2010-10-26
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students accompanied by Ms Pat Munn and Ms Tania Tamaotai. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 665 petitioners praying that the development of apartment blocks on the land opposite Karama shops does not proceed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2009-10.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act I am pleased to table the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. The statement forms part of the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and presents the Territory’s fiscal performance for the year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the final fiscal results report as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement 2009-10 highlights the eighth consecutive surplus under a Labor government. The key outcomes of the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report are:
I now turn to more detail to the outcome for the 2009-10 financial year.
The final cash outcome for 2009-10 is a $66m cash surplus, which is an improvement of $262m from the May 2009 budget estimate, and $203m from the revised estimate in May 2010. The improvement since May 2010 comprises an underlying budget improvement of $53m with the remainder due to additional Commonwealth funding and timing of Commonwealth expenditure. The expenditure associated with this additional revenue will have a worsening effect on 2010-11 and future years and will be incorporated into the 2010-11 mid-year report.
I turn to the 2009-10 accrual outcome. The operating surplus of $536m represents a $322m improvement compared with the original budget estimate. This largely reflects increased Commonwealth funding being applied to capital spending and higher GST revenue, offset by the nett effect of carryovers into and out of 2009-10. GST revenue has increased by $170m since the May 2009 budget estimate due to the recovering national economy, resulting in an increased GST pool. However, while the growth has improved, GST revenue has not yet returned to pre-global-financial-crisis levels, and remains $137m lower than estimated in May 2008.
Tied Commonwealth funding increased by $191m, largely as a result of increased funding for housing, health, education, and roads including brought forward grant funding for Tiger Brennan Drive and additional funding received for the Alice Springs transformation plan. The fiscal balance outcome of a $43m deficit includes the nett additional investment in capital, which also affects the operating balance. Capital investment plays an essential role in the government’s fiscal strategy. It is essential for the delivery of government services and, importantly, contributes to the economic development of the Territory.
The government has maintained infrastructure investment at high levels to protect jobs and support the economy in a recovering economic environment, while capping the growth in operational spending. Total infrastructure spending for 2009-10 was $1.5bn, or six times the depreciation levels. This is $200m higher than the $1.3bn projected in May 2009, and is reflective of investment in a number of key areas, particularly the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program and roads.
I turn to the Territory’s balance sheet for the general government sector. Nett debt for 2009-10 is $719m, $118m lower than the 2008-09 outcome. The improvement is largely the result of the flow-on effect of the cash surplus achieved in 2009-10, together with a $48m increase in the market value of investments in the Conditions of Service Reserve, commonly called the COSR. This increase is a result of the general improvement in economic conditions subsequent to the recent volatility in financial markets, and reverses most of the unrealised loss experienced in 2008-09. The nett debt to revenue ratio has also reduced to 15%, an improvement from the estimate of 28% in the May 2009 budget, and is now one-quarter of the 61% recorded in 2001-02.
Nett financial liabilities have increased by $210m from the 2008-09 outcome, predominantly as a result of a lower bond rate used to value the Territory’s superannuation liabilities. In accordance with accounting standards, the Territory’s superannuation liability has been revalued using the 10-year bond rate. As at 30 June 2010, the bond rate was 5.2%, compared with 5.6% at 30 June 2009. This has resulted in an increase in the estimate of the present value of the Territory’s superannuation liability.
While there has been an increase in absolute terms, when measured as a ratio to revenue, nett financial liabilities as at 30 June 2010 have decreased to 85%, down from 90% in 2008-09.
It is important to note that the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement has once again resulted in an unqualified audit opinion. The 2009-10 outcome shows that this government is committed to managing the Territory’s finances responsibly in a recovering economic environment, while maintaining our commitment to invest in Territory infrastructure and support Territory jobs and economic growth. Expenditure growth during 2009-10 has been one-third of that in previous years, demonstrating the Henderson government’s strong commitment to fiscal restraint. The improved position in 2009-10 establishes a strong foundation for the budget position over the medium term.
The challenge over the next two to three years will be managing the effect of timing differences each year as the cash surplus from 2009-10 flows through to the budget and future years, maintaining a surplus operating balance to support capital investment, and continuing to limit the expenditure growth in future years in line with Territory’s fiscal strategy.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that leave be granted to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 11 August 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I respond to the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Amendment Bill (Serial 115). I have no major problems with the structure of the bill; however, once again, we are starting to discover the yawning chasm between what the Attorney-General says in this place and what is written in the bills. I do not believe she properly checks this information before she brings it into this House.
In her second reading speech, the Attorney-General said to this House that this will exempt providers of food for charitable purposes; the supermarkets and the like which give food to charities for further distribution will be protected from liability absolutely, which is not the case. The bill refers to the protection being in good faith, so if there is an action which would be classified as mala fides on the part of the distributor of the food or its agent, then there is no such protection as an absolute indemnity from liability in civil proceedings.
Whilst I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which a mala fide act in reference to food being distributed would not be a criminal act, and therefore sidestep the issue of tortuous liability, it is not inconceivable that such circumstances may occur. Such circumstances highlight the differentiation between what the Attorney-General said to this House in her second reading speech and what is in the bill before the House. I draw members’ attention to the issue I am raising. In the bill it says, in new section 7A(1):
(b) that the food was fit for human consumption, or the grocery product was safe to use, at the time it left the possession or control of the donor; and
That is not a carte blanche protection from civil liability which was promised in the second reading speech. It is far from it. Some fairly strict controls and standards have been established by this legislative instrument.
Any person generally who gives to a charitable organisation deserves an indemnity. For the Attorney-General to come into this place and promise Territorians this was a carte blanche protection in the language which she used and then to read the bill and find there are several qualifying factors gives one leave to say there is an unjustifiable disconnect between what the Attorney-General says and what the bill this House is being asked to pass says.
I have no problem passing this bill in its current form because it does require reasonable conditions and as a consequence it will not find disfavour from this side of the House.
It is also interesting that we find ourselves in a situation where we have to pass this bill. The circumstances contemplated by this bill arise out of circumstances which are not entirely different to the circumstances which occurred in the most seminal of cases when it comes to tort law which was the famous Donoghue v Stevenson - for the purposes of Hansard, 1932 AC 562.
There is an interesting debate in that where Lord Buckmaster ,who was one of the presiding justices in the case, was a dissenting judge because he was unsure how far a third party liability would go. There is an interesting exchange in the Law Lords considering this matter as to how far this legislation would go. To familiarise members of this House of the circumstances of that case, it was brought in relation to a snail in a bottle of ginger beer and the question before the court was: was the producer of the material liable for the product which was finally sent into the marketplace? The majority of those Lords determined there was a liability but Buckmaster’s question about creating this third party social liability was:
Buckmaster’s concern was how far does liability resonate along the chain of participants?
In reassuring Buckmaster and the court, Lord Atkin made the point:
The bill before the House moves to protect someone engaged in charity. Whilst I understand the law of tort has moved on substantially since the time that seminal case existed, it is still a worthwhile exercise to contemplate that, with the passage of time, the boundaries have extended far beyond where Atkin thought they would ultimately exist. This means legislators like us are stuck with whether we have to protect supermarkets from engaging in charitable conduct. I sometimes wonder whether the law of tort has departed substantially and unreasonably from the areas and boundaries considered by Lord Atkin 80 years ago.
I also note this legislative instrument has twins in other jurisdictions. I will not go into that. I note, fortunately, in the world of common sense and common decency, other organisations have decided to move without waiting for the Northern Territory government to pass this law.
I draw honourable members’ attention to the Australian Food News from 12 October 2010:
I seek leave to table the article.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I hope, and would expect in the normal course of things, nothing would flow from this other than to observe it is not retrospective legislation. Foodbank has taken the risk in spite of this legislation not existing. I say good on them; I do not believe it should be a risk. If you are engaged in charitable conduct, whilst you would expect it would be natural to believe reasonable care would be taken, you should not carry an unreasonable liability for a charitable act.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would like second reading speeches to reflect the contents of the bills.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I note the opposition’s support for this bill, which is welcome. The member for Port Darwin raised a few issues which the Attorney-General will be able to address in her summing up remarks. I support the bill to amend the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act.
It is a series of very sensible amendments. It is a Good Samaritan bill, as has been outlined by the Attorney-General and the member for Port Darwin. The amendments will protect individuals and corporations who want to donate products – food, groceries and so on – to a charity or cause. The effect of the amendments will be to protect them from civil liability for personal injuries arising from the consumption and/or use of the goods. The need for these protections may seem self-evident, and the need for the amendments came to our attention after Woolies decided they wanted to enter into a charitable arrangement. As the Attorney-General has already outlined, Woolworths wants to start donating to the Food For Life program established by Baptist Care and run in partnership with Foodbank Australia.
The member for Port Darwin has talked about how some of those long-life products are already being donated by Woolworths to Foodbank, but fresh items have not yet entered into the arrangement. This is where the amendments will protect Woolworths and allow it to do that. Woolworths came to government because it saw the lack of provisions specific to food donations as a potential obstacle to a company which wants to be charitable. The current act does not prevent people from donating but companies nowadays will talk to their lawyers before making decisions. It was clear that lack of protection prevented professional corporates, if not others, from making charitable donations of their food and groceries.
No one wants to see good food go to waste. No company wants to throw out products which are still good. No one wants them wasted. We are here today debating these amendments because they are a good idea, and government was very happy to follow up on Woolworths’ suggestions.
There is a huge potential in the Territory for food to be donated. The two statistics which stood out for me from the Attorney-General’s second reading were: in Victoria, this type of legislation saw food donations triple, and we waste 30 000 tonnes of food in the Territory each year. The effect of this bill should be a very good outcome. Not so much for Woolies – yes, Woolies is involved with Foodbank; yes, great for Foodbank - but the benefit is ultimately for the people who will receive the food.
It is a timely debate. I am not sure if other members saw this. I know most people in this House are now on Facebook. Yesterday, the Environment Centre NT posted some photos of food they found at the dump over the weekend. There are some extraordinary pictures of fresh food left at the dump because, I assume, as it currently stands it cannot be donated to charity. The quality of the food was extraordinary. There were carrots still in their wrappers, and avocados. A picture tells a thousand words. You can see picture after picture of perfectly good food which has not yet expired, but is at a stage where the company does not feel comfortable passing it on.
What we are hoping with this bill is – well, we are not just hopeful, we will definitely see it – is companies will, instead of taking this food to the dump, take it to the refrigerated offices of Foodbank or others who want to pass that food on to charities. I have nine pictures all up. It is quite extraordinary and quite timely, in some respects, those pictures being posted by the Environment Centre yesterday. It is what we want to do here, as a government - and obviously the opposition are in support – and as a parliament today.
There are some caveats, some cautions, we have put into the act, some necessary precautions around the donation of food. I quote from the Attorney-General’s second reading:
Those are sensible amendments. I know Woolworths and Foodbank, in response to the bill, have talked about where they sit. Foodbank currently provides food products to around 29 organisations in the Darwin/Palmerston area. These laws will provide incentive to provide more - that was paraphrasing Mr Fisher. There are many donations at the moment of long-life food, but we are now trying to move into the fresh food area. Mr Bell of Woolworths said their stores:
What we are seeing now is fresh food being provided, which is crucial; 30 000 tonnes do go to waste. It will be a very good outcome. There are some sensible precautions about how it is donated. People and companies want to act charitably. Now there is one fewer impediment and we will see Territorian families - which is the important thing - benefit from those good deeds.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. It is long overdue. I was talking to my colleague from Brennan and he had some pictures on his webpage of food being thrown into our local tip in Darwin. It reminded me that sometimes we lose perspective on many things which happen in the world. There has been a great deal of talk about population control, and Australia might cap its number of people because it cannot support that number of people. That is a fair debate which we should all be interested in. Then you look at the amount of food which is thrown away, and you say, do we have this in perspective? If we did not waste things, would we be even discussing some of these matters? We obviously produce far more food than we need, because we throw it out. We are still not hungry, so you would have to say this is about trying to reduce that waste. It will not eliminate it, but it does allow us to send a message to the big retailers that they can now safely, within some limitations, allow people to use the food they normally would not leave on their shelves for human consumption.
Section 7A in this bill says:
So governments are able to put out broad statements saying people will not incur a civil liability for a personal injury.
The reason I digress is because when we have looked at things like could people swim in Howard Springs, and asked why the government cannot say something similar, that is, you will not incur civil liability for a personal injury subject to you understanding this is fresh water and you could get ear infections and tummy infections, or whatever. When we have suggested that as a possibility for allowing those water bodies to be used by the public for swimming, all the information I have received is that it cannot happen. I have seen the legal reports given to the government which say you cannot put that type of proviso over that recreation lake; you simply cannot swim in there if the water does not come up to a set standard.
You may say that is drifting from relevance of the area we are debating, but that clause seems to say that in some circumstances the government is happy to remove any civil liability for a personal injury, as long as you follow certain things. However, when it comes to, say, swimming in the Howard Springs pool - which has not been open for swimming for I do not know how long, although the government has spent quite a bit of money on it - for some reason, that does not apply. I raise that and wonder whether we have consistency in our legal opinions.
There are a couple of issues I will raise about allowing food companies to donate food. In the second reading the minister said:
My question is: why isn’t suitable for retail sale? If it is an edible item it is either going to be safe or not safe, according to the regulation …
Mr Elferink: Past its best before date, mate; no one buys it.
Mr WOOD: … I will come to that as well. I will ask the minister what the guidelines are in relation to when food is safe. As the member for Port Darwin just mentioned, do we go by an expiry date or do we go by a best before date? Is there a clear guideline in the Northern Territory as to what should be stamped on food? Is there some leniency on either side?
This bill does not just cover fresh fruit and vegetables, it covers grocery products. Chewing gum might have gone outside its use-by date. Has anyone found out that eating chewing gum outside a use-by date is dangerous? In other words, are their certain products which still can be used even though the use-by date has expired?
I can imagine that for things like meat or …
A member: Beer.
Mr WOOD: Beer would just taste terrible. Some low calorie soft drinks have use-by dates and they taste terrible after the use-by dates.
If, for instance, Woolworths donates to the Baptist group and there are two days left on the expiry and they pick it up two days before, does that mean three days later they cannot distribute that food because the expiry date has passed?
I am asking some practical questions about how it works because some shops will hold onto their products until the very last date, saying that it is still suitable, but by the time it is handed over to a group, put in its warehouse and distributed to people, it could be out-of-date. Can that be distributed that it is out-of date or are certain foods less covered by the exactness of that use-by date?
If you ate some food products after a certain date you may become sick. Other products simply go stale; they are not going to cause you any major problem. I will give you an example; I used to run a little store at Daly River and the potato chip distributors in Darwin used to give me the latest date because they knew we lived further away and did not a have fast turnover of sales. By giving me chips with the latest date he knew I would always sell a reasonably fresh product to the customers. However, even if the date ran out, the main problem with it was they became a bit soggy or they just did not taste too good. I am not sure they became inedible.
Once you bring in these rules, are they applied exactly, or is there room to move so you do not hand a potential waste problem from one company and give it to another company which cannot distribute the food because the date runs out and has to take it to the tip?
I am interested to know whether this covers restaurants and doggy bags. The restaurants give you your food back. Are they covered by this legislation? I know there have been some concerns that some of the flash restaurants in Darwin are a little – well, doggy bags do not quite match the dcor. Further down the track we are used to doggy bags because we like to feed our dogs. There has been some talk about whether companies are liable. If you take that food home and you re-cook it or eat it and you are sick, the company could be, in theory, liable. I suppose if the dog dies the company could be liable too.
I am wondering whether this principle that a person who donates food or grocery product is exempt from civil liability - I know they are not donating it - you are giving it to them and they have given it back to you. I do not know whether food handed back to you in a restaurant would be covered under this legislation.
Another one out of left field, many people go to Woolies, Coles, and other distributors to collect food for animals. I am interested to know whether there is a process which says the person distributing the food has to be given guarantee of what the food is being used for. Someone may say they are using it for animals but taking it to the nearest restaurant or their shop to reuse. Does there have to be some proof you are a genuine benevolent institution?
This bill is about personal injuries and I am interested to know if companies supplied food to someone who used it for animals, do people take it at their own risk? I presume that is what happens, but animals have died from eating food obtained from restaurants or food chains because the food was off. Even though it is not suitable for human consumption, sometimes it is not fit for animal consumption and some diseases in animals have occurred from food which has been rotten or had fungal diseases.
I suppose you think this is an excuse to bring up chickens, however I took food from Woolworths and Coles - I am not blaming them at all – and there is a risk of picking up disease and rotten food can be a cause of disease in animals. I know that from losing quite a number of chickens. It was more my fault than that of the people who supplied me the food. I did not know whether there were any restrictions on companies supplying food which was not for human consumption.
I support the bill. It is an important change. I wonder why it has taken so long and ask how relevant has it been. I look back at companies like Rite Price which, for many years donated food, especially to the Little Sisters you see going around in the white bus. It did not worry about whether there was a use-by date; it looked at the food to see whether it was suitable for human consumption. Long before this legislation people used common sense and ensured when they gave food to people it was suitable for human consumption. They did not particularly worry about the consequences. If something had gone wrong there would have been much concern about the actions. What we have now is legislation which will ensure if there is a problem people are covered, which is important.
This will help reduce waste and help people who are not as well off as others in society and need assistance in obtaining food. There are probably more people who need assistance than you think, especially in these days of high rents and high mortgages. There are people who are not itinerants or homeless; there are families which sometimes must have difficulty putting a meal on the table. To provide food, which normally would have been thrown into the tip, to help those people is a very good thing, and a very good reason for this legislation to be passed.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forth this legislation and I fully support it.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the House today for its support for what I call food bank legislation. I agree it has been a long time coming; it is overdue. I am delighted that once I was approached by Woolworths and Baptist Care I very quickly responded and instructed my agency to proceed with drafting the legislation. Sometimes you have the opportunity, as Attorney-General, to act on requests which come forward. This was one of those times and I took that request up with gusto and brought it forward as quickly as I could because I wholeheartedly support Foodbank. I also thank my colleagues in our Caucus and Cabinet who quickly seized the opportunity to support the passage of this legislation.
I am disappointed, though, that in debate today the member for Port Darwin chose to mislead the House regarding my second reading speech …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If she wants to make an allegation that I have misled this House, she can do so by a substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, if you can re-word, please, and withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay. The member for Port Darwin went out on a very long limb, took a stretch, a liberty with words, put words into my second reading speech which are not there ...
Mr Elferink: Rubbish!
Ms LAWRIE: Hansard will show the member for Port Darwin alleged the immunity from liability referred to in my second reading speech included the word ‘absolutely’. That is what the member for Port Darwin said …
Mr Elferink: No, I said it implied it.
Ms LAWRIE: On any reading of the second reading speech, there is no ‘absolutely’ regarding immunity from liability. There is no ‘carte blanche’, which was another allegation made erroneously by the member for Port Darwin. No carte blanche exists; no carte blanche is described in the second reading speech. What the second reading speech, quite appropriately, does is reflect the legislation - again an erroneous allegation made by the member for Port Darwin where he insinuated the second reading speech did not reflect the legislation. He is wrong, absolutely wrong, and it is disappointing that he does not understand a simple piece of legislation. On a simple second reading speech, again he gets it wrong and does not understand it. Given that is the case, I urge the member for Port Darwin to seek a briefing on legislation in his new role as shadow …
Mr Elferink: I had a briefing on this, and they agreed.
