
To be effective, this bill would require police to summons and prosecute drivers who commit seat belt and traffic light infringements. Under a demerit system, they can be dealt with administratively. The government’s demerit point system is a far simpler, far more effective approach. Given this bill, I look forward to the opposition’s support of demerit points later this year. The government does not support this bill.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for, once again, her predictable response. What needed to be said was contained in the second reading speech of 29 November last year. Much of what the minister said is not only predictable, but political. Once again, the difference is stark and amply demonstrated by the difference in approach in relation to this and other legislation brought to the Chamber by the opposition.
This bill is a part of our policy to deal with road safety in the Territory. As I said in the second reading speech, it is remarkably straightforward because it will achieve what is required, but the government simply refuses to do it. The CLP is prepared to legislate that people who breach the law consistently should lose their licences. We certainly do not back away from that. Similarly, people who choose not to wear seat belts should suffer the full effect of the law as contained in the bill.
We do not back away from the view that, if you are picked up three times in 12 months, then you will lose your licence. This is the sort of creativity that the government refuses to demonstrate when it comes to bringing legislation of its own before the Chamber. The response is certainly predictable, certainly political, and I am anticipating that the response in relation to the next bill might be just the same.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I indicate that the government will not be supporting the opposition’s legislation ...
Ms Carney: You do not even know what it is. It is not your portfolio. Where is the minister?
Ms LAWRIE: I note that the Leader of the Opposition is being facetious and rude as usual, as is her nature.
Ms Carney: Where is the minister? How embarrassing.
Ms LAWRIE: We are used to inane remarks flung across the Chamber from the Leader of the Opposition on subjects that the government actually takes extremely seriously …
Ms Carney: Please talk to the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: It is very difficult, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms Carney: Do you know what it is about?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to wait while she continues with her inane interjections. She certainly fills up Question Time with inane interjections. She managed to ensure that her budget response is inane. I have to say, I looked carefully at all of her education proposals in the budget and found that I could not see any way they were going to improve the attendance of students at school, which we know is the crux of what we would like to see.
I understand that the member for Blain has brought several different types of legislation and motions around about the issues of the role of custodians and traditional owners in the Northern Territory. I caution him: I think he is playing the politics of divide and rule and that is a very difficult and dangerous thing to do in the Territory.
Mr McADAM (Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the government does not support the bill. As members would be aware, the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act is administered by the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. The preamble to the act makes it clear that it aims to effect a practical balance between the protection of sacred sites, the cultural requirements of Aboriginal people, and the economic and social advancement of the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act protects all sacred sites in the Northern Territory, regardless of whether they have been registered under sections 27 to 29 of the act. The act also provides very good mechanisms for those who may be affected by the registration or existence of sacred sites, to be given the opportunity to raise any detriment at the time of the registration, and either at that time or at a later date, to apply for an authority certificate to determine if entry or works on or near a sacred site can occur. The act is working and it is working well.
In his second reading speech, the member for Blain acknowledges the existing protections of the act, but states the rationale behind this bill is an attempt to strengthen property acquisition in the Northern Territory. In fact, the bill would create a great deal of confusion as to what property is. Whereas the current act clearly understands property and property-like interests such as licences, this bill will weaken that current clarity. If the bill was passed, it would create unrealistic expectations and a culture of dispute and litigation, bringing a fair and just system into total disarray.
The member told the Assembly he understands that the current provisions under section 48A already allows for just terms compensation. We can all agree this is a principle found under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act when it comes to the actions of the Northern Territory in acquiring land. It is also found in section 51(31) of the Australian Constitution in cases where the Commonwealth is acquiring land from a state or an individual.
The member for Blain’s second reading speech was very unclear when it comes to what he and the opposition thinks property acquisition should be, and clarity is what is needed in this legislation.
This Assembly has a long history of supporting protection of Aboriginal sacred sites. The protection of sacred sites is an important mechanism for the enhancement and preservation of Aboriginal cultural tradition. We all understand and work in the knowledge that the existence of sacred sites, and the measures needed for their protection, may place restrictions on access to, or use of, an area of land or sea. Conflicts may occur regardless of whether the sacred site in question has been requested for registration by traditional Aboriginal custodians.
In the coastal and riverine areas of the Territory, I am advised that there are approximately 130 sites which have been registered, and approximately another 350 sites on record. All of these sacred sites and others not yet recorded or registered may cause restrictions on access and works. However, it is also true that under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act there may not be any restrictions to access and work on or near these sacred sites. As I have indicated, clarity is very important.
I have had the benefit of revisiting the member’s second reading speech, and have some difficulty with his concept of property rights. In the third paragraph, he stated: ‘The point of this bill is to recognise the impact upon other holders of rights’, by which it is understood he means other than those asserting sacred sites rights.
The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act already recognises other rights and, very clearly, allows for compensation on just terms for the acquisition of property. Section 44 also recognises those with an interest subordinate to a landowner, such as a licence holder. While section 44 ensures property owners have a higher interest than a lease or licence holder on the property, it also protects those other interests in the property impacted upon by a sacred site or sites. The current act works with various safeguards to ensure there will be no malicious prosecution for a reasonable mistake - this is section 36. The act also provides for direct dialogue between all parties with an interest in the land. In essence, the current regime is a reflection of a mature approach to getting along and getting on with business.
The proposal from the member for Blain would, instead, promote divisiveness and conflict. With this proposal, the member for Blain and the opposition is delving into uncertainty by attempting, through the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, to create a class or a range of indeterminate interests that may or may not be subject to compensation. This is a conflict-ridden and litigious model based on speculation and notional loss that may be impossible to prove. The potential cost and time spent on trying to balance these very uncertain claims are not worth considering. The proposal makes a very poor policy.
Under current provisions such as section 28 of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, before registering a sacred site, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority must give landowners an opportunity to make written representation; must give consideration to those representations; and must advise landholders of their right to apply for an authority certificate if they have indicated detriment. In the case of the proposed registration of sacred sites in a coastal or riverine environment, the authority has in place very specific procedures to allow for representation from interested bodies where sacred sites are being considered for registration. This is in addition to the statutory obligation to ask relevant landholders, such as the relevant Aboriginal Lands Trust, pastoralists or other landholders, and relevant government agencies, to raise concerns about any potential detriment the registration may cause. If a landholder does indicate possible detriment, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority is obliged to inform the landholder of their right to seek an authority certificate. An authority certificate would allow access and use on or near the site, with conditions ensuring the site is not damaged.
This is a fair and well understood system the opposition seeks to undo. At the moment, if a person or body has concerns about conditions of an authority certificate they may seek a variation to the certificate, seek a conference with the custodians to attempt to work out how their issues might be resolved and, if that does not deal with issues or concerns, they can apply to the minister for a formal review of the conditions of the authority certificate. Authority certificates are successfully used by developers and users of lands right across the Territory.
The member for Blain’s bill seeks to undermine the authority certificates’ processes. From time to time, industry bodies may raise concerns regarding sacred sites. When this occurs it is up to all of us to ensure that they understand how they can work under the Northern Territory Sacred Sites Act. Meeting and discussions with the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority are encouraged to assist in this understanding. The authority has an open door. It is happy to talk to the people concerned about sacred site issues at any time.
It is apparent this bill extends the current acquisition of property provisions to a range of unspecified impacts upon business. As outlined, just and fair compensation is paid for acquisition of property. The opposition would open the floodgates to litigation and disagreement about a range of interests that could tie up the courts for years with this bill. It is a rather clumsy attempt by the opposition to demonstrate they oppose Aboriginal interests in land and it is an unfortunate attempt to try to convince some business interests that the opposition is looking out for them when, in reality, the proposal would result in a mess of unworkable bureaucratic processes and litigation.
It is disappointing that the member for Blain at the end of his second reaching speech used a catch-all phrase in the hope of rescuing an unworkable proposal by calling it a sensible bill because it is an ill-conceived bill. The opposition is trying desperately to improve its credentials with a sector of the Northern Territory that has well and truly moved on from an unproductive and confrontational stand on these types of issues.
It is a bill I would have expected 10 or 20 years ago when relationships between government and indigenous people in the Territory were rock bottom. It adds nothing to the current way of doing business in the Territory. For the reasons that I have outlined here today, the bill is not supported by this government.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, it is clear by the preceding comments before the minister spoke, and imbedded within the speech by the second speaker from government, that there is a belief that no good thing can come and that, what does come, has an intent which is malicious. I find that offensive. There was no reference in the reply to the very body that needs to be responded to; that is, the fishermen. While it is difficult to define property, if the honourable member had done any kind of assessment as to the very concept of property, it is an immensely difficult concept to nail down.
Property is held by degrees. So yes, it might be easy to read a speech that has been prepared for you and to lace it with a prejudiced view of the intent of honourable members - that I find wholly offensive. This is in no way to denigrate that which is sacred to a community at all. It seeks only to recognise that, in the imposition or the recognition of that which is sacred, it has another effect on another sector of the community, and it calls the government to respond to that. It is for environmental reasons, about which I thought the member who spoke first may have perhaps counselled herself before unleashing a little contribution which really revealed the nature of the view of contempt in which the opposition is held.
If a sacred site is declared in such a manner that restricts the access, for example, of someone who has a fishing licence, as commercial operators they will have to wear that imposition. They will adjust their fishing efforts accordingly because they have certain bills to pay, operating expenses, and they want to run their operation. If they have been restricted from operating in a particular area as a result of the recognition of a sacred site, perhaps denying access to a creek or estuary, they are going to then displace their fishing effort to other places. There are places they cannot fish now. They will displace their fishing effort and it will place pressure on our fishing stocks.
That was one element of this that was not reflected upon; the government was more interested in talking about issues of racism or an intent to divide. In fact, it is an issue of fairness and it is eminently sensible in that there is a cause and effect - and that effect needs to be recognised and accommodated. With all the resources of government, if they have failed even to understand the intent of it and come back to bat it back laced with offence, I personally find it offensive. They have not taken the time, with all the resources they have on the fifth floor, to try to understand how best then to accommodate, which is a reasonable proposition - a proposition that is keenly felt by many members of our community.
A licence is a form of property. It is a very difficult form to capture in legal terms or to describe in argument, but it is arguably a form of property and, by recognising a sacred site, it has an effect on that form of property. All we are asking is that compensation or an adjustment be made. One manner in which it can be adjusted is the recognition of the loss of the capacity to earn, or the recognition that it is going to overflow into other fishing areas so you are going to have to change your fishing plans because that is the effect of it. There is cause and effect on our fishing stocks as one issue.
If we are going to walk together in this business - and I am more interested in finding a way that we can walk together - if one right is recognised, it does have an effect on others and we have to find a way to work through that. That is what this is about. It is very disappointing that no genuine effort has been made to read this to get a better understanding of it. Rather, they have resorted to something that is heavily political and offensive.
Nonetheless, I presume what is going to happen: governed by a prejudiced and jaundiced view of the intent of opposition, the bill will be resisted because you are government and you have the numbers.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is always interesting to see the member for Blain do an absolute dummy spit ...
Members interjecting.
Mrs Miller: He is a very sincere member.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, please.
Mr Warren: Of course he is, but he should have joined the Labor Party.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: You suggest I join the Labor Party! It is the last thing I would ever do! The last thing I would ever do!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Blain.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, that was entirely disorderly conduct, shouting from the back of the Chamber by the member for Blain. Extraordinary!
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I was just noting it was highly disorderly conduct. This is a parliament. We have our rules, our conventions, and our standing orders. It is appropriate to note that it is highly disorderly.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Warren interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Goyder! Please, minister, direct your comments to me and commence your contribution, please.
Ms Carney: Yes, you are so lazy and arrogant, no one even bothered to call a point of order. How bad is that?
Mr Warren: You do when it suits you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Ms Carney: Sit down, Ted! Do not contribute, Ted. Do us all a favour.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please, minister, direct your comments through the Chair and commence your contribution, please.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, we are debating the Learners and Provisional Drivers Legislation Amendment Bill. The government announced the phased introduction of a Graduated Driver Licensing System, so we have some accord with this legislation with the acts of the government. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this legislation forward and having an appropriate look at the range of provisions that can be put in place to protect the wellbeing of our learners and provisional drivers on the road. They are overrepresented in our road statistics in injury trauma, and anything that we can do, both as government and parliamentarians in this Chamber, to protect the life of young Territorians, we should do.
We are not here to play petty politics with this legislation. I, as Transport minister, am saying I commend the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this legislation forward, and take, in good faith, the suggestions contained within the legislation.
The reforms included in this bill are either included in the government’s current legislation, or are slated for inclusion in the phased introduction of our Graduated Driver Licensing System. Briefly, the government’s Graduated Driver Licensing System involves Phase 1: a minimum learner licence through to six months for all Learner licence holders; a Provisional licence period of two years for drivers under 25 years of age; and a complete ban on mobile phone use for all Learner and Provisional licence holders. Phase 2 is being developed and the following initiatives are currently being considered by the Road Safety Reference Group and the Division of Transport, and these include:
minimum supervised driving hours, likely to be 120 hours as occurs elsewhere for Learner licence holders;
night time driving curfews;
limits on the numbers of peer age passengers that can be carried during the first six months of the Provisional phase;
introducing conditions for restricted engine motorcycle licences, that is 0% blood alcohol;
the L and P drivers will be restricted from driving vehicles towing another vehicle; and
being the driver in a vehicle being towed; that is, they will not be able to be the tow-er or the tow-ee.
There are plenty of things that must be taken into account here. For example, restricting the number of people an L or P plate driver can have in a car can rule out the Sober Bob option for young people. That is why government is taking a considered approach to this particular aspect of the proposed legislation and the proposed graduated driver licensing further raft of reforms.
The CLP has also announced that they would provide concessions for young drivers to buy low powered cars. The only problem with this is that a young person considering buying a high performance car, we believe, is unlikely to be convinced to opt for a Barina instead on the basis of a small concession.
The government supports the intent of this bill. We are already doing it in our Graduated Driver Licensing Scheme, in what we have before us in legislation and what will be the second phase of the Graduated Driver Licensing Scheme. It has been carefully considered and looked at by our Road Safety experts. Whilst the government does not support this bill, we do support its intent.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. As I understood it, there will be legislation to follow in addition to the driver program, and that it is great. Politics, as we all know, is what we do for living, but wouldn’t it be great if we, as a parliament, in a bipartisan way, announced this together. It will never happen because you are a very arrogant government, but this is exactly the sort of stuff that people like Terry Mills got into politics to do. A more genuine and compassionate human being you will not find.
So when my colleague, the member for Blain, expresses frustration with this government, as he is entitled to do, then members on the other side should take a great deal of notice of that. It is not often Terry Mills becomes very angry, and he became very angry ...
Mr Warren: You should still respect the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Goyder!
Ms CARNEY: He was angry; it was obvious to all of us who were just here. People like him, and people like us on this side of the parliament, and the member for Nelson as well, actually got into this job so we could achieve better outcomes for the people around us. This is a good outcome. The minister said at the beginning of her response - and we should not politicise people like this as they are seriously overrepresented in road statistics all around the country. Nothing sends a chill up people’s spines more than watching the weekend news and it leads with a headline of ‘Five young people killed in Albury Wodonga’, or whatever. All of us have a responsibility to act.
The government is doing some work and that is great because that is what all of us are charged to do. I am sure that when I speak to the member for Blain later, he will be greatly encouraged by this result, as he will think politicians can actually work together, share ideas, and achieve good outcomes for the people around them. I thank the minister for her comments.
Motion negatived.
LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT (SALES OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) BILL
(Serial 78)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, the purchase of property is, usually, the singularly most important purchase in a person’s life. It is one of the reasons the 2007-08 budget provides a range of assistance to first homebuyers in the Territory, an initiative of which the government is very proud.
In his bill and second reading speech, the member for Nelson raised some valid points about purchasing property in the Northern Territory. The government is focused on ensuring purchasing property can be achieved as efficiently and as financially safe as possible. The conveyancing process does raise potential issue for buyers, such as the potential for would-be purchasers to be gazumped; resources wasted through various potential buyers conducting background searches and commissioning property reports; uncertainty as what consumer issues are necessarily protected by contract for the purchase of land; purchasers entering into binding contracts for the sale of property without adequate information or knowledge about the property; delay in the agreement of the property purchase due to the buyers conducting extensive searches; and perhaps of most concern, unwillingness on the part of some sellers to disclose, even to their own real estate agents, solicitors and conveyancers, all available information concerning the property. It is clear that buyers need some form of protection from these potential problems. We need to make sure we get the scheme right, and that it has the support of buyers, sellers, agents and the community.
The member for Nelson may remember that, in August 2006, the then Attorney-General advised the Legislative Assembly that the Department of Justice had released a discussion paper on vendor disclosure earlier that year, and received positive feedback from a variety of stakeholders. The discussion paper was prepared in consultation with the Property and Commercial Law Task Force, which included representatives from the real estate industry, legal practitioners, and other key stakeholder groups. The Department of Justice has taken the submissions into consideration and has requested the appropriate legislation now be drafted.
A bill is schedule for introduction later this year which will address the following points: whether a vendor disclosure statement should be mandatory; what should be disclosed and made available; whether this should apply only to residential land or all sales; whether a contract of sale should be available at the time the property is listed for sale; whether there should be a cooling-off period; and whether there should be a prescribed or standard contract for sale. Government will make a final decision on the forms these legislative protections will take in due course.
In relation to the private member’s bill, the government recognises that this is the member for Nelson’s latest of several attempts to introduce vendor disclosure legislation into parliament. I have no doubt he is somewhat frustrated by what he would perceive as the slow progress of the government’s amendments, but stress it is complex reform and not something that should be rushed.
The bill only applies to sales of residential property. It aims to make it an offence to provide misleading information, introduce a cooling-off period, and require a seller of residential property to make available certain documents. I commend the member for Nelson for taking action toward addressing issues which persist in the Northern Territory and periodically reminding government of the importance of reform in this area.
However, the member for Nelson’s bill has shortcomings. These include that it has been prepared without extensive public and stakeholder consultation. This is most evident in the bill’s handling of matters which should be disclosed and what form the disclosure should take. For example, there are issues with records in the Northern Territory, particularly due to Cyclone Tracy. Another concern is that the bill only applies to residential property. By limiting the bill to only residential property, a false distinction is created between sales of residential, commercial and industrial property. There is a failure to provide a mechanism to assist where, before transfer of the property, the purchaser discovers that a misleading report has been provided, and a copy of the draft contract of sale is not required to be provided as part of the disclosure process or be made available at the time the property is listed for sale.
The government does not object to the bill in principle. However, the bill is not supported, given the concerns I have just outlined. I reiterate the government plans to introduce its own vendor disclosure legislation later this year which I am confident will address the member for Nelson’s concerns and properly protect property buyers in the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the wisest words the Treasurer said were that this bill should not be rushed. You are right there, Treasurer. I am collecting these. I have serial 231 of 2004, serial 13 of 2005 and serial 78 of 2006: all bills for an act to amend the Law of Property Act. If you had not told me today that you were going to introduce this year a bill to deal with this matter, I can guarantee there will be one called ‘bill 2007’ because this is just as important an issue as the issue you mentioned at the beginning about helping first homeowners.
That is part of the reason I have also hammered what I believe is an appropriate manner of helping first homeowners: releasing a certain amount of land that will not affect the market specifically for young people so that they can obtain land at a reasonable price. This is also part of the philosophy that I am bringing forward today. For people, especially homeowners - and that is why this has been aimed at residents – it is the biggest purchase families or homeowners ever have in their life, generally speaking, for the majority of people. They need to know that the house they buy is going to be a house that is sold to them where they know all the pitfalls, if you want to call it that: whether the house has a problem with the septic tank, or the bore is not too good, or there is a leak in the roof. They need to know that before they buy it so they can purchase that house after giving due consideration.
It is funny how if we buy a washing machine for a couple of hundred dollars and it does not work you can take it back to Harvey Norman or to Betta Electrics. I have to remember them all now I have started: or Big W or K-Mart or whoever sells – oh, Murray Oakley, he has been around a long time. We should give him a plug too. You can take that washing machine back. You cannot take the house back. It seems to be a great anomaly that we have allowed the biggest purchase of our life to be covered by this so-called Latin statement, caveat emptor, is it? Buyer beware! I do not know how that came to be. There will be somebody who can tell me the history of such a great statement in law. It is time that was changed. It has been changed in other states. It is something that is well overdue in the Northern Territory.
The minister said there were a couple of areas that I did not cover. One was that it does not cover other premises except for residences. That was deliberate. It was not my idea; it comes from states which have looked at the same proposition. They are really focusing on people buying, in most cases, what is their life purchase. If you lose your life savings, it is a dramatic change to your life. I am not saying that if you bought an industrial block of land and the shed was not up to scratch, it would not be bad either, but it is not as bad as the effects on a family when they are purchasing a home. That is the reason I have concentrated on the residential section of the market.
The minister said we had not consulted widely. I refute that. I have had at least three meetings with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory and have corresponded with them quite a bit on every phase of the bill. There were meetings and correspondence with the Conveyancing Association of the Northern Territory. Right from the start, they supported this legislation. I had individual real estate agents write to me from as far away as Alice Springs saying they supported the legislation. There were a couple of people who recognised that there were some issues in it. I am not saying this legislation does not need to be changed according to the conditions of the Northern Territory.
The essence of it was that any person who bought a house knew exactly what they were buying: whether the house could be flooded because it was too close to a creek; that there had not been a pest report done on the house for some time; that the house was built before the cyclone code came into being - all those things. Therefore, when they bought their residence their eyes were open and they could not come back and say: ‘I did not realise the bathroom did not have any plumbing’. That is what this was all about. It is a genuine attempt to protect people, in many cases, from losing their life savings.
I watched the SBS program Insight the other night on the issue of home ownership. It came home to me how difficult it is for many people to own a home today. In fact, there was even someone from a home loan company saying it is basically impossible for many young people to buy a house today. They interviewed a single lady. I think she was a vet, so she had a well paid job. She bought a house that required some renovations, $20 000. Then she said that she had some problems with the plumbing and had a plumber come in to have a look. The plumber said: ‘Your plumbing has had it. To get that fixed, you will need another $20 000’. She had gone so far into debt that she had to sell the house. I do not know what law protected her in that state, because this does not apply everywhere.
However, it does indicate a problem because something had not been identified before she bought the house. Second, it shows you that people trying to buy a house today have reached the limit of what they can afford. Any slight cost over what they have put into the house can tip the balance as to whether they have to either sell the house or go broke. I felt for that lady in the sense that (1) she bought a house with some problems, and I do not know whether she knew that, and, (2) it cost her a fortune to fix these things and resulted in her having to rent a unit.
Treasurer, I appreciate that there is light at the end of the tunnel. I certainly am interested to see what comes out of it because there is one group of people who do not normally get involved in these discussions; that is, the consumer. You can talk to the Real Estate Institute, and they make money out of this business.
You mentioned today how you had spoken to various groups about the initiatives you have for first homeowners. Fair enough, but I expect the property development people to say, great, because they make money out of property development. I expect the Real Estate Institute to say, great, because they also make money out of it - the higher the property price, the more money they make. Of course they do.
Who represents the people who live in the house? It needs to be made sure they get consulted. When this bill comes out, there needs to be some widespread community consultation so we can ensure it is not one-sided and that the ones we are trying to protect are duly protected.
I have met with the Real Estate Institute. I know their concerns about certain things, and I understand where they are coming from. They raised some concerns with me about various issues. One issue that was raised was: are you required to get a new survey of your block? It has been found sometimes in Darwin city that some of the survey pegs are extremely old and have disappeared. Consequently, all of a sudden you find a 33-storey building which is six inches over the boundary. Does that mean that every time you sell a block of land you are going to have to employ a surveyor to make sure your pegs are where they should be? It is a relevant point. If you build a new place on the wrong block, it means a lot of litigation; either your building comes down, or you owe someone some money. I do not have an answer to that. It would make life pretty miserable and fairly costly to get the required documents sorted out. That was an issue raised in a meeting I had with the Real Estate Institute.
I thank the minister for his response. I will be looking forward to the day when this bill is introduced, and I will give it plenty of thought and thorough analysis.
Finally, and I know there was a lot of angst a while ago in parliament, I put on record that, regardless of what you think of the member for Blain and the bill he has proposed, he is a genuine bloke. I regard him as a friend. I believe what was said was very harsh. We should be able to debate things that are topical and controversial …
A member: Nothing harsh was said, Gerry. Get real.
Mr WOOD: All right, I will get real.
A member: Nothing harsh was said in debate.
Mr WOOD: It was inferred, unfortunately, and he took it that way. The member for Barkly, in his speech, said what he was putting forward was divisive, and I think he took that as meaning he was being deliberately divisive on racial terms. The member for Barkly may not have meant that, but that is the way it came across. I am happy if the member for Barkly, or any member, disagrees with the member for Blain; I do not care. However, I felt, knowing the man, I do not believe that was deliberate. If you think it was, then that is the way you think. He put forward a particular issue which was worth debating.
I do not necessarily agree with some of the stuff the CLP put forward today. In fact, I was not prepared to vote for it as I did not have support for all of it. In this case, the member of Blain was doing his job. I know him as a genuine person. All right, he is a politician and belongs to a political party, and as the Treasurer said to me, this parliament is about politics. But if we do not have room for humaneness …
Mrs Miller: Sincerity, honesty and integrity.
Mr Kiely: What about relevance, Gerry? How about getting back …
Mr WOOD: I know the member for Sanderson has his heart in the right place when he worries about frill-necked lizards, which is good enough. This is an important issue. I believe it was a bit unfair the way the member for Blain was treated. I know there is a lot toing and froing in this place, but in this particular case …
Mr Stirling: If we took everything personally - come on.
Mr WOOD: He did take it personally; I think it was personal to him. I did read the bill, and …
Mr Stirling: Do I take it personally when I am yelled at in Question Time? Do I storm out in a huff? Do I the hate the people opposite because they said that? No.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: I know that. Treasurer, you certainly do get in a huff when someone sledges, even I know that, and I understand where you are coming from ...
Mr Stirling: I do not slam the door.
Mr WOOD: All right, I am just saying …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, direct your remarks to the Chair if you could?
Mr WOOD: I will finish my sentence.
Mr Stirling: You have made your point.
Mr WOOD: I am just saying, we might disagree but let us be careful the way we do it.
Mr Stirling: Okay.
Motion negatived.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a very successful business in Alice Springs. I am referring to Colemans Printing which has operated in and served the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia for 21 years. I congratulate, as I am sure all members do, Colemans Printing on their 21-year anniversary. It is a big week for Colemans Printing. Not only are they celebrating 21 years of printing services in Alice Springs, but they are launching a new printing press and opening their new bigger premises - and very colourful premises - which has enabled Colemans Printing to take the printing and graphic design services it offers to a new dimension.
Colemans Printing, this week, is a strong and clear indication of their commitment in Alice Springs and its future. The move to the new business premises in Elder Street has allowed Colemans Printing to purchase the latest printing technology available. It can now produce items in Alice Springs that are equal to anywhere else in this country. The new Heidelberg printer is a world-class printing facility with the latest technology. It is all computer-controlled from start to finish. The new Heidelberg Printmaster PM 52 provides a very broad spectrum of printing possibilities and, I understand, it is flexible and high-tech on the one hand and attractive and practical on the other.
This new printing press is perfectly positioned to meet all customer requirements, and Colemans can now produce anything up to an 80-page booklet printed, collated, folded and stitched - all in their Alice Springs premises. By investing in new environmentally-friendly machinery and facilities Colemans is proud - and rightly so - that they are contributing to a greener world by being conscious of the equipment and the materials they utilise. The new service that Colemans is offering is a walk-in/walk-out photocopying service for one to 1000 sheets.
Territory-owned and operated since its foundation in 1952 by John ‘Colie’ Coleman as Darwin’s first commercial printer, it has grown to what it is today – an industry leader in graphic design and commercial printing in our wonderful Northern Territory. The company has been successfully run by generations of Colemans, surviving and prospering through the devastation of Cyclone Tracy and, then in later years, being all but destroyed by fire. Believe it or not, this seemed to make the company stronger, with the same factory that was burnt out so many years ago now housing nearly $10m-worth of the most modern printing equipment in Australia.
The Alice Springs office has been operating since 1986. Not only does this family business invest in infrastructure, it also strongly invests in its staff. The company has been committed from the very early days to the skilled training of apprentices, gaining the Commonwealth minister’s award for excellence and training in 2001. Colemans remain proud Northern Territory supporters, assisting local business and employing local people, with their staffing numbers now sitting at about 65.
Colemans Printing is a huge supporter of Alice Springs and the Top End through sponsorship of community events and sport, as well as individuals and associations. There is no doubt that Colemans is a great corporate citizen and a great family company. I commend the owners, management and staff of Colemans Printing and thank them for their commitment to business and employment opportunities in the Territory. I pass on my congratulations to Jeremy and his team in the Alice Springs office for their collective 21 years of service to Alice Springs. I look forward to our continued and ever-growing association. It is a successful business in the Territory which has also been serving the people of Alice Springs admirably for 21 years. I am sure I share with all members a willingness to pass on our hearty congratulations.
I now move to another company in Alice Springs which celebrated 60 years in business last week. I was asked to open their new premises and was very pleased to do so: Ross Engineering. From their business premises in Alice Springs, Ross Engineering provides services to the mining, quarrying, exploration, petroleum, drilling, building and construction, pastoral, remote community, automotive and transport industries.
Ross Engineering offers the most comprehensive metal fabricating, welding and fitting services to Alice Springs and the region. Ross Engineering can be contracted to provide welding repairs; offer machine shop services such as turning, milling, and grinding; workshop processes including metal spraying, plate and section rolling; plus sheet metal cutting and folding; abrasive blasting and protective coatings; and also the provision of skilled labour and hire equipment. This is an impressive Alice Springs company.
As I said at the opening, the Ross family have voted with their feet and with their pocket; they have demonstrated great confidence in the future of Alice Springs. I am very proud to share with them their confidence because it is a great place to live. It does not matter what government members say. It is a great place to live and those of us who live there are very proud to continue to live there.
Established in 1947 by Bill East under the name East Engineering Works, the then small business was principally a steel fabricator and machine shop. Ron and Barbara Ross took over the business in 1967 and Ross Engineering was born. When Ron and Barbara retired in 1983, the current directors, Neil and Julie Ross and John and Meredith Joslin took over. I might say it was a wonderful thing to see Ron and Barbara Ross back for the 60-year anniversary all the way from Port Lincoln.