Ms LAWRIE: … and that he very carefully understands his role. I point out he just said, ‘I had a briefing and they agreed’. I also point out to him that he is wrong. Again, you are speaking mistruths in this House. You are alleging the staff in my office agree with you. I can assure you, because I have had conversations with my staff since your contribution to this debate, member for Port Darwin, my staff do not at all agree with you. Not only do the staff not agree with you but the lawyer responsible for this legislation does not agree with you either. You stand erroneously on your own with your strange, warped and weird interpretation of anything which comes before this House. You have form on that. That is why you were sacked as the shadow Treasurer. I am sure the opposition will reach the point where it will embrace the idea of sacking you as shadow Attorney-General. I look forward to that day. Until then, I will have to continue to point out where you are consistently wrong.
The legislation, as reflected in the second reading speech, very clearly steps out the technical operation of the bill, the assurance to provide for the appropriate checks and balances in the donation of food. That is, there is no carte blanche immunity; there is no absolute immunity and nowhere in the second reading speech is that insinuated, or could you interpret that into the second reading speech. I refer the member opposite to the second reading speech where it clearly says:
… the immunity will operate only if:
1. the goods were donated in good faith for a charitable or benevolent purpose with the intention that the consumer will not have to pay for them, and
I urge the member for Port Darwin to get serious about the role of debating legislation in this Chamber and understand that good debate provides for a contribution, like the member for Nelson does. The member for Nelson genuinely and legitimately stepped through the issues of food donation, the timeliness of this legislation, questions about the coverage of this legislation, including legitimate left field questions which I will respond to. That is a serious debate. That is a contribution I will take seriously. It is sensible, legitimate and will provide additional information to the public or anyone who is interested in this subject or how the legislation applies.
The member for Nelson asked if the food is not suitable for retail sale, why is it okay to distribute it? Large retailers often take food off the shelf before it has expired. It is the difference between the best before date and the use-by date. I am advised that, depending on the goods, there is quite a gap there. For some goods, the best before date varies by up to three months from the use-by date. Larger retailers, particularly those which promote the freshness of what they are retailing, take food off the shelves far earlier than they have to; hence, the flourishing of the Foodbank distribution which is occurring around our nation. That is the difference; it is the best before date compared to the use-by date. Large companies which have large volumes are able to take the food off the shelves earlier.
I pick up on what the member for Nelson said about Rite Price. I knew Rite Price well, growing up in that area. I knew how charitable they were, but they were taking a risk. They did not have the legislative protections which exist within this legislation. Smaller business operators sometimes do take a risk, but the large retail companies who have the bulk of the goods to be distributed to charitable organisations do not take the risk. That is why legislation such as this is important.
This legislation provides for a system to distribute goods which might be okay to give away but are not attractive to sell because they are beyond the best before date, not the use-by date.
I am advised that doggy bags are not covered under this legislation. The legislation only covers restaurants which donate for a charitable or benevolent purpose, that is, the consumer has not paid for the meal. It does not cover people giving people the leftover element of the meal they have paid for in a doggy bag. I understand your concerns, member for Nelson. I understand the debate which is going on in the community about the issue of doggy bags; many of us do not want to see it wasted. I have often asked for a doggy bag to take home to feed my pets. I respect it, though, when a restaurateur says no. I understand they have made their own business decision to protect themselves against liability. It is an impressive issue which is emerging more and more these days.
You will see different practices; the practices have not been captured by legislation. It would be an interesting legal mind which could construct a system that could capture the varying scenarios of doggy bags and the variety of restaurants and places in which doggy bags could be requested.
It is a challenge, a challenge not yet met by any legislative structure in the nation. I think most people, in a commonsense approach, if they want a doggy bag, they ask for it; if they are advised they cannot - some restaurants provide them, some do not - most people in a commonsense approach accept that. I always make it clear if I am asking for a doggy bag that my intention is to feed my dog. I let the restaurant people know, and sometimes because you say it is for your dog they will give you a doggy bag.
I am advised if the shelf life of a product is less than two years it must have a use-by or best before date and after this the food may lose its quality. That is the difference between quality and safety. I am advised if food should be consumed by a certain date for health and safety reasons then it must be marked with a use-by date. There are some products which have very clear labelling; they must be marked with a use-by date because the product will potentially affect health and safety if consumed after that date. There are other products which are best before date products. They will not necessarily pose a health and safety risk. In the example you used of the potato crisps, they have lost their quality, they have gone a little soggy, but some of us will cop that for a free feed, particularly when you are camping. They are the scenarios in the Territory where that sometimes occurs.
I do not have immediate advice for you on some of the more technical questions you raised, particularly around the issues of animals. It is not envisaged in this legislation and it is something I would have to give further consideration to and come back to you about. I recognise there is this practice which many of us undertake to acquire food to feed animals; that is a legitimate issue you have raised. I do not have any advice as to whether there is any legislative structure anywhere which has been able to capture that appropriately. I am open to doing some further research and seeing what further advice we can provide you with, member for Nelson, because it is a very legitimate issue to raise in this debate.
Without wanting to reopen too significantly the issue of water quality control, I will say there are very real health issues posed by accidentally ingesting water which has significant E. coli bacteria levels. That is quite a different scenario to the scenario which we are supporting through this legislation where we are allowing food past its best before date, without posing health and safety risks to people, to be distributed for charitable or benevolent purposes. They are largely different scenarios. There is a debate there about where those E. coli bacteria levels are struck at and how …
Mr Wood: You have survived after all these years.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on that interjection that I survived. Yes, I did spend my childhood swimming in Berry Springs and Howard Springs. I will give you the tip though, I was not too fond of swimming in Howard Springs even in those days because I could see the water flow and the quality of the water was not to my likening. It might have had something to do with the snakes which would often drop down out of the trees, hit the water and swim past you. That is not one of my favourite recreational swimming experiences of my childhood.
Increasingly, with the environmental health requirements which we are confronted with in the contemporary era, water quality testing is required of services, and governments are required to respond when water quality does not meet safe levels.
Without wanting to reopen that debate too much, I understand why, member for Nelson, you would raise it in the context of this debate, but there would be no way around that health and safety risk to the recreational swimmer which is a very different scenario to being able to distribute food which is still safe, for charitable or benevolent purposes.
I thank the member for Fannie Bay for his contribution. He had some very graphic photographs of food at dumpsites. I look forward to hearing further from Baptist Care about the work which it is doing. Baptist Care has indicated it is expanding its premises and that this has really given it a significant leg up in its operations in the Territory. I will be open to hearing of the charitable food distribution industry as it flourishes. How it goes in the Territory is something which is near and dear, Madam Speaker, to your heart; you have been a very strong supporter of this legislation.
I believe each of us in this parliament fundamentally supports and accepts the need to ensure people who are disadvantaged and impoverished have the opportunity for free food to feed their families. The benevolent distribution of companies such as Foodbank and Baptist Care, supported by those large retail giants, is a mark of what defines our great nation as a civilised and decent nation.
Madam Speaker, not always do you have legislation before this Chamber which everyone would, in their heart of hearts, support. I believe this is one of those rare occasions, and I am delighted to bring the legislation to the House this morning.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot let the Attorney-General get away with the comments she made in relation to my intent to mislead this House and her denial of what she said in this place.
I remind honourable members what she said was, quote:
Receive immunity – that is an absolute concept. She went on to say:
And she went on.
Those are both absolute statements. That is the nature of the way she does business in this House.
Madam Speaker, this is the Attorney-General who admitted she brought legislation into this House without reading it. This is the Attorney-General who has overseen those ridiculous Waterfront by-laws without asking the Department of Chief Minister to show them to her before they reach this House. This is the Attorney-General who wanted to fine beggars $6000. Why? Because she had not read the material. It is about time she tidied up the way she does her business.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students, accompanied by Mrs Beryl Brugmans, and Ms Sarah Makin. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 21 October 2010.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I commend this report to all members.
The major part of the report centres on a reference given by the Assembly to the Standing Orders Committee concerning a review of the estimates process, following on from the estimates which occurred this year. I will read the reference as it was given to the committee:
1. Extending the 2011 Estimates Committee to run over two weeks.
To clarify for the students from Palmerston High School, the estimates process is a committee process of government which examines all the expenditure of government, department by department, line by line. It is a very important part of your government because it enables opposition and Independent members to query the government on how it is spending money. It involves senior public servants and others being present so they can answer questions posed to them by the opposition and the Independents. It also, in some cases, enables government to talk about the very good things it believes it is doing in its departments. It is a very valuable exercise for ministers because we can all learn - whether you are in Palmerston High School, a minister in this government, an opposition member, or an Independent member - about the myriad operations of government.
It is a good process. It is fair to say that all members in this parliament look forward to the estimates process. It is an opportunity for opposition shadow ministers to question the minister. It is of interest to the media and the public as all these proceedings are open to them. It is all about openness and transparency. Although the opposition, government and Independents members may have different views about various things, one thing we do agree on is that the estimates process is a very important process for this parliament.
The estimates process has gone through a number of changes over the years; I have detailed those to this Assembly. We are always looking to improve the estimates process. The Standing Orders Committee had very fruitful and productive conversations about proposals for how we might change the estimates process for 2011. I will come back to that.
Members would also know that as part of this report other issues were also examined. It was an opportunity for the Standing Orders Committee to report to the Chamber on a number of issues it had been considering. One of them was ‘the right of reply’; which exists in other parliaments, particularly the Commonwealth parliament. If a citizen is named within the parliament and they feel aggrieved by what was said, currently in the Northern Territory they do not have a right of reply. They cannot come in and say: ‘The member for So and So mentioned me as part of parliament. They said certain things about me, and my business. Apart from the media I do not have a right to come back and say they are wrong, and that these are the facts’.
What we have to do is balance that possible right of reply by citizens with the intrinsic right of this Assembly, and all parliaments, of free speech - to be able to say things in this parliament, balanced against the rights of citizens, and balanced against the fact we have privilege within this place. We have to balance that against the right of citizens not to be aggrieved or have things which are untrue said about them within the parliament.
So as a committee we had discussions. These discussions regarding the right of reply, as I am sure the Clerk would tell members, have been going on for quite some time. It has been a very long-running saga but it is good that the Standing Orders Committee has reached agreement that we will introduce a right of reply subject to certain conditions and I will come to those in a minute. Basically, they mirror the federal parliament, but there have to be checks and balances because there are people who would want to use this parliament as a way to get the bee in their bonnet across to the public. Unfortunately, there are a few people in the public arena who would want to do that, who feel aggrieved about anything they might construe as a reference to them, their business activities or their organisation. So there have to be safeguards. We do not want this parliament becoming a vehicle for people with an axe to grind about a range of issues. That was another matter discussed and agreed upon by the Standing Orders Committee.
There is also an amendment to the Notice Paper to include business relating to committee reports. This issue arose because with the Council of Territory Cooperation, headed by the member for Nelson, under current standing orders, the committee report of which he is chair has to be introduced by government. That is a committee which, I am sure the member for Nelson would argue very strongly, is separate to government. It is an independent committee, and it is appropriate the member for Nelson, as chair of that committee, should submit that report, as all other chairs do in all other committees. They are government chairs, so it is appropriate that we make that change.
There is also a further amendment to Standing Order 118 to allow a question paper to be tabled in the Assembly and included in the Parliamentary Record. This arises from the fact that there are many questions which are generated as part of the work of this Assembly, the work of the opposition and of the Independents. Some of those questions are quite complex and long and often the answers are quite complex and long, taking up a great deal of paper, a precious resource. So we have determined, as a Standing Orders Committee, that those answers and questions should still be available publicly, but there should be an avenue for them to be recorded electronically, thus saving paper, carbon dioxide, and our forests, which I am sure is a matter of great concern to the young students from Palmerston. I am sure they are very environmentally conscious, and it is also up to this Assembly and its workings to be environmentally conscious.
I turn to the specific recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee. The recommendations are as follows, and I acknowledge there is a dissenting report from the opposition members. To let the students from Palmerston know, if the opposition does not agree with these reports it has the avenue to put in writing a dissenting report, which is different from the report of the majority, stating its point of view about what it would like to see and why, and why it disagrees with the majority report.
I will turn to the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee. This is the majority report:
That is a very important recommendation. We have increased the time for the Estimates Committee. It is not as much as the opposition wanted; I think they wanted 70 hours, but we believe this is a substantial increase. It is an increase of around 20%, by my calculations, on what we had in 2010. There has been an increase; there has been an increase of the time limit for the Chief Minister and the Treasurer. These are two very important portfolios, and eight hours is a long time for any minister to be in the chair.
I know the opposition feels it has an endless number of questions, but there has to be a limit on the time a minister appears, because a minister needs to be focused every minute of those eight hours. They have to discuss matters with their senior public servants. I can say, as a minister who has gone through quite a number of Estimates Committees, there is a great deal of energy and concentration involved. When I think back to my university days, the maximum we had for written examinations was three hours, yet we expect ministers to go through a process of eight hours and there is a great deal of information. I believe eight hours is fair.
The government has also accepted that both portfolio ministers for the Government Owned Corporation, which is the Power and Water Corporation, should be present during the Power and Water Corporation hearings. It is a crucial body. There has been much public focus on the performance of the Power and Water Corporation, and members have felt frustrated as they do not feel they can ask questions of both portfolio ministers. For the benefit of the students from Palmerston, there are two portfolio ministers for Power and Water. One is the minister who relates to the operational/organisational aspects of the portfolio, minister Knight, and the other is the Treasurer, who is known as the shareholding minister. Although it is a company there is only one shareholder, the Treasurer.
The government continues to make substantial investments in Power and Water. Recently we announced a substantial infrastructure spend of $1.5bn over five years. That is a substantial amount of money which the Estimates Committee needs to scrutinise and that is what will happen. Not only will the board and Chief Executive of Power and Water appear before the Government Owned Corporation’s Estimates Committee, we will also have the shareholding minister, who is the Treasurer, the Under Treasurer, and the Minister for Essential Services. That will provide adequate scrutiny of the Power and Water Corporation.
We allowed flexibility for the Public Accounts Committee to determine the appearance times of ministers because we acknowledge, and have agreed as government, that as portfolios shift and ministers have different portfolio responsibilities, there needs to be flexibility in the amount of time ministers appear before the Estimates Committee.
The second recommendation is:
the hearings to be held over two weeks on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
Members will recall that we increased by three the number of Assembly sitting days and this is a balance which we have struck. In their original submission to the Standing Orders Committee, my recollection is that the opposition agreed with that course of action; however, their dissenting report takes a different position. No doubt the opposition will talk about why that is the case.
the Portfolio Minister and the Shareholding Minister appear during the time of the Government Owned Corporation appearance in addition to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
I have already outlined why the government has agreed to that and it will be a positive change to estimates next year.
We have agreed in principle to the right of reply and there are guidelines which I will read to the Assembly now:
That provides sufficient safeguards. I remember, in this Assembly, the former member for Greatorex referring to a woman in public housing, saying she was a prostitute and giving her address and mobile number. In that case the person referred to would have the right of reply in this Assembly.
There is some departure from the protocols in the Commonwealth in that the Speaker will have a determining role in this. The Speaker will determine:
There are checks and balances. The Speaker has a role and the Standing Orders Committee has a role, which will allow much wisdom and common sense to be applied to right of reply.
On the basis that it is vexatious, frivolous, etcetera.
My recollection is it is not retrospective; it is prospective. No doubt there have been people over the life of this Assembly, over many years and decades, who have felt aggrieved. I say to those people we need to start somewhere - it is from now on; it is contemporary and we are not making it retrospective. That needs to be made clear. Within the guidelines there is time limit beyond which a person cannot make a reference, and from memory it is three months. Someone cannot go through the proceedings of the Assembly a year later and say: ‘Oh goodness me, someone mentioned my name; I am going to make a complaint and see if I can have a right of reply’. There are time strictures around it.
I have already alluded to other changes - changes to the Notice Paper which include business relating to committee reports. I commend that change to the Assembly. That comes about principally through enabling the Chair of the Council of Territory Cooperation to present its report to this Assembly, which is appropriate. I have also mentioned the electronic aspects of the Question Paper to be tabled.
Before I finish, there was something I omitted which is part of the opposition’s submission. The opposition wanted a series of generic written questions to be submitted to the Estimates Committee. It was the view, I believe - I hope I am not misrepresenting the member for Nelson; no doubt he will say what he has to say. I believe the majority of the members felt the Estimates Committee was an oral process where people are interrogated; there could be lines of questioning. That is very important. Not accepting the written questions as part of the Estimates Committee does not preclude the opposition from submitting their questions.
We already have a process where government has undertaken to respond to questions within 30 days, where possible. There is nothing to stop the opposition, if they have a series of generic questions for government ministers, submitting those well in advance of the 30 day time line and the government will endeavour to answer those questions. There is nothing stopping the opposition members from following through on the answers to those questions as part of the estimates process.
I know the opposition was disappointed about that. I know it will probably argue in the Assembly that this is something which needs to be done in the Estimates Committee. I say to opposition members that there is a great deal of work done by public servants around estimates time. It is a major undertaking. As a minister, when I took over Education towards the end of last year, one of the first things I said to the Education department was: ‘I want a process starting now for our estimates briefings to be ready for estimates when it occurs next year’. It takes a long time. It is not a matter of weeks, it is months and months. It starts a bit less than a year out from the estimates hearings.
There is much information to be gathered and I commend those public servants who work so hard around estimates, providing briefs to ministers, etcetera. The opposition needs to acknowledge that. The resources within the public service are finite. I acknowledge and respect the opposition’s right to ask questions and expect detailed answers to its questions. However, it has to acknowledge and understand there is finite capacity within our public service to service those needs. Focused questions are amongst the very best.
I acknowledge that the questions asked by the opposition about credit card transactions, what checks and balances there are to provide certainty that money is being spent in the proper way and there is no fraudulent use of those credit cards, are the sorts of questions the opposition should be asking government departments. Those credit cards were brought in by government and the public service to cut down on paperwork and red tape and to free up transactions by the public service. Another good line of generic questioning by the opposition was about inappropriate use of computers. That is a very reasonable and important set of generic questions asked by the opposition.
I am not saying there should not be generic questions; they form part of a picture across government. What government is saying is that it wants you to submit those questions before, as part of the process which exists now and keep the estimates process as predominantly an oral process.
Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the House. I thank all members for their participation in what has been a very constructive process for the Standing Orders Committee. I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Standing Orders Committee Report. I will start with the section on estimates. The opposition members did lodge a minority report, commonly known as a dissenting report, in relation to a number of items we raised in that committee:
This year, estimates sat on Friday through to Friday. It was an interesting process. We try to get to the bottom of all sorts of things and to do one of our jobs, which is to hold government to account.
We have just seen that we have agreed to an extension of hours, which means there is now extra time for estimates which we are going to try to fit into a different system of allocating the time. We sat for six days; we have now taken those six days and spread them over two weeks instead of spreading them from Friday to Friday. In the past, the government, through the Standing Orders Committee, changed the hours of operation of this parliament, where it was, to a large degree, open-ended during sitting times. It was debated through the committee and the government chose to, except on General Business days, close the parliament at 9 pm and go into Adjournment.
What that did was cut down the average time of sitting by about three days. Government can be commended for saying: ‘Okay, in that case, we better have an extra three days of sittings’. As a result, we did get those extra three days, and this year we are sitting into December at the end of the November sittings, which then accounts for those days.
However, what we have now is an increased number of estimates hours and we are taking it over two weeks. The opposition believes we should retain that extra week at the end. This will allow us plenty of time during estimates where we can run through the process and, as the member for Johnston pointed out, it allows people to spread the load over a number of days. This not only has an impact on ministers, but has an impact on the good public servants who, from my experience in the estimates processes, obviously work hard.
Having been a public servant, I am aware that other public servants who are involved in the estimates process have to work extremely hard in a very short period of time to try to cover all the different contingencies and questions which are likely to arise during the process. It is for those reasons, and some others which are already included in the dissenting report, that we would much rather see the retention of the three days at the end and this increase in the estimates taken into account over the extra week allocated to the estimates process.
In relation to questions on notice, at the last estimates earlier this year, on a number of occasions there were requests put in under the current standing orders process, where you put in a written request and the ministers have 30 days to respond to that. What happens under those standing orders occasionally is that ministers write back and say sorry, unable to get the answer, we will get it to you some time later. Or, on occasion, the answer is handed to the responsible shadow minister, or to the opposition, several minutes before the matter is due to be heard in committee.
To get over that process, the opposition submitted that:
There is often a delay in receiving responses and in the estimates process it can save many people a great deal of time. It also allows the hard-working public servants - it is interesting because when you speak to them you hear anecdotal evidence that public servants are burning the midnight oil, they are up late and incurring enormous overtime. If we were able to get these questions to them earlier and give the department and its staff more time to consider their responses and to research, then perhaps the pressure would not be on at the end of the 30 day period when they are obliged to give answers. In that case the opposition is likely to receive more answers in a timelier manner.
A little like a court case, these days we have hand-up briefs so the defence counsel does not waste the courts time by going through the tedious things and people having to move to the back of the room and ask questions and receive responses. It means the whole process flows much more easily.
In relation to the Estimates Committees hours of operation:
Madam Speaker, we agreed with most of the issues mentioned by the member for Johnston. There was some robust debate, but votes were taken and the recommendations, as contained in this report, we accept at this point. In relation to the estimates, I ask that the government take note of our minority report and hopefully we can review this process after the 2011 estimates process, and again discuss some of these very important matters.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the standing orders report. There are a number of recommendations in the current standing orders report and there is a minority report - a dissenting report - which the member for Sanderson has spoken to.
As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee, the first recommendation I will talk about is the change to the hours for the Estimates Committee. It is the one I have the most personal interest in and I believe it is the most important. We had a number of changes to this year’s Estimates Committee process which worked well and the recommendations in today’s report build on those.
Hours for the Estimates Committee this year increased to a global of 50 and we allowed the Public Accounts Committee to have flexibility in determining how many hours each minister appeared before the Estimates Committee within that global of 50 hours. There may have been a misunderstanding by members of the opposition about how we were fixing the hours for the next Estimates Committee process - it is not seven hours for all ministers, it is up to seven hours, based on how we weighted it in the Public Accounts Committee. There will be a weighting done through the Public Accounts Committee process.
This year, even though government has the numbers on the Public Accounts Committee, we sat back and said: ‘Well, opposition and Independents, work out how many hours you want to allocate to a minister within that global’. This year it was a global of 50, next year it will be a global of 60, which is a 20% increase - an increase of 10 hours. The opposition made an ambit claim for 70 hours – it is in their dissenting report – however, everyone would admit an increase from 50 to 60 hours is a huge increase.
As Chair, I care more about how the Estimates Committee is managed. I believe it will be held over six days over two weeks – Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday one week, and Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday the second week. That is a very sensible change; on average, 10 hours a day. It will not necessarily work out to be 10 hours a day because it depends on how we weight the hours per minister, and that will affect the finishing times for each day. By having it over six days over two weeks we will better manage our sitting times as an Estimates Committee. There will still be late nights but it should be more manageable.
We have seen when there is disorder on the committee, which happens from time to time - although I like to think, by and large, the Estimates Committee is very well behaved - it often happens late at night. By managing the six days over two weeks it will be better than squeezing it into four or five days. The way we are pacing it next year will lead to a much better Estimates Committee; a much better prepared and behaved Estimates Committee.
We will also see better prepared shadow ministers, ministers, and witnesses - time will tell. Often an argument over hours hides an argument over the quality of questions or the preparation of shadows for their portfolios, which we saw in the opposition’s first analysis of the first Estimates Committee we had this term. Often the debate becomes slightly confused, but we have increased it by 10 hours, a very big increase, and it will go for six days over the two weeks, which will see a better prepared, better behaved Estimates Committee. We will not sit for 10 hours a day because it will depend on how we weight each minister. As a rule of thumb, each minister should appear before the committee only once.
We need to come back into the Chamber on the second Thursday; so it is 60 hours for estimates, plus returning to the Chamber to debate the Estimates Committee report and pass the budget and any other business. It is 60 hours plus parliament on that second Thursday afternoon/evening.
This was the first year we had the flexible arrangement of allocating the time for each minister. Informally, we arrange a time for each portfolio within the time for each minister. The flexibility provided for a much better managed Estimates Committee; the Estimates Committee was much happier with who they spoke to, when they spoke to them, and how long they spoke to them for. Knowing in advance how long we may give to each portfolio within that minister’s appearance time allowed better preparation and meant public servants knew when they were appearing before the committee, which led to a much better result.
Next year there will be a maximum of eight hours for the Chief Minister and the Treasurer and a maximum of seven hours for the other ministers, including the Government Owned Corporation. Seven hours, which we had this year for the Treasurer and the Chief Minister, is about as much as someone should do; however, we have gone to eight. Something we need to remember is under our recommendations the portfolio minister, Mr Knight, and the shareholding minister, the Treasurer, Ms Lawrie, we are saying they will now appear at the same time as the Government Owned Corporation, Power and Water which, depending on how the hours are weighted, could mean 15 hours for the Treasurer before the Estimates Committee, and 14 hours for minister Knight. That depends on how we weight the hours, however, they will both appear twice, and they could both appear for easily double figure hours. The Treasurer will almost certainly appear for double figure hours during the Estimates Committee process.
That is something we are doing this year, but it is something where we need to see how it goes. It is important. We have agreed as a Standing Orders Committee and as a government that the portfolio minister and shareholding minister will add something by appearing at the same time as the Government Owned Corporation, so that is sewn in. But the overall hours that both ministers will appear, we will see how that goes this year, but it will be appearing before the Estimates Committee for a long time and it is something we need to bear in mind.
We recommend that:
That is what we did this year. We added an extra day to the Estimates Committee and we substituted it for a day in the sittings in November. The recommendation is that we do that again next year. We have increased the hours; we have made the sensible decision of doing it over six days, over two weeks. It is a decision the opposition agreed to in its second submission to the Standing Orders Committee - that is on page 16 of the standing orders report. I apologise that I did not quite hear the member for Sanderson address this, he might have; I was in and out of the Chamber as Whip. On page 16 it says:
So next year brings three days into Estimates Committee, not a problem. That is in the opposition’s submission. In the dissenting report it has changed its mind and says it should not. There is an inconsistency between the submission and the dissenting report. We think it is a sensible way to manage the business of government. We did it this year and we are proposing next year we do it with the extra few days.
The opposition also touched on the question of generic questions. This is an issue which is confusing. When you talk to people about it there is often confusion between generic questions and written questions. They can be both and not both at the same time, so it can get a little complicated when you are talking about it. There is no problem with generic questions when asked in the Estimates Committee process. We have a philosophy of a public and transparent examination of the Territory budget, line by line, question by question. That means a public asking and answering of questions during the Estimates Committees process, on the record, transmitted, public welcome, asking and answering. There is no problem if the opposition wants to ask generic questions during that time.
The Leader of Government Business gave a couple of examples where the generic question process during the Estimates Committee led to some very good questions being asked. At the Estimates Committee before last, from memory, the opposition was asking generic questions about the use of computers. In one department there was an answer which was different from the norm about how many people used a computer inappropriately. The opposition went down a new trail of questions after that. So, generic questions can be quite important. It depends on which ones you ask and how you ask them. It leads into another philosophy of estimates which is that estimates be conversational, that there be a free flow of questions and answers, and you can ask generics. By asking generics, you also give yourself an opportunity to lead into other questions as a result of the answer you receive.
The question then is: how does the written question process operate? We have always thought that with the Estimates Committee the question should be asked and answered, they should be public, they should be heard. There is a process already before parliament which any member of parliament can use. It is called the written question process. It is tougher than the process the opposition outlined in its dissenting report where if you put a question through the written question process, then the minister is meant to answer within 30 days. We did not use that written question process as well as we could have at this year’s estimates; I acknowledge that as a government. I believe we will use it better next year.
Any shadow minister preparing for the Estimates Committee has many ways in which they can inform themselves about their portfolio and what questions they may want to ask. One way is through the existing written question process. It is there and it can be used. In some respects, the opposition’s proposal was to create an additional written question process and to make it, in some respects, more lenient. It is sensible to use the existing written question process and to use it better - that is on both sides. We definitely could have used it better on our side this year. I agree that it improves the process of shadow ministers going into the Estimates Committee informed. One way to be informed is through the written question process, but that process already exists. You can provide your questions 30 days out, six days out, whatever you decide. The member for Sanderson talked about six days out and then seven days prior, so a 53-day period in between. They can still provide their questions six days out but we would be required to provide our answers around the 30 day mark.
That is what we have said, that is in the standing orders. That process is there and we were not convinced there should be an additional written question process parallel to the existing written question process. I hope people listening can understand the difference between written questions and generic questions. It can get a bit messy. There were times in the committee when we were talking about exactly the same thing without necessarily realising it, because it can get a bit confusing.
The written question process is also subject to a recommendation in the standing orders report we are debating today. We want to ensure written questions and answers are placed on the Parliamentary Record. That is an amendment to one of the standing orders.
There is also a recommendation for the Routine of Business. The need for this emerged with an Independent chairing a committee, the Council of Territory Cooperation, which the member for Nelson chairs. That does not sit neatly with Government Business, with an Independent member chairing the committee, so we needed to find a better way of handling it as part of the Routine of Business. You can see the routine on page 6 of the standing orders report. It will now come on after Papers in the Routine of Business, which is a sensible and practical amendment. It is a minor amendment of how we handle the Routine of Business in the House.
The Leader of Government Business spoke about this at great length. We had the recommendation about the right of reply on page 2 of the report. This is where a person who has been referred to by name or in such a way as to readily identified, has the right of reply if that person has been adversely affected in reputation, or in respect of dealings or associations with others, injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that person’s privacy has been unreasonably invaded by a reason of that reference to the person. As members in this House, we always need to take great care with how we talk about other people. Most members do that. We have a right to free speech but we have to be careful about how we exercise it. The right of reply also needs to be taken seriously.
I believe the Speaker, who is the first person who will look at a request for a right of reply, and the Standing Orders Committee, which will then consider a request for a right of reply, will take that request seriously. Incorporation of remarks into the Parliamentary Record is a fairly significant and serious response to someone’s concerns and we do need to take it seriously when we consider it. As it is made clear in the standing orders and the guidelines, they should not be trivial or frivolous requests. As the Leader of Government Business has discussed, there would probably be members of the public who will see this as a new forum for an expression of their thoughts on debates. We are not a letters to the editor page; the parliament is here for serious and informed debate.
We have said it will be up for review in 12 months’ time, but over the next 12 months, we need to look at giving people a right to reply so they can have the opportunity to go provide a response on the record when their reputation has been damaged. We will see how that goes. We do need to take what we say here seriously and carefully. We will need to apply those same thoughts in trying to decide if someone has the right of reply. It is a serious and significant response to something a member may have said in this Chamber.
Essentially, as a parliament, we are adopting the guidelines and standing orders of the House of Representatives. We will see how that goes over the next 12 months and then, I assume, discuss it as the Standing Orders Committee to this parliament. As the Leader of Government Business said, as members in this Chamber we always need to balance the right to free speech which we have with the right of reply of a member of the public. It is a serious business we take on as parliamentarians, and we are now providing a protection to members of the public who may feel aggrieved by something that we say in this Chamber. It is a serious issue. How we manage that has been talked about for a long time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Standing Orders Committee report to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Standing Orders Committee Fifth Report to the 11th Assembly. It has opened up a number of issues for debate. Some of these issues have come around a number of times. Overall, the recommendations are good, although the opposition has some issues with the operations of the Estimates Committee and the reduction in hours for sitting times. Overall we have improved on the way the Estimates Committee is run today.
I was part of the original committee from this parliament which went to Tasmania to look at how an Estimates Committee operated. If you compare the Estimates Committee which was started in this parliament to what we have today, regardless of whether people think we could have more hours or could do things differently, the government has allowed for consistent expansion of the scope of the Estimates Committee. I congratulate the government on accepting those changes. Not everyone thinks there have been enough changes, but sometimes you have to take things into context. The changes which we have seen have been good.
From my point of view, the estimates process is one of the most important parts of parliament. It allows not only scrutiny of ministers but also scrutiny of government departments over a wide range of portfolios. In some ways it is limited and, to some extent, that is where the Council of Territory Cooperation has a little more flexibility. We only have one Estimates Committee sitting per year and if you want to ask more questions you either ask them in Question Time, or through parliamentary debate, or you wait until the next time the Estimates Committee sits, whereas the Council of Territory Cooperation can continue asking the questions. It is a little different in relation to asking ministers questions; although, we always tell ministers they are most welcome to attend and answer questions at the CTC meetings.
I will look at some of the smaller recommendations; for instance, there has been an amendment to Standing Order 118 to allow Question Papers to be tabled in the Assembly and/or included in the Parliamentary Record which is to be made available electronically. That is good. Anyone who sees the size of the Parliamentary Record - if you add in all the written questions it becomes quite a good doorstop. I am not sure many people today look at the printed copy when they are looking at what happened in parliament. Some years ago that was the only thing I looked at but today it is much easier to look at the NT Hansard website where you will find a copy of the questions and the main part of the Parliamentary Record.
From the point of view of reducing costs and waste in publishing documents which perhaps are not going to be accessed because they are in a format which is becoming out-dated, it makes sense that there has been a recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee, which has been agreed on all sides, which allows the Parliamentary Record to be available electronically.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have much more to talk about so I do not know whether to stop at this point.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you have 15 minutes remaining on the clock. We could go for an extra five minutes.
Mr WOOD: I would take longer than five minutes so I would prefer to …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then we will resume your comments after Question Time. Thank you, member for Nelson.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, continuing my comments in relation to the Standing Orders Committee 5th Report, most of the recommendations were supported, however, there was a dissenting report relating to the number of hours the Estimates Committee should be sitting.
I will go to the other changes first. The recommendation:
As the minister said earlier, that was included because, in the case of the Council of Territory Cooperation, it is not a government committee; it is a committee which has a non-government member as Chair. It did not fit neatly into existing standing orders. By putting it on the Notice Paper in a separate category, where committee reports, Auditor-General reports, and government responses were placed, it allowed that committee to have a proper place when it came to the requirement to report back to the Legislative Assembly.
I support the recommendation that:
Some of this came from comments made in parliament on our last visit to Central Australia. A person was offended by those comments and, from some of those discussions, it came to notice it was difficult for people outside of the parliament to put forward a defence if they felt someone had said something about them which was not true.
This recommendation, based on using the House of Representatives’ guidelines, covers fairly the need for a person to have an opportunity to comment if they believe they were the subject of adverse comments in parliament. If you read through the right of reply of persons referred to in the Legislative Assembly, you will see there are plenty of checks and balances to ensure people who want to respond are not doing something which is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or offensive. The Speaker has a role to play, as well as the Standing Orders Committee, when considering whether such a submission should be allowed. The guidelines here allow someone to respond, but they also ensure the person who is asking to respond is not doing it for the wrong reasons.
I did not support the opposition’s dissenting report. I supported the report we have here. The increase in the number of sitting hours of the Estimates Committee is good. The Estimates Committee is a very important part of our parliament. It gives us a chance to scrutinise and question ministers and departmental people. It has increased, quite substantially, the number of hours we question our ministers, when you compare it with when the government first introduced an Estimates Committee to our parliament.
A few things have been said in relation to the arrangement that if we work on the extra three days for the Estimates Committee, that will be reduced by the number of extra sitting days which were added on to the sitting days a couple of years ago. The minister mentioned something about the CLP saying one thing and then another. You may be referring to page 16, Attachment A - this is from Greg Charter, Chief of Staff of the Leader of the Opposition. On page 16 it says, under the heading Reduction in the Number of Sitting Days:
My understanding was the opposition would support this and we would discuss it at next review after the next Estimates Committee.
There is a great deal of talk about whether this parliament does enough work. It has the least number of sitting days of any parliament and therefore we should just add three days on. I am not a great believer in that. I think we should work here when we need to work here and not work here when we do not need to. It is a costly place to run. You should not dream up legislation just for the sake of having some legislation to discuss. If there is work to be done, let us do that work. If the idea of an extra three days is just to show people we are working harder but we are not actually achieving much, then I would say those three days were added for political reasons rather than real reasons. We would be better off in our own electorates doing the work many of us have to do there,
I would rather see those three days that were added on at the end of the last sittings used in the Estimates Committee where you can see real debate and discussion about government policies, budgets and programs. That is far more important than putting on a pretence that we are working hard at the end of the year, when I know most people have plenty of work to do in their electorates at that time of year. A fair bit of political argy bargy was going on at the time of those changes, and the government decided: ‘We will give in to what the CLP said, that we are not working hard enough and add the extra three days’. If we use our time more efficiently in the existing time and hours, you get most of the work done in that time.
The other issue was the number of hours. Sixty hours is a good compromise for the 70 hours the CLP wanted. Each year, the CLP has wanted extra hours and we have increased the number of hours after just about every Estimates Committee. Sixty hours is a good standard to look at.
How many hours each minister needs to face up before the Estimates Committee, the member for Fannie Bay has given us some hours there, but we also have to realise the Public Accounts Committee has a fair say in what happens within its own committee. We need to make sure the Standing Orders Committee and the Public Accounts Committee are not tripping over one another when it comes to things like how many hours each minister should be at the Estimates Committee for. We should work those hours according to the portfolios. Some ministers have portfolios which require much more investigation than others. To a large extent that is what the Public Accounts Committee should be doing.
Mr Gunner: It is.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I got a little confused when you were discussing it before. You did finish your discussion by saying you hoped people could understand all that you said. I probably got confused too.
There is a question about generic questions. I do not have a problem with generic questions, as long as they are limited and available to the public. I do not want to see the Estimates Committee become a forum where many questions which have been written previously are asked and then answered by the minister or a public servant in front of a public which does not have any idea what is going on.
The beauty of the Estimates Committee is it is in the public arena. We, as politicians, the ministers, and the departments with their various ministers, are there for everyone to see and hear which promotes the idea of an open and transparent government. The media and reporters are there, there will be people who are interested in hearing what is going on, and if you get too much written down you get away from one of the basic benefits of the Estimates Committee.