Since 1983, the workforce has grown steadily from around 10 people to the 36 on the books today. The normal complement of staff is usually three fitter/machinists and one apprentice; six metal fabricators and two apprentices; five trades assistants; two workshop supervisors; and two office staff. The number fluctuates as the workload demands. The engineering business proudly boasts a multicultural mix of staff. Some 10% of the workforce is indigenous and there are a number of international workers employed because of the acute skill shortage in this country.
Employing overseas workers is not the only recruitment option. Ross Engineering has always been committed to training with apprentice employment a constant priority. Thirty-five apprentices have been successful in completing their training in the past 25 years. Today there are seven apprentices and trainees on the books.
Ross Engineering is located in Elder Street, Alice Springs, one of the best industrial areas in town, and boasts, as I understand it, 830 m of shed space on approximately a 6000 m block of land that the Ross’ have developed over the years. Ross Engineering is a comprehensive engineering business and it offers a range of business activities and services to a range of the areas, as I outlined earlier.
A new and exciting offshoot of Ross Engineering is Pro-Blast, the business that I opened last week, a business dedicated to professional abrasive blasting. Originally, Pro-Blast was set up as a separate abrasive blasting business for Ross Engineering but its services have quickly become sought after and highly so. Pro-Blast makes use of a contained blast chamber which allows for a more environmentally-friendly operation. The diesel compressor has been largely replaced with a more energy-efficient electric compressor. There is grit recycling and dust filtration to maximise consumable use and reduce dust drift from the premises. I was very happy to be shown around that facility when I was there.
About 200 people turned up to the opening and it was a real who’s who of Alice Springs. As I said on the night, Alice Springs has been very good to all of the people who were there and we know that it will continue to be good for us all and anyone who wants to invest in the town. Alice Springs, obviously, has its share of problems. That is why 500 people turned up at the parliamentary sittings in Alice Springs to express a level of frustration with this government.
However, having digressed, I sincerely congratulate Ross Engineering. They are an outstanding Alice Springs company. Sixty years in business is no mean feat. The business has seen the boom/bust cycles that one would expect to see over a 60-year period. I am sure that the Ross family have had their hard times as well as their good times. A significant, in excess of $1m, investment in a company in Alice Springs is to be applauded.
I am sure that all members join with me in expressing our congratulations to the Ross family in achieving the milestone of 60 years in business. Also, I am sure members share with me my very best wishes to them for their new business, Pro-Blast. I hope that the business continues to flourish for another 60 years.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I recently had the privilege of awarding each of 14 Nightcliff students a $50 voucher in recognition of their outstanding efforts in a writing competition I have instigated in recognition of Anzac Day. Together with several hundred other people, the students and their families attended the very successful Nightcliff Community Cabinet, held at the Nightcliff Swimming Pool on Sunday, 22 March. The students’ work was on display and the quality and content of the essays, poems and letters was remarked upon by many.
I thank all students who entered the competition and acknowledge the winning students: Molly Hosking and Jessica Hubbard from Nightcliff Middle School; Pascoe Lawler, Laura Mosel, Nikola Sellers and Ayla McGavin from Nightcliff Primary School; Ruby Smyth, Zac Ware, Stevie Kirk-Groves, Molly Ness, Lani Shepherd and Phoebe Macleay from the Essington School; and Airah Javorsky and Anna Snodgrass from St Paul’s Primary School.
The level of participation in the competition would not have been possible without the cooperation, encouragement and assistance of the Nightcliff Middle School Principal, Lyn Hollow; Nightcliff Primary School Principal, Liz Veel; St Paul’s Primary School Principal, Mary Cutjar, and Essington School Principal, David Cannon and Vice-Principal, Natalie Hyde. I extend my thanks to these people and applaud them for nurturing the talents of students which has in turn produced such an excellent standard of work.
The Nightcliff Community Cabinet was, indeed, a special occasion. Along with the presentation of student awards, I also had the privilege of assisting the Chief Minister in the presentation of a Community Service Award plaque to an exceptionally hard-working Nightcliff community member, Norma Allen. Norma is a delightful lady who has lived in the Territory for only seven years, but in that time has made a significant contribution to her community through association with Darwin Legacy Widows Club, the CWA, and the Arthritis Foundation of the Northern Territory. Norma has served a number of terms as president of the Darwin Legacy Widows Club. In 2005, she represented Legacy widows at the Victory in the Pacific Commemoration ceremony onboard the USS Missouri in Pearl Harbour, and was recognised as a great ambassador by the federal Minister for Veterans’ Affairs at that time. I congratulate Norma on her Community Service Award, which is richly deserved.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge a number of people and organisations who contributed greatly to the success of the Nightcliff Community Cabinet: Nightcliff Evergreen members, Peter Mitchell and Audrey Ellis, arrived early so that Peter could set up the sound system. Peter ensured everything was working perfectly and later packaged the entire system up again. I extend my thanks to them both. Thanks also to the Nightcliff Swimming Club, particularly catering organiser, Rebecca McKechnie, and her team for providing an excellent barbecue for all Community Cabinet participants. Many thanks.
I publicly recognise the helpfulness and professionalism of Nightcliff Swimming Pool staff, Louise Salathiel and Daniel Girlak, whose cooperation and assistance was very much appreciated. I thank the Nightcliff electorate community who took the opportunity of the Community Cabinet to come along to one of my electorate’s most beautiful locations to speak to ministers. I acknowledge behind-the-scenes work done by the Department of Chief Minister staff, Nuala Murphy and Kirk Whelan, in coordinating the logistics of the Nightcliff Community Cabinet, which, undoubtedly, assisted in the success of the event.
Tonight, I congratulate the organisers of, and participants in, the nine-day Seabreeze Festival, which began last Saturday. This is the third year of the Seabreeze Festival and the government is a major sponsor of this event, contributing $10 000 each year.
Each year, it becomes a bigger and better event and much of the credit for this must go to the hard-working Seabreeze Committee of Andrew Arthur, Pauline Joy, Kim Pradier, Colin Simpson, Jane Tonkin, Caroline Tapp and Lilla Washington.
Saturday’s Seabreeze Festival day, held over 2 km of the beautiful Nightcliff foreshore, attracted over 7000 people who were able to enjoy an array of sculptures, musicians, visual art works, restored cars, games, school bands, choirs and dance, the Corrugated Iron Circus, food stalls and of course, the World Rhythms multicultural community parade, which snaked its way along the foreshore, gathering around 2000 people into its celebration of the festival.
The community parade was preceded by a workshop in the creation tent to finalise the production of percussion instruments, banners, masks, costumes, lanterns, pennants, and dozens of other colourful works of art to be worn, waved, banged, strummed, rattled or shaken in the parade. It was a real Nightcliff event.
Rapid Creek artist, Alison Dowell, had spent eight of the previous weeks conducting creative workshops with community groups including the Energy Cruz after school program and students from Nightcliff Primary School, the Essington School, Milkwood Steiner School, Millner Primary School, and Nemarluk School to produce these masterpieces.
Essington students were resplendent as the creatures from the sea, Nightcliff Primary students dazzled in their gold and red Chinese dragon costumes, while the Milkwood Steiner School students lit the way with their colourful rainbow lanterns.
I acknowledge the efforts of teachers, Di Wittaker, Marion Bryce, Andrea Fulton, Amy Smith, Patricia Canning, and Briseis More from Nightcliff Primary School, Wendy Watt from Milkwood Steiner School, Rosie Bignall from Essington School, and Jenny Dally from the Energy Cruz program for assisting students to produce this fine display. Also to the Nightcliff Preschool teacher, Pozy Dalgleish, and her band of preschoolers and their families for their colourful contribution to the parade.
It was my pleasure to once again sponsor and judge the Sand Sculpture competition, which had some amazing and very creative entries. First prize went to the Martin and Harper-Brown families, whose sculpture in the shape of a dragonfly was outstanding. In second place, were two teenagers, Clancy O’Donnell and Max Moon, who managed to sculpture a three-dimensional surfer against a rock face at the Nightcliff foreshore. In third place was Sam Gardiner’s team, who were very topical in creating the entire Australian cricket team as a group of penguins engaged in a match which threatened to be a wash-out with the incoming tide. Congratulations to all who took part, and to artist, Freedom Summers, who was sculptor-in-residence throughout the competition and who assisted me with the judging. Congratulations also to the students of Nightcliff schools who participated in many of the events and provided entertainment.
I wish to recognise the efforts of Essington School Principal, David Cannon and music coordinator, Jill Kuhn. The performances of the Essington School Band, the Songsters Choir and the School Recorder Band were outstanding and a credit to the school and its music program.
I also commend the musical groups from the Milkwood Steiner School for their stage performances. Two groups of students, with their music teacher, Netanela Mizrahi, gave excellent performances on cellos, violas and violins, much to the enjoyment of the audience. The Steiner School was previously in my electorate of Nightcliff, but moved to a larger premises at the CASA site at the start of the 2007 year. However, I still have very close links with this school and will continue to take an interest in its development.
Finally, I recognise the efforts of the Nightcliff ALP Branch, whose members worked long and tirelessly to provide hot food and cold drinks to festival patrons. My particular thanks go to Bill and Jodie Tutty, Warren Martin, Greg Jarvis, Simon Aagaard - my good husband, Chris Draffin and Carol Rollason for their extraordinary efforts, together with Palmerston Branch member, Merv Brown, who provided both his cooking skills and an extra barbecue and cold storage. I also thank my electorate officer, Janet Webb for all her efforts. I extend my appreciation to federal candidate for Solomon, Damien Hale and his campaign manager, Russell Wilson, who visited the Seabreeze Festival and took their turns on the barbecue and the counter during the busiest period.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is with much pleasure that I highlight some of the activities and achievements that have taken place in my electorate of Daly over the last few months.
A monthly school awards program was kicked off with great success with the Wooliana School on the Daly River. The first prize was won by Donna Foster, who received the March award. Kayleen Kimbi received the April award. The school’s teaching principal, Petrina Reardon presented the awards to these students based on their commitment to the school and application to school work. Petrina said that both girls served as important role models to their peers. I congratulate Donna and Kayleen on their hard work. I attended the school and met these two girls and they are fantastic. They have been awarded basketballs and bags, and they will use the bags on school trips. I thank Petrina and her husband for the work they do at the school. They do a fantastic job. They have a high attendance rate. They have around 40 children there now who are attending most of the time, which is a great result for them. I thank them for their efforts during the flooding – they had a flood school operating at the Nauiyu community which was well attended. They got through that in those couple of weeks that the community was isolated.
The Katherine School of the Air winners for the month of March were Zoe Dingal from the Victoria River Research Station and Aidene Seers. Zoe, a preschool student, has been recognised for her outstanding efforts and achievements in her school work. Aidene received the award based on her excellent art work contribution. Thank you to Jen Coad, Denise Kenny and all the other staff at the Katherine School of the Air for participating in the school awards program. It is a great team of teachers who work hard to deliver education to families in the bush. They are a great team and the diverse number of children who participate in the School of the Air in Katherine is growing and is achieving outcomes.
On Anzac Day, I attended the Dawn Service at Adelaide River. As always, it was a moving service and well organised. Approximately 2000 people attended the service, which is up from last year – well, last year was cancelled, but the year before; it was certainly up from that. There were many more young people, and many different groups attended. It is heartening to see the increase in numbers and the way the service is run.
I record some acknowledgements to the organisation done by Cliff Walton and Lisa Wain from the council, and former council member Kia Gill for their efforts on the day, and Derek, the War Graves Officer, who does a fantastic job preparing the gravesite for the day. The Fire and Emergency Services group volunteered their time to organise parking. I pay particular thanks to those people, including Bruce Jones and his wife.
I acknowledge the former member for Daly, Tim Baldwin, who was MC. He did a great job and, like me, was proud to be part of the ceremonies to honour our fallen and serving Defence Force personnel. The ARSS Club, the Adelaide River Show Society, put on a breakfast on the day. They catered for about 1000 people, but they got slightly more than that. The ARSS Club had all their volunteers there. I cannot name them all, but I acknowledge some of them: Guna Deva, Sandy McLean, Linda Mackintosh, and many others who give their time to prepare the breakfast and serve at the bar. I spent quite a bit of the morning serving at the bar, as people were getting into it at 7 am.
Every year in the Territory, the start of the Dry signals the start of great fishing. This was definitely the case for this year’s Barra Nationals held at Banyan Farm on the beautiful Daly River. I had the pleasure of opening the event this year. Banyan Farm, the traditional home of the Barra Nationals, is owned by Wally and Kerry Draper. They have done fantastic work there over the years. The power that this government put on has encouraged them to spend a great deal of money in improving their facilities, which is well received by the interstate and intrastate competitors.
There were 165 competitors from all over Australia in 55 boats this year. The Barra Nationals has been running for 11 years, and is often described as the ultimate fishing tournament. This year, 1080 fish were caught. I thank the Palmerston Game Fishing Club for their organising, and special mention of Paul Williams for his efforts. His team give their time free of charge to organise this fabulous event which puts the Territory on the map.
Earlier this week, I organised a meeting with the Batchelor community in response to some law and order issues. There was great participation by the Coomalie Community Government Council and also NT Neighbourhood Watch. Jeff Mosel, who is attached to the Northern Territory Police and has a particular interaction with the Neighbourhood Watch, attended with one of their board members, Kevin. It was great to have them there to advise the committee. Around 25 local people attend. We had a great barbecue and discussion, and most of the people signed up on the night, which was great to see. Their participation in the community will see some changes and issues resolved. I give special thanks to Lisa Wain for helping to get the barbecue organised, and to Bill from the council who brought the barbecue and chairs down, and stayed for the meeting and then took them away afterwards.
Just on that note, this Sunday past I was travelling to Darwin and I was 20 km-odd south of Adelaide River when I came upon an accident which had occurred about 7:30 pm. I acknowledge some local people who attended that accident. The police and the health staff attended, which is their job, but still, Sunday night they come out and they do a fantastic job in all conditions. I would like to recognise Constable Alan Brown, the clinic staff, Joy Sammy, and to Estrella Munz who attended the accident. I would also like to recognise some people. It is not part of their job, but there was a truck driver from Gulf Transport who came upon the accident first. He stopped, checked the two people in the car and cordoned off the area before the police and emergency service people arrived. He did a great job. Thankfully, the occupants of the car, one of whom was a 12-month old baby, survived the accident which is very fortunate. The car was an absolute write-off so they were very lucky. Two other people who attended that accident are volunteers with the FERGS from Adelaide River, Mick Loon and Bill from the council whom I just mentioned. They give up their time at all hours - and that was on a Sunday night - to come out and help with these accidents. I acknowledge their efforts.
One other acknowledgement I make is an alcohol meeting which we had at Daly River. The committee is set up between the council, the hotel and the police, and they are meeting quite regularly. It is made up of the publican, Greg and the council clerk, Hank Rhees. Councillors and the police also attended. The alcohol committee is trying to do a great job down there. I hope the information I brought to them about the initiatives on Groote Eylandt and at Nhulunbuy will be recognised and they will see that as an option to move forward.
That is what has been happening in my electorate.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight in the adjournment debate I recognise a wonderful life in the Northern Territory and a wonderful lady, a real Territorian, who sadly passed away on the morning of 16 April this year and whose funeral I attended today: a constituent of mine, a lady by the name of Maida Pocock.
I met Maida, a lovely lady, when I was campaigning for the 2001 election. I knocked on her door in Leanyer and she invited me in. She was a person I immediately took to, a very warm-hearted, generous person in whose presence you felt very comfortable. I got to know Maida over the years when I helped her out with a few issues around her Housing Commission property in Leanyer, and got to know some of her family.
On another issue, I met one of her sons, Robbie Pocock, who is also one of those real, genuine Territorians, a real battler. The whole family have been battlers. It is absolutely appropriate that this parliament puts on the public record, or forever I suppose, the life of a lady who contributed so much love and goodwill to her family and everybody who came in contact with her.
Maida was a member of the Stolen Generation. She was removed from her family at Daly River while still a baby and taken to the Methodist Mission on Croker Island. Many of those ladies are getting on in years now and it is sad to see people leaving us, particularly our Stolen Generation community who really did live a life that none of us can quite contemplate: the absolute tragedy of being taken away from your family, your country and raised elsewhere. It is certainly a time in Australia’s history that is a stain on the nation.
One of the first acts of the new Labor government was to say sorry to the Stolen Generation. I hope in time that the federal government, because it was that parliament which enacted the policies, will take it upon themselves to say sorry to these wonderful people from the Stolen Generation.
I would like to read the eulogy that was printed in the service for Maida today at Casuarina Uniting Church. It says a little about Maida’s amazing life:
Regarding people speaking in tribute to Maida’s life at the church today, for someone like me who came to the Territory in 1982 and now call this wonderful Territory of ours home, I can only begin to contemplate the tough times that Maida and all of the Stolen Generation people had. When we look at Maida’s life and the work that she did as a young woman, we see that Maida was a real battler; a true Territory battler who had seven children and 16 grandchildren. It is amazing.
The Territory is a sadder place for Maida’s passing because she certainly does embody the spirit of the Northern Territory. Everyone who spoke at her funeral said what a wonderful, compassionate woman she was, that she would do anything for anyone, and never had a bad word for anybody in spite of the tough times she had in her life.
As she looks down on her family and her friends in Darwin, she knows she certainly left an enormous legacy behind and a family who love and adore her, and will always remember her. To her children, Robbie, William, Frank, Ellen, Elsie and Lyn, and her 16 grandchildren, I am sure that all of the members of this House would say: ‘Vale, Maida Pocock’.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I concur with the member for Wanguri. I also attended the funeral of Maida Pocock, although I did not know her as well as the member for Wanguri. I know one of her daughters, Lyn Jones, very well. It was a very inspiring funeral. The eulogies certainly made you think. They also made you realise what a wonderful family she has left behind. The thoughts that were expressed today were something that I believe everybody would be inspired by. I concur with the member for Wanguri and express my condolences to all the family and especially to Lyn.
I want to report on the Anzac Day cricket match we held at the World War II Strauss Cricket Ground, known as the SCG. I should say at the outset that I thank the minister for NRETA for putting the World War II cricket pitch on a possible heritage listing. It was in the paper some time ago that the government is considering declaring it as a heritage site, which is great news. I know in the future there are plans for roads and all sorts of things to go through that area from the new city of Weddell, so it is good to see that it would be protected.
It was another great day. Unfortunately, I suppose from the Army’s point of view, not only were they thrashed, they were a little down on numbers because many of the soldiers are at Cultana where they are training as the next group of soldiers to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. They did not have their best team there, but they certainly tried their best. I thank Lieutenant Nick Munday for organising the team; he certainly showed the way on the day as captain. I also thank Andy Fieldhouse who was the captain of the Litchfield President’s XI, disguised, I suppose, as C grade Southern Districts cricket team. A big thanks to St John Ambulance.
Once again, Greg Payne came out and helped us on the day. The Thompson family, who live in Bradley Road, mowed the grass around the cricket pitch to make it look a picture. They always help out on that particular day. The Litchfield Palmerston Rotary Club, through Eric Chalmers and all the helpers there, go to every Anzac Day cricket match and provide the beer and the barbecue which makes it a wonderful event. Karen, a member of Rotary, from Noonamah Store, provided all the bread, which certainly helped on the day. Jack Hamilton from Legacy turned up with his little table and Legacy badges and, of course, the whole day is about raising money for Legacy. Mary Walshe, President of the Litchfield Shire - it is her team; she picks it - did a lot of the commentary; and Reg Prasad. Anyone who has been around Darwin long enough knows Reg. Reg is our Gupta, our Indian bookmaker, and he turned up this year, which was good ...
Mr Henderson: He does not know the coaches, does he? You want to keep him away from the coach!
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right. He gets money out of third umpire decisions from the boundary lines. So if you had an LBW, Reg makes the decision whether you are in or out and, of course, the way we make money on that day is to bribe people. If you want someone to be out you give him $10 or $20 – that is how money is raised.
I would also like to thank the Malady family, under their business name, Gusher. They provided some donations for the day. All in all, it was a good day. It is a picture postcard cricket pitch in the bush, and we made at least $1000 just in that afternoon. I thank the government for putting this particular venue on a possible heritage listing.
I have been thinking today, and I was talking to someone I know about the workplace guidelines or proposals that the federal government is at this moment debating with the opposition, the federal Labor Party. I said a few things yesterday, and the minister said: ‘Well, perhaps you are just sitting on the fence’. I thought, I do not think that is quite right. As I said before, there are more than two sides to an argument. I came across an article that I was told to look for. It was by a Catholic Bishop, Bishop Kevin Manning. He wrote an article in a magazine called Catholic Outlook, which is a social justice resource. I thought what he said was well balanced. I have to say that I had not read it before, but it did fit in with what I was trying to say yesterday, which was whether it is AWAs or whatever the form of employment is, we have to protect the vulnerable.
The vulnerable can be the youth, it can be sometimes women, and those people who do not have the skills to debate their position in life. AWAs, as they say, are fine. We employ many people on the fifth floor under a form of AWA. However, you can imagine that the people on the fifth floor have the ability to negotiate. Some people do not have that ability to negotiate, and those are the people who need protecting. That is the point of view I come across.
I do not believe that AWAs are necessarily bad in themselves. I believe it is the way they are enforced. I am also concerned about the rights of people who lose their job. I do not care whether it is one person, or 100 people, or 15 people. If they are unfairly dismissed, they are unfairly dismissed. We need to ensure that not only are the rights of the bosses, especially in small business, given a fair go, but there also needs to be rights for those people working for those bosses. How you would work that, I am not sure. There is more need to ensure that the vulnerable are protected, as well as management who may have to put up with someone who is lazy and just a downright waste of money.
There needs to be more emphasis on providing people who are in an advocate role, who can work with people when they have to fill out an agreement for work, or they can also step in when someone’s job is being put on the line, if they feel they are being given false reasons for the termination of their employment.
You will have to understand it does come from a Catholic background; however, I thought it would be worth putting on record as a philosophy that does raise some issues in relation to this whole debate. I am quoting from this study guide to Bishop Manning’s Catholic Outlook article. This comes from the Broken Bay Institute in August 2005. It starts off with the ‘Centrality of the human person’:
This is under the heading ‘Subsidiarity and the Common Good’.
It goes on to talk about the legislation. Of course, I have to put this in the context that this was before the vote on the legislation:
I understand that people may not accept all of what was said there but it did raise some important principles. I have quoted many times before that the Catholic Church, early in the last century, was a strong advocate of workers’ rights and that basically what they are saying, what Bishop Manning is saying, is exactly that. He himself says that. This is from the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 April, so it is only just recently. He was talking about this same issue:
That is the area I struggle with. I support people having the right to form unions. I also support people to meet and to negotiate individual wage arrangements. However, we have to find the balance and we seem to have got to, in this debate, between ‘We’re right and you’re wrong’ and ‘We’re right and you’re wrong’. It would be very difficult in this political atmosphere to get both sides of politics to sit down and say: ‘Can we find the best of both worlds?’ Certainly, when you hear about workers in the mining industry, they enjoy the AWA system because it brings them in good wages and they make a lot of money. That is reflected in what the bishop has said: if you have the skills that are needed, you can negotiate a good outcome through AWAs.
There is no doubt that people who work for the government in some of the higher areas are skilled enough to negotiate their contracts. At the same time, the basic principle must be that the vulnerable, those people who do not have those skills and who need protection, are protected no matter what method of payment they come under, whether it is AWAs or collective bargaining.
From my point of view, I do not mind which government gets into office as long as they stick with those principles. I still have problems, as I say, that workers can be unfairly dismissed even under the Labor Party’s approach because they are limiting it to 15 people. All workers should be protected and at the same time, realising that bosses have rights as well too.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about three key milestones in the Darwin Basketball Association. It involves three well-known athletes in the local basketball competition.
Michael Crawford played his first game in the 1989 Wet Season for the Pioneer Pints Club. He moved to the Ansett Club in the 1997 Wet Season, then to the Tracy Village Jets in the 2002 Wet Season competition before returning to Ansetts in last year’s Wet Season competition. Michael also played for the DBA Development Squad, Darwin Youth Team, and a basketball NTITC team during his league career. Michael was a part of the Jets’ domination of the league championship, sharing their premierships from 2002 through to 2005. He also was a Jet when they won an unprecedented 50 games in a row, a feat never before achieved in Darwin basketball.
Michael was also a team member when Ansett won the league championship in 1999. He has represented Darwin at Northern Territory championships and represented the NT at national championships during his career. He is known to be a very accurate three-point shooter who can come off the bench and light up the scoreboard in a very short span of time, providing a lift to his team mainly at a crucial time in the game. He is a very solid player and a definite asset to any team that he has played for.
Michael comes from a well-known basketball family, the Crawford family. His father, Bruce, mother, and sister, Sam Crawford, all played basketball and have been involved in committees and representative teams over the years. I am sure they are very proud of Michael’s achievements.
Also playing a milestone game this year was Kathy Kellam. This all occurred today. Kathy Kellam played 599 games. She has scored 5119 points so far in her career, spanning 25 years at top level of Darwin basketball. She began playing in the 1981 Dry Season with Pioneer Pints Club then moved on to play with South Darwin for 14 years before changing to Mitsubishi RSL in 1997. Kathy has been playing with Ansett since the 2004 Dry Season. She led the league in scoring in the 1984 Wet Season with 246 points, has played on championship teams with South Darwin in the 1984 Wet Season, and Dry Season championship in 1985. She played on the Ansett Dry Season championship team of 2004, and represented the NT and Darwin on many occasions since 1981.
Kathy will become only the second player, male or female, to reach the 600 game milestone. This is a very impressive achievement. Kathy is also one of only eight players to score of 5000 points in the Darwin league competition.
Letticha Clarke from the Uni Rebels league women’s team first started playing in 1985 Dry Season. She has played over 300 league games and scored 3014 points. She has played for the Rebels for her entire career, and is very proud of that. She has played on five Wet Season championship teams: 1985, 1986, 1989, 1990 and 1991. She also led the Rebels to the championship in the 1987, 1989, 1992 and 1993 Dry Seasons. She represented Darwin and the NT at many junior and senior levels, and toured New South Wales with Under 20 NT women’s team in1990.
Letticha also played for the Bundaberg Bears ABA team from 1995 to 1996, won scoring honours in 1989 with 379 total points playing for the Rebels and the DYL Darwin youth team, and the 1990 Wet Season when she scored 118 points in only eight games at 14 points per game. She shared game high scoring honours with a number of other players in the 1999 Wet Season at 21 points. She won the women’s league MVP Award in the 1993 Dry Season.
She has just returned from Queensland. She is helping out a young Rebels team that she has played with all her career. Her family, Auntie Theresa, Eddie Clarke and Vanessa, are very proud of her achievement. All the family have been heavily involved in the Darwin Basketball Association for over 30 years, as players, committee members, helpers, water boys, water girls and general fans of the Darwin Basketball League. No doubt, they are very proud of her achievement.
I am proud to say that Letticha and Vanessa are relations of mine. I had the pleasure of being involved with Letticha and Vanessa in basketball over the years and they have been a determined group. Vanessa and Letticha are the most successful women basketballers ever to play. That can be argued around the traps, but the reality is that their record stands up against any of the other players.
I thank all the people who have listened tonight and, importantly, thank the three milestone players.
The information was provided to me by Geoff Larson, a local legend in his own right, and also de facto historian for the Darwin Basketball Association.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of students of Years 5/6/7 from the Anula Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Kim Bond, Mrs Elizabeth Andrade and Mr Matt Bennett. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Urban Planning Forum
Urban Planning Forum
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the future of our CBD is a critical issue, and a major challenge for government, council, business and the broader community and, of course, something that our young Territorians are very interested in: the city of the future. Last week’s urban planning forum in Darwin was an important step in meeting this challenge.
The CBD is a focal point for both our growing local population and the increasing number of domestic and international tourists who visit the Top End each year. It is a great place to shop, relax, be entertained and, of course, it is the place where many of us work and do business, and where more and more are choosing to live. The way our city develops depends on the action we take now. The urban planning forum was all about planning for the future, and coming up with specific recommendations that will have an immediate impact on the development in the CBD and its surrounds.
As you know, last October I launched Creating Darwin’s Future – A Tropical Harbour City which set out 93 separate proposals for the future development of Darwin. Last week’s forum was one of those proposals. We have just completed six months of consultations and, during that time, we have heard many views and ideas about the future of our capital city. It has been a great response, and everyone agrees on one thing: the opportunity is here to create an even better tropical harbour city. There has been strong community support for some of the key proposals outlined in Creating Darwin’s Future such as a ring of green around the CBD, a city centre that looks outward to the harbour, vibrant community spaces and attractive streetscapes, and buildings that complement the look and feel of our city. If one message has come through loud and clear from the consultations it is this: we need to act now and get things moving.
The forum was very well attended with 200 stakeholders participating in the plenary sessions, and an additional 30 people attending the evening community session. A summary of the stakeholder and community views from the forum were displayed at two community information and feedback sessions that took place at Raintree Park in the mall on Friday last week, and at Casuarina Shopping Centre the following day. The feedback from the community at these sessions, and via the dedicated website, will feed into an action plan covering the way in which future developments in the CBD will be undertaken. It will contain a set of specific recommendations focusing around the design of buildings, streetscapes and open spaces to help shape the future of the CBD.
In the meantime, government and council have identified the following priorities will have a more immediate impact on development in the CBD and its surrounds: continue our approach of engaging with the community and encouraging a diversity of views on how our capital city looks and functions; incorporate Darwin City Council’s streetscape strategy into the NT Planning Scheme; combine streetscape and landscape master plans to develop a coordinated approach to greening Darwin; work together to develop a ring of open space, pedestrian and cycle ways linking the CBD with Myilly Point, Frances Bay and the waterfront; plant more trees in public areas; amend the NT Planning Scheme to ensure new buildings contribute better to street life; mandate awnings on all new developments which front the street; prevent new car parking at ground level in new development or require screening from public view; review the extent of the central business zone to ensure we maintain a vibrant core; encourage developers of commercial buildings to incorporate change rooms and bicycle cages to encourage cycling or walking to work; and work together to make better use of the Esplanade for recreational activities, for example, in storing access to services such as power and water.
Madam Speaker, the government will keep the House updated on the outcomes of the forum and the progress we are making in the coming months on what is a very exciting, timely and important project that is creating Darwin’s future.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome our school students. As I did in Alice Springs, for their benefit I will tell them about ministerial reports. This is the bit when the government comes in and, as you would have seen, they read, as the Chief Minister did, a speech. We do not have any notice as to what is going to be discussed. We only have a couple of minutes to respond. Some people …
Mr Henderson: Talk about Darwin. I know you don’t know much about Darwin.
Ms CARNEY: … might take the view that given that this is the only parliament in the country where this happens …
Mr Henderson: You obviously do not know anything about Darwin – that is why you are not talking about it.