There is room for some generic questions. As long as the public knows what those generic questions are so they understand the answers, I do not have a problem. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned we have written questions these days which have limitations on when answers should be presented by the departments. That is also available to everyone and the answers to those questions can be used as a basis for questioning ministers and departments during the Estimates Committee. I would not get too hung up over the generic questions; it runs fairly well as it is.
I thank the other members of the Standing Orders Committee for their work and insights; I am relatively new to this committee and it has been a learning curve for me. I do not have any problem with members lodging dissenting reports. It is healthy as it allows other options and opinions to be debated.
I also thank the staff, and Madam Speaker for allowing us to use your room. The longer I am on the Standing Orders Committee the better my understanding of the importance of the committee. The Clerk and other people will find other issues for us to debate over the following year. I will be interested in what happens with the right of reply; it will be interesting to see if anyone uses it now that we have it in place. It is good it is there because it opens up parliament. We are not a closed society and although we love the idea of freedom of speech, we need to be careful how we use it and, if it is used inappropriately, now we have a system which will allow a person who could be offended by statements made in this parliament to reply to those comments.
Madam Speaker, I support the Standing Orders Committee’s Fifth Report.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members of the Standing Orders Committee for the time, effort and thought they have put in to the preparation of this report.
I know the opposition has a view on a number of matters, which they have expressed in their dissenting report, but, overall, we have come to substantial agreement on a range of matters which will not only facilitate the estimates process, but enhance it and make it better for everyone.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report to the Assembly.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the member for Goyder’s overseas travel report, pursuant to paragraph 4.2 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the recently announced proposals on the alcohol reform measures.
The Enough is Enough alcohol reform package announced last month contains the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in the Territory’s history and in our nation. Many Territorians enjoy a drink safely and responsibly; however, a number of Territorians are drinking at unsafe levels and their alcohol misuse is having a significant impact on the wider community. We have deliberately targeted these reforms at the problem drinker. The majority of Territorians will not be affected.
These reforms turn problem drinkers off-tap to stop the violence and antisocial behaviour. Alcohol misuse continues to be a scourge on our community, families and Territorians. The statistics paint a stark picture and point to the level of alcohol crime in our community. Sixty percent of all assaults are alcohol-related, with 67% of all domestic violence incidents being alcohol-related. Last year, there were 55 000 incidents of police taking people into protective custody or sobering-up shelters. Seventy-two percent of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol.
The Report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory 2010, Growing them strong, together, heard evidence from Territorians that grog is a key contributor to child abuse and neglect.
The level of alcohol-related deaths in the Territory is three times the national average. Between 2000-05, 48% of road deaths in the Territory involved drinkers with an illegal blood alcohol concentration. Alcohol-related hospital admissions in the Territory are more than double the national average. In 2008-09, 59% of police work was alcohol-related, particularly responding to alcohol-fuelled assaults and domestic violence.
We are saying enough is enough. We need to stop this harm. The Territory has the highest alcohol consumption per capita of any state or territory. In 2008, Territorians consumed 14.5 litres per capita compared to 9.83 litres nationally. We drink at a rate approximately 1.5 times the national average. This is the case for both the non-Indigenous and Indigenous population. The non-Indigenous population drinks at 1.5 times the national average, the Indigenous population drinks at 1.7 times the national average. Not only do we drink at high volumes, the way in which we drink is risky and harmful, with Territorians binge drinking at twice the national average. This ultimately comes at significant cost to our community.
A recent study, The Harms from and Costs of Alcohol Consumption in the Northern Territory commissioned by the Menzies School of Health and Research and undertaken by the South Australian Centre for Economics Studies, found alcohol misuse costs the Territory around a staggering $642m a year. This equates to $4197 for every adult Territorian compared to $944 nationally. This study took into account workforce impacts, healthcare costs, and the costs of associated crime and policing. The healthcare costs are alarming. Alcohol contributes to more deaths and hospitalisations in the Territory than anywhere else in Australia. Northern Territory Police report that 59% of their workload is attributed to responding to alcohol-related issues. The social and economic costs of alcohol misuse are unacceptable.
Although this government has done more than any other Territory government or Australian jurisdiction to reduce alcohol misuse and alcohol crime and antisocial behaviour, we recognise more needs to be done.
As I touched on earlier, these new reforms are targeted. They go to the heart of what is costing the Territory both socially and economically each year. They target the problem drinker. These reforms are focused on takeaway alcohol sales because takeaway alcohol sales make up 70% of all alcohol consumed in the Territory. It is also because takeaway alcohol sales are consumed in an unsupervised environment, and there is no doubt this consumption is contributing to unacceptable violence and crime.
The Enough is Enough reforms turn the tap off to problem drinkers by banning problem drinkers. The banned drinker register and ID system at point of sale enforce those bans. The Enough is Enough package is made up of a five-point action plan with:
1. the banned drinker and mandatory alcohol treatment orders;
2. banned drinker register;
3. Alcohol Court reforms;
4. increased rehabilitation services; and
5. awareness campaigns.
Action 1 - the banned drinker and mandatory alcohol treatment orders: under these reforms, we will ban problem drinkers. This measure does not criminalise the chronic problem drinker. It is, however, a tough love approach and a direct health intervention. These bans will apply across the Territory, including places where significant alcohol restrictions already exist; for example, Alice Springs and Katherine. This measure provides consistency across the Territory as to how alcohol is accessed. In practice, this means if you are a banned drinker in Alice Springs, you will also be banned from accessing alcohol anywhere in the Territory. People will no longer move simply to follow the grog.
A problem drinker is clearly defined as a person who has been taken into protective custody three times in three months; is involved in alcohol-fuelled violence and assaults, including family and domestic violence; is a repeat drink-driver or drives under the influence at very high levels; is considered at risk; or places others at risk.
The police bans: police will have the power to issue bans of up to 12 months to prevent problem drinkers from purchasing and consuming takeaway alcohol. These are administrative bans. We are not criminalising alcohol misuse; instead, we are providing a system to turn off the tap to problem drinkers for their own safety, the safety of others, and to reduce antisocial behaviour. Bans will increase in length with repeat occurrences: the first ban - three months; second ban - six months; third ban – 12 months.
Referrals can also be made to the new Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. Police bans will be linked to participating in treatment, and the level of treatment required will be determined by the length of the ban. The level of treatment will increase in intensity each time a banning and treatment notice is issued. The length of bans can be reduced by participating in treatment.
The Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal: these reforms also introduce an independent tribunal known as the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. The tribunal is a further administrative measure to determine ban applications and review banning notices for problem drinkers who have not committed an offence. This tribunal will hear the referrals of people with alcohol or other drug misuse problems who are considered at risk, or place others, such as children, at risk. The tribunal will also hear reviews of police banning notices, and people who have been issued more than three police-generated banning notices will be automatically referred to the tribunal.
Referrals to the tribunal can be made by family members, non-government organisations, police, Health, and other agencies. The tribunal will have the power to issue a range of orders such as alcohol bans and mandatory treatment. Once a person comes before the tribunal, they will have to undertake clinical assessment. As stated, the tribunal is not a court and is not for people who have committed a criminal offence.
Membership of the tribunal will include a presiding person who is an experienced lawyer or magistrate, plus one or two other experts. Other members of the tribunal would have relevant experience in the area of alcohol and other drugs, and could include legal professionals, medical practitioners, counsellors, or clinicians.
People who have committed an alcohol or drug-related offence will be referred to the enhanced Alcohol Court, the SMART Court. An exposure draft of the legislation, the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill, which establishes these administrative systems, will be released for comment later this week.
Action 2 - the banned drinker register: key to the success of these reforms is the capacity to enforce the bans. The CLP’s policy on this issue does not have any enforcement capacity. While it states it will declare a habitual drunk, it has no means of stopping the flow of alcohol. In fact, the CLP has, on numerous occasions, stated it does not support an ID system. Under the CLP, the rivers of grog would still flow. It is not committed to tackling crime in the Northern Territory.
Under the Enough is Enough reforms, it is proposed to roll-out a banned drinker register across the Territory to support the alcohol bans. The banned drinker register will be introduced to all takeaway alcohol outlets which currently do not have an ID system. The banned drinker register is an electronic record of all banned drinkers across the Territory. Under this system, a person purchasing alcohol will scan their ID, which will be compared to the register. A person who is not banned will buy their alcohol as normal. A person who is banned will not be permitted to buy alcohol.
The system does not record information on alcohol purchases. It simply compares an ID to the register. The scan will take less than 15 seconds and a range of ID can be used. The banned drinker register will be able to read the following types of identification cards: driver’s licences, including all government-issued licences from around the country, and driver’s licences of 50 other nations, including state-based licences issued in the United States; the evidence of age card, or 18-plus card; and Indigenous organisation-issued ID cards, including the Tangentyere ID card, the Larrakia ID card, and the Council of Elders Tennant Creek ID card.
The system provides a critical tool to enforce the bans. It also provides an important tool for attendants at takeaway outlets to refuse sales to problem drinkers. The liquor industry welcomes this tool. They support the banned drinker register. It is a small inconvenience to tackle the scourge of alcohol and help cut alcohol-related crime. We will fund the roll-out of the banned drinker register across the Territory at an estimated cost of $6m.
Action 3 - Alcohol Court Reforms: a new court known as the SMART, Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court, will be established, replacing the Alcohol Court. The court will deal with people charged with a criminal offence where alcohol or drug misuse is involved. It will also be able to make court orders for juveniles as well as adults, and can make orders such as bans and mandatory treatment at any time during the sentencing process. It can also ban the person from consuming or purchasing alcohol.
The SMART orders would be flexible to suit each case. A SMART order would not mean the offender does not go to gaol or serve a sentence for their crime. The SMART order could be part of an overall sentence. A person could do time in gaol plus have a SMART order requiring them to attend rehabilitation and receive counselling.
An exposure draft of the SMART bill will be released for public comment later this week, with public comments to close in mid-November.
Action 4 - Increased Rehabilitation Services: since 2001, we have increased alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services. We have done this in partnership with the Australian government, and will continue this effort. There are now over 300 treatment, rehabilitation and sobering-up shelter beds across the Territory. We will focus on delivering new models of treatment and care which expand on residential services. We are currently consulting with the health sector on a range of options for expanded services which acknowledge not everyone will require a residential option. We are also focused on expanding treatment and outreach support options in remote areas across our growth towns. Treatment options may include brief interventions by GPs, counselling and support, bed-based treatment services, as well as outreach intensive interventions, and treatment services in remote communities.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, these proposals recognises there are people who are beyond benefiting from traditional treatment methods for whom an alcohol ban is an effective health intervention. There are others, such as those who sleep rough in the long grass who, for a variety of reasons, do not attend or complete residential treatment. This package includes treatment provided through outreach and case management, and includes brief interventions as well as intensive treatment and after care.
The Central Australian Aboriginal Congress has, through the Grog Mob program and the newly-established Safe and Sober program, had some success in this area. This success has included increasing Indigenous participation in treatment in Alice Springs to reduce alcohol consumption and, in some cases, to stop drinking. Its work provides a model which can be applied across other regional centres and remote communities.
Respite and withdrawal models will also be considered. The Mt Theo outstation is an example of this model of care applied to substance misuse. These services enable drinkers to participate in rehabilitation and withdrawal services closer to their communities.
Action 5 - Awareness Campaigns: the Enough is Enough reforms will be accompanied by a large scale community education and awareness campaign to promote safe and responsible drinking. This has already commenced. $500 000 a year will be provided for ongoing community education and awareness to promote safe and responsible drinking so we can change the culture of drinking in the Territory. We will build on work done to date around antisocial behaviour and alcohol-fuelled violence on premises, such as the highly successful Championship Moves campaign.
Feedback to proposed reforms: an early assessment of the comments submitted to the reform package indicates widespread support. An online survey is available and information has been mailed to homes in Darwin and Palmerston. The public feedback is there is a majority agreement that people who commit alcohol crime should be banned from buying alcohol. The bans should be enforced. People who commit alcohol crime should be forced to undertake rehabilitation and treatment.
The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT (AMSANT) has welcomed the reforms. It welcomes the tribunal as a strategy for getting people into treatment outside of the criminal law process stating the:
That is the AMSANT media release of 1 September this year. Donna Archie of AMSANT also stated in support of the reforms on ABC radio in Alice Springs on 2 September:
Dr John Boffa, the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition, has also welcomed the reforms stating:
That was on ABC radio on 2 September.
A joint media release on 2 September, issued by Amity Community Services, the NT Council of Social Service and FORWAARD also welcomed the reforms stating:
The Responsible Drinkers Lobby in Alice Springs has also welcomed the reforms. I quote Ms Liz Martin of the Responsible Drinkers Lobby in an e-mail she sent to me following the announcement of the reforms:
Other new measures: wine cask ban. To coincide with the Enough is Enough reform package, the Licensing Commission has announced a ban on the sale of cask wine and wine-based products in containers greater than two litres across the Territory. This ban will take effect from 1 January 2011. The commission has outlined the reason for this ban. Primarily, these products provide high level alcohol in large containers at a cheap price and are the drink of choice for problem drinkers. The banning, or restricted sale of these products, has been in place in every regional centre outside Darwin. These bans have been central to achieving large reductions in pure alcohol consumption, as well as achieving reductions in other alcohol-related harm in those regions.
The Darwin and Palmerston Alcohol Management Plan: the cities of Darwin and Palmerston are the only regional centres where the level of pure alcohol consumption has steadily been increasing since 2003. A draft alcohol management plan, AMP, for Darwin and Palmerston has been released for public comment. The mayors of the Darwin and Palmerston Councils have worked with the Territory government to develop this draft plan. An alcohol management plan for Darwin and Palmerston will be a regional plan which recognises people live and work across both cities and alcohol measures put in place in one city will have an impact on the other.
The alcohol management plan also recognises the need for diversity. It acknowledges the needs of the capital city, with its entertainment strip, is not the same as those of the suburbs. The regional AMP will support local plans and accords tailored to meet the needs of particular localities. Key elements of the draft AMP include:
introduction of designated precinct areas in Darwin and Palmerston CBDs, allowing police to issue on-the-spot fines, and/or ban problem drinkers who cause alcohol-fuelled violence. The Darwin CBD precinct is already in operation, and Palmerston and Alice Springs are about to come online;
introduction of a banned drinker register in all takeaway outlets and licensed premises;
introducing liquor accords amongst licensees in identified locations;
review and extend dry areas; and
banning the sale of four and five litre casks.
An AMP for Darwin and Palmerston, where almost half the Territory’s population lives, is needed if the Territory is to reach the Territory 2030 target of reducing the per capita consumption of alcohol to the national average by 2020. It is also needed if we are to reduce the unacceptably high levels of alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, and the high cost of alcohol-related harm in the Territory.
The AHA Accord for Mitchell Street: shortly after announcing the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms, hoteliers across 14 of Darwin’s busiest entertainment venues announced a liquor accord. The liquor accord aims to improve the amenity and safety of our CBD while still allowing patrons to enjoy drinking socially. The Australian Hotels Association-led liquor accord includes:
all spirits to be served in plastic glasses between 11 pm and 4 am;
all beer glasses will be changed to shatter glass;
security and crowd controllers will wear high-visibility vests after closing and work with NT Police on the streets as a preventative measure;
there will be no advertising of promotional prices on or off premise, this includes point of sale, print, radio, and television;
happy hour at all venues will finish by 7 pm and only starting times will be advertised;
crowd controllers at all venues will stay in contact by radio or phone and will work together to refuse entry across the whole CBD to anyone who is antisocial, violent or intoxicated; and
introducing a patron code of conduct.
Venues will also work with Darwin City Council to improve the amenity of the CBD and keep the entry points to licensed premises clean and tidy.
This accord is a significant, positive step. The introduction of shatter glass is significant. Currently, the Victorian government is funding a trial of shatter glasses. This accord is a credit to the hoteliers involved and to the Australian Hotels Association. The measures directly target problem drinkers in venues and reduce the risk of alcohol-fuelled violence through improved security measures.
Building on past achievements: this government has a long history and a substantial record in taking action to address alcohol-related harm and antisocial behaviour. It has made it a priority to tackle alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour in and around late night venues. The Henderson government recently introduced new laws to declare precinct areas where a number of on-premise liquor outlets and late night venues exist, and where violence and antisocial behaviour incidents were occurring.
On 1 October, we declared the whole of the Darwin CBD a precinct area, including the Waterfront and Esplanade. Precinct areas for Alice Springs and Palmerston are soon to commence. Precinct areas provide police with more powers. These powers allow police to ban problem drinkers who cause alcohol-fuelled violence in and around on-premise venues from the precinct area, or from venues. Bans can last up to 48 hours and, through the court process, people can be banned from the area for up to 12 months. People can be banned from one or two venues, or from all drinking outlets. This can also include the whole precinct area.
Other nightclub measures: other initiatives delivered previously by the government to tackle alcohol-fuelled violence in the Darwin CBD precinct include introducing 3 am lock-outs and a controlled taxi rank in Mitchell Street, and funding the CitySafe police patrols with more police on the beat to monitor and patrol community safety in and around the CBDs, and in hot spot areas in Alice Springs and Darwin. We have the CCTV network in place as well.
Alcohol management plans: a key initiative from the alcohol framework has been the development of localised alcohol management plans. There are now 10 AMPs in place and 17 AMPs being developed or updated across the Territory. The 10 AMPs in place include Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Maningrida, Groote Eylandt, Nhulunbuy, Elliott, Jabiru, Borroloola and, now, Palmerston and Darwin. They deliver local responses to address alcohol issues specific to that community or region, and are developed with input from the community, industry, and other stakeholders.
In all regional centres where an AMP is in place, there has been a reduction in the consumption of pure alcohol. Alcohol wholesale supply data from 2001 to 2008 shows consumption of pure alcohol has dropped by 22% in Nhulunbuy, 18% in Alice Springs, 14% in Katherine, and 4.5% in Tennant Creek. Groote Eylandt, in particular, has had significant success through its AMP, and this success continues today. Since 2004-05 to 2008-09, antisocial behaviour incidents have dropped by 74%, property crime has dropped by 68%, commercial break-ins have dropped by 79%, numbers in protective custody are down by 90%, and the level of aggravated assaults has reduced by 68%. Since the AMP was introduced in Nhulunbuy in early 2008, we have seen a significant 68% reduction in antisocial behaviour incidents, and the number of persons in protective custody has fallen from 90 in 2004-05 to 10 in 2008-09.
ID systems: to support the alcohol management plans, an ID system was implemented in Alice Springs and Katherine. The ID system enforces the alcohol prohibition orders and supply restrictions of the alcohol management plans. For the period 1 January 2009 to 30 September this year, the ID system recorded 14 181 refusals of people attempting to purchase above daily restricted levels, or people on prohibition orders attempting to purchase alcohol.
In 2009, the ID system was introduced in Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt to enforce court prohibition orders and manage the enforcement of individual permit systems. The system has proved highly effective in achieving compliance to individual permit restrictions, resulting, as I outlined earlier, in significant reductions in alcohol-related harms.
Antisocial behaviour and dry areas: the Enough is Enough reforms target alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. This builds on the antisocial behaviour act this government introduced in 2006. The act provided for the establishment of the Alcohol Court and dry areas which has enabled towns, public places, and private residences to be declared dry. Currently, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Mataranka are all dry towns. I think we can add Batchelor to that now. Also, a number of dry public places have been declared in other communities and regional towns such as the foreshore in Darwin. Over 400 private homes have voluntarily been made dry.