Ms CARNEY: … that it might not - I will come to that, sport - be as fair as it should be.
In any event, having made those remarks, the Leader of Government Business, that fellow over there, always gets himself into trouble. I am sure as school students you would have been told to always think before you speak.
It is the case that I welcome what the Chief Minister had to say. We have had a number of people report on the forum last week and most of those reports were largely positive. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend but I did ask a member of my office to attend and his reports were also very favourable. It is also the case that urban enhancement is something that I believe most people would agree with. Most governments around the country have come pretty late to the concept of urban enhancement. It really has just captured governments’ attentions, perhaps, in the last five to seven years only.
Darwin lends itself to the tropical environment, and what can be done about it, and it lends itself to people thinking about how else it can be improved. As the Chief Minister said, the opportunity really is here to create an even better tropical centre. I am not sure that everyone agrees with the Chief Minister’s view that Darwin should look like Singapore but I certainly agree with her that the opportunity is here to make Darwin even a better tropical centre. I thank the Chief Minister for advising us that she will report to us again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minster’s report. However, as Allan McGill said at the same forum: heard it once, heard it twice, now heard it again and nothing has happened. I can give you a classic example which Hans Vos mentioned in his article today, and the NT News mentioned in an editorial recently. That one thing was: the building of high rise buildings right up against the edge of streets. If you look at the 33-storey building at the bottom of Knuckey Street you will see it is even over the street. I went to the Development Consent Authority when that building was suggested for development approval and said there is no way we should allow those sorts of buildings to go right up against the edge of the blocks, take up the full envelope of the land, and to have five storeys of car park. You have two 33-storey buildings there now with car park as the only thing you see from the street. Hans Vos said today that it is not an issue of whether the building is tall, it is what you see from the ground level, and we have spoilt Darwin by allowing that to happen.
I pleaded with the Development Consent Authority not to allow that to happen. However, it was approved. What is happening is that we have a vision that is not backed up by the rules to make sure that vision is in place. Unfortunately, we have had plenty of time to change it and we have not done it and, in some cases, it is now too late. We should have had a vision. I put forward a vision for Darwin Harbour to keep some of the harbour as national park. What have we done with the middle of the harbour? We have scraped the guts out of it. It is now going to be industrial land. Why could we not leave the Middle Arm peninsula? It was said at the planning authority that the harbour is the very part that makes Darwin an attractive city and yet we are going to develop it into industrial land right in the centre.
That is the vision we should be having. We have not had it. There has been no vision coming from the government, unfortunately. We need to take this vision into the suburbs as well. We should not have streets where you cannot park your cars or turn them around. We need to make sure our suburbs are also well planned.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his constructive comments, and the Opposition Leader for her whingey-whiney approach to Darwin city. We have seen the ads, Opposition Leader. We have seen the ads with the challenge to me asking what have I done for Darwin and the Territory, with you standing in front of the waterfront. We have an opposition, young Territorians, which does not like the waterfront development. It is going to be a wonderful convention centre and the wave pool will be terrific. There will be lovely open areas where you can go and have fun with your families and there will be restaurants and little cafs. The wave pool will be terrific. However, we have an opposition which does not like it. It is very sad. All you have to do is look at the television ad. It says it all.
The CBD planning forum is about getting community views so that we can give good, solid direction to the DCA. It is important and it is going to happen.
Increased Resources for Territory Hospitals
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, in this year’s budget, government has increased health funding by 73% since 2001. These extra resources have allowed us to increase our medical workforce by over 100 full-time equivalent doctors and, similarly, we have 270 more full-time equivalent nurses working in the Territory health system than we did in 2001. These achievements are something to be proud of, but there is more to do. Demand for hospital care is increasing across the world and the Northern Territory certainly is no exception.
In the Territory, we face additional drivers on demand; for example, the fact that we have a much lower proportion of private general practitioners than other jurisdictions. Fortunately, this government’s sound and sustainable financial management has given us the means to address increasing demand for our hospital services.
Budget 2007-08 increases the Department of Health and Community Services’ budget to $838m, an increase of 73% since 2001. In particular under this budget, this government will provide an initial $27.8m for our five public hospitals and associated facilities. The extra money will be used to address increasing demand, but also to expand the services available to Territorians at their hospitals.
I draw members’ attention to the promise we made before the last election; namely to open an extra 24 inpatient beds at each of Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital over the course of this government. Last year, we established an extra six fully funded and staffed beds at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I am pleased to announce that the coming financial year will see an additional $5.3m for 12 extra fully staffed beds at Royal Darwin Hospital and 12 extra fully staffed beds at Alice Springs Hospital. That equates to approximately 50 extra staff across those two institutions. The extra beds at Royal Darwin Hospital will be complemented by the expansion of the Rapid Admission Unit, which provides better access for patients to the care they need and reduces waiting times in the Emergency Department. $4.7m has been allocated in the coming financial year to expand the unit from nine to 24 beds and fully staffing it to around 80 full-time equivalent staff.
There are a number of smaller but also significant initiatives in this budget. For example, there will be funding of $500 000 for the placement of social workers in the Emergency Departments to assist clients with a range of issues, but particularly domestic and family violence, a key concern to health professionals and the community alike.
There is also funding for a blood transfusion nurse, for expanded palliative care services, aeromedical services and improved rehabilitation services in our hospitals.
Our commitment to treatment and caring for people with chronic diseases is borne out in our further commitment to renal dialysis in this budget. Funding for renal services will be increased by $700 000 for operational and staffing costs for the eight extra dialysis chairs opened at Alice Springs Hospital this year. Over a four-year period, we have made a commitment of $24.4m for both the primary health care and acute sectors in relation to renal services. This will enable an extra 32 patients to be treated in Central Australia to meet the increasing demand for that service. Those funds I talked about also relate to smaller hospitals at Gove, Tennant Creek and Katherine, which provide excellent regional services within the hospital network, and each will benefit from extra capacity at the two major hospitals.
Budget 2007-08 also continues the dramatic upward trend in hospitals’ own budgets under this government. This year, each hospital’s resources will be increased as follows: Katherine Hospital to $24.4m, an increase of 72% since 2001; Gove District Hospital to $17.8m, a 60% increase; and Tennant Creek Hospital to $10.6m, which represents a 74% increase.
There are also some major capital works planned for the coming financial year, including $6m for an upgrade of the Emergency Department at Alice Springs Hospital; $1m for improvements to Tennant Creek Hospital’s fire safety; and $1.9m for an extra renal dialysis facility.
Madam Speaker, a properly resourced hospital sector is essential for good health and Budget 2007-08 delivers that in spades.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will be slow and considered. The government is cashed up; we all know that. In the five or six years since the change of government, we have $1.1bn more than ever. That is about a third more - no, 50% more - than they had when they first came to government. That is a significant amount of money. It is not about cash. What the minister so hurriedly tried to tell us is that he has put lots of stuff out there and lots of money. Let him do it. I congratulate the government for being prepared to put their money where it is needed.
When you listen to the AMA and the ANF, the two peak bodies in the Northern Territory representing the industry that this minister is in charge of, they are all concerned. Money is not the issue; it is about the mismanagement of the health service under this minister. We put the questions: why is the Emergency Department reception area converted to holding bays? Why are patients remaining on trolleys and being managed in the back of ambulances? Why is the establishment number of nurses kept artificially low, so that the nurses have to work long and excessive hours and overtime? Why is the morale so low for doctors in the public system? These are the questions that need to be asked. These are the symptoms of a system that is in trouble without the leadership that should be there under this minister. Unless the minister takes responsibility, nothing that is good will come out of this. The money will be spent, frittered away, and there will be nothing there at the end. The person on the ground, the Territorian, will not get the benefit of the huge amount of money that has been spent. The AMA said: ‘Make sure it gets down to the man on the ground’.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, yesterday, the minister spoke about the equality of health services. Today, he spoke about increased funding of 73% since 2001. He also said today there is $27.8m extra being spent this year on health services. Yesterday, when I mentioned the possibility that we could have an appropriately qualified nurse full-time at the Farrar Medical Centre, or the St John Ambulance Centre, to supply a service to Palmerston and rural areas, the minister, instead of answering that question, said: ‘It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to provide a GP’. Not getting into the argument of why you funded that GP for two-thirds of that period, or even more than that, and why he all of a sudden dropped it, I am not asking that question. I am simply saying there needs to be some service for people in the Palmerston area so that people and families can go there after hours to get treatment, instead of having to travel to RDH.
Surely, the government can find, out of the $27.8m, the 73% increase in funding since 2001, a little money to provide a service for those people in the rural and Palmerston areas, to provide the comfort that is needed for people who live on their own - maybe the husband is working elsewhere on an oil rig or on some construction program somewhere - when a child is sick at night, or bumps their head and needs some stitches. That is the sort of comfort people in Palmerston and the rural area need instead of having to travel all the way to RDH.
By having that attached, for instance, to the St John Ambulance service, if there is a requirement for more treatment, if it is an urgent matter, they can immediately be sent to RDH or be told to go there . There is a service required there. You can argue until the cows come home who needs to pay for a GP. In the meantime, the government could do something to help people in the rural area and Palmerston with a very much needed service.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I addressed the issues raised by the member for Nelson yesterday. We are working constructively with the Commonwealth to raise GP numbers in the Territory. I specifically mentioned Palmerston and the rural area in my conversation with Tony Abbott. That is an important issue.
The member for Greatorex talked about catch-up by this government. Certainly, we have had to catch up. After the CLP stripped out 200 nursing positions in their last years of government …
Dr Lim: What a lot of rubbish!
Dr BURNS: Of course, we have. We had to put nursing and medical resources back into the system.
The member for Greatorex mentioned issues surrounding bed block. I can give an undertaking to this House that I am firmly focused on addressing those issues around bed block. The extra beds that I have mentioned and the RAPU go a long way to addressing those issues, but further work needs to be done.
I acknowledged all the way through my report that much has been done, but there is much more that has to be done. I am more than happy, and am committed to working with the ANF and the AMA to resolve issues around the hospital, staffing issues, and I meet with them on a regular basis. I am committed to making our hospitals a better place ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Disability Services
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, the focus of Disability Services is a focus on the quality of life of people with a disability and their carers. I acknowledge the efforts of the former Ministers for Family and Community Services, the members for Nightcliff and Arafura, to address historical underfunding and unmet need.
In our first term of government, Labor set in train significant reforms in community services, a serious response to child protection, repositioning mental health services to support people in the community, cutting-edge policy on petrol and alcohol abuse and, of course, significant budget growth. The total Family and Community Services budget has increased from $88m under the CLP to more than $193m this year.
In 2005, I was privileged to be appointed Minister for Family and Community Services. From my past employment in the disability sector and my contact with many people with a disability and their carers, I knew there was an expectation for Labor government reform and growth in Disability Services. I proposed to Cabinet that the Disability Services budget needed additional funds but, just as importantly, needed a long-term reform plan. The government agreed to commission the KPMG review of Disability Services last year. This was the most comprehensive review of Disability Services ever undertaken in the Territory. The review team travelled throughout the Territory consulting with stakeholders, people with disabilities, their families, their carers, service providers, and both frontline public servants and their colleagues in the community sector.
In December last year I received the review. Its recommendations were indeed wide-ranging. In effect, a total reform of Disability Services was proposed. The review also identified that this would require significant budget increases to provide services to an increasing number of people in the Territory with disability. I am delighted to advise the House that Cabinet endorsed all of the recommendations of the review and that Budget 2007-08 commences that process. The government will inject an additional $26m into Disability Services over the next five years.
Budget 2007-08 marks a start of an era of Disability Services delivery in the Territory. The 10 recommendations of the review are wide-ranging, but they have a simple focus: the improved quality of life for people with a disability and their carers. That is why this government has decided to fully implement the findings of the KPMG review.
I want to outline to the House the detail of how this $26m will be spent. In this coming financial year 2007-08, government will increase expenditure by $2.3m and establish an Office of Disability within the Department of Family and Community Services. This funding will rise to an ongoing additional $8m each year for extra staff and resources to support those with a disability.
In the first year, we will spend: $300 000 to employ an additional four allied health positions to provide therapy and important applied health services; $300 000 this year for additional critical respite places; $300 000 additional support for post-schools options, providing another 12 places within the popular post-schools program; $180 000 for transition care for people exiting hospital, which equates to an additional 16 places; an 11% growth, some $200 000 per year, for the equipment scheme known as TIMES, the Territory Independence and Mobility Assistance Scheme, which will reduce waiting times for access to equipment that people need to live independently in our community; a 5% growth, or $25 000, for the Taxi Subsidy Scheme to ensure that the real value of that taxi subsidy is maintained, the most significant increase in the taxi subsidy scheme; $500 000 for accommodation and support packages; and importantly, $500 000 for the continued growth of our Home and Community Care program which supports people with a disability to live independently in their own home.
Disability Services is about quality of life. The initiatives I have outlined are about improving the daily lives of some 39 300 Territorians who have a disability. The aged and disability budget for 2007-08 is $71m; that is more than double what the CLP had in 2001. This government is about a fair go and dignity for people with a disability. That is why we have delivered record funding in Disability Services and, importantly, a long-term plan to improve the lifestyles of people with a disability and support for their carers.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I can say this about this minister: I believe she wants to do the right thing for community services and she attempts better than her colleague, the Health Minister, who fails to effectively manage his department. Having said that, this is where providing for community services will benefit the community. The money goes down the track to the people who really do need those services. I commend the government for putting the money into it to ensure that people with disabilities get the services and the equipment that they need.
Sadly though, when it comes to having enough professional people in allied health such as speech therapists, audiologists, psychologists and the like, we continue to be well behind the demand that is there in the Territory. We cannot meet the demand. Parents continually complain that they are unable to get the services for their children. When the minister talked about putting other money into substance and alcohol abuse, again I believe she means well and she will try to do what she can.
I was amazed to hear the Health Minister saying you have to drink two litres of Listerine before you will get drunk. That is …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not say that. That has been misreported in the press. In fact, I never spoke to that particular reporter. I will be clarifying that particular issue on the record in the media today. I ask the member for Greatorex to withdraw that assertion.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, if I may, that assertion is made because this was reported in the media. I am repeating what is reported in the media. If the minister has a problem, he has the right to make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to reword. Minister, I ask you to approach me to make a personal explanation at a later hour. Please continue.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. For anybody to get up and assert that you have to drink two litres of Listerine before you get drunk is just not acceptable. When it is a minister of the Crown who passes information that is so misleading is a real problem ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I never passed any information of the kind. I ask for some respect from the member for Greatorex. I am telling this House that I never said that to any reporter.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw.
Dr LIM: I withdraw. And say …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has now expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for his support for the reforms of Disability Services and the significant funding injection into the delivery of these services. The creation of the Office of Disability will be found from within existing funding. That will not take funding from the additional funding we are putting into frontline service delivery. That is important.
In respect of the shortage of allied health professionals, that is a nation-wide shortage; we are acutely aware of that. Part of the reforms include a new graduate program to be introduced where we will be attracting graduates from the allied health professions, having incentives in place to keep them here in the Territory. We are very aware that we need to be more competitive in recruiting allied health professionals.
The member for Katherine has pursued the issue, quite appropriately, of the need for speech pathologists in Katherine. I can advise we have had a visiting schedule because we are short speech pathologists there. We are getting a locum in place for three months in July. We are trying to fill our allied health professionals permanently. Where we cannot, because we have been consistently advertising nationally, we put locums in place. So there is good news for the families in Katherine regarding that.
In Alice Springs, we have been using the locum program again, putting graduates in place. The aim of the graduate program is to anchor these skilled professionals in the Territory, and we have a raft of initiatives to do that within our employment contracts.
I thank the opposition for their support. I want to note that across the Disability Services sector, the reforms have been broadly welcomed. They have been embraced. It will include reforms of the sector itself, that is, the service providers. They have all put their hands up and said they will participate.
National Treasures Exhibition
Mr McADAM (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I am glad to report to the House that Territorians have been visiting the National Treasures from Australia’s Great Libraries exhibition in droves.
The exhibition opened at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory on 14 April and, in the first weekend, over 2000 people came to see the treasures for themselves. The free National Treasures exhibition will remain open until 11 June, and I urge people not to miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to see some of the items that have shaped Australia’s history.
Over 170 items are included in the treasures, and it is a rare opportunity for people to see them in the one exhibition. There is something for all, both young and old. Items include the helmet of Ned Kelly and Sir Donald Bradman’s bat stand on display with Captain Cook’s Endeavour journal and the last remaining convict uniform. Other items included in this unique exhibition are draft versions of Banjo Paterson’s Man from Snowy River, Governor Arthur’s Proclamation, and original drawings of the EH Holden. There are items of real significance to Territorians as well. Of most interest is the Cyclone Tracy evacuee list, which features the names of Territorians who were evacuated during that period.
Other items of significance include photos from the Bombing of Darwin, the diary of Harold Lasseter on his quest to find his fortune in Central Australia, diaries from the Yuendumu nurse, Sister Eileen Kettle, and the log of the HMS Alligator that records the founding of Port Essington.
This is the first time that the National Library has worked with all of the state and territory libraries to put an exhibition of this type together. Most would assume that items on display are from museums when, in fact, they are from our libraries. The National Treasures started touring in Australia in 2005, and Darwin is their second last stop before they complete their tour in Perth.
The Northern Territory Library has done a terrific job to bring the treasures to Darwin and, together with the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, they have been able to find a safe and secure place to temporarily house these items, many of which are considered to be priceless.
I thank Jo McGill and Melissa Reiter and their team from the Northern Territory Library for their hard work to get this exhibition to Darwin.
The Northern Territory Library is also running a complementary display of more treasures from their library to coincide with the touring exhibition. These may have been items that did not make the final cut, but they are items of importance to the Northern Territory. I encourage people to visit the NT Library at Parliament House to see them as well. I also thank Anna Malgorzewicz and her team at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory for helping organise and host the exhibition. The National Library also played an important role in coordinating the treasures project and delivering it to all states and territories.
I had the pleasure of meeting the National Libraries’ Ms Helen Konn, the Assistant Director General, and Mr Nat Williams, the Director of Exhibitions. I thank them on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory and government for their commitment. They were thoroughly impressed with the display in Darwin, and the professionalism of the NT Library and the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
I acknowledge and thank the sponsors of the National Treasures, especially the major sponsor, AAMI. This is a wonderful exhibition. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and I urge all Territorians to avail themselves of this unique opportunity, particularly our young students. If you have the opportunity, do take it up.
Madam SPEAKER: The overall time of ministerial reports has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 76)
(Serial 76)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act to require disclosure of all electoral expenditure of individual candidates by political parties for Northern Territory elections.
The Northern Territory has had a number of Independents who have made a strong contribution to debate and reform over many years – nine in all. However, many requirements under the Electoral Act laws favour the major parties and often disadvantage Independent candidates and Independent members. For example, only incumbent Independents and members have access to the electronic version of the electoral roll – this is just an example. It is not available to Independent candidates, and hence does not allow them to access voters in the electorate they are standing for. Major parties are able to purchase electronic roll data for all electorates.
The disclosure requirement for election spending often works in favour of major parties as they do not have to disclose spending on each individual candidate and their electorate. It is hidden in annual returns that require only a global figure for expenditure. There are no details of party expenditure supplied. Voters are swamped, as we know, by party advertising as well as advertising specific to their candidate, but parties are not required to separate this spending to show precisely how much they are spending on each seat. This, in effect, means the public is not informed, or is not made aware of how much a political party is spending on individual candidates or their electorates during an election campaign. This may not seem significant, but it goes against the principles of transparency and honesty in our democratic system.
It also seems to suggest that parties are not complying with section 200 of the act, which says that details of all electoral expenditure must be disclosed. This disclosure in party returns ends up as a one line total expenditure and, as I said, no further details are provided.
Section 199, Definitions, however, states, and I am referring to the current act:
- ‘electoral expenditure’, for an election, means expenditure incurred (whether or not incurred during the election period) on –
- (a) publishing an electoral advertisement during the election period in a journal;
(b) broadcasting an electoral advertisement during the election period;
(c) displaying an electoral advertisement during the election period at a theatre or other place of entertainment;
(d) producing an electoral advertisement that is published, broadcast or displayed as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);
(e) producing any printed electoral matter to which Part 13, Division 1, Subdivision 2 applies (other than material mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c)) that is published during the election period;
(f) producing and distributing electoral matter that is addressed to particular persons or organisations and is distributed during the election period; or
(g) carrying out an opinion poll or other research, about the election during the election period;
If section 199 sets out all the details that must be disclosed, why does this not apply to political parties, but only to Independents and individual candidates?
The purpose of this amendment to section 200 is to insert 200 (1A)(a) and (b) - Returns of electoral expenditure. The amendment states:
- (1A) the reporting agent for a registered party must, before the end of 15 weeks after polling day for an election, give the Commission a return in the approved form stating details of all electoral expenditure that is:
- (a) incurred with the authority of the party; and
- (b) specifically attributable to each of its party candidates in election.
This amendment is to ensure all expenses, as set out and detailed as I have just done in section 119, are declared and not hidden in the annual returns registered by parties. The annual returns only require those parties to list in detail donations or monies received over $1500, and the total amount paid in expenditure during that financial year and any other outstanding debt.
The Stuart by-election disclosure is the classic example of how expenditure is not detailed. You could be led to believe the current member for Stuart sitting in this House spent nothing on his campaign as he passed in a nil return. I will refer to that return. Gary Cartwright, the Independent, listed his expenditure; Anna Machado listed her donations and her expenditure; Karl Hampton - nil return. I seek leave to table that return.
Leave granted.
Mrs BRAHAM: The Northern Territory Electoral Commission, in its latest report yesterday, tabled in the House, made the comment:
- Under the current financial disclosure provisions, a candidate endorsed by a party may file a nil return and rely on their party’s annual return to disclose expenditure made on his/ her behalf. This arrangement means the amount of detail and timeliness of disclosure will vary between candidates because party returns are done annually and the figures are not categorised in the same way on the forms lodged. This system provides practical convenience but is not equitable for all candidates.
I repeat that:
… is not equitable for all candidates.
The recommendation came from the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. This may have been prompted from the many questions I have asked them. It is recommended that the financial disclosure provisions be amended to set a specific Territory threshold and that the returns be redesigned so as to draw identical information from both endorsed and unendorsed candidates. It will be interesting to see whether the government takes up that recommendation.
Referring to that return of disclosure for the Stuart by-election, I notice that no returns have been received to date from the CLP candidates, or another Independent who may have been a CLP candidate anyway, despite the requirement that returns have to be submitted within 16 weeks of the end of the financial year, and despite section 215 of the current Electoral Act, that failure to provide financial disclosure return without reasonable excuse is an offence, with a penalty for a natural person up to 200 penalty points or imprisonment of up to 12 months and, for a body corporate, a penalty of up to 1000 units which is possibly $100 000. It will be interesting to see whether the so-called independent Electoral Commission enforces its act. However, I digress slightly from this amendment.
This amendment I am proposing adds a new subsection specifically stating that reporting agents must provide a return stating details of all election expenditure that was authorised by the party and was specifically attributable to each of the party’s candidates for the election. What has prompted this amendment? Because if it applies to all non-party candidates then it should apply to all candidates. That is what our system is all about - equity. If government will not support this amendment then, perhaps, it is time they had a good hard look at their act and amended it to reflect what they really intend, and as recommended by the Electoral Commission report yesterday.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
RESIDENTIAL PARKS BILL
(Serial 77)
(Serial 77)
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that, pursuant to Standing Order 107, I have received written advice from the member for Nelson postponing the presentation of the bill contained in Notice No 2 until the next General Business Day.
RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY – ALLEGATIONS BY MEMBERS FOR BARKLY AND MACDONNELL
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, I further advise honourable members that, pursuant to Standing Order 107, I have received written advice from the Leader of the Opposition, postponing the moving of the motion contained in Notice No 3, until the next General Business Day.
UNIT TITLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 96)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Before I commence, I understand the Leader of the Opposition will be making her address in reply to the Appropriation Bill at 11 am.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct, member for Greatorex. I will indicate when you should pause.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, 18 months ago I raised this matter in this House, seeking support from the Northern Territory government for amendments to the Unit Titles Act to enable bodies corporate to enforce lawful parking within their premises. At that time, the government responded in the negative. I will address those issues presently.
I raise this again today because in the eight months since the last attempt nothing has eventuated. If the government was doing something, the industry is not aware. The industry has not been appropriately consulted and the government has not provided any indication of what progress has been made. I raised this 18 months ago and I am raising it now because of complaints I have received from people who live in apartments and units which have bodies corporate to manage the common areas.
The worst problem is when unlawful parking takes place in an area that is designated as a parking area for a tenant or the owner/occupier of a unit or apartment. Those parking areas are usually clearly indicated so that there is no confusion as to who owns that particular parking space.
I sought industry consultation in 2005 and have since consulted industry again and indicated to them that I will be raising this matter today. Again, I have received support from industry that this is something that is needed. I urge the government to consider this again and in a different light to what it did previously. At that time they said they were not going to support it for various and quite spurious reasons. I will proceed with arguing for the support of this again.
I received an e-mail from a very angry owner of a commercial premises. He was prepared for me to mention who he is and to identify his location and his problems. He wrote this e-mail on 21 November last year and addressed it to several people including me and members of government. I will read this to indicate his problem. This e-mail also was published in the NT News as a letter to the Editor:
- Sir or Madam,
Late in the evening on Monday, 20 November, or very early the next day, a vehicle with flat tyres was abandoned on the driveway at Tiwi Medical and Professional Centre, 5 Tiwi Gardens. This vehicle must have been towed there because it appears that it has not been driven for years and had been used as storage for unwanted family items. The police had put a sticker on the windscreen that states: ‘Police aware. Any questions regarding this vehicle telephone NT Police on 131 444, PROMIS No P06172273, date 21 November 2006 at 02.55 am’.
My wife and I own a business at this location. I arrived there at approximately 2.30 pm on the 21st. I telephoned the police number and informed the person that answered that the vehicle was a traffic hazard, that it was blocking four of our parking spots.
He provided me with a photograph of the offending vehicle and how it impacted upon four parking spots in his body corporate area. I seek leave to table that photograph.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: I will read again:
- I telephoned the police number and informed the person who answered that the vehicle was a traffic hazard, that it was blocking four of our parking spots. I was put on hold and later told that the vehicle owner could not be traced and there was nothing the police could do about moving the vehicle.
I then telephoned city council. The person there informed that because the vehicle was on private property, there was a long procedure to go through before the vehicle could be legally moved. The procedure could take up to 10 weeks. I replied that the vehicle is a hazard to any traffic through the complex. I had already had two complaints from clients that the vehicle was indeed a traffic hazard. I was informed that it was illegal to move the vehicle and that the laid down procedures had to be adhered to. Both persons that I spoke to were polite and informative.
They had gone through this same absurd procedure in March 2004 with an abandoned van, and I table a photograph, also provided to me by this person, indicating the van had been parked unlawfully on the body corporate premises.
Madam SPEAKER: Do you seek leave, member for Greatorex?
Dr LIM: I seek leave.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: Thank you. I will keep going with this e-mail:
- Our body corporate person has informed me that abandoned vehicles create problems on many body corporate controlled properties in Darwin.
Then he went on to say he had been told that a politician in the past had proposed a bill to resolve this problem, but was voted down.
- I asked how difficult it would be for whatever level of government is responsible to pass a bill or whatever to allow abandoned vehicles to be impounded and moved to a secure location until the owner can be traced or the vehicle is disposed of. If the owner is found, they should then be liable for towing and storage costs.
He went on for a couple more paragraphs and then said:
- This is just too much. Some action on the matter should be taken immediately.
This man approached many people, including me, before Christmas last year. I believe he has been to his local member and sought advice and assistance to get the currently abandoned vehicle out of the car park that he is entitled to use for his business. The advice from his local member was astounding. The local member said to him that he should push the vehicle out of the car park on to the public road, to park it by the curb-side on the road pavement. This gentleman, fortunately, realised that to do that was an illegal act. He was not allowed to tamper with the vehicle in any way and had he pushed the vehicle on to the carriage way, parallel parked next to the curb and there was an accident because of the vehicle, who would have been liable for that accident? He would have been the one who placed the object on to the road. So to advise anyone who has a vehicle that is parked unlawfully in a body corporate area is, in my opinion, improper and no one should be advising people to commit an illegal act.
I come to why this amendment is drafted the way it is. At the moment under the Unit Titles Act, the body corporate has no legal power to deal with a wrongfully parked vehicle. You can ring the police, but, as we saw in this instance, the police did not want to know about it. They can ring the council and the council will tell you that it is on private property and will not do anything about it. You ring a tow truck company, and the tow truck company says: ‘No, we are not going to do this, we do not want to be involved. If we touch the car at all in any way we could be charged with tampering with a motor vehicle’. The tow truck company will not want to take illegal possession of the vehicle anyway if they towed the vehicle away. In the event there was any incidental damage in the towing process, the tow truck company would also be liable for that.
Nobody wants to know. You are the rightful owner of the parking allotment, or allotments as in this case, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place and you have nowhere to go at all. The government knows that this is a problem. It admits it. In the former Attorney-General’s response to this amendment bill more than 12 months ago, he admitted that this is a problem. So we need to reapproach this issue from a completely different perspective.
Let me now go through the process and how this amendment will address the problem. It is constructed in such a way that there is an escalating level of penalty for wrongful parking of a vehicle in a body corporate area. The legislation empowers the body corporate to do several things to address the protection of the rights of the rightful occupants or owners of the parking space.
For instance, you come home one night after work, you drive into your block of units to approach your rightful parking area, and you find a vehicle parked there and that prevents you from parking your own car. Your concern then is where do I park my car? Do I park my car in another spot that does not belong to me? And, in doing so, I will pass that same problem to the rightful owner of the car parking allotment that I have now taken. Sometimes there are no parking spots left in the body corporate area because of this strange vehicle. So you are compelled to park your car on the road, on the curb-side, if you can find a parking spot there because there are probably many other cars parked there anyway. Then all night you will be worrying whether your car will be safe out there, whether it will be vandalised through the night. You wake up in the morning, go to work and, going out to your car, you are wondering if the car is still there, if it had not been stolen - just like the owner of a Mercedes the other day, when the three kids absconded from Don Dale. An expensive Mercedes was stolen and wrecked.