This government also amended the Residential Tenancies Act to establish antisocial behaviour agreements for public housing tenants. The amendments also allow third parties, such as neighbours, to make an application for the termination of a tenancy based on unacceptable antisocial behaviour.
The industry working together – accords: we have also made further amendments to the Liquor Act regarding liquor accords. These changes strengthen protection for industry in relation to unfair trading and National Competition Policy issues, and thereby provide a greater incentive for the liquor industry to work together to develop accords to address alcohol-related issues. Accords are in place in Alice Springs, Darwin and Tennant Creek. Activities include multi-venue barring, voluntary restrictions on products and pricing, and the introduction of agreed codes of practice. I sincerely congratulate the liquor industry for pursuing the accords. I also thank Chris Vaughn in Alice Springs for leading the charge.
Other measures: we have also made the Responsible Service of Alcohol course mandatory for all staff, and are now introducing this for crowd controllers. We have worked with the Licensing Commission in introducing a moratorium on takeaway licences. We are in negotiations to buy back three takeaway licences in Alice Springs. The Department of Justice assessed current licences in Alice Springs against the principles of the Liquor Act, particularly whether certain licences would be granted today under current alcohol licensing policy. Under this assessment, three licences have been identified as inconsistent with the current alcohol licensing practice and do not meet the needs of the community.
We have delivered significant measures to tackle alcohol-related harm but we recognised more needed to be done. The Enough is Enough package is currently in the public domain for comment. As Alcohol Policy Minister, I have briefed many stakeholders including the alcohol industry, with the Australian Hotels Association, Australian Liquor Stores Association, down to the level of local licensees; legal professionals; social welfare groups; health professionals; NT Police and other government departments; Indigenous organisations; alcohol reference groups; and the key large supermarket retail chains of Woolworths and Coles.
The Territory government will also host information forums in all major centres throughout the Territory. The package of proposed reforms is out for community consultation and feedback until mid-November. The target date for implementation of these significant and substantial reforms is 1 July 2011.
The Enough is Enough five-point plan is a comprehensive package to tackle alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. It will take problem drinkers off tap and mandate treatment. It is a strong health intervention to help turn around the lives of Territorians and the family dysfunction caused by chronic alcohol misuse.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, these reforms have been built on evidence-based research and on the success of alcohol measures this government has implemented and outlined in this House today. The reform measures are bold and go far beyond what any government anywhere has attempted to do. We believe they will work. We are determined to reduce alcohol-related harm to individuals, their families and our community.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak in relation to the ministerial statement by the Minister for Alcohol Policy. I acknowledge the hard work done by many people in our community on this issue of alcohol abuse: police officers, health professionals, educators, staff of non-government organisations, carers, families, and numerous other people who come under the umbrella of the community. They work tirelessly to try to improve the program. It is interesting because they also are crying out for some help and leadership from the government.
I do not blame the government for trying anything, because what it has been doing to date has not been successful, and here we see another policy initiative. You only have to look at the figures. You only have to look at what is going on in our community and what confronts us on a daily basis. Of course the government needs to do something and needs to be seen to be doing something. What I fear is that this is another spin on what is getting tough on crime.
I will come to that term a couple of times during this talk on alcohol policy, because it is something this government throws out on a regular basis – tough new laws, tough on this, tough on that – but we do not see results. It is easy to stand up and say we are going to get tough on crime, but the government has failed miserably in bringing in results and showing the consequences of those tough new laws.
The opposition and the government approach the regulatory management of excessive alcohol consumption from two different directions. It appears the government refuses to accept that individuals are responsible for their own behaviours. It also refuses to ensure individuals are held accountable; the government refuses to punish those who commit crime under the influence of alcohol and refuses to force treatment on habitual drunks.
The government claims it can control the supply of alcohol to such an extent that every person will be checked for quantity, frequency and outstanding control orders. Public bars, restaurants, home brew, all of these are uncontrolled sources which allow alcohol into the community. It appears the tighter government grips alcohol supply, the more it slips through its fingers.
Law abiding citizens and those who wish to breach orders can source their alcohol from other places, for example, mail order and wine clubs. The secondary supply market appears to be impossible to police outside the immediate area of the bottle shop. For example, will people in their own homes be required to stop issuing alcohol to visitors in fear of being guilty of secondary supply? Is the government proposing the same type of management of alcohol which applies to the trafficking and sale of drugs? The answer is no. It just wants to appear to be doing something.
I am sure there are some initiatives in there which are very positive but, overall, I wonder whether they will have the success the government claims these initiatives will bring. It seems to me that big brother will be watching the average citizen even more and penalising the majority for the actions of the minority.
The minister’s statement says:
I will be seeking a briefing on where we are in alcohol management and I will ask if it is purely alcohol or if it is a combination of alcohol and other drugs. That is important. We see here:
My understanding is 36 000 of those were taken into protective custody, and another 20 000 into sobering-up shelters. I am led to believe that in 2008 that figure was 26 000. What has happened? In the last couple of years we have had an enormous increase in the abuse of alcohol. The tough new laws and the previous initiatives have worked miserably.
The government, on their own statistics in this statement, says the Menzies School of Health Research - and I commend the Menzies School of Health, a fine organisation with people who are passionate about what they do and who try to ascertain what is happening in the community - found that alcohol misuse costs the Territory a staggering $642m per year, which equates to $4197 for every Territorian compared to $944 nationally. We have a problem and it is spiralling out of control. Further in the report we see the government has only allocated $500 000 for the educational spin they are going to put on trying to educate people in the public and, I assume, educate people who are problem drinkers, about the ills of pursuing excessive alcohol abuse.
The government says it targets problem drinkers. The target is more the majority of the community which has to wear restrictions for the government failing to tackle problem drinkers. It says the reforms are focused on takeaway alcohol sales because takeaway alcohol sales are consumed in an unsupervised environment. I suggest much takeaway alcohol is consumed by responsible drinkers in an unsupervised environment, and that there is a small number of people in the community who are habitual drunks. I accept there are probably other people in the community who are on their way to becoming habitual drunks. We, as a community, need to help them. There are many responsible drinkers who consume alcohol in their homes, in parks, at barbecues and throughout the Territory, and they do so in a responsible way.
The banned drinker register - and I quote from page 5 of the report:
That may be fine, however, I ask the government to consider wine clubs - what about mail order clubs? You can ring people and say: ‘I have a credit card or a debit card and I would like to order a box, a carton, a pallet load of alcohol and I would like it delivered’, and you can nominate where you want it delivered. I can ring these people, give my debit or credit card details, and have a pallet of wine, a pallet of whatever I like, delivered to a point I nominate.
For instance, we all know if you drive from Darwin to Palmerston on the Stuart Highway at the 11 Mile there is a fruit vendor - a guy who has been there for many years - nice people - you can ask for your pallet to be delivered to that point and they will offload it from the truck and leave it on the side of the road for you.
What happens when you ban people? People will get around these things as they always do; we have an issue there.
What about home brew? If the person is banned they could be off to Coles or Woolies or some other business which sells home brew kits and supplies. Are we going to have those businesses check the banned drinker register? What about people who are making home brew in the middle of nowhere and supplying other people? These people end up drunk somewhere, lying around. That is an issue, and we will have trouble trying to track where they bought it from, given the state of some of these people.
A problem drinker, under this plan, is someone who has been taken into custody three times in three months - that is similar to our policy, three times in six months; someone who is involved in alcohol-fuelled violence and assaults, including family and domestic violence - not a bad idea; a repeat drink-driver who is under the influence of DUI at very high levels - so what happens when someone who is charged with DUI has an issue? Does that mean the spouse cannot have any alcohol in the house? What happens to the spouse if they know the person is on the banned drinker register and the banned person raids the spouse’s alcohol supply?
Further on it says ‘knowingly supplies’. That is fine. However, it is going to be an enormous task for police to prove whether people knew or did not know. Speaking as an ex-police officer, it is going to be very interesting and challenging to enforce that, especially when you have to go to court and give evidence and prove people knew. There are some major problems with that part of it.
A person can be referred to the tribunal by family members, non-government organisations, police, Health and other agencies. I sincerely hope the government has considered the issues of privacy in relation to people who have a particular dislike for other people. To report someone seems to be another way you can get at them. I hope there are some severe penalties for frivolous complaints and that the tribunal takes those seriously and deals with them.
It says the tribunal will have a range of orders such as alcohol bans and mandatory treatment. I note that the brochure the government put out to Territorians says:
The first dot point says:
I reiterate the word ‘can’:
It is an interesting play on words, if you ‘can’ be ordered. I thought ‘ordered’ meant mandatory. I wonder what the government looks at when it says ‘you are ordered’ to do something or ‘it is mandatory’ or ‘you are ordered that it is mandatory sentencing’. Do we have a new interpretation of those two words, ‘ordered’ and ‘mandatory’? It is an interesting proposition.
The statement says:
What happens to people who are arrested for other offences which are alcohol-related? Will they have to undertake clinical assessments as well? The statement says:
What happens to those people who have committed criminal offences? The main offender goes to a tribunal and does not receive a criminal offence. If you are a secondary supplier and are, unfortunately, in the wrong place at the wrong time, or you leave your alcohol somewhere, you could find yourself with a criminal record as a result of someone who does not have a criminal record.
Under the heading banned drinker register, the statement says:
If you remove the habitual drunks, say in Darwin the 300 or so people who are consuming this alcohol, and put them in a rehabilitation facility, you are going to see a huge reduction in the flow of alcohol.
If you give police the authority to arrest people for street offences - the government will say, ‘Yes, they already have that power’, and that is great. That is okay, however, when you talk to police officers out there - I know quite a few of them well – it appears they are not being backed up in the courts. The other problem is there is so much work out there - as we see, 58% of all of their jobs are alcohol-related - they do not have time to do the arrests for the basic street offences which are the result of the alcohol abuse and are creating many different and awful situations on our streets which good Territory people have to confront every day.
The reports says:
I expect, when other government members stand up, they will hammer the CLP and say we support the rivers of grog, we want to turn …
Mr Conlan: It is our policy.
Mr STYLES: I think I heard them say that is our policy - turn on the rivers of grog. I reiterate what I just said: if you put the people into a meaningful rehabilitation program you are going to reduce the amount of alcohol flowing through the community. It says:
I would like to point out that in this House there are four ex-police officers, and they all sit on this side of the House. It is quite remarkable that the government would say the four ex-police officers who have dedicated so much of their working lives to enforcing the law would not be committed to tackling crime in the Northern Territory. I find that amazing. I can only speak for myself and say that as a police officer and detective I was very committed to tackling and preventing crime in the Northern Territory. I stress the word ‘preventing’. I worked in the preventative area for many years. There are many other people on our side who are also very committed to tackling crime, so I find that a little strange.
It says in the statement:
There are many people who, by law, are not permitted to purchase drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy and speed, but they still do. They get around the problem. We have a major problem in our community with habitual drunks. Our policy is to get these drunks off the street, put them into meaningful rehabilitation, give them some skills, lift their self-esteem, and try to get them back on the road to recovery. There are many people who are in transition to becoming habitual drunks. We believe, with the help of the community and the non-government organisations and service providers, we can turn these people around. It is going to be hard and expensive, but it is something we need to do as a community.
People will get around not being permitted to buy alcohol. If you are on the banned drinker register you go to buy alcohol, you are turned away, you leave, who buys it for you? They will get it. These people are addicted. The minister said the banned drinker register will stop people suffering from alcohol dependency purchasing and drinking alcohol. That is a very bold statement. I want to say that again for those opposite and anyone listening: the minister said banning drinkers will stop alcohol dependent people from purchasing and drinking alcohol. Police officers at the coalface tip alcohol out, people go and get it. I do not see how you can make a statement like that and believe that it is going to work.
The statement says:
That is, the banning register. I am not surprised the industry welcomes it. The industry has been the subject of systemic policy failures for some years. I am not saying the industry has not contributed to the problem, however, like the minister, I have met with people in the town, with members of the AHA, and a range of other people, and they are also attempting to deal with the issue. There is also the issue of banned drinkers, or people who should be banned, who are consuming alcohol and drugs off-premises then attending premises and creating all sorts of havoc.
I suspect the industry is very supportive of any move which it believes may have any resemblance of tackling the problem, because it has seen a steady increase in the problems on the streets. It is not just the Mitchell Street precinct or other licensed premises I am talking about, it is across the Territory. We have seen a general demise in the situation, and an increase in some of the issues our law and order people and our community have to face.
What we see is tough new laws, but we have seen substantial increases in abuse, assaults and other issues. Health costs have increased. Police resources are consumed. When we look at some of these issues it says ‘can be’, ‘may be’, ‘ordered’ to do various things. When we talk about mandatory alcohol rehabilitation it is a little wishy washy. I refer to the statement:
I have been on the phone and I have been talking to people and people have been telling me they do not believe it will work. GPs have supposedly been doing this for many years and it is not working simply due to the economics of it. There are people in industry who are making comments about that.
Other things people were telling me in the course of the day, it says here:
Sure, we have secondary supply rules and regulations but the problem is when people buy alcohol for other people, it is a matter of proving who bought what. When there are many people sitting in a group there is then an issue of who bought what. For a police officer to ask that bunch of people, who might be severely intoxicated: ‘Who bought this and who bought that’, I expect many people would say: ‘I do not know. I am just sitting here and drinking it and having a good time’. That is going to be a major evidentiary factor in dealing with these issues.
The report states that alcohol misuse costs the Territory $642m a year, yet the government is only allocating $500 000 to the education program. am interested to know what the budget allocation to the rehabilitation side of this will be. I ask the minister if she would enlighten the House. It is something we will be seeking from our briefing.
Other comments made by NGOs:
People have seen this and have asked questions. I will quote one of those questions:
An interesting question. Does that mean, for instance, if I am having barbecue at home I have to set up a scanner at the control point in my driveway and scan all my visitors? If they tell me a lie and I provide them, as part as my hospitality, a glass of red wine or a cold beer, what happens to me? How do I check? If they get a bit plastered and they stagger onto the street - I would not let that happen but there may be people who would allow that to happen. I do not know whether you are familiar with alcohol dumps; you can sit and consume alcohol which sits in the upper part of your digestive system and when you stand up it flows down into your stomach and is processed - alcohol is easily absorbed through the stomach wall - and you get a major hit. It is a spike; it may be for a short time, but what if that happens? Am I in trouble? Are those people in trouble? There are many variables which are not covered in this statement.
What if you live at the Waterfront? Apart from having to issue instructions, in pictures, to the kids of your visitors if they want to use the public toilet, you are also going to need checks to ensure you are not supplying people as a secondary supplier. I am interested in how that will be enforced; it is going to be a major challenge.
Other new measures in the statement include the ban on wine casks. There has recently been a ban on two litre casks of mixed drinks. The price of those casks equated to $2.30 for a standard drink, but when you start banning four and five litre casks - what about bottled wine? Is the government going to do something about the bottled wine known as cleanskins? My understanding is the price of those can equate to as little as 20 cents per standard drink. Quite cheap, quite nasty, and I suspect problem drinkers will be attempting to have someone deliver cases of cleanskins to the 11 Mile so they can pick them up from the side of the road.
People may change their purchasing habits - go from hotel bottle shops, local supermarkets and the big retail chain liquor stores to buying over the phone and having alcohol delivered. Apart from the fact it takes money out of the Territory, it does not provide jobs, and this is for responsible people. I hope the government has some way of tackling the issue of preventing people who are banned from purchasing over the Internet or the telephone.
Bans which last for 48 hours through the court process - and they can ban people from an area for up to 12 months: I see in the information available …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. You can have ban after ban; there does not seem to be any criminality or any problem. However, if you are the partner or the flatmate who accidentally purchases alcohol and is convicted of supplying these people - I am not saying it will happen all the time, but there may be cases - that person commits a criminal offence.
There are a number of issues. I would like to go to the brochure which has been sent out to the public, and I quote from that brochure:
The first point is:
We have heard you can do that without going to bottle shops, or anywhere in the Territory which has your details on a register which says you are banned. You can get around that because you can use the telephone and the Internet to purchase alcohol. We have seen, under these tough new laws in 2008, 26 000 apprehensions, going up to 2010 at 35 000 - and that was under tough new laws in 2008. The next part of this brochure says:
There is no facility to handle recalcitrant people who do not want to be rehabilitated. It just says there will be an extended ban and further extensive rehabilitation. It would be nice to know what the government has as a final solution to that problem.
There are a number of issues which need to be covered in this. I know the government is trying to do something about this alcohol policy issue and trying to fix the problem we have in our community. It appears though, after nearly 10 years of this government, not much has improved. In fact, it has become far worse. We have seen statistics go up and up.
The government says the CLP is going to turn on the rivers of grog, we want to open bottle shops earlier, and things like that. I inform the government, the Chief Minister, as the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, is probably hearing one thing - it is interesting because, at the coalface, there is a different request from people who are saying: ‘If you are going to do things, can we please deal with these issues in the day time?’ It is nowhere more apparent than in Alice Springs where people are being assaulted at night. Police officers constantly tell me they have trouble finding the offenders in these instances. They would like to see these places open earlier. There are other issues we can deal with, although the government will say we just want to have extended hours, turn on the tap, and have them literally fall down.
There are some positives - I am genuine when I say this to the government - if you have to open these places, open them earlier so people like police and other service providers can deal with these people in the day time. I hope some of these reforms work because, as a community, we need to have a far better outcome for the next 10 years than the one we have had.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, even although there are many faults in this policy and there is room for improvement, I sincerely hope something will change in the community, although I do not have a great deal of confidence that much will change.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a very important statement for this House to debate because, as we are all well aware, the abuse of alcohol contributes to so much of the violence and dysfunction we see every day in the Northern Territory.
We had a debate in Question Time today in regard to crime figures. The statistic you just cannot walk past is that 60% of all violent crime in the Northern Territory is alcohol-related, and 67% of family and domestic violence assaults are alcohol-related. Tragically, it is predominantly Indigenous women who are at risk of family and domestic violence and the vast majority of those assaults are alcohol-related.
To pretend, as a parliament, a community, a society that crime figures in the Northern Territory are going to improve without dealing with the abuse of alcohol patently cannot be substantiated. If you are not tackling alcohol, you are not tackling crime. It is more than crime. It impacts on health, education, and the welfare of our children. Almost every aspect of society is adversely affected by alcohol abuse, and the cost to our society – these figures come from 2004-05, so I am sure it is more today – is $640m a year. That is an extraordinary amount of taxpayers’ money going into picking up the pieces from excessive alcohol consumption which could go to schools, health, and infrastructure across the Territory.
As police minister, I deal with this every day. Around 40% of all policing costs relate to alcohol, particularly when you go to regional centres: Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy, around 80% of those costs are alcohol-related. They are extraordinary numbers, and if we can get on top of the alcohol issues, we will start seeing significant improvements across the board.
We have established our Territory 2030 plan and target. The target is that, by 2030, we will reduce alcohol consumption to the national average. That will be a very tough task. We do have a predominantly young population, and our young population likes to work hard and party hard, but we have to get messages to every level of the community. We also have a very hot climate. I first came to the Territory as a tradie, and after working in our hot climate there is nothing better than sinking a few cold beers.