It is important to ensure that people who have lawfully allocated car parking areas in the body corporate area have the right to access those areas without any hindrance. When the person comes home and sees that the car park is taken up, the thing for the offended person to do is to report the incident to the body corporate managers. Then, the body corporate managers have a series of actions that it can take. The body corporate manager can, first of all, follow up with the complaint by placing a sign on the car explaining to the unlawfully parked vehicle’s owner that that is not the rightful place for their vehicle and the vehicle should not be there. I believe that a gentle reminder to the owner of the offending vehicle will be a very appropriate and friendly way to get the vehicle to vacate the space.
However, if the unlawful parking continues, the body corporate is empowered by this amendment to seek the name and contact details of the registered owner of the vehicle from the Motor Vehicle Registry, on the undertaking that that information as provided by MVR is only to be used as a means to contact the lawful owner of the vehicle.
Following that, the body corporate may then issue a penalty notice, not exceeding one penalty unit or the equivalent of $110, to the registered owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle for each day that the car is unlawfully parked in that spot.
It is important that the body corporate is empowered to obtain the name and contact details of the registered owner of the offending vehicle because, currently under the Information Act, specifically under the section titled ‘Information privacy principles’, MVR may not provide the name and contact details of the registered owner for privacy issues ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to continue your remarks after the Leader of the Opposition’s reply to the budget.
Debate suspended.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Wanguri
Member for Wanguri
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Wanguri for one hour to attend a funeral.
Leave granted.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2007-08
(Serial 94)
(Serial 94)
Continued from 1 May 2001.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the alternative government, unlike this government, will support Territory families. Accordingly, this budget reply focuses on Territory families, who deserved and expected so much more than was contained in the Treasurer’s budget yesterday.
Territory families want relief from the ever-increasing costs of living, from the high cost of fuel - and hope that they or their children have a chance of the great Australian dream of home ownership. However, before I announce just some of the things my government would be doing, it is important to look at the size of the Territory’s budget and Labor’s performance over the last year.
This government has more than $1.1bn to spend this year than it did when it first came to office almost six years ago. Yet, we continue to see media release after media release claiming credit for the booming economy - a booming economy that at least their minister for Mines is prepared to acknowledge has nothing to do with their good economic management. What we do have in the Territory is the highest inflation, but no media release in sight outlining how government is going to deal with it except, of course, the media release last week telling Territorians that this Treasurer has increased their power, water and sewerage charges.
In last year’s budget reply, my colleagues and I made four very important promises. They were: a 50% increase in the number of police cars per sector; the introduction of a HECS repayment system for health professionals for every year they stayed and worked in the Territory; the introduction of the lifelong learning program including the Chief Minister’s reading reward program; and a reduction in the number of public servant ‘fat cats’. With the exception of delivering a pale imitation of the reading reward program, none of those initiatives have been picked up by government.
This opposition has demonstrated over the last 12 months that it has plenty of ideas and that we are willing to put them to the Territory public well ahead of the next election, and we will continue to do so.
In contrast, there are many aspects of the government’s performance over the last 12 months that are concerning. The number of senior public service ‘fat cats’ has grown over the last year despite the Treasurer’s assurances that something was going to be done about it. The blowout in public service wages continues again in this year’s budget - another $55m. Another 20 or so senior ‘fat cats’ have been added to the ranks. Where, we ask, will it end? The Chamber of Commerce is just one group that would like to know, and who would like to be told the truth. While there has been a recent and somewhat desperate attempt to regain some credibility on this issue, new targets have been set by the Treasurer but, we, the Chamber of Commerce and others will not be holding our breath.
Yesterday, we heard the same old rhetoric from government about making our streets safer. We are compelled to ask: how exactly is government making the streets of the Territory safer? The government’s own crime statistics tell a story different from the one the government spins. The Chief Minister and her Cabinet colleagues got a taste of the reality that is the streets of Alice Springs a couple of weeks ago.
Crime rates, both personal and property, have continued to rise and people know it. Even government members such as the member for Daly who, on radio only a couple of months ago, acknowledged that people are not reporting crime, so crime is likely to be even higher than the recorded figures. How is it exactly that this government is making Territory streets safer?
So many Territorians are asking what has happened to our health system. Our major hospitals are bursting at the seams, nurses are persistently working excessive overtime hours, and doctors - many of them - have no confidence in the government. Yesterday, there was, of course, much cheer about the increase in funding for the health system. Sadly though, what was missing was any mention of how the elective surgery waiting lists over this time had doubled, or how St John Ambulance staff where not allowed to bring non-critical patients to Royal Darwin Hospital only several weeks ago and, given the relatively poor outcomes in the area of primary health, how it is exactly that this government is building a better health system.
Mums and dads, couples, single people, young people and old people alike, do not, in our view, care too much about the thumping, great big numbers that get bandied around by the government on budget day. They do not care about percentages of increases in spending because they are smart enough to know that this government should have a lot more money to spend - a lot more. In this budget, the government has $1.1bn more to spend every year than it did six years ago. Yet, under the stewardship of this Treasurer and this Chief Minister, they failed to meet the reasonable expectations on what are the core functions of government. What Territorians care about is what impacts on their family budget and what the government can do to help them.
If they need to go to a hospital, they do not want to wait for hours. They do not want to lie on hospital trolleys in the waiting room, or be treated in the back of an ambulance in the car park. If they want to walk around at nine o’clock at night, they want to do so safely and without returning home to find the kids’ bikes pinched or the family car broken into. If they want to buy a house and cannot get into the housing market, they want to know why. If their kids go to school, they want to know that that school has the resources it needs to provide their kids with the best education possible.
It seems as though, in the hustle and bustle of talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and percentage increases without, I might say, any acknowledgement of the abundance of GST revenue this government has received, what Territorians want, deserve and expect from government has been forgotten by the Treasurer and his Chief Minister, once their heroes but heroes no more.
Madam Speaker, what this government has forgotten, as it is increasingly consumed by its own importance and re-election, is not forgotten by the Country Liberal Party.
Today, I announce that a CLP government would put in place three important new initiatives in education that will be of great benefit and great interest to families. These would cost $11m over three years. The foundation of economic and social prosperity is a society’s support for education. My colleague, the member for Blain, is acknowledged on both sides of this House as a passionate advocate for education and for all who teach and are taught in our education system. His contribution to these initiatives has been invaluable.
First, the Country Liberal Party believes that this budget needs to contain a top-up fund for primary schools for the next two years while the transition to middle schools is being conducted. The funding should be available from 1 July this year. This is funding that would not be counted as part of the normal allocation and would require each school council to apply for the funding. The application would need to address certain criteria in respect of the purpose of the fund and the timings of expenditure.
Each year, each school would be able to apply for an amount of up to $30 000. This money could be used for such things as improving literacy and numeracy; addressing IT needs; establishment or expansion of special programs - for example for language, music or sporting programs; or even to assist with operational things such as casual staffing.
A serious review needs to be undertaken into the allocation of funding to the frontline services in education. It is clear that the process of moving to middle schools has pushed the Education department to almost breaking point and, in some areas it has, in fact, broken. The opposition, together with numerous education experts and practitioners, stated last year that middle schooling was supported, but not at the pace the government wants. There are serious concerns about the training and professional development being provided to teachers, the impact on access to certain schools in areas across Darwin, and the structure of education in these schools. What is also seriously concerning is that many schools, particularly primary schools, are not being provided with the resources needed to undertake the basics needed. This was highlighted by the recent report on the appalling state of literacy and numeracy reported in Territory schools.
This two-year top-up fund is designed to give a helping hand to the schools that need it most and assist those schools that are working to develop ways to improve literacy and numeracy rates in the Territory. Concurrently, a substantive review of funding to our primary schools needs to occur. This program would run for the next two years at a cost of $6.3m.
Second, it is critical that with having responsibilities that come with the management of our schools, government gives these people the opportunity to have the skills necessary to execute these functions effectively. It is not appropriate to take the view that people who give their time freely to assist in the management of the schools should not be supported with access to training on the expectations and demands of them as members of their school council.
For some time, COGSO has been seeking funding support to run training courses for school council members. COGSO is right to be seeking this funding and, as part of our continued support for the roles of parents in education in both the government and non-government sectors, the Country Liberal Party will provide this much needed funding support. A Country Liberal Party government would provide up to $500 000 to both sectors for annual training and development programs for current and prospective school council members. As part of this training program, we would work with CDU to see that such training programs could be recognised as part of other accredited training.
Madam Speaker, as a community we have high expectations of our teachers and our schools. With such high expectations, government cannot continue to ignore the value of this training. This program would cost $1.5m over three years.
In 1980, the then Country Liberal Party government established $1-for-$1 funding for schools that undertook fundraising. This was a good initiative at the time and continues to be utilised by schools across the Territory. Unfortunately, both sides of politics have neglected this program and it has not seen increases to match the increases in the increasing costs and the nature of costs over the years.
This is the third part of our education initiative that a Country Liberal Party government would introduce. It would more than double the funding from $6000 to $15 000. This will give active school councils that are currently raising more than $6000 per year extra and much-needed support. School councils do a great job in supporting their local schools and they should be encouraged and supported by government. A Country Liberal Party government would not only give primary schools some extra support during the transition to middle schooling, but we would also support all schools in their fundraising efforts. The cost will be $3.2m over three years.
These are sensible and much-needed initiatives that should have been announced yesterday, but they were not.
I now move to first homebuyers. Last week I announced that first-time homebuyers would receive a $100 000 saving on the price of building their new home. A CLP government will establish the Territory Housing Land Corporation, the THLC. This body will, with a joint partner, manage all new housing land releases offered by government. In doing so, we will offer to first-time homebuyers blocks discounted by around $100 000. This will see about 15% to 20% of new development blocks being offered to first-time homebuyers.
This model is not a new model; it is one that is currently being used at the Lyons release with joint partners DHA and CIC. If this model were adopted by this government now, it would be possible for the upcoming Bellamack release, for instance, to target 100 of the 600 blocks for sale to first-time homebuyers with a $100 000 reduction in the price of those blocks. This saving will go a long way to help first-time homebuyers enter the property market and have a shot at the great Australian dream of home ownership.
The current shortage of building blocks in Darwin is adding further heat to the market, and it is important to stabilise the market in order to avoid a potentially devastating future market correction. We have spent a long time developing this model and, despite the Labor government’s best attempts to say that they will bring down the overall market value of land and houses, they know that their fear campaign will not wash. They do know that it is possible to target assistance specifically at first-time homebuyers and, in doing so, not affect the rest of the market in the way that they will have Territorians believe.
The THLC would be established through a loan from government of between $50m to $70m, which is expected to be repaid within six to seven years. This should be familiar to government, because this government has a joint partnership arrangement to build luxury apartments and commercial facilities at the waterfront. The difference here is that this is designed to assist those struggling to enter the housing market and it will not cost Territory taxpayers over $500m.
Importantly, the THLC will have two other functions. First, it would report publicly at least twice annually on the effectiveness and efficiency of government departments and agencies in managing land release and land development. This will also expose government in respect to any inefficiencies without there being any fear of reprisals. Such exposure will spur government into action. We all know of the increased complexity that represents the tangled web of development approval even for just residential land release approval in the Northern Territory. We also know that the Territory is a small place, and that developers, more often than not, cop it sweet rather than risking not getting further contracts by speaking out about serious problems they have encountered with government agencies ...
Mr Stirling: I am reminded of the old silver circle, the silver circle that we destroyed.
Ms CARNEY: You had a good go yesterday.
We also know that promise after promise is made about addressing red tape, but these promises always seem to fall a little short of actually being addressed. The THLC will be the development partner and, thus, will not be worried about future contracts. This will see the real truth being told about the effectiveness or not of Territory departments and agencies, and the public reporting of this will see any government take action. Consequently, everyone will benefit, and those who will save will be Territorians looking to buy or build a new home.
The second additional function will be that of reporting of market demand and supply pressures. This will be significant in the key objective of stabilising the Territory housing market. The THLC will give hope to the great Australian dream of home ownership, and it will do so without bankrupting the government and without negative effect on the real estate market. The THLC will be established with a sunset clause of 10 years. It is envisaged that it will have achieved its core objectives within that time.
Madam Speaker, I now move to HomeNorth. The government’s changes to the HomeNorth Scheme is a poor attempt to play catch-up on the issue of offering relief for first-time homebuyers, a poor cousin. The government’s changes to HomeNorth, while it will help some Territorians, do not go anywhere near far enough. Unfortunately, they are also likely to create further upward pressure on unit prices. There was only one house in last weekend’s NT News real estate supplement that was accessible to first homebuyers under the new rules. This illustrates why so many first-time homebuyers are increasingly being pushed into the unit market. If this government was serious about stabilising the market, and offering some assistance to first-time homebuyers, it would address the land demand and supply imbalance issues. Once they are dealt with, a much more comprehensive and meaningful overhaul of the HomeNorth Scheme could be contemplated. I will have more to say about this and what a future CLP government would do later this year.
I say again that the changes announced yesterday by the government will help some people. However, the Treasurer missed the opportunity to do more at a time when so much more should have been done. If this was his best budget, I would hate to see him deliver his worst. Of note is the fact that, in the Treasurer’s haste to put his plan together, he has, in fact, disadvantaged some first-time homebuyers who, in some areas of the Territory under the new 85% cap, have just had their borrowing limit reduced. Alice Springs is one of those areas. I also fear, like the last stamp duty reductions and HomeNorth changes, that these savings will be factored into market pricing before too long. Let there be no doubt about this fact: we support a comprehensive overhaul of HomeNorth but, first and most importantly, the demand and supply imbalance, especially with respect to land, must be addressed.
I now move to fuel prices. The cost of transport in the Territory is high, and there is no doubt that we use our cars a great deal, perhaps even more than we should. However, the Territory is a big place. We have some of the highest petrol prices in this country. When in opposition, the now Chief Minister made much of the price of fuel when it approached $1 per litre. It is now significantly more. Indeed, she went to great lengths to lead Territorians to believe that she would take action. Now, in the driver’s seat as it were, she can take action but she has not. Her silence resembles that of a hybrid electric car – and I note with interest that my office has one of those, and hers, I am told, does not.
Action can be taken, and action can be taken now. The Country Liberal Party knows this, which is why I announce today that a CLP government would put in place a $1200 LPG conversion rebate scheme. This rebate would be paid directly to the workshops which undertake the conversion work, and is added to the $2000 already announced by the federal government. These two amounts combined will cover the cost of converting an average-sized family car. Territorians would be able to immediately take advantage of the savings, which are estimated to be about $20 off the weekly fuel bill. Twenty dollars per week off the weekly fuel bill might not seem like much to this Chief Minister but, to so many Territory families, it will help. Finally, of course, this plan has the advantage of being a cleaner fuel - a cleaner fuel which, presumably, is of some interest to Peter Garrett but, apparently, of no interest to the Chief Minister.
This plan will also extend to NT Fleet. A CLP government would, over three years, convert one-third of the Territory government’s fleet to gas. This will ensure that the demand exists to increase competition, as well as the number of outlets that supply gas, and drive the per litre costs down. We will also convert another third of NT Fleet to low fuel usage and hybrid-type cars. This will mean that, when these cars go to auction, Territory families will again open up another avenue of access to lower costs for transport in the Territory. I look forward to having more to say about transport in the future. This initiative will cost between $15m and $23m over four years. However, this is not money spent, it is money invested in the families of the Territory.
The Treasurer’s budget is one of missed opportunities. It missed in a number of areas but if there was one group who missed out more than any other it was Territory families. This budget missed the opportunity to assist Territory families. It missed the opportunity to help parents with kids at school, as well as those working in and supporting our education system. It missed the opportunity to offer significant relief to the many first homebuyers who are priced out of the housing market. It missed the opportunity to help Territory families save money on their fuel costs. It did, however, deliver higher power bills, higher water bills and higher sewerage bills.
Madam Speaker, missed opportunities are lost opportunities. The irony is that when this Territory government has more money then any Territory government has had in our history, it makes those lost opportunities even more profound.
Debate adjourned.
UNIT TITLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 96)
(Serial 96)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will resume where I left off a little while ago.
I have brought this amendment about to ensure that the MVR is able to provide information about the legal owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle without any restraint but on the proviso that the information may only be used by the body corporate to identify the owner of the vehicle and use that information to then contact the owner. This amendment specifically addresses that an empowered body corporate can get that information.
The body corporate may impose a penalty for each day the offending vehicle is unlawfully parked. The body corporate may also issue a seven-day notice to the registered owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle that it will be removed from the premises. This amendment empowers the body corporate to recover from the registered owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle all associated costs in issuing the penalty notices, including the penalty for parking unlawfully, and remove the vehicle. Finally, the body corporate may engage a towing company to remove the vehicle. Once the vehicle is removed, the vehicle would be a matter to be decided by general law.
I have deliberately constructed the amendment so that the police, local councils and the like are not involved in the imposition of the penalty notice nor in the implementation of the removal of the offending vehicle. We do not want to tie up our local government and police into what is, effectively, a civil matter.
Bodies corporate will then, under this amendment, be able to amend their articles and house rules to enable them to use the powers that are provided within this amendment. Bodies corporate can choose not to do that or, if they feel that they do not have the expertise to do it, they do not have to go down this path. Most properties that are in body corporate areas are managed by professional body corporate managers and they would have the expertise to do that.
At the start of my support for this amendment I did say that the former Attorney-General accepted that this was a valid issue to be brought to this parliament. It was something that the government was also looking into. Having said that, the government has its own process, and 18 months later nothing has happened. I wonder how important this matter is to government.
I urge the government to consider that many people in the real world are facing great frustration on a daily basis. As for the owner of the Tiwi Gardens commercial property, he has been frustrated by what appears to be an abandoned vehicle, and even the police have not been able to identify the legal owner. The vehicle has been there since November. Why does someone who is trying to run his business have to be so inconvenienced by an abandoned vehicle that is parked in his lawful parking area?
The former Attorney-General spoke about these sorts of provisions being provided by the Cullen Bay Marina Act. If that enables Cullen Bay Marina proprietors to have legislative support to control their body corporate areas, why not give it to everyone else in the Territory? We all know that there are many units and apartments going up in Darwin. The burgeoning growth is going to increase the problem of unlawful parking.
The former Attorney-General said of the amendment I put:
- … it creates a new and potentially unfair penalty regime. It simply permits the corporation to impose penalties without any weight or consideration being given to the rights of the vehicle owner …
That is not true. As I described, the pathways where a body corporate can address this issue of unlawful parking, the body corporate has to first of all inform the registered owner of the vehicle that the car is parked unlawfully and then the body corporate has to give the registered owner of the unlawfully parked vehicle seven days’ notice before the vehicle will be removed. Steps are taken in an orderly fashion to ensure the registered owner of the vehicle is fully aware of what is likely to happen if the vehicle continues to be parked unlawfully.
The other comment of the former Attorney-General was, and I quote:
- Most unit title body corporations do not have the necessary skills or resources to fairly manage an infringement notice scheme and an enforcement regime.
I beg to differ. I have sat on body corporate committees and have discussed and negotiated with body corporate managers. They have the expertise. As I said, for those people who choose not to adopt this facility, they do not have to; they simply do not amend the rules of the body corporate.
Will it be exposed to abuse? Every law is exposed to abuse. You make laws for most law-abiding people. Body corporate managers are very law abiding. They have to be law abiding to ensure that they do the right jobs for their clients.
The government says it will look at this in the broader issue of reform under the Unit Titles Act, but we have been waiting for a long while. There are people who are suffering economic loss as a result of the lack of good legislation to protect body corporate areas. To be advised by your local member to commit an illegal act is not on. Body corporate managers would like to see this happen. I urge the government to at least put this in place, support it, until your overall review of the Unit Titles Act can come into effect further down the line.
Once you do this, there is an opportunity for the bodies corporate to then exercise their legal rights to ensure that parking is done in a lawful manner.
Debate adjourned.
FIREARMS (PAINTBALL) AMENDMENT BILL
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that, pursuant to Standing Order 107, I have received written advice from the member for Blain, Mr Mills, proposing to postpone presentation of the Firearms (Paintball) Amendment Bill to the next General Business Day.
ABORIGINAL LAND AMENDMENT (INTER-TIDAL WATERS) BILL
(Serial 92)
(Serial 92)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Mr Stirling: Madam Speaker, I seek a point of clarification. Is this the bill about which you have met with the Solicitor-General? Same bill?
Mr MILLS: Yes, same one.
Madam Speaker and honourable members, the introduction of this bill is to provide an option to allow traditional owners or their authorised delegates, the land councils, to allow non-indigenous people to access inter-tidal zones. It is very important to understand the tone and the intent of this bill. It is to provide that option.
At the moment, the Aboriginal Land Act is very clear about the fact that, except for very special circumstances, non-indigenous people must get a permit before entering Aboriginal land. The legislation that sits within this parliament makes that very clear. That is the area that we will be directing our focus to; to provide an option, a legal option - and I reinforce that for sensitive members opposite. We are not seeking to assume power, or authority or control. It is simply to provide clarity and certainty, and to reinforce a legal option. As simple as that.
The decision of the Federal Court to consider the inter-tidal zone as part of the Aboriginal land is currently being appealed, and we are all aware of that. The Northern Territory government has lodged - and rightfully, with our support - an appeal, and so has the federal government. It is an appeal at this point. Whilst that is occurring, this government has sought to establish a permit or licensing arrangement with the Northern Land Council for access to the inter-tidal zone. This system adds another layer of complexity to going out for a fish. I know that members opposite, as well as the armies of legal experts, the Northern Land Council, traditional owners, and the Amateur Fishermen’s Association, are all jointly concerned about the implications of this decision; that is, the social and lifestyle implications, not just for now, and the rights that we once thought we had, which are, in the words of the Attorney-General at the Amateur Fishermen’s Association, a decision which is, in fact, political dynamite. It also has a very profound social impact and will require very careful and thoughtful management.
I am mindful that the Northern Land Council is equally concerned about the implications of this decision and how we, as a society, can accommodate this profound decision and the impact of it, up to this point, on the freedoms that we have perhaps taken for granted.
What we are endeavouring to do is to provide a legal mechanism, posed in good faith, to provide some certainty, at least up until the point that a decision is handed down. The opposition has taken the time - and with appreciation to the Attorney-General - to have a quality briefing from the Solicitor-General and other officers. It was a good meeting. The original discussion that was held at Alice Springs was based upon a misunderstanding. Perhaps, understanding the adversarial nature of our business in this House, it is almost instinctively seen in a particular way if the opposition comes to the plate with a proposition. It just seems to be: ‘Well, that is the opposition; it cannot be any good’. In fact, it was not properly understood, with respect. That was determined through the briefing. I am heartened with that. I am not saying that this is the be-all and end-all, but it is an important step if we are going to proceed towards this very important juncture in good faith, bearing in mind the profound implications that are contained within this decision.
With that said, I trust that honourable members will follow this debate in that sprit and tone, with great cautiousness and care about how we approach this. It is not just the Territory government that this weighs heavily upon. I can assure you discussions have been conducted at many different levels, also the federal government. I am sure the federal opposition also has a view on this.
We have worked hard to find a solution that does not require a permit or licence. It is important at this point. It is our belief that the issuing of permits and licences at this juncture when there is still a level of uncertainty is creating some unnecessary complexity and angst. It is at this point that we need cool heads and that clarity.
We are concerned that the system that has been proposed by the government could lead to people being caught unaware, notwithstanding the other implications that I have alluded to previously. By removing the absolute requirement for a permit - and please be careful in assessing what I have just said. If you have read the Aboriginal Land Act you will see in there an absolute requirement for a permit. That given, there must be something put in place.
What the CLP is proposing is that you can look at that absolute requirement for a permit system to be in place, and create the capacity through legislation for an option. Therefore, it is not an absolute requirement in this specific instance. We are not talking about anything other than the inter-tidal zone at this juncture, until the appeal has been heard. It is at this point, and only over that specific section, which is in the minds of many people; it is to provide that option.
By removing the absolute requirement for a permit and placing the choice as to whether people want to enforce the need for a permit in the hands of the traditional owners or their delegates, means that complexity can be avoided at this point - this very important juncture. A little goodwill would be useful in these circumstances. I am calling upon the government and the traditional owners to bring forward this goodwill at this point. This removes an impediment.
We are aware, as sensible citizens, that the law can create more problems than it endeavours to solve. If you sit at briefings and you begin to have responses thrown up in a legal context it makes some sense of that old saying that says the letter kills, but the intent - that which is behind it which, in fact, the law is designed to serve - brings life. There are so many impediments that are brought in through legal debate that stifle and constrict and cause people to be apprehensive. We should be bigger in many respects in our judgment and not be servants of the law but the law be our servant, so that it can be used to guide and direct sensible decisions in the best interests of our community. There will be 101 different legal opinions but, if you bring to the table goodwill and a desire to find a solution, you can use the law to serve that purpose.
What I am actually concerned about when I discuss and consider these things is my son and the sons of traditional owners. What will we be putting in place if we do not approach this with great care? We will be putting something that could actually create division if not handled properly. I am not speaking about the intent of traditional owners or the intent of the Amateur Fishermen’s Association, but the intrusion of layer upon layer, webs of legal intrigue, that causes a ‘confoundment’ when we are trying to find a way forward in good faith. Too often we find that the legal component has crushed the life out of these sorts of important discussions.
It is a simple proposition that we put. You remove the absolute requirement for a permit and then we can proceed in good faith, only in regards to this specific issue.
Once this permit threshold question has been answered, and this bill does that with a sunset clause until the decision of the High Court, then the traditional owners can make the decision as to whether they will let people fish in these areas: an important point. They will make the decision. They can, and they have the authority to make that decision. We remove the legal impediment but they can and they do have the authority. It rests with people, and they can. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act gives them that authority; it is respected. The Aboriginal Land Act requires an absolute necessity for a permit system: we make that optional in this point.
Once again, my comments reinforce the necessity for goodwill. Let me make it absolutely clear: this bill does not force anybody to do anything. What it does is create the opportunity for stakeholders to come together and deliver a simple solution while the court process continues through to completion. It is as simple as that. There needs to be certainty, there needs to be clarity now, so that we can sort this business out today. Then we will know what we are dealing with. In this point between now and until that decision is made, there is, I believe, unnecessary and very concerning complexity and confusion.
Notwithstanding the Federal Court decision, it is clear that within the existing Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and with this change that is proposed, there is nothing to stop traditional owners allowing fishing in the inter-tidal zone without the need of a permit. There is nothing to prevent that. In respect of the application of existing fishing laws, many of these take effect once people leave the inter-tidal zone. You understand that: to catch fish in the inter-tidal zone you have to cross vast expanses of water to get to the inter-tidal zone, you catch some fish there and you move back out of the inter-tidal zone. It is once you move back out of the inter-tidal zone that the fishing laws take effect.
Even if an unscrupulous fisher wants to exploit any of these loopholes as can be the case, legally, the answer is simple: the traditional owner or the delegate can remove their ability to access the area without a permit. The offender can be removed legally because they have that authority. So rather than create a system where no one can do it in case something happens, let all do it and, if someone offends, then we have the means to deal with individual.
Having run a school playground, that is what you do: you can either deal with the individual, or you say no one can go there because something might happen. You can deal with the individual and allow an encourage freedom. It is a far better way to operate within society. You recognise and reinforce freedom and deal very seriously with an offender. Then you reinforce the underlining principles that hold the whole show together rather than be fearful of things going wrong and restrict and diminish our dignity as a community.
There are underlining principles here that will require some genuine leadership, which should be provided by community leaders and not lawyers. Lawyers are there to serve the best interests of the community. It should be led by leaders of the community who have confidence enough to say yes or no and to cut a path through.
There is going to be plenty of legal advice flying around. I am sitting on the outside in many respects of this, and I can imagine the volumes of conflicting and complex legal advice that will be flowing through the Attorney-General’s office. I can only image it, and I am sure it is the case. I have spoken to others who are involved in this at many different levels. It does require a cool head, sensible mindset, and the courage to cut a path and to take some risks in the interests of moving the show forward.
Madam Speaker, I believe that we have found an effective solution as an important initial step offered in good faith of which government could take advantage. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Present Bill and Pass all Stages – McArthur River Project Amendment (Ratification of Mining Authorities) Bill (Serial 99)
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly –
(a) allow the Minister for Mines and Energy to present a bill, without notice, relating to mining and the McArthur River Project, forthwith; and
Motion agreed to.
McARTHUR RIVER PROJECT AMENDMENT (RATIFICATION OF MINING AUTHORITIES) BILL
(Serial 99)
(Serial 99)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the McArthur River Project Agreement Ratification Act to address the technicality identified in the decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in the matter of Lansen and Ors v Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy and Ors delivered on 30 April 2007.
The court ruled on Monday that the 2003 authorisation for the McArthur River Mine, granted in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Management Act, did not authorise open cut mining at McArthur River because the mining company’s application was limited to underground mining activities. The court also ruled that, as a consequence, my acceptance of the amended Mining Management Act was of no effect.
Honourable members will be aware that the mine expansion was subject to a thorough environmental assessment, in accordance with both Commonwealth and Territory environmental assessment legislation, and that the recommendations of these assessments were considered in my approval of the Mining Management Act, which was given on 13 October last year. Following an exhaustive assessment process, I was satisfied that the company’s mining management plan addressed the protection of health and safety of persons and of the environment at the site. My decision was made after a thorough and transparent process, which included an environmental impact statement, EIS, and supplement, as well as a subsequent public environment report.
Initially, the Environmental Protection Agency flagged several issues of concern in the EIS submitted by McArthur River Mine. These issues were subsequently dealt with to the satisfaction of the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage through the mine’s public environment report. My approval of the Mining Management Act addressed a range of issues which included: an independent monitoring process for the life of the mine; a $55.5m security to cover rehabilitation of all mining operations; and research for the revegetation of the river diversion.
We have rigorously followed due process when it comes to the environmental assessment of this project. Our public consultation process has been thorough. The decision of the court, which found that my approval of the amended Mining Management Act was of no effect, was based on a technicality and in no way has any bearing upon the extensive environmental assessment process, including consultation with traditional owners or the general community about the mine expansion.
The bill operates to overcome this technicality by removing the limitation placed by the court on, and ratifying the operation of, the original authorisation made under section 36 of the Mining Management Act and dated 21 January 2003, as varied by a further authorisation dated 13 October 2006, together with my approval on 13 October 2006 of a mining management plan to open cut mining at McArthur River.
The bill also includes, in addition to the existing comprehensive provisions in section 4B of the principal act, to include this ratification in a class of actions for which just terms compensation is payable should an acquisition of property be affected.
In recognition of the urgency of this matter, I extend an invitation to the opposition and Independent members to receive a briefing on this bill. Members can contact my office to make the necessary arrangements for this to occur, and I would strongly encourage the opposition and Independent members to take advantage of this offer.
Madam Speaker, I recommend this bill to honourable members and table an explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
HEALTH PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT (NURSE PRACTITIONERS) BILL
(Serial 93)
(Serial 93)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I put this amendment on the table today because I feel that the Northern Territory ought to have registered nurse practitioners amongst its cohort of health providers.
When I went through the Health Practitioners Act 2004 I was quite uncertain as to why, throughout the whole act, there was not one mention of nurse practitioners. Yet, within Schedule 7 of the Health Practitioners Act 2004, under ‘Protected titles’ in the column under ‘Nursing’, nurse practitioner is mentioned. That is the only mention of nurse practitioner in the whole act. No other reference is made. I have to assume, somewhere within the department and in government, that there may be a desire to create a category of registered nurse practitioner some time in the future.
I am also aware that, currently, there are nurses who are practising in this sort of ‘capacity’ in our urban and remote areas. Through their years of experience in their respective fields, they have become particularly good at those fields of nursing. In fact, some of these senior nurses would have information and knowledge about what they do at much higher levels than very many junior and middle ranking medical practitioners. There are nurses in the Territory who are working in that capacity.
If they are, are they authorised then to work in those capacities? When I checked to see whether there are any nurse practitioners registered or authorised to practise as nurse practitioners in the Territory, the information I had is that there are none. If there are none, one wonders why the Health Practitioners Act refers to nurse practitioners.
I believe it is important to create this new category. It is a simple amendment to the act. I seek that this government looks favourably at this. I wrote to the minister a few days ago, attaching with the e-mail my amendments and notes accompanying the amendment, to explain to him why this is not only important, but also a useful thing to have.
Going through the Health Practitioners Act 2004, it appears that it is not a particularly difficult amendment to create. At present, the Health Practitioners Act provides registration for all health practitioners in the Territory. The way it is structured, it is not confined to categories of health practitioners, or specifies the qualifications required by a category of health practitioner to obtain registration. The registration is to allow them to practice in the Territory. The Health Practitioners Act creates different categories of health practitioners, and then says we will have a board to oversight those practitioners. For example, the Medical Board will oversight medical practitioners, and the Nursing Midwifery Board will look after nurses. It is then up to the respective boards to determine the level of qualification a person must attain before they can seek registration of their qualification. That makes the act quite simple to amend and also to then enforce.
I will read some notes from what I have provided to the minister:
- The board’s decision is based on whether the applicant for registration satisfies the criteria in section 22 of the Health Practitioners Act, one of which is the competency of the applicant to practice in the relevant category of registration, in this case, registered nurse practitioners. Hence the amendment No 4 where we create the category of registered nurse practitioner which means a health practitioner registered in a category of registration of registered nurse practitioner.
We then ask ourselves what we truly understand by the definition of a registered nurse practitioner. Much work has been done by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council. They have published a paper titled National Competency Standards for the Nurse Practitioner. This was done, I think, in 2004 or 2005 - I cannot see the date. The other document that was published was provided by the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council titled National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce, Nurse Practitioners in Australia. This paper, done through the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council, went to great lengths to map Australia, state by state and territory by territory, to identify how different jurisdictions have gone on to provide registration for registered nurse practitioners.
Turning to the National Competency Standards for the Nurse Practitioner paper, first of all, let me say that the ANMC is the peak National Nursing and Midwifery organisation established in 1992. It is a very learned body that has taken on the task of ensuring uniform standards of nursing across Australia. It tells us why we need to have uniform standards - and we can all understand that nursing standards should be uniform across Australia, and every jurisdiction should adopt a similar form of standards. If there are overseas nurses who apply to work in Australia in any jurisdiction, their skills would have to be comparable to the standards set by the ANMC.
The ANMC defines ‘nurse practitioners’ and I read this paragraph:
- A nurse practitioner is a registered nurse educated and authorised to function autonomously and collaboratively in an advanced and extended clinical role. The nurse practitioner role includes assessment and management of clients using nursing knowledge and skills and may include but is not limited to the direct referral of patients to other health care professionals, prescribing medications and ordering diagnostic investigations. The nurse practitioner role is grounded in the nursing profession’s values, knowledge, theories and practise and provides innovative and flexible health care delivery that complements other health care providers. The scope of practice of the nurse practitioner is determined by the context in which the nurse practitioner is authorised to practise.
When I put my proposal to both the AMA and the ANF, and to many other senior nurses across the Territory, I received good support from the ANF and qualified support from the Australian Medical Association. The qualification by the AMA - and I ask the minister to also check with the AMA himself so that my words that I attributed to the AMA would be verified by the AMA – is that it believes that nurse practitioners should be working within a health team context where the nurse, while able to perform to some degree of autonomy, would always have a health team to refer back to at all times to ensure that whatever clinical decisions the nurse practitioner makes are based on good information and advice. I do not believe that any nurse would object to that and neither would the ANF. They feel that it will be a good thing that a nurse practitioner works within a health team.
The paper published by the National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce, as I said, identified that there were currently no nurse practitioners registered or authorised to practise in the Northern Territory. Obviously, they are no nurse practitioners registered because we do not have such a category. Some jurisdictions, while they do not have the capacity to register nurse practitioners, have gone through a semi-formal process whereby a nurse may apply to the appropriate nurse registration authority stating clearly what the nurse’s qualifications are and seeking to be registered in the registered nurse practitioner’s category.
Methods of assessment by the registration authorities across all the jurisdictions are inconsistent. While there are lead times of up to three months, some jurisdictions require a minimum of only six weeks to provide the assessment. At the moment, it is not a consistent process.
While there are no registered nurse practitioners in the NT, there are thoughts about the Nurses’ Board authorising some nurses to be nurse practitioners, being distinct from registered nurse practitioners. At the moment, there is some consideration of providing nurse practitioners in areas such as rehabilitation, mental health, high dependency, community health and primary health care, women’s and children’s health and in the medical and surgical fields. On top of that, there is also the rural health and remote practice field. This is quite extensive, and I am certain that the Nurses’ Board will be looking very hard at this to ensure that when nurses apply to be registered as RNPs, they have the criteria tightly designed.
Because we do not have a category of registered nurse practitioners, it makes it hard for the Nurses’ Board to decide which way they go. That is why, I believe, if we create this registered nurse practitioner category, it allows the Nurses’ Board to proceed with all the formal processes that it needs to undertake to then create the category, providing a clear set of criteria with which nurses comply when they apply for the category of registered nurse practitioner.
The notes I have provided to accompany the amendment bill are self-explanatory and I urge members to read them. There is no value in me reading them because it would be purely repetitive. If and when - and obviously I am concerned that the government will not support this amendment - this is passed, there are guidelines that need to mandated by government so that the board can take them on.
We have to ensure that the guidelines as provided by the National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce are taken on by the board and, through negotiations with local tertiary education providers such as the Charles Darwin University, to provide advance courses to allow registered nurses to undertake studies to qualify them to be registered nurse practitioners.
Once a nurse practitioner is registered, the legislation will allow them to prescribe from a formulary, very much in the same way as this government did recently to allow optometrists to prescribe from a restricted formulary. That, I believe, would have support from the whole of the industry. Obviously, there are medications that are quite complex regarding use and may require the expertise of a medical specialist to prescribe. Obviously, those medications would not be available to a nurse practitioner, neither are they, in fact, available to medical practitioners without authorisation from the Pharmaceutical Board. A formulary would have to be developed and then, at that stage, the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act would need to be amended as well to ensure that the formulary is provided for nurse practitioners. That is the next step after the Health Practitioners Amendment Bill goes through to create the registered nurse practitioners category.
There is a flow chart which was provided by the National Nursing and Nursing Education Taskforce. It gave some indication as to how the Northern Territory thought it could register nurse practitioners. In this diagram, it shows that the registered nurse seeking authorisation - or I should say, registration in this instance - as a nurse practitioner makes application to the board. That nurse has to submit evidence and a portfolio. The evidence could include a higher qualification than just a Bachelor of Nursing; it could include evidence of exemplary practice, testimonials and letters, statement on the current scope of practice, clinical log book, reflective journals that the nurse might have kept, and published articles and conference papers that a nurse might have done in the course of studies.
While all this work can be provided as evidence of higher level of training than just the Bachelor of Nursing, many authorities now feel that the nurse would need to do a Masters degree, which is seen as the next level of qualification, before an application would be sought by the nurse to be an RNP. Once all those evidences are provided, the assessment committee would review the application and the portfolio of evidence. If the applicant also has a Masters degree, then the process will flow quite smoothly. If the applicant does not have a Masters degree, there must be a mandatory interview of the nurse by the assessment panel.
I believe that is the grandfather clause pathway. That is not supported much by many registration authorities. Perhaps in our instance in the Territory, that pathway should also be denied, to make sure that all nurses go through a Masters degree and that will give them a secure pathway into becoming a registered nurse practitioner. Once the board approves a person is qualified to be a nurse practitioner, the registration is provided and the person can then practise accordingly.
Then there is the issue of indemnity. Who indemnifies a registered nurse practitioner in the event that there is an adverse reaction through the cause of the nurse practitioner’s work? My thoughts are that a registered nurse practitioner would more than likely work within the public sector in the Northern Territory. If that nurse practitioner is employed by the Northern Territory government, the Northern Territory government would indemnify that nurse practitioner in the same way that every other nurse who works in the public sector now is being indemnified by the government. Also, a registered nurse practitioner could choose not to work in the public sector but work with a health team, say, within a general practice or a specialist practice in the Northern Territory. Again, that registered nurse practitioner would be working within the framework of a health team, where the health team is indemnified by the principal of that health team. That could be the specialist surgeon or physician or whoever the doctor may be, or the group practice that employs this nurse practitioner.
People need to understand that this registered nurse practitioner is not the equivalent of a practice nurse - or should I say a practice nurse is not automatically synonymous to a registered nurse practitioner. A practice nurse is a nurse who practises within a group practice and would perform all the functions of a normal nurse. A registered nurse practitioner is a highly-trained individual who has professional autonomy to a degree which allows that nurse to prescribe, to investigate, to refer the patient that the nurse practitioner sees to an appropriate specialist.
It is most important to understand that registered nurse practitioners are not created to replace doctors. This is not a cheap way of providing health care to the people in the Territory; this is to create a highly specialised category of nurse who will complement the medical team. That is important to understand.
Too often, we find that there are conflicts between doctors and nurses, and it is possible that nurse practitioners and doctors might suddenly confuse their roles within the health team and cause conflict. If these definitions of roles are clearly identified, I believe there ought to be no confusion.
I have spoken about the formulary for nurse practitioners to prescribe from. This will be the next step after the creation of a new category of registered nurse practitioner. Do that first and, once that is approved and passed and assented to, the next step that I will be bringing forward will be an amendment to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, with a formulary that registered nurse practitioners can prescribe from. Also, not so much a formulary, but a list of investigations that a nurse practitioner can order - some blood tests that can be done on a reasonably routine basis, maybe not so much the complex blood tests ordered by specialists, but some blood tests regarding blood sugar levels and measurements of kidney functions could be done, and that should be quite readily available to registered nurse practitioners. X-rays is another one. There are some X-rays that could be easily and appropriately ordered by a registered nurse practitioner and, again, there will be a restricted list of X-rays that the nurse practitioner could order.
It is important, and I would like to refer back to the very beginning, when I said we should create this. I know of instances where doctors have signed blank pathology forms, blank X-ray forms, and left them at health clinics or even in urban general practice, and the nurse then fills in the type of blood tests, X-rays, or ultrasounds the nurse believes needs to be done on the patient. That is technically illegal. No doctor should be signing a blank form; that is the first thing. You sign a blank X-ray form, or you sign a blank blood test form, then somebody else fills in those forms and it is quite obvious that the two handwritings are different. If the authorities were to be stricter where this is done then it would be seen as an illegal act.
By creating this registered nurse practitioners category it will prevent all those sort of things from occurring. It will enable our nurses to perform at a much higher capacity. I believe patients in the Territory would receive a better level of health care than is currently available to them. The final benefit of that is we will have nurses of various levels of expertise working together in a health team with medical practitioners who would be there to provide strong support for them. If we can do that we will certainly move a long way towards providing better health care for the Northern Territory.
I sent the material to the minister. He will, obviously, adjourn the debate to another time so he will have time to consider this amendment bill. I am pained to urge the minister to allow, or to negotiate with the Leader of Government Business, to allow this bill to come forward in June so that it can be debated through and, hopefully, gain government support. Soon after, we can have legislation to enable Territory nurses to become registered nurse practitioners and fulfil a role that is desperately needed in the Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Proposed Amendment to the Traffic Act
Proposed Amendment to the Traffic Act
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That -
- the NT government amend Part VA of the Traffic Act which deals with the impounding and forfeiture of motor vehicles for certain offences, specifically to allow for –
Madam Speaker, this motion has been put to the government today due to the fact that I believe existing changes to the Traffic Act are making little difference to those drivers, appropriately called hoons, who are putting not only their lives at risk but also passengers, their friends and other road uses. This is never more clearly seen in parts of my electorate, especially Howard River Park which, unfortunately, is starting to look like Howard Rubber Park. There are also other areas in the rural area affected and, from reading the text messages in the NT News lately, the suburbs are not exempt from this type of behaviour.
Besides the issues of public safety, there are issues relating to public nuisance, noise, smell, and side effects like the difficulty in selling property where this type of behaviour occurs. If you live on a road which has been subject to burnouts and donuts, potential purchasers are not going to be too impressed. The roads are supposed to be subject to road rules to protect people when they go for a walk, ride a bicycle or a horse, or take the dog for a walk. Children catching the bus to school or walking home in the afternoon can be at risk. It seems that some hoons deliberately pick this time to impress someone.
Unfortunately, there is a small minority who believe that they can do what they want whenever they want, knowing their chances of getting caught and charged are remote. Just late last week, I was contacted by a resident of Howard Springs who lives on Whitewood Road and was seriously concerned about her safety and possible damage to her vehicle when, in broad daylight, a driver was driving - if you can call it that - sideways down the road towards where she had stopped in her driveway entrance. She reported it to the police but, the next day, it happened again.
In February 2003, I introduced legislation to this parliament based to some extent on a Queensland model. This bill amended the Traffic Act to impound vehicles for hoon offences described as burnouts, speed trials, racing and deliberately damaging road surfaces. I should say to the Leader of the Opposition that, no, I did not pinch this idea from the bill the Leader of the Opposition is introducing today; it was in my original legislation in February 2003. The Queensland model, which I copied to some extent, allowed impoundment of a vehicle for 48 hours without application to the local court. It allowed forfeiture of a vehicle through the local court on the third offence. This was also part of my legislation.
When I introduced this legislation, the government decided to introduce its own version, which it did in November 2003 and was debated on 18 May 2004. The main difference between the bill I introduced and the one the government introduced was that the government decided not to allow for the impoundment of a vehicle on the first offence, but only allowed impoundment on the second offence and only through the local court.
Although I supported the bill, and I was happy that we had some legislation and withdrew my proposed legislation, it seems the problem I have now is that the new law is not working. Why would I say that? Take the Howard River Park area. Residents have been writing, ringing or just dropping in with complaint after complaint about this behaviour and, although the problems can ebb and flow, there has been no major solution to hooning in this area.
I have been to the police a number of times and they are doing their best, but they need the power and the equipment that police have in Queensland if they are going to make a difference. In the past decade, all interstate jurisdictions have enacted anti-hoon legislation, allowing for 48 hours impounding on the first offence with more severe penalties for subsequent offences. Evidence shows that this has had a dramatic impact with many vehicles impounded but very few second offences.
In a recent letter from the minister regarding the number of anti-hooning offences since the law was introduced, the figures given were 128 infringements and 93 notices served, and not all drivers who had received an infringement were served with anti-hooning notices. The government might say that shows the law is working, but that is not the case based on evidence on the ground. Cars I have seen involved in hooning still drive the streets and if police do catch them they just get a yellow ticket.
In Queensland, in the first two years of their law’s operation, they caught 1739 and only 22 for the second offence. The police are not hampered by having to get a car off the road by going through the local court system but are able to do that automatically for 48 hours. The police can apply for a court order within that 48 hours. If you ain’t got a car, you can’t hoon and that means a more peaceful and safer neighbourhood. That is what people are looking for.
I would like members to look at the difference between our existing legislation and the other states. I do this, not because I think we should necessarily copy the other states, but simply because I believe we have not been tough enough on these issues. The legislation is quite interesting from state to state. In Queensland, the first offence is impoundment for 48 hours. In New South Wales, it is impoundment for three months on the first offence. In Victoria, it is impoundment, or immobilisation - which is a solution where it may be impractical to bring a car into an impoundment area; they impound it or immobilise it for 48 hours. In Tasmania, it says here, the car is confiscated for 48 hours. South Australia, impounded for 48 hours. Western Australia, impounded for 48 hours. In the ACT, you can apply to a magistrate to impound for three months. In the Northern Territory, you get an infringement notice. I believe that is part of our problem.
Other states have understood that this is a serious issue. You can even look at the New Zealand example – I am not necessarily saying we go down this path, but they have what is known as the Boy Racer Act, which is an unusual name – I am hoping the person who put forward the name was Mr Boy or Mrs Boy. It is actually the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Act. It states that a first offence attracts three months gaol, or a fine up to $4500, plus loss of licence for six months, along with possible impounding of 28 days at the owner’s expense. For a second offence within four years, the vehicle must be confiscated except in times of severe hardship. Since June 2004, about 2000 vehicles have been impounded.
It is obvious that this is not just a Territory issue; it is a national issue. As I said, I am not necessarily saying we copy other states for the sake of copying them, but I am saying that it appears as though, comparing what other states are doing, when you have a more severe penalty at the first offence, there is a chance of reducing this type of behaviour on our roads.
The legislation, of course, is only part of it. Catching hoons in the act is quite difficult. Residents will ring up the police and by the time the police arrive the hoons have gone or are driving around like angels. As soon as the police have gone, away they go again. Residents are asked to take photos or film the infringement, but I know that some of these hoons will intimidate those residents, enough to scare them off from taking pictures required to get these ratbags off the road. One case in Howard River Park involved the throwing of a type of incendiary device over the fence of a property where horses were stabled. This was because the owners had confronted the offenders.
The government needs to give the police the funds or the equipment to collect the evidence. If that means 24-hour camera surveillance on known trouble spots, then so be it. This will allow the evidence to be collected and, with the stronger legislation I am proposing, there is a chance that hoon behaviour can be curtailed. Although I have not written it in the motion, what I am saying today is there needs to be an effort by the government to ensure that police do have this type of equipment. It surely can be made available in known trouble spots so that the public do not have to try to take these photographs themselves, especially when they know there is a likelihood that they are going to be targeted by these people if it is found out that they were the ones taking the photograph. If someone was to take a photograph from a property, and the photographs were used in court as evidence, there is a fair chance that the offenders would know exactly from what property those photographs were taken. I can say quite categorically that, in parts of Howard River Park, those properties would be targeted, either by continual hooning or just giving people the impression that they were now being looked at and watched, and there would be public annoyance around their property. I know this is the case because people have come to see me.
The government needs to also be prepared to have areas set aside where young people can have a bit of fun with their car without interfering with neighbours or other road users. I know the minister for Sport announced that there will be some money for a drag strip upgrade in Alice Springs. I am not asking for a drag strip in the rural area, but there is potential perhaps - and this would require a lot of thought and planning - for a pad on the Sattler Airstrip which is quite a distance from residences. It was used as a bit of a hooning area some years ago. If you went down the Stuart Highway at night, you would see loads of young people. However, if it was done under the auspices of one of the groups that operates from Hidden Valley, with the police sanctioning what was going on, we would have strict controls over alcohol and the normal safety set-ups which are required for any race meeting, and it may only operate a couple of nights a week between certain hours. This may be an approach that is worth looking at.
It came about because I was sitting at a corner one day and a genuine hoon came up and saw me - because that is what he said he was. He had the flashest yellow Ford ute you would ever see. He was quite upset that there was a law in place that could allow his car to be confiscated. I said: ‘In the Territory it is a little harder. In Queensland and elsewhere, you will certainly get it pinched first time around’. He admitted he loved hooning up and down the road. I said to him: ‘I am not going to back down on the legislation, but I will at least put to the government that, maybe, we should look at some place where young people could gather and do a few donuts and burn-outs to their hearts content, but at least do it in a safe area away from residents and in a facility which was safe and well managed’.
I put that forward as something that the government may consider. Although I am talking about the impoundment of vehicles and increasing the strength of the existing legislation, we do sometimes need a carrot-and-stick approach.
The government has also said that it is doing something about antisocial behaviour. I know this is generally spoken about in the context of Alice Springs or Katherine. However, antisocial behaviour is not just limited to those areas. Antisocial behaviour includes behaviour on our streets and roads, and hooning is antisocial behaviour. If you have a look around at some of the crosses by the side of the road in Darwin and the rural area, they were not all there by just mere accident. In many cases they were people who were mucking about on the road. Unfortunately, this is what happens.
I remember the very sad case of two drivers who were dragging, as they say, along the Stuart Highway near the BP Palms Caravan Park. One had their lights off and they clipped a car. I believe one or two people were killed - not necessarily the driver. I know a couple of young girls were severely injured. The driver of one vehicle did not go to gaol. I must admit I made a statement at that time criticising the judge. I found out later I had not criticised the right person because the judge had his hands tied in relation to that particular incident because the offence was downgraded to an offence where the judge could not actually send the perpetrator to gaol. However, that is another issue. What I was highlighting is the tragedy of hooning. Not only is it a tragedy for the people who could be killed but also the victims who are permanently injured.
The government said it is fair dinkum about the Road Safety Report - but can it really say that if it does not do something about hooning? People in my area want something done before someone is killed. I know a number of people who would like to take the law into their own hands, especially as, just last week, some brainless person deliberately tore up beautifully maintained nature strips along Bronzewing Avenue in Howard River Park. I should also mention that the Saturday before last, just before the first cricket match on the Howard Springs Reserve cricket ground was to commence, someone ripped up that ground in a vehicle - the same type of attitude. This is going to continue, I am afraid, unless the government really does something.
I was in Melbourne around Christmas time and the residents did take the law into their own hands. They knew the people who were the perpetrators of the hooning in their street. They went down there and painted graffiti all over those cars and, in fact, one car was set alight. These things can happen. I am not advocating that but I can understand the frustration that people have day and night. Much of this activity is during the day, that you find this kind of behaviour occurring in one’s local area. It highlights the frustration that peace-loving residents find themselves in when nothing really changes.
I know the police are doing their best but they need more resources. I, once again, emphasise the need for video surveillance cameras. We need legislation to back that up. If the government agrees to this motion it will show the community that it recognises the legislation presently is not adequate. People are getting fed up with this type of behaviour and the government is serious about curbing this type of antisocial behaviour. If it does not, it will be sending a message that it is not listening to people like those in Howard River Park and other places.
I can tell you of areas in McMinns Lagoon, down in Acacia Road, Humpty Doo, and Whitewood Road, Howard Springs. They are just some of the areas I know. People will just have to endure this hoon behaviour until they pack up and move somewhere else a little friendlier and quieter. I mentioned before how this can affect the sale of land. I do know that there was a block of land for sale in a street in Howard River Park. The potential buyers drove down the street, looked at all the rubber on the road, turned around and did not come back. So, it has other effects.
Government, if you cannot agree to the exact words that I have put forward today, please do not wait for the five years that was written in the second reading of your legislation as the time to review this section of the act. Instead, review it right now so that something positive will come out of this debate.
Please do not give me the usual ‘because we did not think of it first we will not support it today and we might do it in the future’. I am asking the government to look at it today. Please show the community that you are serious about this and do something.
The reason I have not put it in a form of legislation is because it has come to me as an issue that requires some urgency. If I was to put it in a legislative form, as you know, by the time the 12 days have gone and the next 12 days are gone, I would probably be putting it forward to this House after Christmas this year.
I ask the government to at least consider what I have put forward. I do not put it forward as a silly idea. I bring the evidence forward from other states that this is the sort of restrictions we need to curb this type of antisocial behaviour. What will help remove this type of activity from our neighbourhood is simply that if people do not have a car, they cannot hoon around. They might borrow someone else’s - well and good, that will get confiscated as well. If their super-duper hotted-up motor car is the vehicle used in this particular type of offence, they know that they will be given a severe warning by having their car off the road for 48 hours, and they will know then it is serious because the next offence will be three months and the next offence will be forfeiture of the vehicle.
I am asking the government to support this minor amendment. It does not require a large part of the existing act to be changed. It just requires a slight change because all the other definitions and all the other sections of the act would stay the same.
Madam Speaker, I hope the government supports the intention of the motion and will give me some idea of whether they would consider changing this section, not necessarily to bring it in line with other states. If we do this, we have a better chance of curbing this type of behaviour.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his motion. The government does take the issue of hooning very seriously. Car hooning is stupid and dangerous. At the very least, it is antisocial and at worst, it causes death.
Anti-hooning legislation began in the Territory in 2004 and I acknowledge the role that the member for Nelson played in ensuring that it was introduced. Certainly, he used his important role through a private member’s proposal to focus government’s attention on legislative tools to prevent hooning.
Under the legislation that is currently in place, for a first offence of hooning behaviour, police can issue an infringement notice. The issue of an infringement notice will be taken as a finding of guilt by a court. Any subsequent hooning offence that is brought before a court will result in further convictions being recorded against an offender. When a second conviction has been recorded, the court can make an order to take the offender’s vehicle for 48 hours of confiscation. For a third conviction, the court can make an order to have the offender’s vehicle impounded for up to three months. For a fourth conviction, the court can make an order to have the offender’s vehicle forfeited to the Territory.
Since 2004, we have seen some 186 traffic infringement notices issued under this anti-hooning legislation. Government shares the member for Nelson’s concerns about the lack of applications to the courts for confiscation. It must be remembered that when police are dealing with a case of hooning, there are a number of options for police to charge the individual beyond the provisions of this act. I am advised police have used other mechanisms in the Traffic Act and Regulations to address this problem. For example, dangerous driving provisions under the Traffic Act include minimum periods of licence disqualification have been used.
Timing of the member for Nelson’s motion coincides with the first court order for confiscation of a vehicle under this legislation. It is hoped that with this court decision, there will be more applications for confiscation. The government wrote into the legislation that it would be reviewed within five years and, as we heard, the legislation came into effect in 2004, so it would mean a review around about 2009. As minister for Transport, I heed the concerns of the member for Nelson and I undertake to work with the minister for Police to ensure that the legislation is being better utilised by our police.
Further, I am happy to refer review of the legislation to the Road Safety Reference Group, which is the organisation set up by government to look at further road safety initiatives. I am happy to refer this issue of anti-hooning legislation to that reference group and seek their expert advice on whether we need to look at police operational issues or, indeed, whether there needs to be amendments to the legislation. I am not convinced there needs to be amendments to the legislation; I am more interested in finding out what operational issues may or may not exist at the police level regarding bringing matters before the court for forfeiture and seizure of vehicles.
The member for Nelson’s motion includes vehicles being seized for a first offence. The Territory government believes that an infringement notice is currently the appropriate way to approach a first offence. It is a warning and, if not heeded, as we have heard, it can lead to seizure. This is consistent with most other road offences in the Territory where first offences are typically dealt with by way of infringements and repeat offenders are dealt with by more serious consequences such as loss of licence.
I heed the member for Nelson’s quite appropriate concerns about hooning. As I said, it is dangerous, stupid and antisocial, and it can lead to death …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I will not pick up on the interjection from the Deputy Chief Minister who, I point out, drives a Corvette.
I understand the suggestion by the member for Nelson that we could be looking at areas set aside for supervised drag-style activities. I have been out to Hidden Valley and witnessed the drags that occur with the youth. The police have a fantastic program there working with young people who have those hot cars. I know the member for Nelson drives a Ford ute. I have a very dim view of Fords and I have always driven Holdens myself.
I appreciate that there are large sections of the Territory community who are extremely fond of their cars, who spend vast fortunes hotting up their cars, and do need the opportunity to test their engines in a safe, supervised, controlled environment to make sure there is no potential for injury and no disturbance of residential areas.
In that, member for Nelson, the government shares your concerns. We are happy to take on your suggestions. I am happy to say we will not wait until 2009 to review the effectiveness of the legislation. I will have discussions with the minister for Police about police operational aspects of why we are not seeing more second offences going through the court, and see whether there can be an issue around that. The member for Nelson raised some concerns regarding police resources, particularly the surveillance resources. I am happy to refer that matter to the minister for Police and get some advice from him on that to the member for Nelson.
I point out to the member for Nelson that legislation is not the tool. Police enforcement is the most effective tool in anti-hooning. It is critical that we look at the operational issues first and foremost in preventing hooning where possible, and cracking down on hooning where it occurs. It is incredibly dangerous and, I agree, it is very disturbing to the local residents.
I do point out, though, that this government has a track record of putting the significant resources into police - $75m additional into police since the beginning of government. We stopped the freeze on police recruitment that existed under the CLP in the 1990s. We have actively recruited some 200 extra police officers into the force. We have reinstituted the disbanded Traffic Branch, so we now have an active Traffic Branch for police. All of these measures go along way to addressing the concerns of hoons on our roads. We will look at the proactive suggestions of the member of Nelson; however, the government does not support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments in relation to how much money the government has spent on police. That is fine, no argument.
It is really a side issue. The issue I am bringing forward today is that you may spend a lot of money on police resources but, in this particular case, it ain’t working. If it was working, I would not be getting phone calls, ore be asked to go to various places in the rural area to see what is happening in relation to this type of activity. I say to the minister: kindly have a look at Bronzewing Avenue, Parakeet Place, Wagtail Court, Sittella Road, and Gunn Point Road. You will see them covered in rubber, and these are the main roads that people use. This damage is being done not only at night; it is being done during the day. I have had a number of people ring me and say: ‘I just drove out of my driveway and this car came down sideways, in the middle of the day’.
Although the police may be doing their best - and I certainly thank the Palmerston police for the efforts they have put into it - the reality is, when you want to take a matter to court, you need evidence. It is very hard to get evidence in relation to hooning because they are here one minute and gone the next. By the time you have your camera - that is if you are brave enough in this part of the world, because if you are seen taking a photo I am sure they will be around to say: ‘What were you doing, madam?’, because they will intimidate those people trying to get the evidence. You need evidence to go to court; the police need the evidence to go to court.
What is missing in this debate here is, although you are putting lots and lots of money into police resources, we need the resource to catch them. As I said in my speech, yes, I can guarantee as soon as a police car comes around the corner on Bronzewing Avenue, every car that is involved in hooning will be driving just like angels ...
Ms Lawrie: Not every police car is marked, though.
Mr WOOD: That is true, but they do seem to know. Do not ask me how; they seem to know. They know the local cars and, if a strange car comes there then, all of a sudden, everything is quiet.