The target will not be achieved without tough decisions; it is not about just leaving it up to the individual, this is about debates we have to have across our community, with government taking the lead and making some tough decisions which will not be politically popular. However, we have come to the point where, unless we do something, we will continue to see our society being significantly impacted by the abuse of alcohol.
The reform agenda the minister put forward in her statement today is the most comprehensive in Australia, if not the world; but in Australia, no jurisdiction has attempted the scale and breadth of the reforms we are proposing. People at the front line – police, doctors, ambos, teachers, domestic violence workers, child protection workers, night patrol workers, sobering-up shelter workers – all tell us that you will not combat alcohol without controlling the supply. That is the advice we have received from the front line and the Menzies School of Health Research. Anyone who believes increasing access to alcohol will contribute to reducing the problems flies in the face of all the evidence.
Seventy per cent of all alcohol sold in the Northern Territory is sold as takeaway alcohol, and that is the root cause of so much of the trouble. Yes, we have our problems on premises, but the problems on premises are nothing like the problems we see off premises.
You have to deal with demand to try to reduce demand for alcohol, but if you ignore the supply, you are ignoring the issue. That is the threshold difference between the government’s approach and the CLP’s approach. We believe you have to tackle both sides of this equation; you have to tackle demand and reduce supply.
Our government believes alcohol is a product which must be regulated. It is not a right to be able to sell alcohol. It is a privilege which is licensed and licensees are permitted to sell alcohol under regulations and terms and conditions which the government of the day sets to minimise the harm caused by alcohol. It has to be regulated.
I had a bizarre conversation on Radio 8HA in Alice Springs where the caller and our friend, Mr Renzi, was saying the hotels in Alice Springs which support a particular clientele are doing nothing wrong. Mr Renzi is a friend of mine on Facebook so I understand where he is coming from. He is trying to start some controversy on that radio station to boost listener numbers. It was one of the most bizarre radio interviews I have done in my years in politics - we all have a responsibility here. I stand by the comments I made in Alice Springs because we all have a responsibility. No one has a God given right to profit from people destroying their own lives. We believe people who enjoy alcohol responsibly should be able to continue to do so, but we will take steps to ensure those who do not, those who commit crime or antisocial behaviour or are destroying their own lives, will not continue to have unhindered access to alcohol.
I was listening to the member for Sanderson and the ludicrous assertion that somehow people on the banned drinker register - and if we talk about the thousands of cases of protective custody every year in the Northern Territory - that somehow that demographic of people which, tragically, are so badly affected by alcohol are somehow going to be able to access the Internet and have some sort of dial-a-service is quite bizarre. His argument is to do nothing; we are saying we have to try.
Let us look at some success the government has had in dealing with this alcohol issue in Groote Eylandt and Gove. In Groote Eylandt, since the restrictions were put in place in conjunction with the community there, the number of people taken into protective custody has decreased by 90%. That is an extraordinary number and shows restrictions can work. Everyone remembers what Groote Eylandt used to be like. That is a community which has really turned the corner and is functioning so much better in so many ways.
In Alice Springs, the Menzies report shows consumption is down by 18%; and serious assaults are down by 21%. That means there are fewer people presenting at Alice Springs Hospital because of serious assaults, bodily harm, stabbings and the like. It is more than an average statistic; it is a substantive statistic.
Sometimes there is a debate that the government is picking on Alice Springs and it is asked why Alice Springs has these restrictions when Darwin does not? Alice Springs has, per capita, three times the rate of protective custody and three times the rate of alcohol consumption of Darwin and Palmerston. To say there should not be an increased effort in Alice Springs denies that the problems in Alice Springs are so much more extensive than they are in Darwin. That is not to say we do not have problems in Darwin. These reforms will apply to people who live in Darwin and Palmerston and across the board. To say you should not try things in Alice Springs because it is not fair, you are not doing them in Darwin, does not support the fact there is three times the rate of protective custody and alcohol consumption in Alice Springs. Already, Darwin is higher than the national average.
When restrictions came in they did make some significant improvements. Even with the 18% drop in pure alcohol consumption in Alice Springs it still has a much higher rate of alcohol consumption. The CLP has promised to remove the bans in Alice Springs which would result in over 500 extra 4 litre casks of wine being sold every day. That is a significant amount of additional alcohol which would be sold.
People banned from purchasing alcohol will be free to do so again. I had a debate in this House with the member for Greatorex who says if you allow the bottle shops to open earlier and trade to closing time at night they are not going to make more money. Why would anyone spend money running a business and not profit from it? Why would anyone open their doors unless they were covering their costs and making a profit? Extending takeaway hours in Alice Springs would lead to more alcohol being sold and consumed. Why would a businessperson trade if they were not profiting from the extra hours and covering the expenses they incurred by having their doors open longer.
The CLP criticised me for criticising the practices of some of the pubs in Alice Springs. I have spoken about that and I do not retract my comments. I ask the members of the CLP if they would like their children to drink in these places. I think the answer is no, and if it is not good enough for your kids why should it be good enough for anyone else.
We are intending to introduce the banned drinker register and this is a key difference between the government and the opposition. The CLP are opposed to it, but without it you cannot enforce the alcohol bans. You cannot have a public policy saying we will ban people from drinking alcohol if they commit certain offences or behave in a certain way and then have no capacity to enforce those bans. We estimate across the Northern Territory - Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Darwin - once these bans come into force hundreds of people will be banned, particularly people being taken into protective custody three times in three months.
How will the people selling takeaway alcohol know who is banned unless there is a register? You cannot have a policy position saying people will be banned from accessing takeaway alcohol unless you can enforce it; otherwise it is a Clayton’s ban. Anyone involved in the field will tell you the first intervention with an alcoholic is to turn off the tap. I accept if you have chronic drug and alcohol problems you will do anything to find that next drink, however, you have to do everything you can to turn off the tap.
Mandatory treatment for repeat protective custody is a health intervention. The member for Sanderson asked what you do if people do not access mandatory treatment or if they walk out of it. I suppose you have to try. He talked about there being no criminality provisions associated with this. The government is not going down the path of criminalising alcoholism. If the opposition’s position is to criminalise alcoholism it can argue it, however, this is essentially a health intervention. There are over 300 rehab and sobering-up shelter beds across the Northern Territory. There needs to be many more and we are working on that with the Commonwealth.
We are also working with the non-government sector and the Police Commissioner told me he believes these reforms are the best government policy he has seen in a decade. We are having consultations and I urge all Territorians who have an interest in this area to have their say.
Let us look at third party endorsements for the government’s policy position. Dr John Boffa of the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition has been a critic of our government for quite some time regarding what he believes has been a lack of effort in Alice Springs. At other times he has been supportive; however, he always works off an evidence base. John has said:
The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT has welcomed the reforms stating:
Amity Community Services, the NT Council of Social Service and FORWAARD have also welcomed the reforms stating:
Liz Martin of the Responsible Drinkers’ Lobby in Alice Springs has also welcomed the reform stating in an e-mail to me:
We can have all the argy-bargy we want in here, but that is a significant cross-reference of the community which has applauded the government in the bold steps it is taking.
In the words of Amity Community Services, the NT Council of Social Service, NTCOSS, and FORWAARD, in the spirit of their comments to me, I implore the opposition, in contributing to this debate and their policies in this area, not to pursue the popular politics of advocating and amplifying the ‘inconvenience to some in our community’, and remember it is ‘a small sacrifice to pay for a much greater good’.
Yes, people will be angry at having to show ID to access takeaway alcohol. The system will not record any personal details; it will only contain identification of people who are banned. If you are not banned, nothing changes. It is a small inconvenience to enforce alcohol bans on people who abuse alcohol, cause trouble, or are addicted to alcohol to the significant detriment of their health. If the opposition wants to run a campaign based on a small inconvenience and a small sacrifice, shame on it. We will not be deterred from what we are doing because we do believe it is for ‘a much greater good’.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement forward today. I believe our government is showing significant leadership on the community’s largest problem. Of course this will not fix all of the problems. There is no single silver-bullet solution. But it is wrong to say what we have today in alcohol policy is serving the people of the Northern Territory well. We have to take urgent steps. The government is committing to do so. I urge the opposition to consider these reforms in good faith and, in the event it cannot support them, put forward some coherent policy which has the backing of respected NGOs and clinical groups across the Northern Territory.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I listened intently to what the Chief Minister and the Minister for Alcohol Policy said. It is a very important ministerial statement. The Chief Minister said it is the biggest issue in the Northern Territory. I am not sure if it is the biggest issue; it is one of the broader social issues in the Northern Territory and something which definitely needs attention.
Much reference has been made to Alice Springs in the speeches to date, particularly by government, about the level of alcohol consumption in Alice Springs. When we look at alcohol in the Northern Territory, and alcohol misuse, abuse, and the general effects of alcohol, a key difference is the demographic of people who use and abuse alcohol in the Top End compared to that in other areas of the Northern Territory.
It is interesting to see the media attention to situations or incidents which occur in places like Mitchell Street on a Friday or Saturday night and then see the type of alcohol incidents which occur in other parts of the Territory. I would describe many of the demographics in areas such as Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Springs and other remote parts of the community as being made up of unemployed Indigenous people who fill up much of the protective custody. In my reading, there is a different demographic in Darwin, so we have two issues we are trying to deal with.
I note in the plan there is discussion of the Alcohol Court which was invented by Chris Vaughn, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce in Alice Springs. That is a positive step which has now been replicated in Darwin and government has sought to regulate that approach. As I read through the statement and the five-point plan the government has identified as part of their Enough is Enough alcohol reform plan, I believe there are some very positive moves.
The Chief Minister spoke about how people will become annoyed about having to show their licences, and in Alice Springs we are quite annoyed we have to show our licences every time we want to purchase an alcohol product. If you are going to do it in one part of the Territory, you should do it everywhere. It will annoy people in Darwin, I know, but if the government is serious about this five-point plan and really wants to implement it, it will be a necessity to do.
The concern I have is that this is just a plan, it is all talk, and government will not follow through on the actions within this plan. If you are going to have a banned drinker register, a tribunal and a court process which is going to ensure rehabilitation is mandatory, then the licence mechanism needs to be put in place. I know not all Territorians will be happy with that. However, the problem I have is based on the experience that in Alice Springs the Alcohol Courts have been a dismal failure. Only a couple of dozen people have gone through them over a couple of years and barely a handful of people have completed rehabilitation programs. Nothing has changed on our streets.
While Enough is Enough sounds good in principle, and in principle I support the concept, in reality and in practice, what has been seen in Central Australia has not been good enough. We hear a great deal of commentary, particularly from the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister, about rivers of grog and the CLP’s approach to these issues. I have thought long and hard about this and consulted many people, and I believe it is better to change the hours for the supply of takeaway alcohol. If takeaway alcohol sales started at 10 am, you would not see the rush of people into what are commonly referred to as ‘animal bars’ in Central Australia. You would see people with a more temperate approach to how they purchase alcohol.
At the same time, I have concerns with people hanging around the Northside Shops in my electorate of Braitling. I see people hanging around there all hours of the night while the trading hours continue to 9 pm at the takeaway alcohol outlets. People are standing there waiting to buy more grog, humbugging everyone. It detracts from the aesthetics of the shopping centre, and from the shopping experience of people who go there. It also hurts the small businesses as people do not want to go to the shops because of the disgraceful way these people look, the fights you have to go through, the people spitting, swearing and carrying on, and all the rubbish which goes on at the Northside Shops.
Maybe we should look at opening the outlets earlier, at 10 am, and shutting them at 7 pm at the Northside shops. We do not want to impinge on small business, but we do need to manage these things better. I support the concept of trying to deal with people earlier in the day rather than later at night when it is a more difficult problem.
There has been much commentary about how the government is trying to deal with this issue after the event, after people have developed an alcohol problem, and it is trying to deal with the supply of alcohol on a more continuous basis, rather than the demand. I saw an article in the Centralian Advocate newspaper two weeks ago, commentary about a new grog plan. I do not have the date here; I think it was on Friday, 15 October. There was a comment about how they are now looking at only having alcohol that is 3.5% or less available between 11.30 am and 2 pm in licensed premises. That means if you go into a licensed premises and you want to purchase alcohol you are not going to be able to buy full-strength beer or a glass of wine without also having a meal. That is a very poor approach to policy. That is not going to change the situation in Alice Springs. All it is going to do is detract from the good people of Alice Springs and not the people who have alcohol problems.
If you knock off work on a Friday afternoon at 12 pm and you want to have a schooner of VB at the local club, you will not be able to do that any more. If you want to go for lunch and have a glass of Riesling you will no longer be able to do that. That is not saying we need to have alcohol rights, it is saying you are attacking the people who do not do the wrong thing. You are not addressing the people with alcohol problems, who are chronic alcohol abusers, or the people who deliberately do the wrong thing. You are not addressing the demand side of the equation.
The demand side of the equation is the area where this government continues to fall down in a number of areas. We know the links between housing circumstances and alcohol abuse. We know the links between education and alcohol abuse - education in terms of the schooling system. There are links in a number of areas, but people do not address that. We know we need to send people to mandatory rehabilitation services to try to help them, rather than placing more rules on the good folk of the Northern Territory, which will impinge on their Territory rights, their lifestyle rights, once again. Instead of attacking the good people through this 3.5% alcohol model they are trying to introduce in Central Australia, they should be saying to people: ‘If you are on welfare you should not be drinking’, or they should be considering models like that.
Look at the demographic in the areas outside of Darwin and people who are on unemployment benefits; I am not saying everyone, but the people we see with substance abuse problems are from a very similar demographic. We saw the changes which came through with income management as part of the Intervention, where 50% of the welfare was quarantined. We know people are still utilising their other welfare dollars to purchase alcohol. Let us make these people find a job and get into training.
The best way to stop people from drinking in the middle of the day, and topping themselves up until 2 pm and buying takeaway alcohol is making them get a job. Get them into work, then they will not be drinking. We do not drink at 11.30 am because we have jobs. This is where the government fails in this area.
It is the same when you read the Bath report and take that in connection with the Little Children are Sacred report, the responses are required before the fact. Yes, we have to do things after the fact, which is what the Bath report looks at, however, we also have to act before the fact. What we see with alcohol, education, health, and child and family services is that people need to have appropriate housing; people do not have appropriate housing. The correlation of social outcomes, including alcohol abuse, is quite significant. I have a great concern the government is not looking at other areas; it is only addressing the supply issue.
The ministerial statement today would be a sound approach if it was not only policy and the government was going to implement it and have some real measures. The discussion in this House about mandatory sentencing does not mention being sentenced to rehabilitation to try to improve the circumstances in which you live and take on some personal responsibility. It says you can be sent to rehabilitation services - that is not good enough. The government talks about 300 beds. There are not 300 beds; its annual report says there are only 217 rehabilitation beds in the Northern Territory. We know of those beds for rehabilitation services, the majority have been taken up by Correctional Services because the gaol is full. They cannot manage people in the gaol any more and are moving them into rehabilitation services because they cannot be housed in the gaol, and they are trying to call it a rehabilitation system. That is not the case, and we have not even started talking about the community correction side of things where people who have done the wrong thing are being put back on our streets rather than in gaols.
I reiterate my concerns about the proposed 3.5% alcohol approach between 11.30 am and 2 pm. I am totally against that proposal. It does nothing but detract from the good people of Central Australia. If you want to show some leadership, you should be trying to deal with the people who have the demand issues, who are causing the problems in our community. We know across the Territory, particularly in areas outside Darwin, there is a common group of people who continually do the wrong thing and we are not targeting those people; we are not sending them to rehabilitation. The banned drinker register is not doing anything. It is like youth on our streets, nothing is happening despite government talk.
Until I see action by government in this area, I reserve my opinion on whether I support this approach. It is a significant issue in the Northern Territory; it is good to see a statement on this, and good to see a plan. However, there have been plenty of plans in the Northern Territory where nothing has been done.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister for bringing this on. I will listen intently to the debate throughout the afternoon to see where it takes us.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for his contribution. Having spoken about alcohol and its effects since the day I came into parliament - this is an issue which keeps coming back to parliament all the time - I know it is sometimes impossible to work together as a parliament to look at practical approaches to what is a serious issue across the Territory.
I comment on the member for Braitling’s statement about the socio-economic group we see mostly in the streets, especially in Alice Springs, however there is a high socio-economic group we see in Mitchell Street which also has a problem. It is not necessarily a problem for one group of people in the Northern Territory; it goes across the board.
I have read the minister’s statement. One of the areas the member for Braitling touched on is we have to be a little more holistic. This is generally talking about what can we do for those problem drinkers, and we discuss many issues in relation to alcohol-related violence, however, there are also the health issues. The abuse of alcohol creates huge demands on our hospitals and clinics in the short term. It also puts huge demands on our hospitals and hospice and palliative care staff when some of the damage done by excessive alcohol comes back to a person later in life and, unfortunately in many cases, is the reason they die.
We should not be looking at the cost of problem drinkers just from the point of view they are a nuisance or cause violence. There is a broader range of issues we have to look at, as well as those bigger issues about the effects on families. When we are talking about the child protection report, we cannot leave alcohol out of that. Kids are abused and frightened when parents are drunk. It is not something new; it has been around for a long time. You do not have to be a black kid to be frightened if your parent is drunk and shouting and screaming in the house; you could be any colour. When I was a kid this was something you did not talk about much. I had an auntie, and mum would say in whispers that her husband used to belt her. That was like talking about something which was nearly taboo. These issues have been around a long time and, to some extent, we have to have a cultural change. I do not think that is addressed in this document.
Australians love their beer. We go to the footy, we have a beer. Everywhere we go, we have a beer. In the Territory, we have a beer at the local school fete. When we are standing around with our mates, if we do not have one in our hand in a stubby holder we are not really dressed appropriately. Much of our culture revolves around having a beer. I do not have a problem with that. However, we tend to then produce a society which sees it as being the norm. I am not sure that is a good thing.
You then have advertising companies, in conjunction with breweries, which hop on the bandwagon and we now have a very close relationship in Australia between sport and alcohol. Once upon a time, it was tobacco and alcohol. I am bemused as to why tobacco was picked on and not alcohol. I have said time and time again, how many people have been picked up for driving with a cigarette in their mouth? It has not been the cause of too many accidents unless they cough at the wrong time. Plenty of people have been picked up for drinking while driving. We know that is the cause of many of our road accidents in Australia. How much violence in the home was caused by tobacco? Maybe people got cranky because someone should not have been smoking in bed or something like that. Generally speaking, in many cases alcohol has caused violence in the home.
We have two drugs which are legal in Australia; we banned the advertising of one but not the advertising of the other. It is the other which, in the long term, in the broader picture, causes many more problems than tobacco. I am not promoting tobacco, but we picked the wrong one. We picked one, and not the one we suffer the consequences of.
I am not saying people should not drink, but we have a very clever society today, especially when it comes to the advertising industry. It knows it can put clever advertisements out there. It knows if it can relate to sport it has a captive market. You do not have to look far in major sport in Australia to find out who are the big backers. In many cases, it is the alcohol industry. It knows where its money comes from, and it is going to support it. Perhaps the government has to step in and say that connection should be further apart.