The reality is also that there is more than just the hooning; there is the intimidation. Police are looking at a particular case where there was an incendiary device thrown over the fence. There are also a number of rumours that there is criminal activity related to this; that we are dealing with not only people who hoon, but they are congregating at places where we believe there are other activities occurring which could be related to drugs.
I am talking from the local viewpoint. We have concerns regarding how these people who do not seem to have a job are able to drive these types of cars, wear out their tyres continually, while doing nothing during the day. Where do you get income from to do this kind of behaviour? It is not just a simple case of people doing a couple of burn-outs on a road; it is tied up with other more serious activities that are making life hard for people in parts of the rural area. I have no doubt, although I have been concentrating on areas in my electorate, that this is occurring in other parts of Darwin. Just look at the text messages that have been in the NT News. People are not happy about some of the behaviour. I believe that in Madam Speaker’s electorate there have been problems at times with people hooning near the Nightcliff jetty. I do not know whether that behaviour has been sorted out. It is not something that just applies to the rural area. It is a real nuisance.
Many people in the rural area ride horses and get out on their pushbike, and rural roads are not exactly the same as suburban roads. If you want to ride your bike you have to ride on the bitumen; there are no footpaths. Hopefully, one day the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport will tell me that there has been X amount of dollars in the budget to put a bicycle path down the old railway line. However, I digress ...
Ms Lawrie: I did have a look at that one.
Mr WOOD: Yes. And I gather there is a …
Ms Lawrie: I put the funding in the roads.
Mr WOOD: There is a promise, but there is not far to go before that promise needs to be fulfilled. However, I digress.
I know the minister also said that the police can remove a person’s licence and impose other penalties on people. As is shown from the facts from the other states and New Zealand, by having a 48-hour impoundment, you send out a clear message and, at the same time, you take a car off the road there and then. Therefore, that car that is a nuisance, that is causing a problem in the neighbourhood, is removed. It has a yellow ticket or a ‘see you in the court’ because, when the police give the yellow ticket that says ‘see you in court’, I bet you that car is still hooning. It removes the car that is causing the problem in the suburb or in the locality. It takes it away and gives people some peace and quiet, as well as sending the message to other drivers that this behaviour is not appropriate.
It is there for a reason. I do not believe suspending a licence is going to stop hooning. You will find that many of these cars are not registered. That is one of the problems we have with trying to get the evidence. If you have a car with no numberplates on it, you need some photographic evidence and also, possibly, photographic evidence of the driver. If you can photograph the car and identify it, at least we can get that off the road.
Minister, you mentioned that you will refer this to the Road Safety Reference Group. I welcome that. I hope that can be done as quickly as possible. I am certainly interested to see their report.
If you are looking for people to provide evidence of how big the nuisance factor is in their locality I can send quite a number of constituents; a couple of whom I was talking to today and last night. I am sure they will be willing to come. I can tell you now, these people I have been talking to are really cranky. I am not trying to beat about the bush when I say people are looking at taking the law into their hands if nothing happens ...
Ms Lawrie: Do not encourage that, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I am not encouraging it. I am trying to emphasise that is how serious it is. I am not encouraging that at all. It would be silly of me to say: ‘Oh, they are just hoping that something will happen’. They are getting to the point where the kettle is about to boil and I do not want that to happen.
That is why I have brought this forward today not as legislation but as a motion saying: ‘Please put the means to change this, bring in the legislation which makes impoundment possible, but also get the surveillance equipment’. Why can we not have surveillance equipment on well known areas where this occurs?
We are not talking about the East Arm area here. That is illegal and the police go down there and stop it. We are talking about a residential area and this is a major problem for those people. I have been trying to work through these issues with the police. I am not knocking the police at all, because they have lots of other things to do as well.
This problem has not gone away to the point where I can say people now have a peaceful area to live. Howard River Park is always regarded as one of the more modern subdivisions in the rural area where people can enjoy the rural lifestyle. The advertisements in the paper show someone sitting on a balcony with their feet up on the rail enjoying the rural lifestyle. Well, that is what many people thought it was when they moved out there. Now we have a number of people who have moved into that area who think it is their little drag strip.
I am not asking for a drag strip. It would be some sort of pad that they could operate from. I forgot to mention at the beginning that when I asked this young lad who said he was a hoon about Hidden Valley, he basically said for people in the rural area it is too far away. That is one of the other reasons why I have this option.
If you live in Girraween or Humpty Doo, Hidden Valley is a fair way away; it is half-an-hour away. If you provided facilities close by, you are also taking away the argument of: ‘What I was doing in my street just down the road, I do not have to do that now, because just up the road at a safe place I can have a bit of fun. I will be doing it in an area that is set aside, has the safety requirements and is licensed to do so’.
I thank the minister for her response. I will be asking her when she has referred it to the Road Safety Reference Group and when can I expect a response from the Road Safety Reference Group. I will be telling people in the rural area that the minister, although she has not agreed with what I have put forward today, has at least given us the courtesy to say she will put it forward to this particular group. As soon as you have something back from them, minister, I hope you can make a statement in parliament and I will pass the information on to the residents. I am sure if it is a very sensible Road Safety Reference Group, they will be looking for a change to this legislation.
Motion negatived.
BAIL AMENDMENT (SERIOUS SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL
(Serial 72)
(Serial 72)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to the Bail Amendment (Serious Sexual Offences) Bill introduced by the member for Braitling on the last General Business Day, I thank the member for her work in developing this bill. I also thank her for the bipartisan and consultative way in which she has approached this issue. The government certainly supports the intent behind the bill; that is, to protect victims and their families, to ensure witnesses are not intimidated and prevented from giving evidence. It also communicates the seriousness of these offences to the community.
This government feels very strongly that sexual violence, or violence of any sort, is not acceptable in our community. This is why the government has made addressing crimes and violence one of the key law reform priorities over the coming year.
An element of this reform agenda has already been identified as a review and amendment of the Bail Act as it relates to sexual offences. Accordingly, government has prepared its own draft amendment to the Bail Act. However, any change that affects peoples’ liberty requires extensive consultation and discussion to make sure we meet community standards and get the balance right. Accordingly, the Department of Justice is currently consulting widely with key organisations and members of the legal profession as to the proposal’s operation and effect. It is our intention to introduce that bill or a version revised following consultation in the near future.
One aspect of government’s proposed approach, the reversal of the presumption of bail for certain serious sexual offences, is similar to that proposed by the member for Braitling. However, simply reversing the presumption does not prevent bail being granted in some situations where a victim could potentially be put at further risk. That is why our proposal takes a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to the protection of victims of these very serious offences.
Under the government’s proposal, the criteria for the grant of bail will also be amended to ensure the court focuses on the need to protect victims when making any decisions about whether to grant or refuse bail. I look forward to bringing that bill before the Assembly.
In short, while we will not support this particular bill, we certainly support its intent and the government recognises the work of the member for Braitling in sponsoring it. I look forward to her support when government introduces its own planned amendments bill to the Bail Act.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, when I first looked at this bill some time ago, I was concerned it would take away the right of an accused person to ask for bail. That was the impression one got from the initial airing of this bill through the media. I would be worried if that had been the case, as there has to be a certain presumption of innocence in any case that goes before the court.
In the Bail Act there are two divisions which deal with this presumption. Division 1A deals with the presumption against bail for certain offences. Division 2 deals with the presumption in favour of bail. The member for Braitling has suggested that certain crimes, specifically those described as serious sexual offences, should be included in Division 1A. These sexual offences are all serious and that is why the member has asked that they be put in the same category of offences already existing in this division.
Let us look at some of the offences in Division 1A: murder, treason, and an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act punishable by a term of imprisonment for 10 years - and there are others. Surely, serious sexual offences are in the same category as the misuse of drugs. I would hope so! This bill does not presume someone is guilty or innocent, but it does allow a magistrate or judge to take into account the wishes of this parliament; that is, its inclusion in Division 1A and the reasons why the parliament has done this. It gives the judge the opportunity in the context of this division to weigh up the possible effects of the accused being allowed back into his or her community or the wider community. It will allow the judge to weigh this against the fear and violence that some in the community may have to endure if the accused is allowed out on bail. It will allow time for the community to have some breathing space and, of course, it gives the magistrate the right to grant bail.
I ask of those who oppose this bill: is the crime of murder not much different from these serious sexual offences? At least in the crime of murder, the victim has no more pain to bear although, of course, there are other victims. The victims of sexual offences bear these scars for the rest of their lives. Is that not at least on a par with murder? Surely, these crimes that the member for Braitling has classified as serious sexual offences should be included in Division 1A?
I support what the member for Braitling has proposed. I have given it a fair bit of thought and I have given it time to get a better understanding of what the member for Braitling was trying to do. It is a very good proposal. I am happy that the government is looking at something similar. The way things normally go here, this bill will be defeated and we will have to wait for the government’s version of it. I thank the member for Braitling for this important amendment to the Bail Act. I hope it is supported by both sides of parliament.
Ms CARNEY: (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome what the Attorney-General had to say. I note, if I heard correctly, there was a reference to protection of victims. I am encouraged greatly by that.
The member for Braitling’s proposal only suggested an amendment to one part of the Bail Act. My view was, and still is, that the amendment did not go anywhere near far enough. I recall, and I stand to be corrected, but I believe in the last Assembly, the member for Macdonnell proposed a bill reversing the presumption of bail; that was howled down then. The government may well be slow coming to things, but it is good to see that they are at least tackling this issue.
In relation to the protection of victims, which is section 23 or section 24 of the Bail Act, with respect, Attorney-General, I am hopeful that that is the section that you will be seeking to amend. Certainly, the present bill must go further. As I have said, I am heartened by what you said.
In terms of the practical ways in which victims could be protected, I ask you to consider revisiting some things that I raised on the Parliamentary Record several years ago, such as removing the offenders from community. If you are going to tackle this issue, you may as well get it right. Remove the violent offenders from a community, certainly while they are on bail. You might like to consider - and I wish you would - putting up safety houses or making areas in communities safe for victims, most of whom are women and children, as you know.
In the course of your review, you will presumably be inquiring as to whether adequate and proper arrangements can be made for the protection of victims. I do fervently hope, Attorney-General, that when you come back with a bill, which I hope is in a relatively short period of time, that you comprehensively tackle this issue, and reverse the presumption of bail in these cases, and ensure that adequate arrangements are made for victims to be protected.
I am greatly encouraged by what you have to say, Attorney-General. The devil, as usual, is always in the detail. However, I thought it prudent to make those comments, certainly in light of what the Attorney-General has had to say.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not surprised by the government’s reaction that they would not support this particular amendment. We are all aware of the ongoing problems in our society. The government has said that serious sexual assault was something that they really do care about, and the fact that they have indicated they will make changes is good.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her comments. Even though she said she would not support this, she obviously is supportive of any sort of act …
Ms Carney: I did not say I would not support it. Listen.
Mrs BRAHAM: You did not say that, but let me finish, thank you. The fact that you did say you would look at whatever government was going to introduce later on is good. Her comments regarding these suggestions for the safety of victims were very relevant, and she felt that this amendment did not go far enough. That sometimes does happen with amendments we introduce, because I respect the fact that the Leader of the Opposition does have a legal background and probably knows a lot more than I do when she is drafting a bill.
I thank the member for Nelson also for his comments. He does not give support lightly. Even though, as Independents, people may lump us together, we do not work like that. We both have different agendas and we often support or not support each other. He has taken time to consider it, his reasoning was quite sound, and he shows an understanding of the intent of this bill and the circumstances out there.
It is, in a way, disappointing that Independents cannot achieve. The member for Nelson’s last motion was a good motion, and he did get a considered reply from the minister, and that is good. I suppose it is good also that the Attorney-General has not wiped it out completely. He has not said no, has not dismissed us, and that gives me great heart.
We all know how the prevalence of serious sexual assaults and rapes in indigenous communities were highlighted by Nanette Rogers. The Chief Minister seems to have responded to that by holding an inquiry. We are all waiting to see the result of the inquiry. You could say that removing the presumption of bail would complement any approach the government has to addressing the problems out there. Perhaps one of the reasons there are problems with reporting abuse is because many people see offenders get bail and are free to return to their community.
I pulled these out. We all saw this headline: ‘Accused gets bail in boy rape case’. I wonder how that young lad felt. ‘Abused accused must go’, said people when the alleged offender was sent back to the community. It is headlines like ‘Parents fear for kids. Alleged sexual offenders allowed to return to community’ that say to the community something needs to be done. We have to understand that we are also here to meet community expectations. We need to read the message they are giving us and respond in an appropriate manner.
The Attorney-General also stated in his letter: ‘Safety of protection of victims in the community is a high priority for government’. I asked him to provide statistics and he stated that 70% of persons accused with selected sexual offences were granted bail in 2004 compared to 58% in 2006. A further breakdown in the cases show even more gloomy statistics of bail given: offences under section 127 of the Criminal Code, sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child under 16 years - in 2006, 70% were given bail; offences under section 131; a sexual relationship with a child - in 2006, 78% were granted bail; and section 192, sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent - 58% were granted bail. Those statistics ring alarm bells to me.
I also wrote to many organisations, as the Attorney-General said he has circulated his intent. I wrote to Criminal Lawyers Association, Victims of Crime - you name it. I also wrote to the ACT Attorney-General because I knew that they had amended their bail legislation. I will read from his letter:
- In 2004 there were major amendments to the ACT’s bail legislation in response to the ACT Law Reform Commission’s review of the Bail Act 1992. A major change the legislation made to the ACT’s bail system was the removal of any presumption whatsoever to the crimes as outlined in section 9(b) of the Bail Act 1992 which includes sexual assault and sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10. The introduction of section 9(b) was a positive way for the ACT to deal with recommendations suggested by the ACT Law Reform Commission’s review of the Bail Act. Since its inception, there have been no appeals or challenges to the legislation. Anecdotally, bail decisions have been more consistent with community expectations.
The ACT made these amendments and has now said bail decisions have been more consistent with community expectations. I hope what the Attorney-General is now suggesting he will do will be in line with those sort of remarks.
As I said in my second read speech, this is not for my political gain; this is for the victims and for their peace of mind. I remind members of the plea written by a previous victim:
- I am a 29-year-old mother of three who struggles with life every day due to the effects of sexual abuse. I am one of the many victims whose life will never recover from a trauma of a shattered childhood. Not only do I live with the memories, the shame, and the effects of my abuse, but I also have to deal with the fact that my offender was never made to face trial due to him being granted bail. He was granted bail and went to another state, never to return for trial, never to answer for anything he did to me. I pay every day, not him. He is still being pursued 20 years later, but I am still waiting for justice to be done.
That is a very powerful letter. She contacted me because she felt that if, in this particular case, he had not been granted bail he would not have skipped the state and she may have at least got some satisfaction by at least getting him to court.
The government said they would adopt my amendments in their own terms and conditions. I am gratified that this will happen but how much more delighted I would have been if they had supported this amendment that I put up as proof that the Attorney-General said that the Independents do work hard and they do it to improve the community of the Territory. I suppose it is not disappointing to me, or unexpected, that the government would prefer to do it themselves. In closing, I say that if I have caused government to act then I have achieved what I set out to do even if I did not do it myself. I will wait and see the government’s bill and I hope they bring it on soon.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I guess this will not be passed but at least it has raised an issue and highlighted to the people out in the community that we do have concerns. I am pleased that government has taken it on board and we will see what happens.
Motion negatived.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 82)
(Serial 82)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Sentencing Act currently provides that the court may, when sentencing a person to less than five years imprisonment, make an order wholly or partly suspending that sentence. I make the point up-front that this discretion does not apply in relation to specified sexual offences with section 78BB of the act removing the courts discretion to wholly suspend a sentence. The discretion also does not apply in relation to offenders found guilty of a second or subsequent violent offence. The bill introduced by the member for Araluen proposes to override the provisions of the Sentencing Act as they relate to sexual and some other offences.
I now go to how suspended sentences work. I will also note before moving to the bill in question that a court does not order a suspended sentence without attaching conditions to the suspension. These stringent conditions may include, among other things, orders for home detention; orders banning communication with specified persons; or orders compelling the offender to undergo mental health or other treatment. A suspended sentence hangs over the offender’s head for a term specified by the court. If the person breaches a condition they can be called to serve the sentence in prison. Although sentencing is rightly about ensuring proper punishment and deterrents, it should also be about allowing suitable offenders the prospect of rehabilitation and escaping the re-offending cycle.
I have made it a priority to lower the recidivism rate in the Northern Territory. The recently announced big boost to Community Corrections is one example of this effort. The courts should have all sentencing tools available to them to assist in this goal in lowering recidivism.
As noted, section 78BB of the Sentencing Act already prevents the court from wholly suspending a sentencing imposed in relation to certain sexual offences. These offences include: sections 125B and 125C of the Criminal Code relating to the possession and publication of child abuse material; section 127 to section 138 relating to offences against morality particularly sexual offences against children; section 133 is not covered as this relates to behaviour in public rather than behaviour against a specific individual; section 188(2)(k), which pertains to indecent assault; and sections 192 and 192B, the offences of sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent, which is rape, and coerced sexual self-manipulation.
The offences cited in the member for Araluen’s bill to a large extent reflect the offences already listed as those where a sentence cannot be wholly suspended. The offences cited in the bill include an offence against Part 5 Division 2, which mainly relate to the possession and publication of child abuse material and sexual intercourse or indecent dealings with children, and an offence against sections 192 or 192B of sexual intercourse or gross indecency without consent, rape or coerced self-manipulation.
I note the slight expansion to include sections 188(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the Criminal Code, which deal with assaults where the victim is female and the offender male, where the victim is a child and the offender is an adult, or where the victim suffers from a disability.
I also readily acknowledge that some good has arisen from the introduction of the bill. In researching the member’s bill - and I asked that serious effort be put into analysing it because I do not dismiss a proposal put forward in the Assembly before having it considered thoroughly - the department has determined that section 78BB does not include section 125E of the Criminal Code relating to the use of a child for the production of child abuse material. This offence was inserted in the Criminal Code in 2004 as part of the government’s strong reforms relating to child abuse material. I consider that it should be included in the list of offences for which a wholly suspended sentence cannot be given, and have directed the Department of Justice to take immediate steps to amend the act.
I will turn again to the bill in question and some of the concerns I have with it. The member for Araluen made much in her second reading speech about offenders convicted of serious offences walking out the door of the courtroom. It is a problem the member purports to rectify through legislation, but it is her own bill that fails to tackle the issue. I state again that section 78BB already makes perfectly clear for the majority of offences cited in her bill, a convicted offender could never just walk out of the court because the sentence can never be wholly suspended.
Similarly, in introducing this bill, the member for Araluen specifically referred to the sentencing decision in the Alice Springs case of R v RL. In this case the offender pleaded guilty to unlawfully causing grievous harm to his young son, contrary to section 181 of the Criminal Code. What I find interesting about this is that the member for Araluen’s bill and the changes she proposes here, would not have made any difference in that case. The member for Araluen’s bill does not apply to section 181 of the Criminal Code, nor would it apply to a whole range of violent offences such as assault with aggravating circumstances other than the specific ones mentioned.
Indeed, under the existing provisions of the Sentencing Act, if the offender is convicted of a violent offence on a second or subsequent occasion, the court is already restricted in the type of sentence it can impose. It cannot set a wholly suspended sentence.
With these points in mind, the bill increasingly appears to be an emotive grab bag of offences while ignoring a large number of others. When it comes to taking a serious attitude against abhorrent offences this government has done much to combat violence and sexual violence in the community. The introduction of the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Act in 2003 is just one example of serious action taken by this government against abhorrent offences. That act saw the toughening up, including increased penalties, of laws protecting children and vulnerable persons from sexual abuse, and closing loopholes where laws failed to adequately protect children from sexual abuse. The Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Act also saw the introduction of new aggravated offences which attracted higher penalties, especially where the child is particularly vulnerable.
New offences involving aggravations include where the offender is in the company of others, the child is under the authority of the offender, the child has a serious disability, or the child is affected by drugs or alcohol.
Offences were also tightened under that act to further ensure that children were protected. The act made sure that, where there was doubt as to the age of a person, the onus would be on the adult to make sure that the person was not under the age of consent. It also removed the defence that the parties to an act are married, the last customary law defence still on this Territory’s statute books. The removal of this defence recognised concerns from indigenous women’s organisations and child protection organisations that traditional marriage should not be used to mitigate or excuse sexual offences committed against children. Doing so reconfirms this government’s position that, in a conflict between customary law and criminal law, the interests of the child must always come first.
Addressing crimes of violence is one of this government’s law reform priorities for this coming year. We will continue to bring forward legislative reforms that get to the heart of the matter, that address crime and the causes of crime in our community. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting this bill.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I can understand why the member for Araluen has brought forward this bill. I had researched suspended sentences because the community gets a message, reported regularly in our papers, that people receive a fairly heavy sentence but, for some reason, it is then suspended. Quite often, the community wonders why we have gone through the whole court process only to see people walk out the door, basically, or only be gaoled for a short period of time.
I wrote to the Attorney-General asking if he would set up a sentencing advisory committee, such as is in Victoria. In the reply I received from the Attorney-General, he did say, after examining the operations of the councils in New South Wales and Victoria, along with the Australian Law Reform Commission’s discussion paper, Sentencing Federal Offenders, it has been decided that, similar to the federal government, the Northern Territory has other bodies which can provide advice as well as perform consultation and research into sentencing practices. There are no immediate plans to establish an independent council. I was very disappointed with that particular response. The Sentencing Advisory Council in Victoria compiles statistics, and it was because of the statistics that they saw this trend for more and more sentences being wholly suspended that the government actually moved to introduce legislation.
Victoria is the only Australian jurisdiction that does not allow for suspended sentences for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape, and so on. It is my understanding that Victoria intends eventually to abolish sentences for even a wider range of offences than they already have which included incest, sexual penetration of a child under 16, making a threat to kill, and armed robbery. Victoria has recognised that there has been a trend over the years to suspend sentences more and more. They have responded in this way, by saying that they are responding to community expectations and the fact that they feel as though justice must be done. You may convict someone and sentence them; but to then turn around and say to them that you can go in two months or three months does not really send the right message to the community. It does not send the right message to the offenders, who quite often return to courts over and over again.
I believe New South Wales did suspend sentences in 1974 and interestingly, though, they reversed that policy in 2000. It is something that is continually in the community eye. Perhaps this government should provide this House statistics so that we can see the trend, whether it is going the way that it has gone in other states or there is a need for a bill such as this to ensure that there is accountability within the system, and also to ensure the community can have confidence in our court decisions. If you are saying you are happy with things the way they are, obviously, that is not the message the community is getting at the moment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps the Attorney-General could reconsider setting up some sort of sentencing advisory council to look at the trend in the Territory. He must have obtained the statistics he provided me from some area. It would be very hard for us to get a total picture of what is happening regarding wholly suspended sentences, or even partly suspended sentences. The intent of the bill is right; we should be looking at these problems. It sounds as though the government is going to defeat it anyway, but I thank the Opposition Leader for presenting it.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, similarly, I thank the member for Braitling for her comments. I note with great interest, despite differences, that the member for Braitling and I at least are consistent on this issue. That is in stark contrast to Territory Labor. We have a Chief Minister who was embarrassed into calling an inquiry into sexual abuse. It led to difficulties within her party which, I understand, are ongoing.
This week, we saw the handing over of the reports some 12 months after the Nanette Rogers interview on Lateline and the Chief Minister arrogantly said: ‘No, that is my advance copy. We cannot possibly photocopy or electronically disseminate copies of the report; I am going to hang on to it’. I know why she is hanging on to it: she needs to position herself and to square off her colleagues. I am not sure that she is capable of that. The member for Millner may have a different view. She needs to square off with colleagues and to position herself. Anyway, some of that detail can wait for another time.
It is extremely disappointing that this government collectively but, particularly the Chief Minister, has such difficulty with the issue of sexual abuse on children and, indeed, domestic violence against women and children - any forms of violence against women and children. She does not get it. That is disappointing. I am also disappointed that you, as a government, just do not get it.
I remember asking a former Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, in estimates perhaps two or three years ago, whether he would consider setting up an inquiry as the South Australians did in their parliament looking at the rates of convictions for sexual assault. ‘No’, he said, ‘we know everything. We will keep going, chugging away in the way that we do’. It is not good enough. Promote, do all your glossy brochures and go on your budget road show and do the things that you are really good at - you are really good at spinning. However, some of us would not mind if you attended to other pressing and fundamental matters on the way through.
In relation to the Sentencing Amendment Bill, obviously, I will read with interest the Daily Hansard of what the Attorney-General had to say. Notwithstanding some of his comments, it is appropriate for us to bring this bill to the parliament. I should put on the record that my hunch is that before the next Territory election there will be a bill a little similar to this one. Certainly, government media releases will be saying that government will be tougher on this, and that under Labor criminals are not going to be able to walk out the door, and there will be squillions of years for sentences with a minimum of thousands. That will be the spin. So this will not be the last time, I am sure, that the Sentencing Amendment Bill will be considered in this House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it was brought in good faith. I stand on my record when it comes to these sorts of issues. At least I have one, unlike the Chief Minister. With those comments, I conclude and I thank members for their contributions.
Motion negatived.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (IMPOUNDING AND FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES) BILL
(Serial 81)
(Serial 81)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, the government took a very careful and considered approach to our road safety reforms. The government’s task force of long-term Territorians were experts in a variety of fields. The task force prepared a report that involved many recommendations. The report highlighted that speed, drink driving, running red lights and not wearing seatbelts were the major contributors to our road toll.
The government has responded to recommendations with a range of initiatives including legislative change. Implementing that reform involves further bills which I have put on notice for introduction tomorrow. We have followed a process and we are committed to that process. That is why we will not be supporting this bill.
In one respect, I am glad to see the bills from the opposition today. It is healthy that ideas to help reduce the trauma on our roads are discussed and debated. However, you cannot help but feel that these bills are all about a catch-up. The Martin government has shown leadership and made the tough decisions to help save the lives of Territorians, but there is a little of a ‘me too’ feel about these bills. One thing you can be sure of is that, had the Martin government not taken the lead on this issue, then I doubt whether the CLP would have had these bills before the parliament.
These bills today are largely an attempt by the CLP to cover up their ‘speed does not kill’ policy. The idea being put forward by the opposition is that speed is not a factor in the carnage on our roads - and that is absurd. These bills do not hide that absurdity.
The essence of this bill involves repeat high-level drink drivers having their cars confiscated. The first problem with this bill is that it only targets drivers a long way over the limit - 0.15. It does not address the fact that driving at a much lower level of 0.05 is still extremely dangerous and occurs far more frequently. The government’s legislation targets repeat drink drivers who are over 0.05. The second problem is that it does not address drivers who are not driving their own car or who have access to other cars. The third problem is that many Territory families have only one car. How is a family going to get their kids to school? This bill imposes a disproportionately harsh impact on people completely removed from the committing of the offence. Targeting repeat drink driving offenders is what the government believes we need to do.
I did much research in this area when I took on the Transport portfolio. What I found is that an alcohol interlock is a device that can cheaply be installed in vehicles which prevent ignition without first requiring the driver to blow a BAC within legal limits. The interlock can also randomly require the driver to pull over and pass the blood alcohol test, so the car will not start in the first instance if you are over the blood alcohol legal limit. Also, to ensure that they do not try to trick the system, the car randomly gets you to pull over while driving to test your blood alcohol. In other words, the drunk cannot get his sober mate to blow into the ignition because you will be tested randomly as the car is proceeding. Alcohol interlock systems are used in several other states in Australia and have proved effective in reducing drink driving recidivism.
I have asked the government’s road safety reference group to consider the introduction of alcohol interlocks into the Territory. In the vast majority of cases, a drink driver does not plan ahead to drink drive. Having a vehicle that prevents them from doing so is far more effective at stopping a drink driver than confiscating that vehicle.
The government will not be supporting the Traffic Amendment (Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) legislation presented by the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, a predictable response from the minister. It does not warrant a detailed response from me. I will simply repeat that the bill was designed with the philosophy that the law should punish the guilty and not the innocent. The government’s road safety policy is flawed in a number of ways although, obviously, not in every way.
This particular bill says that if you consistently demonstrate yourself to be the sort of person who cannot conduct yourself sensibly and reasonably on the road, then your car should be taken away. It is that simple.
There are a number of other parts contained in the bill, but it boils down to this: the Labor government has a fundamentally different view from the CLP when it comes to punishing the guilty. We are not prepared to stand by and not act for reasons that escape us and most other decent-thinking people. On the other hand, this government is prepared to sit by.
I drive on the Territory roads, and my friends do as well. Friends and family of everyone in this Chamber drive on Territory roads. We do not want irresponsible people causing a risk to not only themselves, but to everyone else. That was the spirit in which the bill was brought to the parliament. As I said, the minister’s response was predictable and weak.
Motion negatived.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (SUSPENSION OF LICENCE) BILL
(Serial 80)
(Serial 80)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said in debate on the previous bill, the government has a strong commitment to road safety reform. We have put significant effort into implementing recommendations of the Road Safety Task Force. I have said this is not a static situation. We will continue to improve our road safety record and take whatever measures are practical and responsible to ensure that we have safer roads for our public. The Traffic Amendment (Suspension of Licence) Bill sponsored by the Leader of the Opposition will not be supported by government.
This is a bill you have when you really support demerit points but you want to pretend you do not. The bill says that if you keep committing a range of offences and fail to change your behaviour, you will lose your licence, which is the same concept as demerit points. What is the difference? The government is introducing a simple demerit point system which targets the major contributors to our road trauma. The demerit point system targets speeding, drink driving, running red lights and not wearing a seat belt. The CLP’s scheme only applies to a 12-month period. It allows a repeat offender to wipe the slate clean within 12 months and then return to their offending behaviour.
To be effective, this bill would require police to summons and prosecute drivers who commit seat belt and traffic light infringements. Under a demerit system, they can be dealt with administratively. The government’s demerit point system is a far simpler, far more effective approach. Given this bill, I look forward to the opposition’s support of demerit points later this year. The government does not support this bill.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for, once again, her predictable response. What needed to be said was contained in the second reading speech of 29 November last year. Much of what the minister said is not only predictable, but political. Once again, the difference is stark and amply demonstrated by the difference in approach in relation to this and other legislation brought to the Chamber by the opposition.
This bill is a part of our policy to deal with road safety in the Territory. As I said in the second reading speech, it is remarkably straightforward because it will achieve what is required, but the government simply refuses to do it. The CLP is prepared to legislate that people who breach the law consistently should lose their licences. We certainly do not back away from that. Similarly, people who choose not to wear seat belts should suffer the full effect of the law as contained in the bill.
We do not back away from the view that, if you are picked up three times in 12 months, then you will lose your licence. This is the sort of creativity that the government refuses to demonstrate when it comes to bringing legislation of its own before the Chamber. The response is certainly predictable, certainly political, and I am anticipating that the response in relation to the next bill might be just the same.
Motion negatived.
NORTHERN TERRITORY ABORIGINAL SACRED SITES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 84)
(Serial 84)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I indicate that the government will not be supporting the opposition’s legislation ...
Ms Carney: You do not even know what it is. It is not your portfolio. Where is the minister?
Ms LAWRIE: I note that the Leader of the Opposition is being facetious and rude as usual, as is her nature.
Ms Carney: Where is the minister? How embarrassing.
Ms LAWRIE: We are used to inane remarks flung across the Chamber from the Leader of the Opposition on subjects that the government actually takes extremely seriously …
Ms Carney: Please talk to the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: It is very difficult, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms Carney: Do you know what it is about?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to wait while she continues with her inane interjections. She certainly fills up Question Time with inane interjections. She managed to ensure that her budget response is inane. I have to say, I looked carefully at all of her education proposals in the budget and found that I could not see any way they were going to improve the attendance of students at school, which we know is the crux of what we would like to see.
I understand that the member for Blain has brought several different types of legislation and motions around about the issues of the role of custodians and traditional owners in the Northern Territory. I caution him: I think he is playing the politics of divide and rule and that is a very difficult and dangerous thing to do in the Territory.
Mr McADAM (Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the government does not support the bill. As members would be aware, the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act is administered by the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. The preamble to the act makes it clear that it aims to effect a practical balance between the protection of sacred sites, the cultural requirements of Aboriginal people, and the economic and social advancement of the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act protects all sacred sites in the Northern Territory, regardless of whether they have been registered under sections 27 to 29 of the act. The act also provides very good mechanisms for those who may be affected by the registration or existence of sacred sites, to be given the opportunity to raise any detriment at the time of the registration, and either at that time or at a later date, to apply for an authority certificate to determine if entry or works on or near a sacred site can occur. The act is working and it is working well.
In his second reading speech, the member for Blain acknowledges the existing protections of the act, but states the rationale behind this bill is an attempt to strengthen property acquisition in the Northern Territory. In fact, the bill would create a great deal of confusion as to what property is. Whereas the current act clearly understands property and property-like interests such as licences, this bill will weaken that current clarity. If the bill was passed, it would create unrealistic expectations and a culture of dispute and litigation, bringing a fair and just system into total disarray.
The member told the Assembly he understands that the current provisions under section 48A already allows for just terms compensation. We can all agree this is a principle found under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act when it comes to the actions of the Northern Territory in acquiring land. It is also found in section 51(31) of the Australian Constitution in cases where the Commonwealth is acquiring land from a state or an individual.
The member for Blain’s second reading speech was very unclear when it comes to what he and the opposition thinks property acquisition should be, and clarity is what is needed in this legislation.
This Assembly has a long history of supporting protection of Aboriginal sacred sites. The protection of sacred sites is an important mechanism for the enhancement and preservation of Aboriginal cultural tradition. We all understand and work in the knowledge that the existence of sacred sites, and the measures needed for their protection, may place restrictions on access to, or use of, an area of land or sea. Conflicts may occur regardless of whether the sacred site in question has been requested for registration by traditional Aboriginal custodians.
In the coastal and riverine areas of the Territory, I am advised that there are approximately 130 sites which have been registered, and approximately another 350 sites on record. All of these sacred sites and others not yet recorded or registered may cause restrictions on access and works. However, it is also true that under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act there may not be any restrictions to access and work on or near these sacred sites. As I have indicated, clarity is very important.
I have had the benefit of revisiting the member’s second reading speech, and have some difficulty with his concept of property rights. In the third paragraph, he stated: ‘The point of this bill is to recognise the impact upon other holders of rights’, by which it is understood he means other than those asserting sacred sites rights.
The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act already recognises other rights and, very clearly, allows for compensation on just terms for the acquisition of property. Section 44 also recognises those with an interest subordinate to a landowner, such as a licence holder. While section 44 ensures property owners have a higher interest than a lease or licence holder on the property, it also protects those other interests in the property impacted upon by a sacred site or sites. The current act works with various safeguards to ensure there will be no malicious prosecution for a reasonable mistake - this is section 36. The act also provides for direct dialogue between all parties with an interest in the land. In essence, the current regime is a reflection of a mature approach to getting along and getting on with business.
The proposal from the member for Blain would, instead, promote divisiveness and conflict. With this proposal, the member for Blain and the opposition is delving into uncertainty by attempting, through the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, to create a class or a range of indeterminate interests that may or may not be subject to compensation. This is a conflict-ridden and litigious model based on speculation and notional loss that may be impossible to prove. The potential cost and time spent on trying to balance these very uncertain claims are not worth considering. The proposal makes a very poor policy.
Under current provisions such as section 28 of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, before registering a sacred site, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority must give landowners an opportunity to make written representation; must give consideration to those representations; and must advise landholders of their right to apply for an authority certificate if they have indicated detriment. In the case of the proposed registration of sacred sites in a coastal or riverine environment, the authority has in place very specific procedures to allow for representation from interested bodies where sacred sites are being considered for registration. This is in addition to the statutory obligation to ask relevant landholders, such as the relevant Aboriginal Lands Trust, pastoralists or other landholders, and relevant government agencies, to raise concerns about any potential detriment the registration may cause. If a landholder does indicate possible detriment, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority is obliged to inform the landholder of their right to seek an authority certificate. An authority certificate would allow access and use on or near the site, with conditions ensuring the site is not damaged.
This is a fair and well understood system the opposition seeks to undo. At the moment, if a person or body has concerns about conditions of an authority certificate they may seek a variation to the certificate, seek a conference with the custodians to attempt to work out how their issues might be resolved and, if that does not deal with issues or concerns, they can apply to the minister for a formal review of the conditions of the authority certificate. Authority certificates are successfully used by developers and users of lands right across the Territory.
The member for Blain’s bill seeks to undermine the authority certificates’ processes. From time to time, industry bodies may raise concerns regarding sacred sites. When this occurs it is up to all of us to ensure that they understand how they can work under the Northern Territory Sacred Sites Act. Meeting and discussions with the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority are encouraged to assist in this understanding. The authority has an open door. It is happy to talk to the people concerned about sacred site issues at any time.
It is apparent this bill extends the current acquisition of property provisions to a range of unspecified impacts upon business. As outlined, just and fair compensation is paid for acquisition of property. The opposition would open the floodgates to litigation and disagreement about a range of interests that could tie up the courts for years with this bill. It is a rather clumsy attempt by the opposition to demonstrate they oppose Aboriginal interests in land and it is an unfortunate attempt to try to convince some business interests that the opposition is looking out for them when, in reality, the proposal would result in a mess of unworkable bureaucratic processes and litigation.
It is disappointing that the member for Blain at the end of his second reaching speech used a catch-all phrase in the hope of rescuing an unworkable proposal by calling it a sensible bill because it is an ill-conceived bill. The opposition is trying desperately to improve its credentials with a sector of the Northern Territory that has well and truly moved on from an unproductive and confrontational stand on these types of issues.
It is a bill I would have expected 10 or 20 years ago when relationships between government and indigenous people in the Territory were rock bottom. It adds nothing to the current way of doing business in the Territory. For the reasons that I have outlined here today, the bill is not supported by this government.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, it is clear by the preceding comments before the minister spoke, and imbedded within the speech by the second speaker from government, that there is a belief that no good thing can come and that, what does come, has an intent which is malicious. I find that offensive. There was no reference in the reply to the very body that needs to be responded to; that is, the fishermen. While it is difficult to define property, if the honourable member had done any kind of assessment as to the very concept of property, it is an immensely difficult concept to nail down.
Property is held by degrees. So yes, it might be easy to read a speech that has been prepared for you and to lace it with a prejudiced view of the intent of honourable members - that I find wholly offensive. This is in no way to denigrate that which is sacred to a community at all. It seeks only to recognise that, in the imposition or the recognition of that which is sacred, it has another effect on another sector of the community, and it calls the government to respond to that. It is for environmental reasons, about which I thought the member who spoke first may have perhaps counselled herself before unleashing a little contribution which really revealed the nature of the view of contempt in which the opposition is held.
If a sacred site is declared in such a manner that restricts the access, for example, of someone who has a fishing licence, as commercial operators they will have to wear that imposition. They will adjust their fishing efforts accordingly because they have certain bills to pay, operating expenses, and they want to run their operation. If they have been restricted from operating in a particular area as a result of the recognition of a sacred site, perhaps denying access to a creek or estuary, they are going to then displace their fishing effort to other places. There are places they cannot fish now. They will displace their fishing effort and it will place pressure on our fishing stocks.
That was one element of this that was not reflected upon; the government was more interested in talking about issues of racism or an intent to divide. In fact, it is an issue of fairness and it is eminently sensible in that there is a cause and effect - and that effect needs to be recognised and accommodated. With all the resources of government, if they have failed even to understand the intent of it and come back to bat it back laced with offence, I personally find it offensive. They have not taken the time, with all the resources they have on the fifth floor, to try to understand how best then to accommodate, which is a reasonable proposition - a proposition that is keenly felt by many members of our community.
A licence is a form of property. It is a very difficult form to capture in legal terms or to describe in argument, but it is arguably a form of property and, by recognising a sacred site, it has an effect on that form of property. All we are asking is that compensation or an adjustment be made. One manner in which it can be adjusted is the recognition of the loss of the capacity to earn, or the recognition that it is going to overflow into other fishing areas so you are going to have to change your fishing plans because that is the effect of it. There is cause and effect on our fishing stocks as one issue.
If we are going to walk together in this business - and I am more interested in finding a way that we can walk together - if one right is recognised, it does have an effect on others and we have to find a way to work through that. That is what this is about. It is very disappointing that no genuine effort has been made to read this to get a better understanding of it. Rather, they have resorted to something that is heavily political and offensive.
Nonetheless, I presume what is going to happen: governed by a prejudiced and jaundiced view of the intent of opposition, the bill will be resisted because you are government and you have the numbers.
Motion negatived.
LEARNERS AND PROVISIONAL DRIVERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 79)
(Serial 79)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is always interesting to see the member for Blain do an absolute dummy spit ...
Members interjecting.
Mrs Miller: He is a very sincere member.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, please.
Mr Warren: Of course he is, but he should have joined the Labor Party.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: You suggest I join the Labor Party! It is the last thing I would ever do! The last thing I would ever do!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Blain.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, that was entirely disorderly conduct, shouting from the back of the Chamber by the member for Blain. Extraordinary!
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I was just noting it was highly disorderly conduct. This is a parliament. We have our rules, our conventions, and our standing orders. It is appropriate to note that it is highly disorderly.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Warren interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Goyder! Please, minister, direct your comments to me and commence your contribution, please.
Ms Carney: Yes, you are so lazy and arrogant, no one even bothered to call a point of order. How bad is that?
Mr Warren: You do when it suits you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Ms Carney: Sit down, Ted! Do not contribute, Ted. Do us all a favour.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please, minister, direct your comments through the Chair and commence your contribution, please.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, we are debating the Learners and Provisional Drivers Legislation Amendment Bill. The government announced the phased introduction of a Graduated Driver Licensing System, so we have some accord with this legislation with the acts of the government. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this legislation forward and having an appropriate look at the range of provisions that can be put in place to protect the wellbeing of our learners and provisional drivers on the road. They are overrepresented in our road statistics in injury trauma, and anything that we can do, both as government and parliamentarians in this Chamber, to protect the life of young Territorians, we should do.
We are not here to play petty politics with this legislation. I, as Transport minister, am saying I commend the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this legislation forward, and take, in good faith, the suggestions contained within the legislation.
The reforms included in this bill are either included in the government’s current legislation, or are slated for inclusion in the phased introduction of our Graduated Driver Licensing System. Briefly, the government’s Graduated Driver Licensing System involves Phase 1: a minimum learner licence through to six months for all Learner licence holders; a Provisional licence period of two years for drivers under 25 years of age; and a complete ban on mobile phone use for all Learner and Provisional licence holders. Phase 2 is being developed and the following initiatives are currently being considered by the Road Safety Reference Group and the Division of Transport, and these include:
minimum supervised driving hours, likely to be 120 hours as occurs elsewhere for Learner licence holders;
night time driving curfews;
limits on the numbers of peer age passengers that can be carried during the first six months of the Provisional phase;
introducing conditions for restricted engine motorcycle licences, that is 0% blood alcohol;
the L and P drivers will be restricted from driving vehicles towing another vehicle; and
being the driver in a vehicle being towed; that is, they will not be able to be the tow-er or the tow-ee.
There are plenty of things that must be taken into account here. For example, restricting the number of people an L or P plate driver can have in a car can rule out the Sober Bob option for young people. That is why government is taking a considered approach to this particular aspect of the proposed legislation and the proposed graduated driver licensing further raft of reforms.
The CLP has also announced that they would provide concessions for young drivers to buy low powered cars. The only problem with this is that a young person considering buying a high performance car, we believe, is unlikely to be convinced to opt for a Barina instead on the basis of a small concession.
The government supports the intent of this bill. We are already doing it in our Graduated Driver Licensing Scheme, in what we have before us in legislation and what will be the second phase of the Graduated Driver Licensing Scheme. It has been carefully considered and looked at by our Road Safety experts. Whilst the government does not support this bill, we do support its intent.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. As I understood it, there will be legislation to follow in addition to the driver program, and that it is great. Politics, as we all know, is what we do for living, but wouldn’t it be great if we, as a parliament, in a bipartisan way, announced this together. It will never happen because you are a very arrogant government, but this is exactly the sort of stuff that people like Terry Mills got into politics to do. A more genuine and compassionate human being you will not find.
So when my colleague, the member for Blain, expresses frustration with this government, as he is entitled to do, then members on the other side should take a great deal of notice of that. It is not often Terry Mills becomes very angry, and he became very angry ...
Mr Warren: You should still respect the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Goyder!
Ms CARNEY: He was angry; it was obvious to all of us who were just here. People like him, and people like us on this side of the parliament, and the member for Nelson as well, actually got into this job so we could achieve better outcomes for the people around us. This is a good outcome. The minister said at the beginning of her response - and we should not politicise people like this as they are seriously overrepresented in road statistics all around the country. Nothing sends a chill up people’s spines more than watching the weekend news and it leads with a headline of ‘Five young people killed in Albury Wodonga’, or whatever. All of us have a responsibility to act.
The government is doing some work and that is great because that is what all of us are charged to do. I am sure that when I speak to the member for Blain later, he will be greatly encouraged by this result, as he will think politicians can actually work together, share ideas, and achieve good outcomes for the people around them. I thank the minister for her comments.
Motion negatived.
LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT (SALES OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) BILL
(Serial 78)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, the purchase of property is, usually, the singularly most important purchase in a person’s life. It is one of the reasons the 2007-08 budget provides a range of assistance to first homebuyers in the Territory, an initiative of which the government is very proud.
In his bill and second reading speech, the member for Nelson raised some valid points about purchasing property in the Northern Territory. The government is focused on ensuring purchasing property can be achieved as efficiently and as financially safe as possible. The conveyancing process does raise potential issue for buyers, such as the potential for would-be purchasers to be gazumped; resources wasted through various potential buyers conducting background searches and commissioning property reports; uncertainty as what consumer issues are necessarily protected by contract for the purchase of land; purchasers entering into binding contracts for the sale of property without adequate information or knowledge about the property; delay in the agreement of the property purchase due to the buyers conducting extensive searches; and perhaps of most concern, unwillingness on the part of some sellers to disclose, even to their own real estate agents, solicitors and conveyancers, all available information concerning the property. It is clear that buyers need some form of protection from these potential problems. We need to make sure we get the scheme right, and that it has the support of buyers, sellers, agents and the community.
The member for Nelson may remember that, in August 2006, the then Attorney-General advised the Legislative Assembly that the Department of Justice had released a discussion paper on vendor disclosure earlier that year, and received positive feedback from a variety of stakeholders. The discussion paper was prepared in consultation with the Property and Commercial Law Task Force, which included representatives from the real estate industry, legal practitioners, and other key stakeholder groups. The Department of Justice has taken the submissions into consideration and has requested the appropriate legislation now be drafted.
A bill is schedule for introduction later this year which will address the following points: whether a vendor disclosure statement should be mandatory; what should be disclosed and made available; whether this should apply only to residential land or all sales; whether a contract of sale should be available at the time the property is listed for sale; whether there should be a cooling-off period; and whether there should be a prescribed or standard contract for sale. Government will make a final decision on the forms these legislative protections will take in due course.
In relation to the private member’s bill, the government recognises that this is the member for Nelson’s latest of several attempts to introduce vendor disclosure legislation into parliament. I have no doubt he is somewhat frustrated by what he would perceive as the slow progress of the government’s amendments, but stress it is complex reform and not something that should be rushed.
The bill only applies to sales of residential property. It aims to make it an offence to provide misleading information, introduce a cooling-off period, and require a seller of residential property to make available certain documents. I commend the member for Nelson for taking action toward addressing issues which persist in the Northern Territory and periodically reminding government of the importance of reform in this area.
However, the member for Nelson’s bill has shortcomings. These include that it has been prepared without extensive public and stakeholder consultation. This is most evident in the bill’s handling of matters which should be disclosed and what form the disclosure should take. For example, there are issues with records in the Northern Territory, particularly due to Cyclone Tracy. Another concern is that the bill only applies to residential property. By limiting the bill to only residential property, a false distinction is created between sales of residential, commercial and industrial property. There is a failure to provide a mechanism to assist where, before transfer of the property, the purchaser discovers that a misleading report has been provided, and a copy of the draft contract of sale is not required to be provided as part of the disclosure process or be made available at the time the property is listed for sale.
The government does not object to the bill in principle. However, the bill is not supported, given the concerns I have just outlined. I reiterate the government plans to introduce its own vendor disclosure legislation later this year which I am confident will address the member for Nelson’s concerns and properly protect property buyers in the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the wisest words the Treasurer said were that this bill should not be rushed. You are right there, Treasurer. I am collecting these. I have serial 231 of 2004, serial 13 of 2005 and serial 78 of 2006: all bills for an act to amend the Law of Property Act. If you had not told me today that you were going to introduce this year a bill to deal with this matter, I can guarantee there will be one called ‘bill 2007’ because this is just as important an issue as the issue you mentioned at the beginning about helping first homeowners.
That is part of the reason I have also hammered what I believe is an appropriate manner of helping first homeowners: releasing a certain amount of land that will not affect the market specifically for young people so that they can obtain land at a reasonable price. This is also part of the philosophy that I am bringing forward today. For people, especially homeowners - and that is why this has been aimed at residents – it is the biggest purchase families or homeowners ever have in their life, generally speaking, for the majority of people. They need to know that the house they buy is going to be a house that is sold to them where they know all the pitfalls, if you want to call it that: whether the house has a problem with the septic tank, or the bore is not too good, or there is a leak in the roof. They need to know that before they buy it so they can purchase that house after giving due consideration.
It is funny how if we buy a washing machine for a couple of hundred dollars and it does not work you can take it back to Harvey Norman or to Betta Electrics. I have to remember them all now I have started: or Big W or K-Mart or whoever sells – oh, Murray Oakley, he has been around a long time. We should give him a plug too. You can take that washing machine back. You cannot take the house back. It seems to be a great anomaly that we have allowed the biggest purchase of our life to be covered by this so-called Latin statement, caveat emptor, is it? Buyer beware! I do not know how that came to be. There will be somebody who can tell me the history of such a great statement in law. It is time that was changed. It has been changed in other states. It is something that is well overdue in the Northern Territory.
The minister said there were a couple of areas that I did not cover. One was that it does not cover other premises except for residences. That was deliberate. It was not my idea; it comes from states which have looked at the same proposition. They are really focusing on people buying, in most cases, what is their life purchase. If you lose your life savings, it is a dramatic change to your life. I am not saying that if you bought an industrial block of land and the shed was not up to scratch, it would not be bad either, but it is not as bad as the effects on a family when they are purchasing a home. That is the reason I have concentrated on the residential section of the market.
The minister said we had not consulted widely. I refute that. I have had at least three meetings with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory and have corresponded with them quite a bit on every phase of the bill. There were meetings and correspondence with the Conveyancing Association of the Northern Territory. Right from the start, they supported this legislation. I had individual real estate agents write to me from as far away as Alice Springs saying they supported the legislation. There were a couple of people who recognised that there were some issues in it. I am not saying this legislation does not need to be changed according to the conditions of the Northern Territory.
The essence of it was that any person who bought a house knew exactly what they were buying: whether the house could be flooded because it was too close to a creek; that there had not been a pest report done on the house for some time; that the house was built before the cyclone code came into being - all those things. Therefore, when they bought their residence their eyes were open and they could not come back and say: ‘I did not realise the bathroom did not have any plumbing’. That is what this was all about. It is a genuine attempt to protect people, in many cases, from losing their life savings.
I watched the SBS program Insight the other night on the issue of home ownership. It came home to me how difficult it is for many people to own a home today. In fact, there was even someone from a home loan company saying it is basically impossible for many young people to buy a house today. They interviewed a single lady. I think she was a vet, so she had a well paid job. She bought a house that required some renovations, $20 000. Then she said that she had some problems with the plumbing and had a plumber come in to have a look. The plumber said: ‘Your plumbing has had it. To get that fixed, you will need another $20 000’. She had gone so far into debt that she had to sell the house. I do not know what law protected her in that state, because this does not apply everywhere.
However, it does indicate a problem because something had not been identified before she bought the house. Second, it shows you that people trying to buy a house today have reached the limit of what they can afford. Any slight cost over what they have put into the house can tip the balance as to whether they have to either sell the house or go broke. I felt for that lady in the sense that (1) she bought a house with some problems, and I do not know whether she knew that, and, (2) it cost her a fortune to fix these things and resulted in her having to rent a unit.
Treasurer, I appreciate that there is light at the end of the tunnel. I certainly am interested to see what comes out of it because there is one group of people who do not normally get involved in these discussions; that is, the consumer. You can talk to the Real Estate Institute, and they make money out of this business.
You mentioned today how you had spoken to various groups about the initiatives you have for first homeowners. Fair enough, but I expect the property development people to say, great, because they make money out of property development. I expect the Real Estate Institute to say, great, because they also make money out of it - the higher the property price, the more money they make. Of course they do.
Who represents the people who live in the house? It needs to be made sure they get consulted. When this bill comes out, there needs to be some widespread community consultation so we can ensure it is not one-sided and that the ones we are trying to protect are duly protected.
I have met with the Real Estate Institute. I know their concerns about certain things, and I understand where they are coming from. They raised some concerns with me about various issues. One issue that was raised was: are you required to get a new survey of your block? It has been found sometimes in Darwin city that some of the survey pegs are extremely old and have disappeared. Consequently, all of a sudden you find a 33-storey building which is six inches over the boundary. Does that mean that every time you sell a block of land you are going to have to employ a surveyor to make sure your pegs are where they should be? It is a relevant point. If you build a new place on the wrong block, it means a lot of litigation; either your building comes down, or you owe someone some money. I do not have an answer to that. It would make life pretty miserable and fairly costly to get the required documents sorted out. That was an issue raised in a meeting I had with the Real Estate Institute.
I thank the minister for his response. I will be looking forward to the day when this bill is introduced, and I will give it plenty of thought and thorough analysis.
Finally, and I know there was a lot of angst a while ago in parliament, I put on record that, regardless of what you think of the member for Blain and the bill he has proposed, he is a genuine bloke. I regard him as a friend. I believe what was said was very harsh. We should be able to debate things that are topical and controversial …
A member: Nothing harsh was said, Gerry. Get real.
Mr WOOD: All right, I will get real.
A member: Nothing harsh was said in debate.
Mr WOOD: It was inferred, unfortunately, and he took it that way. The member for Barkly, in his speech, said what he was putting forward was divisive, and I think he took that as meaning he was being deliberately divisive on racial terms. The member for Barkly may not have meant that, but that is the way it came across. I am happy if the member for Barkly, or any member, disagrees with the member for Blain; I do not care. However, I felt, knowing the man, I do not believe that was deliberate. If you think it was, then that is the way you think. He put forward a particular issue which was worth debating.
I do not necessarily agree with some of the stuff the CLP put forward today. In fact, I was not prepared to vote for it as I did not have support for all of it. In this case, the member of Blain was doing his job. I know him as a genuine person. All right, he is a politician and belongs to a political party, and as the Treasurer said to me, this parliament is about politics. But if we do not have room for humaneness …
Mrs Miller: Sincerity, honesty and integrity.
Mr Kiely: What about relevance, Gerry? How about getting back …
Mr WOOD: I know the member for Sanderson has his heart in the right place when he worries about frill-necked lizards, which is good enough. This is an important issue. I believe it was a bit unfair the way the member for Blain was treated. I know there is a lot toing and froing in this place, but in this particular case …
Mr Stirling: If we took everything personally - come on.
Mr WOOD: He did take it personally; I think it was personal to him. I did read the bill, and …
Mr Stirling: Do I take it personally when I am yelled at in Question Time? Do I storm out in a huff? Do I the hate the people opposite because they said that? No.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: I know that. Treasurer, you certainly do get in a huff when someone sledges, even I know that, and I understand where you are coming from ...
Mr Stirling: I do not slam the door.
Mr WOOD: All right, I am just saying …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, direct your remarks to the Chair if you could?
Mr WOOD: I will finish my sentence.
Mr Stirling: You have made your point.
Mr WOOD: I am just saying, we might disagree but let us be careful the way we do it.
Mr Stirling: Okay.
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a very successful business in Alice Springs. I am referring to Colemans Printing which has operated in and served the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia for 21 years. I congratulate, as I am sure all members do, Colemans Printing on their 21-year anniversary. It is a big week for Colemans Printing. Not only are they celebrating 21 years of printing services in Alice Springs, but they are launching a new printing press and opening their new bigger premises - and very colourful premises - which has enabled Colemans Printing to take the printing and graphic design services it offers to a new dimension.
Colemans Printing, this week, is a strong and clear indication of their commitment in Alice Springs and its future. The move to the new business premises in Elder Street has allowed Colemans Printing to purchase the latest printing technology available. It can now produce items in Alice Springs that are equal to anywhere else in this country. The new Heidelberg printer is a world-class printing facility with the latest technology. It is all computer-controlled from start to finish. The new Heidelberg Printmaster PM 52 provides a very broad spectrum of printing possibilities and, I understand, it is flexible and high-tech on the one hand and attractive and practical on the other.
This new printing press is perfectly positioned to meet all customer requirements, and Colemans can now produce anything up to an 80-page booklet printed, collated, folded and stitched - all in their Alice Springs premises. By investing in new environmentally-friendly machinery and facilities Colemans is proud - and rightly so - that they are contributing to a greener world by being conscious of the equipment and the materials they utilise. The new service that Colemans is offering is a walk-in/walk-out photocopying service for one to 1000 sheets.
Territory-owned and operated since its foundation in 1952 by John ‘Colie’ Coleman as Darwin’s first commercial printer, it has grown to what it is today – an industry leader in graphic design and commercial printing in our wonderful Northern Territory. The company has been successfully run by generations of Colemans, surviving and prospering through the devastation of Cyclone Tracy and, then in later years, being all but destroyed by fire. Believe it or not, this seemed to make the company stronger, with the same factory that was burnt out so many years ago now housing nearly $10m-worth of the most modern printing equipment in Australia.
The Alice Springs office has been operating since 1986. Not only does this family business invest in infrastructure, it also strongly invests in its staff. The company has been committed from the very early days to the skilled training of apprentices, gaining the Commonwealth minister’s award for excellence and training in 2001. Colemans remain proud Northern Territory supporters, assisting local business and employing local people, with their staffing numbers now sitting at about 65.
Colemans Printing is a huge supporter of Alice Springs and the Top End through sponsorship of community events and sport, as well as individuals and associations. There is no doubt that Colemans is a great corporate citizen and a great family company. I commend the owners, management and staff of Colemans Printing and thank them for their commitment to business and employment opportunities in the Territory. I pass on my congratulations to Jeremy and his team in the Alice Springs office for their collective 21 years of service to Alice Springs. I look forward to our continued and ever-growing association. It is a successful business in the Territory which has also been serving the people of Alice Springs admirably for 21 years. I am sure I share with all members a willingness to pass on our hearty congratulations.
I now move to another company in Alice Springs which celebrated 60 years in business last week. I was asked to open their new premises and was very pleased to do so: Ross Engineering. From their business premises in Alice Springs, Ross Engineering provides services to the mining, quarrying, exploration, petroleum, drilling, building and construction, pastoral, remote community, automotive and transport industries.
Ross Engineering offers the most comprehensive metal fabricating, welding and fitting services to Alice Springs and the region. Ross Engineering can be contracted to provide welding repairs; offer machine shop services such as turning, milling, and grinding; workshop processes including metal spraying, plate and section rolling; plus sheet metal cutting and folding; abrasive blasting and protective coatings; and also the provision of skilled labour and hire equipment. This is an impressive Alice Springs company.
As I said at the opening, the Ross family have voted with their feet and with their pocket; they have demonstrated great confidence in the future of Alice Springs. I am very proud to share with them their confidence because it is a great place to live. It does not matter what government members say. It is a great place to live and those of us who live there are very proud to continue to live there.
Established in 1947 by Bill East under the name East Engineering Works, the then small business was principally a steel fabricator and machine shop. Ron and Barbara Ross took over the business in 1967 and Ross Engineering was born. When Ron and Barbara retired in 1983, the current directors, Neil and Julie Ross and John and Meredith Joslin took over. I might say it was a wonderful thing to see Ron and Barbara Ross back for the 60-year anniversary all the way from Port Lincoln.
Since 1983, the workforce has grown steadily from around 10 people to the 36 on the books today. The normal complement of staff is usually three fitter/machinists and one apprentice; six metal fabricators and two apprentices; five trades assistants; two workshop supervisors; and two office staff. The number fluctuates as the workload demands. The engineering business proudly boasts a multicultural mix of staff. Some 10% of the workforce is indigenous and there are a number of international workers employed because of the acute skill shortage in this country.
Employing overseas workers is not the only recruitment option. Ross Engineering has always been committed to training with apprentice employment a constant priority. Thirty-five apprentices have been successful in completing their training in the past 25 years. Today there are seven apprentices and trainees on the books.