I lived on Bathurst Island; the social club was right next to the football oval. In Milikapiti the social club was right next to the football oval. We took that same type of thinking into those communities so kids who grew up their saw alcohol and sport as being part and parcel of the way things were done. That connection has to be broken. I know alcohol plays a big part in some of our local clubs being able to afford to exist, because through their licences they are able to raise enough funds to keep the clubs going.
The member for Brennan would know if you go to a cricket do in Palmerston or at Freds Pass alcohol is part of the day’s game and that is how they make money. When the Katherine Football Club decided it would not sell alcohol at venues in Katherine, its income decreased rapidly and it found it hard to exist. That is where the government needs to help. We see the healthy side of sport, and we want to promote that, but sometimes with sport comes the ugly side, which is drunken spectators and that type of thing, which does not do anything for families who want to have a nice day at the football.
We still have not touched on some of those issues. I remember talking about when the vodka drinks first came in with all their beautiful colours; the reason they came in lovely colours and were so sweet was to tell people: ‘Look, what a lovely drink it is’. I am not a drinker but I understand that those vodka drinks do not taste like vodka. They are sweet enough to taste like lolly water, but they have a high alcohol content. That was done to get people drinking that product. We still have them on the market; no one makes any noise about them, and yet we talk about young people binge drinking.
Governments have not been strong enough in taking on the industry about more responsible selling and advertising of their product. We put warning labels on tobacco, and we tell you all the harmful things about tobacco, but do we put the same effort into the harmful effects of the abuse of alcohol? Alcohol is a great substance, it is great at a family party, or Christmas party, people’s spirits are lifted and they have an enjoyable day. I do not have a problem with that; I can get that from iced coffee.
Alcohol is part of our society and it is a part of many societies. It is not that which is the problem - it is the abuse. The alcohol industry has hold of that and tried to increase its market by getting young kids more interested in spirits. I do not remember too many spirits being drunk when I was a kid, it was more beer, but nowadays it tends to be the promotion of some of those products.
To get back to the minister’s statement, I have a series of questions which need to be asked, and I will go through them in order of the statement. I hope the minister will be able to explain what some of these police bans are about. For instance, has the government had any discussion with the police regarding police bans? How will they work in practice? Does a police officer just walk up and say: ‘You’re banned, here’s a ticket’? Will police have to make referrals and have a register of how many times a person has already been banned? How much paperwork will be required? Will it mean extra police? Will it actually work? That is the question I am really asking, because I have seen many ideas before. Will it make a difference? That is the key to many of these things - will it make a difference?
The statement says the Alcohol and Other Drug Tribunal, the AOD, would have some power to tell people they need mandatory treatment. It says:
Where would the tribunal get this power and what if the person says they do not want mandatory treatment? Will that person go to gaol? If so, where does it say that because it is not clear - and this is only the tribunal, not the SMART Court mentioned further on.
The next section, Action 2, is the banned drinker register. I know there is politics and the government has stated that under the CLP the rivers of grog would still flow. Can the government show me figures across the Territory, not just in individual towns, of whether the rivers of grog have stopped flowing in their time in parliament? I have seen some broad figures for individual communities, but if I was to take the whole of the Territory could the government put its hand on its heart and say they have stopped the rivers of grog flowing?
If I look around today I do not think things have changed. I think things are worse. Do the figures on people who go to sobering-up shelters correlate with a reduction in the rivers of grog? I am not sure. We need to take some of the politics out because we all, CLP, ALP and Independents, want to see a slowing down of the rivers of grog. You can make cheap shots but that does not achieve anything in this debate. We all need to work together to find solutions.
Whilst banning drinkers in small communities like Gove and Groote Eylandt may work, will it work in larger communities like Darwin or the rural area? People who need grog will find ways around it, especially in larger communities. How difficult will it be to police that? In the rural area there is a pub at Virginia, a pub at Howard Springs, a liquor licence at Coolalinga, a liquor licence at Howard Springs next to the tavern, another liquor licence at Humpty Doo and another tavern, another pub at Humpty Doo, the Noonamah Pub, a liquor licence at Berry Springs, Litchfield Pub, the golf course, and I have probably forgotten others. What I am saying is, in a larger community, who is going to be able to track whether I send a mate up to the golf course to get grog? The ideas may suit certain areas but I am not sure they will suit other areas. Sometimes there is an argument that if something is done in Alice Springs it should be done in Darwin. Maybe it can work in one place because it is a smaller community; it is confined to a smaller area. In other cases it will not work because it is a much larger area.
Who will pay for the scanners? Who will monitor them, especially when they are remote licences? There are pubs out the back of Bourke; who is going to make sure that those scanners are being used properly? People talk about the BasicsCard being the way to control what people buy but I heard a story recently that one store keeper charges people double for beer and smokes, which you are not allowed to buy with BasicsCards, and then uses the BasicsCard to pretend they bought a bag of potatoes. People will find ways around things, which is what worries me. If you are going to have this system throughout the Territory, how are you going to back it up and make sure it is operated correctly?
Does the AHA support the ID system? It mentions in the paper it does. I would like to see more information about how much of it they support and what would happen to people at the coalface when they refuse to serve a banned customer? Is there going to be more cost for taverns and pubs to have more security? That needs to be looked at. Who else will have access to the banned register? Will it be something only the Licensing Commissioner knows about, or will it go elsewhere so people can use it to focus on people who need help?
Will the Commonwealth help? I believe this will cost $6m. I ask whether the Commonwealth will throw some money into this program. After all, it has been involved in the intervention, and one could ask if the intervention is part of the problem or part of the solution. It could be part of the problem. Does the Commonwealth have a role to play because there has not been much discussion about whether the intervention has caused some of the problems?
Action 3 is about the Alcohol Court reforms. What went wrong with the Alcohol Court? The new court is called the smart one - does that mean the other one was a dumb one? A report was done last year on the effectiveness of the Alcohol Courts. Will the SMART Court take up where the Alcohol Court left off? Will it be more effective, because the Alcohol Court went for three years and we have now changed it? My suspicion is it was not effective which is why the government has brought in this new SMART Court. What positive changes can the government show were achieved by the Alcohol Court? We set up an Alcohol Court; it cost a great deal of money, could the government put on the table how many people changed their life through the Alcohol Court? Was it of any use? That is one of the questions we will be asking of the Court.
The other one was banning orders. This is another question which comes from the Alcohol Court reforms. Are banning orders …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan. The other point I want to raise is under Action 3, the Alcohol Court reforms. Is a banning order to stop people from drinking alcohol or just purchasing it? How are you going to stop someone drinking it? That is getting a little hard - someone sitting on the loo having a swish on a beer. You have a fair chance of stopping someone from purchasing alcohol – but to stop them drinking it! Can the existing courts do some of the work the SMART Court will be doing where there is an offence involved? According to this, the SMART Court, which is replacing the Alcohol Court, will deal with people charged with a criminal offence. Why could we not refine the existing system, because it is a criminal offence, instead of setting up a new court? We have the tribunal for people who have not caused an offence, why are people not dealt with normally and if there are issues about alcohol, that court has the right to sentence people to mandatory rehabilitation?
This talks about increased rehabilitation services. I do not have figures here; however, there are many rehabilitation services. Every community has some sort of body with sobering-up shelters or rehabilitation. We even have people visiting who have some new approach to rehabilitation. I would like to see an audit of how many people have gone through these rehabilitation programs and changed permanently.
Are we paying out a great deal of money to rehabilitation centres - God bless them, they try to do a good job - but are they effective? Can I follow the life of Mr A who has been in a rehabilitation centre and have proof that man now has a job, his family is being looked after, and he does not touch the drink?
Before we start pouring more money into increased rehabilitation services, we should have a full and detailed audit of whether the existing systems have done anything. I am not being negative about them; they may have. How am I supposed to make a judgment to support increased rehabilitation services if I do not know the existing ones are doing any good? It should be the responsibility of the government, before it spends any more money, to have its departments, or whoever it needs to, do some in-depth analysis about where rehabilitation services are going so we do not waste money, and we can say we are doing something good for the community.
The government says - and it uses a little quote from the community about rehabilitation:
If I asked them, could they tell me what ‘some’ means? Were there 10 people who went through the Safe and Sober Program and are still safe and sober? That does not give me much feeling of success, we need more detail.
Regarding awareness campaigns, as someone said to me, how do you get an awareness program out to the people sitting in the park over the road? They have no television and do not read the paper. We need to be specific about who we are trying to target with awareness programs. Not many of those longrassers have a house, let alone a television. How much will the campaign cost? Much as I am not against the existing campaign, it has been going on and on; you can wear out a good thing. If there is one complaint I am hearing from people in my area it is, ‘Take those ads off the television. How much are they costing us?’ You can get your message across, smartly, but you get to a point where it starts to gnaw at you. If you are trying to win friends in the debate about doing the right thing in the way we use alcohol, then ensure you do not turn people off, who start going crook at the government saying: ‘You are spending to much money now. We got the message’. How much the program cost would be a good question to ask at the next Estimates Committee.
Can people tell me whether it was effective? If you are going to spend a great deal of money on advertising companies, spend money to find out if those advertisements were effective. If you are going to spend this much money on advertising, you need to be see whether you are getting the right reaction, otherwise it is not a very good awareness campaign, it works against you.
The other complaint I have heard was that - because I have probably been worn out by the advertisements myself – it is asking people to respond to this idea of a Safe Territory. There does not appear to be any link on the advertisement to tell you how to do it. This person was not to rapt in it; that is why they took notice of it. They wanted to respond to the government’s advertisements, and said there did not seem to be any way you could have your say, unless you lived in Palmerston or Darwin, because they put out a survey. If you live in the rural area, it was a bit more difficult.
Could the government say how many surveys were sent out, how many were returned, will there be an independent analysis of the survey, and will that be released for comment? I know the government has said there were X number of surveys but, when you look at the Menzies report on Tennant Creek it is pretty in that it tells you how many people they rang, how many people did not answer the phone, how many people refused to fill it in. Of those who did fill it in, you can get a demographic of age and gender and that sort of thing. I am interested to know whether this analysis was the sort of detail you get from the Menzies School of Health Research.
If we are talking about an awareness campaign, we keep ignoring the fact that drunkenness is a problem too. We seem to go for this harm reduction strategy, but we never ask: is being drunk a good thing? Is losing control a good thing? It seems that is okay as long as you do not hurt anyone, but is it really a good thing? Kids, go to a party, get drunk, as long as you stay home, wake up with a hangover, that is fine. Are we teaching people that being drunk is a good thing? I do not believe it is, not because I mind people drinking, but because when you reach the stage of losing control, there are many other implications which can occur, especially with young people. We should say to them that that is not the way to go. No one promotes that, no one says anything about it.
I have talked about restrictions in advertising. The government should also look at its own policies in regard to alcohol in government buildings and in schools. Should there always be beer at a school function? Why not just have soft drinks at primary schools? I do not know where the government is with that.
One area we are still mucking about with, we are tinkering with it, you see that in the statement, is Mitchell Street. I have some of that information from Newcastle. Newcastle cut back the hours its main street was open which cut back by quite a large percentage on the number of violent offences and call-outs. The government says, people should drink responsibly, is drinking at 2 am, 3 am and 4 am drinking responsibly? Why can you not drink to 12 am or 1 am, leave the place open for a few hours and people can still enjoy themselves? Surely that is responsible drinking.
Are we too scared to take on the licensees who we gave all the licences to in Mitchell Street? Why do we have to have people drinking that late? It seems to me we are pampering to a few, and are a bit scared to upset the apple cart in Mitchell Street. All we are doing is saying that we will bring in accords; we will ban a few people from here and there. I am not saying people should not drink or have a good time, but why does it have to go that late at night? That is when we seem to have the problems.
We go crook at Aboriginal people in Alice Springs and other communities, and we try to bring in restrictions on them, but who brings in restrictions on the whitefellas in Mitchell Street? We do not do it. We should be tougher. I am not saying people should not have a good time. The plastic glasses and shatter proof glasses are fine, but that is tinkering. We need to cut down the hours. Have a look at the Newcastle example. The minister needs to go to Newcastle to see what has been done there and what the effect has been. We are not tough enough on some of these issues. We are saying be tough on crime, we are saying these things have to stop, but when it comes to the crunch we seem to step back a little and say, oops, too hard, too unpopular. We could do much better.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her important statement. I hope we can work together as a team, rather than nitpicking all the time. We have to solve this problem, otherwise the Territory will have it for many years to come.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Alcohol Policy, and the proposed alcohol reforms in the Northern Territory. No one will deny the heavy toll which alcohol wreaks on the lives of Territorians; the enormous cost to our society and health system, and the enormous cost, on a personal level, to families, relatives, friends and neighbours.
The issue of alcohol is very important. We have to tackle it in a different way. We managed to tackle petrol sniffing, which wiped out communities and a generation of people, and we have done it really well. We have to look at alcohol seriously. How are we going to do it? I heard the comments my colleagues in this House made, from both sides of parliament, about reducing alcohol sales and reducing the volume of alcohol sold.
The reality is that we have to face the real issue of alcohol. Alcohol in Australia is a cultural issue which probably derived from the original settlers in Australia bringing habits from another country. Alcohol is not new to the western culture. Alcohol is celebrated in my own culture, but in a different way. Alcohol has been drunk in Greece from 4000 or 5000 years ago, but it was always part of a celebration, part of a meal. It was not the main ingredient of a party; it was an accessory. In many cases, even today, when you go somewhere to drink alcohol, most likely you go where you have something to eat with it. The majority of the problems started appearing in my country of origin when the new trends appeared in the beginning of the 1990s when premises like nightclubs, bars and pubs became very fashionable. Then the alcohol problems started to mount.
We ask why we see young people drink. If you go to any sport or recreational activity, you will see many young kids holding cans in their hands. They are probably cans of Coca-Cola, Lift or Sprite. As time goes by and the kids get older, that can coverts from Coca-Cola and Lift to VB or another alcoholic beverage. We have to attack alcohol from a very early age by not creating the habit. We need to do things differently so kids do not transition from the cold drink can to a cold beer can.
Alcohol-related harm costs each of us $4197 every year, or a total of $640m each year through death, disease, injury, loss of productivity and costs associated with policing crime. By comparison, the Australian cost per person is only $943 per year. From a health perspective, alcohol is the cause of about 120 deaths per year and the per capita rate is three-and-a-half times higher than the national average. In addition, about 2500 people are going to hospital each year as a result of alcohol consumption, with the corresponding cost for in-patient care of $30.3m in 2004-05.
The cost affects us all, whether we consume alcohol or not. It affects us through stressed health services and child protection systems, and much more personally through the loss of loved ones, family dysfunction and the suffering of those affected by injury and illness, all of which are preventable. The Department of Health and Families is at the front line in responding to this harm: medical officers, nursing personnel, health workers, child protection teams, life care professionals and disability workers, to name just a few, to assist families and individuals affected by the scourge of alcohol.
We recognise reducing alcohol-related problems is a whole-of-government responsibility. The Department of Health and Families has a key role in delivering treatment services for people with alcohol issues and care services providing an intervention for people who are intoxicated. These services support people with all kinds of substances abuse issues; however, alcohol continues to be the main drug of concern for people seeking treatment.
During 2009-10, there were 3742 close treatment episodes in the Northern Territory; 71% recorded alcohol as the principle drug of concern. The majority of treatment services are provided by the non-government sector, while the department delivers specialised alcohol treatment, such as medically supported withdrawal management. There is a continued interest in residential rehabilitation options, or beds, and it is true the Territory population profile and demographics justify a greater focus on this type of service.
Since 2004, we have increased residential rehabilitation treatment beds across the Northern Territory by 107, in conjunction with the Australian government. We now have 293 treatment beds in the Territory. Our government has increased residential services with the Nhulunbuy Special Care Centre. That was constructed and funded to operate a 16-bed residential service, ensuring access to bed-based and out-patient treatment at a time when none had previously existed. The redevelopment of the Aranda House facility in Alice Springs provided 10 additional residential beds for volatile substance and other drug abuse in Alice Springs.
There are eight residential beds for young people affected by volatile substance abuse at the Council of Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services in Berrimah. There are five residential beds for young people affected by volatile substance and other drugs of misuse in Alice Springs; increased resources for treatment services through a fee-for-service model as part of the Alcohol Court; and upgrading Banyan House in Darwin from 17 to 22 beds. In addition, the St Vincent de Paul Society is delivering a transitional after-care services at Bees Creek, providing 10 additional beds. Over the same period, new funding opportunities have been generated through the Council of Australian Government commitments in the Northern Territory Emergency Response. This has resulted in further 49 residential beds for the Territory, operated by the non-government sector with new facilities in Katherine and Alice Springs, specifically an additional 10 beds for women at the new Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Program Unit women’s facility in Alice Springs, the Kalano Community Association Inc Venndale Residential Rehabilitation Centre in Katherine increased its bed capacity from 11 to 20, with 28 proposed new transitional after-care beds in Kalano, and 12 in DHA in Alice Springs.
While not treatment services, sobering-up shelters exist across each region and offer care for approximately six hours to assist with sobering-up of clients who have misused alcohol. The service provides care and protection for people who are vulnerable as a result of intoxication, and plays an important role in the suite of alcohol services to prevent antisocial behaviour in the community. Last financial year, there were over 20 000 admissions to sobering-up shelters Territory-wide, involving 5270 people. That means, at an average, each person was admitted at least four times. New sobering-up shelter services and facilities have been expanded since 2004, and we now have 108 beds. We have opened a long overdue service in Nhulunbuy. In addition, the Australian government has funded the Department of Health and Families to replace the ageing facilities in Katherine and Tennant Creek with new, purpose-built, larger sobering-up shelters. I look forward to reporting to you about the opening of this new service in the near future.
As well as bed-based services, there have been other opportunities and innovative approaches to support people to address their alcohol problems. The Prison In-Reach program, delivered by the Department of Health and Families, is providing assessment, counselling, and group work programs to adults and young people in the Darwin Correctional Centre, the Don Dale Juvenile Detention Centre, and people on remand.
The hospital-based intervention project delivers screening, brief intervention, supported withdrawal management and referral support through the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals. Seven alcohol and other drug workers are operating out of our remote health centres. There are also 18 funded alcohol and other drug workers located in Aboriginal medical services across the Territory, all of which make up the remote alcohol and other drugs workforce. There is a Safe and Sober initiative in Alice Springs which was developed collaboratively by local treatment agencies and funded by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs through the Alice Springs transformation plan. There are a number of outreach programs delivering outreach therapeutic interventions, case work, and after care for people in town camps affected by alcohol. FaHCSIA has allocated resources of $5.4m over four years to seriously address this critical issue.
Extensive and creative training programs are provided by the department and support a student load of about 1100 to undertake Certificate III and IV and Diploma level training in alcohol and other drugs. All alcohol and other drug program training is free, and available for staff and volunteers of all services in the Territory who work with clients who may have alcohol and other drugs issues.
Of particular relevance to our alcohol reforms is the national accredited training in brief interventions developed by the Department of Health and Families in 2004. This program was so successful it has since been adopted as a unit of competence in the national Community Services Training Package. The course is offered as a four day participatory workshop via external mode through completion of a workbook and assessment task. The delivery can also be tailored to suit the needs of Indigenous clients or other service requirements. Over the last three years, 370 students completed this course from the alcohol and other drug sector, primary health and mental health services, Indigenous organisations, supported accommodation services and government agencies such as Northern Territory Police and Northern Territory Corrections.