Ross Engineering is located in Elder Street, Alice Springs, one of the best industrial areas in town, and boasts, as I understand it, 830 m of shed space on approximately a 6000 m block of land that the Ross’ have developed over the years. Ross Engineering is a comprehensive engineering business and it offers a range of business activities and services to a range of the areas, as I outlined earlier.
A new and exciting offshoot of Ross Engineering is Pro-Blast, the business that I opened last week, a business dedicated to professional abrasive blasting. Originally, Pro-Blast was set up as a separate abrasive blasting business for Ross Engineering but its services have quickly become sought after and highly so. Pro-Blast makes use of a contained blast chamber which allows for a more environmentally-friendly operation. The diesel compressor has been largely replaced with a more energy-efficient electric compressor. There is grit recycling and dust filtration to maximise consumable use and reduce dust drift from the premises. I was very happy to be shown around that facility when I was there.
About 200 people turned up to the opening and it was a real who’s who of Alice Springs. As I said on the night, Alice Springs has been very good to all of the people who were there and we know that it will continue to be good for us all and anyone who wants to invest in the town. Alice Springs, obviously, has its share of problems. That is why 500 people turned up at the parliamentary sittings in Alice Springs to express a level of frustration with this government.
However, having digressed, I sincerely congratulate Ross Engineering. They are an outstanding Alice Springs company. Sixty years in business is no mean feat. The business has seen the boom/bust cycles that one would expect to see over a 60-year period. I am sure that the Ross family have had their hard times as well as their good times. A significant, in excess of $1m, investment in a company in Alice Springs is to be applauded.
I am sure that all members join with me in expressing our congratulations to the Ross family in achieving the milestone of 60 years in business. Also, I am sure members share with me my very best wishes to them for their new business, Pro-Blast. I hope that the business continues to flourish for another 60 years.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I recently had the privilege of awarding each of 14 Nightcliff students a $50 voucher in recognition of their outstanding efforts in a writing competition I have instigated in recognition of Anzac Day. Together with several hundred other people, the students and their families attended the very successful Nightcliff Community Cabinet, held at the Nightcliff Swimming Pool on Sunday, 22 March. The students’ work was on display and the quality and content of the essays, poems and letters was remarked upon by many.
I thank all students who entered the competition and acknowledge the winning students: Molly Hosking and Jessica Hubbard from Nightcliff Middle School; Pascoe Lawler, Laura Mosel, Nikola Sellers and Ayla McGavin from Nightcliff Primary School; Ruby Smyth, Zac Ware, Stevie Kirk-Groves, Molly Ness, Lani Shepherd and Phoebe Macleay from the Essington School; and Airah Javorsky and Anna Snodgrass from St Paul’s Primary School.
The level of participation in the competition would not have been possible without the cooperation, encouragement and assistance of the Nightcliff Middle School Principal, Lyn Hollow; Nightcliff Primary School Principal, Liz Veel; St Paul’s Primary School Principal, Mary Cutjar, and Essington School Principal, David Cannon and Vice-Principal, Natalie Hyde. I extend my thanks to these people and applaud them for nurturing the talents of students which has in turn produced such an excellent standard of work.
The Nightcliff Community Cabinet was, indeed, a special occasion. Along with the presentation of student awards, I also had the privilege of assisting the Chief Minister in the presentation of a Community Service Award plaque to an exceptionally hard-working Nightcliff community member, Norma Allen. Norma is a delightful lady who has lived in the Territory for only seven years, but in that time has made a significant contribution to her community through association with Darwin Legacy Widows Club, the CWA, and the Arthritis Foundation of the Northern Territory. Norma has served a number of terms as president of the Darwin Legacy Widows Club. In 2005, she represented Legacy widows at the Victory in the Pacific Commemoration ceremony onboard the USS Missouri in Pearl Harbour, and was recognised as a great ambassador by the federal Minister for Veterans’ Affairs at that time. I congratulate Norma on her Community Service Award, which is richly deserved.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge a number of people and organisations who contributed greatly to the success of the Nightcliff Community Cabinet: Nightcliff Evergreen members, Peter Mitchell and Audrey Ellis, arrived early so that Peter could set up the sound system. Peter ensured everything was working perfectly and later packaged the entire system up again. I extend my thanks to them both. Thanks also to the Nightcliff Swimming Club, particularly catering organiser, Rebecca McKechnie, and her team for providing an excellent barbecue for all Community Cabinet participants. Many thanks.
I publicly recognise the helpfulness and professionalism of Nightcliff Swimming Pool staff, Louise Salathiel and Daniel Girlak, whose cooperation and assistance was very much appreciated. I thank the Nightcliff electorate community who took the opportunity of the Community Cabinet to come along to one of my electorate’s most beautiful locations to speak to ministers. I acknowledge behind-the-scenes work done by the Department of Chief Minister staff, Nuala Murphy and Kirk Whelan, in coordinating the logistics of the Nightcliff Community Cabinet, which, undoubtedly, assisted in the success of the event.
Tonight, I congratulate the organisers of, and participants in, the nine-day Seabreeze Festival, which began last Saturday. This is the third year of the Seabreeze Festival and the government is a major sponsor of this event, contributing $10 000 each year.
Each year, it becomes a bigger and better event and much of the credit for this must go to the hard-working Seabreeze Committee of Andrew Arthur, Pauline Joy, Kim Pradier, Colin Simpson, Jane Tonkin, Caroline Tapp and Lilla Washington.
Saturday’s Seabreeze Festival day, held over 2 km of the beautiful Nightcliff foreshore, attracted over 7000 people who were able to enjoy an array of sculptures, musicians, visual art works, restored cars, games, school bands, choirs and dance, the Corrugated Iron Circus, food stalls and of course, the World Rhythms multicultural community parade, which snaked its way along the foreshore, gathering around 2000 people into its celebration of the festival.
The community parade was preceded by a workshop in the creation tent to finalise the production of percussion instruments, banners, masks, costumes, lanterns, pennants, and dozens of other colourful works of art to be worn, waved, banged, strummed, rattled or shaken in the parade. It was a real Nightcliff event.
Rapid Creek artist, Alison Dowell, had spent eight of the previous weeks conducting creative workshops with community groups including the Energy Cruz after school program and students from Nightcliff Primary School, the Essington School, Milkwood Steiner School, Millner Primary School, and Nemarluk School to produce these masterpieces.
Essington students were resplendent as the creatures from the sea, Nightcliff Primary students dazzled in their gold and red Chinese dragon costumes, while the Milkwood Steiner School students lit the way with their colourful rainbow lanterns.
I acknowledge the efforts of teachers, Di Wittaker, Marion Bryce, Andrea Fulton, Amy Smith, Patricia Canning, and Briseis More from Nightcliff Primary School, Wendy Watt from Milkwood Steiner School, Rosie Bignall from Essington School, and Jenny Dally from the Energy Cruz program for assisting students to produce this fine display. Also to the Nightcliff Preschool teacher, Pozy Dalgleish, and her band of preschoolers and their families for their colourful contribution to the parade.
It was my pleasure to once again sponsor and judge the Sand Sculpture competition, which had some amazing and very creative entries. First prize went to the Martin and Harper-Brown families, whose sculpture in the shape of a dragonfly was outstanding. In second place, were two teenagers, Clancy O’Donnell and Max Moon, who managed to sculpture a three-dimensional surfer against a rock face at the Nightcliff foreshore. In third place was Sam Gardiner’s team, who were very topical in creating the entire Australian cricket team as a group of penguins engaged in a match which threatened to be a wash-out with the incoming tide. Congratulations to all who took part, and to artist, Freedom Summers, who was sculptor-in-residence throughout the competition and who assisted me with the judging. Congratulations also to the students of Nightcliff schools who participated in many of the events and provided entertainment.
I wish to recognise the efforts of Essington School Principal, David Cannon and music coordinator, Jill Kuhn. The performances of the Essington School Band, the Songsters Choir and the School Recorder Band were outstanding and a credit to the school and its music program.
I also commend the musical groups from the Milkwood Steiner School for their stage performances. Two groups of students, with their music teacher, Netanela Mizrahi, gave excellent performances on cellos, violas and violins, much to the enjoyment of the audience. The Steiner School was previously in my electorate of Nightcliff, but moved to a larger premises at the CASA site at the start of the 2007 year. However, I still have very close links with this school and will continue to take an interest in its development.
Finally, I recognise the efforts of the Nightcliff ALP Branch, whose members worked long and tirelessly to provide hot food and cold drinks to festival patrons. My particular thanks go to Bill and Jodie Tutty, Warren Martin, Greg Jarvis, Simon Aagaard - my good husband, Chris Draffin and Carol Rollason for their extraordinary efforts, together with Palmerston Branch member, Merv Brown, who provided both his cooking skills and an extra barbecue and cold storage. I also thank my electorate officer, Janet Webb for all her efforts. I extend my appreciation to federal candidate for Solomon, Damien Hale and his campaign manager, Russell Wilson, who visited the Seabreeze Festival and took their turns on the barbecue and the counter during the busiest period.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is with much pleasure that I highlight some of the activities and achievements that have taken place in my electorate of Daly over the last few months.
A monthly school awards program was kicked off with great success with the Wooliana School on the Daly River. The first prize was won by Donna Foster, who received the March award. Kayleen Kimbi received the April award. The school’s teaching principal, Petrina Reardon presented the awards to these students based on their commitment to the school and application to school work. Petrina said that both girls served as important role models to their peers. I congratulate Donna and Kayleen on their hard work. I attended the school and met these two girls and they are fantastic. They have been awarded basketballs and bags, and they will use the bags on school trips. I thank Petrina and her husband for the work they do at the school. They do a fantastic job. They have a high attendance rate. They have around 40 children there now who are attending most of the time, which is a great result for them. I thank them for their efforts during the flooding – they had a flood school operating at the Nauiyu community which was well attended. They got through that in those couple of weeks that the community was isolated.
The Katherine School of the Air winners for the month of March were Zoe Dingal from the Victoria River Research Station and Aidene Seers. Zoe, a preschool student, has been recognised for her outstanding efforts and achievements in her school work. Aidene received the award based on her excellent art work contribution. Thank you to Jen Coad, Denise Kenny and all the other staff at the Katherine School of the Air for participating in the school awards program. It is a great team of teachers who work hard to deliver education to families in the bush. They are a great team and the diverse number of children who participate in the School of the Air in Katherine is growing and is achieving outcomes.
On Anzac Day, I attended the Dawn Service at Adelaide River. As always, it was a moving service and well organised. Approximately 2000 people attended the service, which is up from last year – well, last year was cancelled, but the year before; it was certainly up from that. There were many more young people, and many different groups attended. It is heartening to see the increase in numbers and the way the service is run.
I record some acknowledgements to the organisation done by Cliff Walton and Lisa Wain from the council, and former council member Kia Gill for their efforts on the day, and Derek, the War Graves Officer, who does a fantastic job preparing the gravesite for the day. The Fire and Emergency Services group volunteered their time to organise parking. I pay particular thanks to those people, including Bruce Jones and his wife.
I acknowledge the former member for Daly, Tim Baldwin, who was MC. He did a great job and, like me, was proud to be part of the ceremonies to honour our fallen and serving Defence Force personnel. The ARSS Club, the Adelaide River Show Society, put on a breakfast on the day. They catered for about 1000 people, but they got slightly more than that. The ARSS Club had all their volunteers there. I cannot name them all, but I acknowledge some of them: Guna Deva, Sandy McLean, Linda Mackintosh, and many others who give their time to prepare the breakfast and serve at the bar. I spent quite a bit of the morning serving at the bar, as people were getting into it at 7 am.
Every year in the Territory, the start of the Dry signals the start of great fishing. This was definitely the case for this year’s Barra Nationals held at Banyan Farm on the beautiful Daly River. I had the pleasure of opening the event this year. Banyan Farm, the traditional home of the Barra Nationals, is owned by Wally and Kerry Draper. They have done fantastic work there over the years. The power that this government put on has encouraged them to spend a great deal of money in improving their facilities, which is well received by the interstate and intrastate competitors.
There were 165 competitors from all over Australia in 55 boats this year. The Barra Nationals has been running for 11 years, and is often described as the ultimate fishing tournament. This year, 1080 fish were caught. I thank the Palmerston Game Fishing Club for their organising, and special mention of Paul Williams for his efforts. His team give their time free of charge to organise this fabulous event which puts the Territory on the map.
Earlier this week, I organised a meeting with the Batchelor community in response to some law and order issues. There was great participation by the Coomalie Community Government Council and also NT Neighbourhood Watch. Jeff Mosel, who is attached to the Northern Territory Police and has a particular interaction with the Neighbourhood Watch, attended with one of their board members, Kevin. It was great to have them there to advise the committee. Around 25 local people attend. We had a great barbecue and discussion, and most of the people signed up on the night, which was great to see. Their participation in the community will see some changes and issues resolved. I give special thanks to Lisa Wain for helping to get the barbecue organised, and to Bill from the council who brought the barbecue and chairs down, and stayed for the meeting and then took them away afterwards.
Just on that note, this Sunday past I was travelling to Darwin and I was 20 km-odd south of Adelaide River when I came upon an accident which had occurred about 7:30 pm. I acknowledge some local people who attended that accident. The police and the health staff attended, which is their job, but still, Sunday night they come out and they do a fantastic job in all conditions. I would like to recognise Constable Alan Brown, the clinic staff, Joy Sammy, and to Estrella Munz who attended the accident. I would also like to recognise some people. It is not part of their job, but there was a truck driver from Gulf Transport who came upon the accident first. He stopped, checked the two people in the car and cordoned off the area before the police and emergency service people arrived. He did a great job. Thankfully, the occupants of the car, one of whom was a 12-month old baby, survived the accident which is very fortunate. The car was an absolute write-off so they were very lucky. Two other people who attended that accident are volunteers with the FERGS from Adelaide River, Mick Loon and Bill from the council whom I just mentioned. They give up their time at all hours - and that was on a Sunday night - to come out and help with these accidents. I acknowledge their efforts.
One other acknowledgement I make is an alcohol meeting which we had at Daly River. The committee is set up between the council, the hotel and the police, and they are meeting quite regularly. It is made up of the publican, Greg and the council clerk, Hank Rhees. Councillors and the police also attended. The alcohol committee is trying to do a great job down there. I hope the information I brought to them about the initiatives on Groote Eylandt and at Nhulunbuy will be recognised and they will see that as an option to move forward.
That is what has been happening in my electorate.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight in the adjournment debate I recognise a wonderful life in the Northern Territory and a wonderful lady, a real Territorian, who sadly passed away on the morning of 16 April this year and whose funeral I attended today: a constituent of mine, a lady by the name of Maida Pocock.
I met Maida, a lovely lady, when I was campaigning for the 2001 election. I knocked on her door in Leanyer and she invited me in. She was a person I immediately took to, a very warm-hearted, generous person in whose presence you felt very comfortable. I got to know Maida over the years when I helped her out with a few issues around her Housing Commission property in Leanyer, and got to know some of her family.
On another issue, I met one of her sons, Robbie Pocock, who is also one of those real, genuine Territorians, a real battler. The whole family have been battlers. It is absolutely appropriate that this parliament puts on the public record, or forever I suppose, the life of a lady who contributed so much love and goodwill to her family and everybody who came in contact with her.
Maida was a member of the Stolen Generation. She was removed from her family at Daly River while still a baby and taken to the Methodist Mission on Croker Island. Many of those ladies are getting on in years now and it is sad to see people leaving us, particularly our Stolen Generation community who really did live a life that none of us can quite contemplate: the absolute tragedy of being taken away from your family, your country and raised elsewhere. It is certainly a time in Australia’s history that is a stain on the nation.
One of the first acts of the new Labor government was to say sorry to the Stolen Generation. I hope in time that the federal government, because it was that parliament which enacted the policies, will take it upon themselves to say sorry to these wonderful people from the Stolen Generation.
I would like to read the eulogy that was printed in the service for Maida today at Casuarina Uniting Church. It says a little about Maida’s amazing life:
- We are here to say goodbye to Maida Pocock, a loving mother to seven children, 16 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren and a mother and a sister to many more.
Maida was taken from her mother as a small child and grew up on Croker Island and she always talked fondly about her brothers and sisters on Croker Island. She enjoyed a lifetime of hardships, the war, the depression. She talked about crossing this great continent of ours with Sister Somerville and how she and the other children made the trip by boat, foot, truck and train. She never once complained about her life.
When she left Croker Island, she met and married Fred Pocock who, after the war, worked as a timber cutter, crocodile hunter, to fishing and bull catching. Maida worked hard alongside Fred for many years.
She later moved back to Darwin after a breakdown in the marriage. Maida had to find work to care for her children. She found work at a local prawn factory where she worked for many years until failing health.
Maida defied all odds for many years of failing health. She was diagnosed with diabetes followed by melioidosis, then a triple by-pass. Maida fought all the way, never giving up. She was a strong lady, proud of her children and remained positive about life and everyone. As she always said: ‘We are all God’s children’.
Maida passed away on the morning of 16 April 2007.
Regarding people speaking in tribute to Maida’s life at the church today, for someone like me who came to the Territory in 1982 and now call this wonderful Territory of ours home, I can only begin to contemplate the tough times that Maida and all of the Stolen Generation people had. When we look at Maida’s life and the work that she did as a young woman, we see that Maida was a real battler; a true Territory battler who had seven children and 16 grandchildren. It is amazing.
The Territory is a sadder place for Maida’s passing because she certainly does embody the spirit of the Northern Territory. Everyone who spoke at her funeral said what a wonderful, compassionate woman she was, that she would do anything for anyone, and never had a bad word for anybody in spite of the tough times she had in her life.
As she looks down on her family and her friends in Darwin, she knows she certainly left an enormous legacy behind and a family who love and adore her, and will always remember her. To her children, Robbie, William, Frank, Ellen, Elsie and Lyn, and her 16 grandchildren, I am sure that all of the members of this House would say: ‘Vale, Maida Pocock’.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I concur with the member for Wanguri. I also attended the funeral of Maida Pocock, although I did not know her as well as the member for Wanguri. I know one of her daughters, Lyn Jones, very well. It was a very inspiring funeral. The eulogies certainly made you think. They also made you realise what a wonderful family she has left behind. The thoughts that were expressed today were something that I believe everybody would be inspired by. I concur with the member for Wanguri and express my condolences to all the family and especially to Lyn.
I want to report on the Anzac Day cricket match we held at the World War II Strauss Cricket Ground, known as the SCG. I should say at the outset that I thank the minister for NRETA for putting the World War II cricket pitch on a possible heritage listing. It was in the paper some time ago that the government is considering declaring it as a heritage site, which is great news. I know in the future there are plans for roads and all sorts of things to go through that area from the new city of Weddell, so it is good to see that it would be protected.
It was another great day. Unfortunately, I suppose from the Army’s point of view, not only were they thrashed, they were a little down on numbers because many of the soldiers are at Cultana where they are training as the next group of soldiers to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. They did not have their best team there, but they certainly tried their best. I thank Lieutenant Nick Munday for organising the team; he certainly showed the way on the day as captain. I also thank Andy Fieldhouse who was the captain of the Litchfield President’s XI, disguised, I suppose, as C grade Southern Districts cricket team. A big thanks to St John Ambulance.
Once again, Greg Payne came out and helped us on the day. The Thompson family, who live in Bradley Road, mowed the grass around the cricket pitch to make it look a picture. They always help out on that particular day. The Litchfield Palmerston Rotary Club, through Eric Chalmers and all the helpers there, go to every Anzac Day cricket match and provide the beer and the barbecue which makes it a wonderful event. Karen, a member of Rotary, from Noonamah Store, provided all the bread, which certainly helped on the day. Jack Hamilton from Legacy turned up with his little table and Legacy badges and, of course, the whole day is about raising money for Legacy. Mary Walshe, President of the Litchfield Shire - it is her team; she picks it - did a lot of the commentary; and Reg Prasad. Anyone who has been around Darwin long enough knows Reg. Reg is our Gupta, our Indian bookmaker, and he turned up this year, which was good ...
Mr Henderson: He does not know the coaches, does he? You want to keep him away from the coach!
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right. He gets money out of third umpire decisions from the boundary lines. So if you had an LBW, Reg makes the decision whether you are in or out and, of course, the way we make money on that day is to bribe people. If you want someone to be out you give him $10 or $20 – that is how money is raised.
I would also like to thank the Malady family, under their business name, Gusher. They provided some donations for the day. All in all, it was a good day. It is a picture postcard cricket pitch in the bush, and we made at least $1000 just in that afternoon. I thank the government for putting this particular venue on a possible heritage listing.
I have been thinking today, and I was talking to someone I know about the workplace guidelines or proposals that the federal government is at this moment debating with the opposition, the federal Labor Party. I said a few things yesterday, and the minister said: ‘Well, perhaps you are just sitting on the fence’. I thought, I do not think that is quite right. As I said before, there are more than two sides to an argument. I came across an article that I was told to look for. It was by a Catholic Bishop, Bishop Kevin Manning. He wrote an article in a magazine called Catholic Outlook, which is a social justice resource. I thought what he said was well balanced. I have to say that I had not read it before, but it did fit in with what I was trying to say yesterday, which was whether it is AWAs or whatever the form of employment is, we have to protect the vulnerable.
The vulnerable can be the youth, it can be sometimes women, and those people who do not have the skills to debate their position in life. AWAs, as they say, are fine. We employ many people on the fifth floor under a form of AWA. However, you can imagine that the people on the fifth floor have the ability to negotiate. Some people do not have that ability to negotiate, and those are the people who need protecting. That is the point of view I come across.
I do not believe that AWAs are necessarily bad in themselves. I believe it is the way they are enforced. I am also concerned about the rights of people who lose their job. I do not care whether it is one person, or 100 people, or 15 people. If they are unfairly dismissed, they are unfairly dismissed. We need to ensure that not only are the rights of the bosses, especially in small business, given a fair go, but there also needs to be rights for those people working for those bosses. How you would work that, I am not sure. There is more need to ensure that the vulnerable are protected, as well as management who may have to put up with someone who is lazy and just a downright waste of money.
There needs to be more emphasis on providing people who are in an advocate role, who can work with people when they have to fill out an agreement for work, or they can also step in when someone’s job is being put on the line, if they feel they are being given false reasons for the termination of their employment.
You will have to understand it does come from a Catholic background; however, I thought it would be worth putting on record as a philosophy that does raise some issues in relation to this whole debate. I am quoting from this study guide to Bishop Manning’s Catholic Outlook article. This comes from the Broken Bay Institute in August 2005. It starts off with the ‘Centrality of the human person’:
Australia was a world leader in industrial relations. I would hope that, in the new legislation, …
… our cherished tradition of solidarity, mateship, and fairness would not be dealt a blow in the name of productivity and profits.
The human person, not the economy, was the centre of Pope John Paul II’s concern, and the human person must remain the centre of all social legislation. Our economic system, including the employment relationship, should serve the human person, rather than treating people as disposable ‘factors of production’.
The test of a workplace relations system is whether or not ordinary workers have safe and healthy work conditions, wages sufficient to support themselves and their families with dignity, and the security of knowing that they cannot be dismissed arbitrarily, without reason and due process.
I would hope that a new workplace relations regime would ensure these outcomes for all workers, regardless of what sector they work in, their level of skill and training, or the size of the enterprise for which they work.
Enterprise bargaining
The fact that a contract is agreed between a worker and an employer is not sufficient to ensure that it is just. Ordinary workers have less power in negotiations about employment contracts than owners and managers of companies.
The highly trained and those with skills in high demand may be able to strike a good deal for themselves by bargaining directly with an employer, but what about those who are not the best and brightest?
- Under the new legislation, workers must not be placed in a position where they have little choice but to accept what is offered to them.
This is under the heading ‘Subsidiarity and the Common Good’.
- The principle of subsidiarity, cited by some politicians, suggests that matters should be dealt with at the lowest possible level of the organisation, and that governments should not interfere unduly in economic or social life.
While this is true, it reflects only half of the principle of subsidiarity.
The same principle requires higher levels of organisation, like governments and trade unions, to intervene at lower levels or organisation in order to ensure the common good.
The common good is not just a calculation of the greatest good for the greatest number (and too bad for the weak or disadvantaged) it is about ensuring that the needs of each, and of all, are met. It is the least we can expect from the pending legislation.
Workers, unions and the common good
Ordinary workers strive for a fair deal by exercising their right to organise and act collectively. They have the right to choose their own organisations and representatives in negotiations, just as employers do.
Trade unions have been an important means of action for fair wages and conditions, but if unions become greedy and push for more than is just, and more than employers can pay, they too are harming the common good, which must be respected in all cases.
It goes on to talk about the legislation. Of course, I have to put this in the context that this was before the vote on the legislation:
- When the federal government has control of both Houses of Parliament, it is virtually impossible to prevent it from passing whatever laws it likes.
Unless members of the government cross the floor to vote against it, or the legislation is later struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional, the government’s new workplace relations legislation will be passed and implemented.
At times, party leaders declare a ‘conscience vote’ allowing members of their party to vote, without repercussions, according to conscience rather than a pre-determined party line.
For the Christian politician, every vote must be a conscience vote.
If the new workplace relations arrangements fail to ensure that ordinary workers will have safe work conditions, wages sufficient to support themselves and their families, and the security of knowing that they cannot be dismissed without reason and due process, the duty of Christian politicians is clear, and I would hope they would exercise their responsibility.
I understand that people may not accept all of what was said there but it did raise some important principles. I have quoted many times before that the Catholic Church, early in the last century, was a strong advocate of workers’ rights and that basically what they are saying, what Bishop Manning is saying, is exactly that. He himself says that. This is from the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 April, so it is only just recently. He was talking about this same issue:
- There is nothing wrong with an AWA, provided the worker is highly skilled and has sophisticated capacity for negotiation. In the workplace some, but by no means all, workers will have skills of sufficient marketability and the capacity to negotiate an AWA that suits them, but the fact remains that the majority will not. As an instrument of work relations, the AWA does not guarantee balance of fairness.
That is the area I struggle with. I support people having the right to form unions. I also support people to meet and to negotiate individual wage arrangements. However, we have to find the balance and we seem to have got to, in this debate, between ‘We’re right and you’re wrong’ and ‘We’re right and you’re wrong’. It would be very difficult in this political atmosphere to get both sides of politics to sit down and say: ‘Can we find the best of both worlds?’ Certainly, when you hear about workers in the mining industry, they enjoy the AWA system because it brings them in good wages and they make a lot of money. That is reflected in what the bishop has said: if you have the skills that are needed, you can negotiate a good outcome through AWAs.
There is no doubt that people who work for the government in some of the higher areas are skilled enough to negotiate their contracts. At the same time, the basic principle must be that the vulnerable, those people who do not have those skills and who need protection, are protected no matter what method of payment they come under, whether it is AWAs or collective bargaining.
From my point of view, I do not mind which government gets into office as long as they stick with those principles. I still have problems, as I say, that workers can be unfairly dismissed even under the Labor Party’s approach because they are limiting it to 15 people. All workers should be protected and at the same time, realising that bosses have rights as well too.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about three key milestones in the Darwin Basketball Association. It involves three well-known athletes in the local basketball competition.
Michael Crawford played his first game in the 1989 Wet Season for the Pioneer Pints Club. He moved to the Ansett Club in the 1997 Wet Season, then to the Tracy Village Jets in the 2002 Wet Season competition before returning to Ansetts in last year’s Wet Season competition. Michael also played for the DBA Development Squad, Darwin Youth Team, and a basketball NTITC team during his league career. Michael was a part of the Jets’ domination of the league championship, sharing their premierships from 2002 through to 2005. He also was a Jet when they won an unprecedented 50 games in a row, a feat never before achieved in Darwin basketball.
Michael was also a team member when Ansett won the league championship in 1999. He has represented Darwin at Northern Territory championships and represented the NT at national championships during his career. He is known to be a very accurate three-point shooter who can come off the bench and light up the scoreboard in a very short span of time, providing a lift to his team mainly at a crucial time in the game. He is a very solid player and a definite asset to any team that he has played for.
Michael comes from a well-known basketball family, the Crawford family. His father, Bruce, mother, and sister, Sam Crawford, all played basketball and have been involved in committees and representative teams over the years. I am sure they are very proud of Michael’s achievements.
Also playing a milestone game this year was Kathy Kellam. This all occurred today. Kathy Kellam played 599 games. She has scored 5119 points so far in her career, spanning 25 years at top level of Darwin basketball. She began playing in the 1981 Dry Season with Pioneer Pints Club then moved on to play with South Darwin for 14 years before changing to Mitsubishi RSL in 1997. Kathy has been playing with Ansett since the 2004 Dry Season. She led the league in scoring in the 1984 Wet Season with 246 points, has played on championship teams with South Darwin in the 1984 Wet Season, and Dry Season championship in 1985. She played on the Ansett Dry Season championship team of 2004, and represented the NT and Darwin on many occasions since 1981.
Kathy will become only the second player, male or female, to reach the 600 game milestone. This is a very impressive achievement. Kathy is also one of only eight players to score of 5000 points in the Darwin league competition.
Letticha Clarke from the Uni Rebels league women’s team first started playing in 1985 Dry Season. She has played over 300 league games and scored 3014 points. She has played for the Rebels for her entire career, and is very proud of that. She has played on five Wet Season championship teams: 1985, 1986, 1989, 1990 and 1991. She also led the Rebels to the championship in the 1987, 1989, 1992 and 1993 Dry Seasons. She represented Darwin and the NT at many junior and senior levels, and toured New South Wales with Under 20 NT women’s team in1990.
Letticha also played for the Bundaberg Bears ABA team from 1995 to 1996, won scoring honours in 1989 with 379 total points playing for the Rebels and the DYL Darwin youth team, and the 1990 Wet Season when she scored 118 points in only eight games at 14 points per game. She shared game high scoring honours with a number of other players in the 1999 Wet Season at 21 points. She won the women’s league MVP Award in the 1993 Dry Season.
She has just returned from Queensland. She is helping out a young Rebels team that she has played with all her career. Her family, Auntie Theresa, Eddie Clarke and Vanessa, are very proud of her achievement. All the family have been heavily involved in the Darwin Basketball Association for over 30 years, as players, committee members, helpers, water boys, water girls and general fans of the Darwin Basketball League. No doubt, they are very proud of her achievement.
I am proud to say that Letticha and Vanessa are relations of mine. I had the pleasure of being involved with Letticha and Vanessa in basketball over the years and they have been a determined group. Vanessa and Letticha are the most successful women basketballers ever to play. That can be argued around the traps, but the reality is that their record stands up against any of the other players.
I thank all the people who have listened tonight and, importantly, thank the three milestone players.
The information was provided to me by Geoff Larson, a local legend in his own right, and also de facto historian for the Darwin Basketball Association.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016