While these are some of the efforts and investments vested in supporting treatment and treatment access, they are in no way all of it. There are many long-standing alcohol services and dedicated health practitioners in the Territory tackling an ever growing number of clients who are increasingly sicker, more damaged and more complex. They have spoken with me about the chronic effect of alcohol dependence, urging a much greater investment in treatment services and for radical changes in the approach to prevention by targeting those at greater risk of harm. The alcohol reforms do that by giving credence to the view that specific approaches to problem drinkers are needed and must apply to all people with alcohol problems equally. They recognise, for many people, not drinking for a period, even a long period in many instances, is both appropriate and necessary.
The proposed alcohol reforms are now subject to public consultation and provide an opportunity for a significant new growth in alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services to be considered and negotiated. The reforms also provide for new pathways and options for those people most affected by alcohol to be referred to treatment, either through incentives arising from banning notices, through referral following an assessment from the tribunal, or through the SMART Court.
The Department of Health and Families is working closely with key stakeholders in determining the scope and locations of expanded treatment services and developing new models in areas where treatment access has been very limited, such as remote towns. We are also working on more engagement with primary healthcare services such as GPs and Aboriginal medical services to provide brief interventions to their patients, counselling for patients to seriously consider the impact their drinking behaviour is having on their health and the opportunity to do more about it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in recognition of the very real cost of alcohol-related harm, propelled by the petitions from those on the front line, I stand in support of the alcohol reforms and commend the courage of the proposed approach.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was wondering whether I would speak at all because, as I heard a couple of other members say, we seem to be talking about this all the time. I am certain I have made similar statements at a variety of times over my many years in this parliament.
What we discuss in here is in the presence of a group of drinkers which I saw just before the lunch break and, then, during the lunch break. There were about 15 of them happily drinking in the park in full view, without any concern whatsoever. Some had made the effort to conceal the liquid they were happily drinking. They were sitting on the ground on little mats and were in a very happy group. They seemed to have a bottle of lemonade which was red in colour. They had not gone to much trouble at all and, on the sandstone bench was a bottle of Cooper’s Sparkling Ale. It was sitting in full view with no concern whatsoever. I was greeted as I walked past. Perhaps they thought if I had a bit of time on my hands, I could sit down with them; such was the lack of concern. Yet, we are concerned and we speak about alcohol-fuelled violence and all the problems entailed in this matter.
I find it a bit silly if we talk when we cannot face the challenges we have within cooee of this parliament. We say all sorts of things but they have no effect on those who are simply unconcerned. It was quite an amazing thing to see; to see the stark contrast.
I recognise the government has travelled a considerable distance in their thinking, moving from the left. The left’s view is it is society which is at fault. We need to feel sorry for individuals and to try our best to reach out to them and do all we can, with all manner of programs, to change society, because people are not responsible for themselves. That is the view of the left, and we have seen that approach taken by Labor over 10 years which has resulted in what we have within cooee of the parliament; those who have no concern because they expect the left will be providing increased funding for a range of new programs.
Government, in the 10 years, has recognised the policies and the thinking of the left result in social disaster. Now, we move to a more conservative view where individuals are required to accept personal responsibility. It is commonly called the tough love approach; if you care for someone - as some may even consider in their own families if someone has a drinking problem - there comes a tipping point in the family where intervention is required which may be against the expressed will of the person who is in need of serious help.
We have that tipping point in our community now, and that is why I acknowledge the government has changed its language. It has come so far but will not cross that bridge because still there is the lingering evidence of the battle between the left and conservative values contained in this brochure. The constituency is largely conservative. They know individuals are responsible for their actions. Most families and people who take responsibility for themselves expect others to do the same. They expect certain values and standards to be upheld and defended. Most people are instinctively conservative. So when you put out a brochure such as this, it sends all the right messages, and most people think yes, that is right, good stuff. Alcohol abuse causes crime. Yes, and enough is enough, that is what many people are thinking. It ticks all those boxes. The focus groups would have confirmed that. You only have to tune in and listen.
Then it gets to banned drinker register; that is good. Then it talks about mandatory alcohol rehabilitation treatment, which is where we have the problem. Mandatory is compulsory. That is what I understand, and what anyone else would see mandatory as meaning, such as mandatory sentencing. There is a dreadful, lingering battle within the organisation called the Labor Party, Labor government. Those of the left are saying they have inserted a pivotal word ‘can’; banned problem drinkers ‘can’ be ordered into mandatory treatment. The picture which is being painted, which is exactly what the community is expecting of us, is brought down by one word, ‘can’, which erodes the creditability of the whole proposition.
I acknowledge there is significant movement in the right direction to remind people we, as a society, cannot make any progress unless we hold individuals responsible. They may need our help, but first they need to be reminded there are certain standards which need to be defended; those standards are more important than the individual. Once we recognise that, we move to point two, which is to intervene and provide some help, but that comes secondly.
That is why the Country Liberals have described policies, which I remain committed to, and which are a serious investment in a program which does exactly that: number one, defines and defends community standards and, number two, holds individuals responsible and, in the assessment of their capacity to be responsible, never exempting a person from being responsible. It is so undignified to send a message to someone that they are not in control, they have no responsibility. My dog does not have control, but human beings do, and it removes their dignity if you suggest to them they are not responsible, society is. That is the wrong message to send to any human being. They are responsible, and that is a message of dignity to a person. If you are having difficulty, let me help you up, but you cannot exempt them from responsibility. So the word ‘can’ is a slap in the face to a very fine and noble sentiment the community is expecting and is undermined by that word.
I will not say any more, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have said enough on this.
Dr Burns: What about your policy? Let us hear about that.
Mr MILLS: Our policy has been described again and again.
Dr Burns: I am interested in it again.
Mr MILLS: I am not going to stand again. I have had enough of standing in this parliament and describing the types of programs which are necessary to put in place. I am saying you have basically adopted the position which was described in 2008 by the Country Liberals, and I commend you for that. If you remove the word ‘can’ and replace it with ‘will’, the whole process would have integrity; that being, ultimately there comes the point, as in the Country Liberals position, if you are taken into protective custody three times in six months you are required, no ifs, no buts, no possibilities, to embark on a program of treatment. If you choose not to, then you are required, without any ifs or buts, to enter into treatment, which is a prison farm where there would be rehabilitation delivered to you. That is the end of the story. Now, it is …
A member interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, exactly, but it requires a significant investment and moral courage to go down that path. It has been described again and again, and if the honourable member on the other side, for the sake of the exercise, would like to have it all wheeled out again and explained to him, I think he is being disingenuous. He knows exactly what I am talking about.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, goodness knows how often we talk about liquor in this place. I am going to try something different. I am going out on a limb here, but I will do it anyhow. I want to talk about my personal experiences, because it is well known around the traps, in fact it is well documented in the newspaper of this fine jurisdiction, the Northern Territory News, that I am a man of sober habits. There is a reason why I am a man of sober habits: I was once a man of very unsober habits. I want to give people a bit of a world view of where I was and why I had such a strong influence on the policy of the Country Liberals in relation to alcohol abuse in this community.
I remember my first alcoholic drink; I was five years old. My father was a new immigrant to this country and had some work to do at the new Darwin River Dam at the time. I was five or six, and Mrs Van der Beek, who was also a family friend, decided to give little Johnny a beer. It was only a little Carlton Draught in the bottom of a cup; it was out of one of those old steel cans with the seam up the back. I did not even like the taste of it that much, but I wanted it to change me. That is my strongest memory of that event. I remember the events in detail, the liquor, the cup, everything.
I wanted it to change me and I believe from that day onwards I had an alcohol problem. I sought it out on every possible occasion. I was a slave to it, and whilst I was not a regular drinker from the age of five, by the time I was 13, I was. I stole most of the liquor I drank; I certainly could not afford it. While I was stealing that liquor, I would sometimes steal money to support that alcohol habit. I became more isolated and the growing feelings I had from that personal experience were feelings of insecurity, isolation, remorse, doubt and an excruciating resentment. Moreover, I started to demonstrate some of the classic symptoms of people who use and abuse alcohol and drugs, particularly the mood swings, the ones where you were up, hundred miles an hour, change the world, last there for a couple of hours and the next four days, you were in a deep, dark, awful place.
I managed to stumble into the police cadets, I bullshitted my way - sorry, well, seeing I am not being asked to withdraw it, I will leave that word, because it is true – through the interview and I jagged it. I was just downright lucky. I became a police cadet and by that stage, I was drinking maybe once or twice a week - binge drinking, really off the planet. I would drinks spirits, because spirits would get me drunk more quickly. I sought it out on every occasion. In the last couple of years before I stopped drinking I went to a very dark place.
Honourable members are probably not aware of a thing called an Accident Report Form. When you are a police officer you have to do an A4 tick and flick sheet at every accident. I do not know if you still have to do them. My brain had become so scrambled I was incapable of filling out those forms effectively. I remember getting one back which had about 10 red circles on it because I did not have the capacity to concentrate long enough to fill out a simple form.
The police force’s response was to do what all good public servants did in times like that, and possibly still do, I do not know, they gave me another job. They stuck me in the radio room. I continued to turn up to work. I did not miss much work with my drinking, but there were times when I turned up to work and I was drunk. At this stage, the feeling of isolation which was my life was profound.
I wonder if members could get a sensation of sliding down a tapering tube and towards the bottom of the tube you were coming to a point where you were becoming suffocated and the more you struggled the more you slide down that tube. That was very much the sensation I had every single day - a non-ending feeling of guilt, shame and even remorse at times when I had no reason to feel remorseful. I showed all the resentments, attitudes and ghastliness of mind and spirit which are attributed to a drug addict of any sort.
I do not believe there is a major difference in the forms of addiction or the chosen drug, be it heroin, alcohol or whatever. My drug of choice was alcohol because it was easily available. I sought oblivion, I suspect, in the same way a heroin addict seeks oblivion. The motivation is the same.
By the time my drinking was over I had had hallucinations. I had had delirium tremens. I often found myself standing in front of the toilet wondering which end of myself I should point at it first. I ended up having an episode in which I should have been arrested at the casino. The casino did not prefer charges. I made a complete fool of myself; I fell out of the air-conditioning system because it had entered my mind while I was walking down Mindil Beach that I could somehow get past the air-conditioning system. By the time the police arrived I was in such a bad state no charges were offered or preferred and I was taken home.
That was 29 September 1986. My memory is not as sound as it should be, there are bits missing, which had much to do with the fact I already had two bottles of Bundy under my belt since that morning. When I woke the next day I was confronted by a police sergeant, who will remain nameless, and was told, in no uncertain terms, my police career was over. I was scared, frightened and alone.
I want to wind the clock forward 24 years. I went to the back of Natasha Griggs’ office recently and sitting at the back door was an old dero. He had passed faeces into his shorts. His sinuses had given way so there was at least 150 ml of slime sitting in front of him. He had clearly wet himself. Yet he tried to engage me in pleasant conversation like: ‘How are you going, mate?’ If he had not been in such a state of denial I would have called an ambulance; he was that sick.
What separates me from him is I choose not to drink today. The difference between someone like that and someone like me is a choice which is made, and it is not a choice made by government. Government cannot make people’s minds up for them. The most totalitarian states in the history of humanity - Pol Pot was not capable of making people’s minds up for them. That wonderful free country which exists between every individual’s ears can be a heaven and it can be a hell; however, it is capable of making choices.
Today I walked into Bennett Park and despite this government’s best efforts - I believe genuine efforts and genuine desires - the tsunami of need which is washing up against the very doors of this parliament is unaddressed despite the best intentions of the people opposite. The underlying presumption which rests with the people opposite is society is the vehicle which carries responsibility for these people who are victims. In the eyes of the people opposite, had they been the intervention back on 30 September 1986, they would have told me it is not my fault, it is not my responsibility; that the decision to drink was the consequence of my child abuse, or of a less than perfect home life. That is what the members opposite would have told me. While they would have said I needed help – that much was clear to anyone – the underlying presumption is the message which would have come through to me is it was someone else’s responsibility to fix this.
Fortunately, what I was told by a certain sergeant - which cannot be repeated in this place because the decorum of this House would be seriously upset, I can condense his message into a single point: ‘You are responsible for what you do; you fix it’. That message resonated with me and, despite the awful place my head was at and despite the fact I was shaking and sick, I heard it and I sought and got help. To those people who assisted me through that process, I am eternally grateful.
Fundamentally, the one principle, the threshold which was met at this point, was I had made a decision to turn myself over to a different style of thinking. I did not know what it was going to be. I was not what you would call the most rational person. It was not like an epiphany; I was still a confused mess. But, I did know one thing: I no longer wanted to be that which I was. I wanted to be healthy. I did not care what healthy was and if at that point the cure for my malady had been, ‘Stick a petunia in your bottom and run up the mall naked’, I would have said: ‘Give me the phone number of the nearest florist’. I was that desperate.
A policy of government which seeks to bring about behavioural change in individuals must confront those individuals with the responsibility they have to themselves before anything else. If you try to water down, or in any way temper the reality they must fix their own problem - that they are the source of the fix of their own problem, primarily, and from that they can form themselves into a vessel in which good information can be poured - you will be pouring water over a rock. The information will just simply roll off the sides.
It is for this reason I suspect this policy government is suggesting will fail. It seeks to introduce a mandatory behaviour after you have been brought into protective custody so many times. I agree with that. But, ultimately, where is the intervention? These people breach these orders. These people are habitual drunks. These people are drug addicts. An order will be something they wipe their bottoms with. We know that, in spite of the fact our policy has orders.
Our policy recognises this truth. When those, only 300-odd, people who are the real frequent flyers through our system come to the system the government is proposing, the government will stick an order on them and they will be expected to get treatment. They will even say mandatory treatment: ‘You will go and get treatment’. So, off they go and ignore that order. Then, they have breached the order. Where do they go next? Do they go to your tribunal or to a court? What does the tribunal do? The tribunal says: ‘You have to do an order’. Ultimately, there has to be a court-based sanction which leads to incarceration.
Under the policy proposed by government, your drunks will be put into gaol. There will be no information, from what I can make out, in that gaol for these drunks. I do not much care if your policy or our policy on this side of the House gets drunks into gaol. That is the ultimate sanction; that is where both of our policies are going to put these frequent flyers. We will just do it more quickly. It is the quality of what they receive at the other end. The treatment programs must draw these people into sharp relief within their own mind’s eye so they can see themselves for what they are. I know, even after three months, in our policy some of them will get out of bed one morning, be released, and the first thing they will do is drive into town, or catch a bus into town, and get back on the turps. If that is the case, they end up back in the system and they start all over again.
There is a three month window, which is why we put a three month mandatory component into breaching an order in the structure we are suggesting, it is in that three month window, in a low security thing - an addict off their drug who is sitting in a compound near Katherine, is not going to need a great deal of security. Ninety-nine per cent of them will be compliant, and those who are not can go into the big house. But, while they are there, that is where you have your window to intervene. And you do not say: ‘Oh, you are a poor little person who needs a new sense of direction’. The message has to be clear: ‘The buck stops with you, sunshine. You are buggerising up your life, your opportunities, family, and your chances in the community you live in’.
I am enormously grateful to that police sergeant who read me the riot act because, one, I was ready to hear it, and I suspect most addicts are not, but more than that, he gave me the message when he said it is not society’s fault, it is not the system’s fault, it is not an existentialist post-modernist deconstruction of Catholicism and Christianity’s fault. It is simply this: the buck stops with you.
That is what made the difference in me. I do not know whether I am going to drink again in the rest of my life, but I can tell you, I will not be drinking any time soon. I know that what separates me from the gutter is, perhaps, the first drink. In fact, I suspect one drink would be one too many and a thousand would not be enough. I know this much: as long as I continue to practice spiritual principles, check my psyche, check my motives, and be grateful for the blessed gift I have been given of a sober life and clean life, that I am able to make something useful of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I see potential in every drunk I see in the park across the road but I cannot force them, as a member of this House, and government cannot force them as an institution, to realise their actual potential. That has to come from within. All we can do is construct a system around them which will make that decision the easiest option for them. Once it becomes the easiest option, it is the option they will choose, God willing. Some of these people you will never reach. We bury them every day. We stick them into body bags, they pass silently from this world with no one to mourn them, but I believe most individuals, when confronted with the reality of their life and their own responsibilities, they are the ones who can be rescued.
Whilst I truly appreciate what the members opposite feel about wanting to get involved - it is a beautiful value, a worthwhile value, and a value I respect - ultimately, you have to make these people responsible for themselves. They have to land on their arse. That is where their rescue is, it is at the bottom of the pit. If we can get them to the bottom of the pit where they are prepared to make that decision for themselves quicker, so much the better.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for Port Darwin on being a survivor of addiction. I enjoyed that reflection; however, there were many parts that I disagree with. The bottom line was, survivor of addiction, and addiction can be deconstructed in various ways, but it has the basic bottom line.
I will share a bit of my childhood while I have the opportunity. I will recount an interesting anecdote. At 7 am, being prepared for school, with good food, a uniform, a supportive family which is going to give me the keys to survival, there was my father at the kitchen table with a couple of long necks of Tooheys Pilsener. Anyone visiting our house would think that man had a problem. However, what they did not know was that man had been up all night keeping Ansett jets in the air and engineering the most modern avionics in the country. He was a shift worker and he chose to have his couple of beers after work, which on occasion meant he was sitting at the breakfast table at 7 am having a beer while I was having Weet-Bix, juice and toast.
From there I would go to Lakemba Railway Station and there I took great interest in the metho drinkers who sat in the bus shelters. The metho drinkers were very interesting characters and I learnt a great deal of Australian history from them. They were the same metho drinkers, they were in the same camp every day, and had the same behaviours. There was a big difference though, between my father at the breakfast table at 7 am and the metho drinkers in the bus stop at the Lakemba Railway Station. There was the difference of addiction. They had their stories, they had their excuses, but where the member for Port Darwin and I agree absolutely, it is about helping ourselves. Only you can help yourself in times of addiction.
When I chose to come to the Northern Territory, I chose to come to a land which had no fences. I chose to come to the last frontier. I see that the Territory is growing up and it is growing up in the same way as I lived through in New South Wales. The Territory is experiencing the same growing pains. I congratulate our government, I stand and support the Minister for Alcohol Policy, and I support this policy in the Territory because we are continuing the journey of growing up Territorians.
One of the differences, avoiding the excuses of the metho drinkers, was that both camps had choices, but there was a big difference in education and awareness. There was a huge difference in understanding the behaviour which led to, in most cases with the metho drinkers, offending behaviour.
Enough is Enough is a good term. It is also a package and a significant milestone for the Territory. It is directly aimed at the problem, at the offending behaviour, in this case, at the problem drinker. It says we, government and Territorians, have had enough of the high rate of alcohol abuse and alcohol-related crime in our community. Yet, if I choose to go home to my roots and to link up with friends in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, who have done very well, they are facing the same problems.
If we talk about Mitchell Street in this debate, they are facing the same problems at the Coogee Bay Hotel, where the disposable income is quite grand. These are the same issues. As parents we talk about the same issues and we get back to the same point, we have to address the behaviour. We have to base it on education and awareness; we have to base it on choice.
The figures relayed by the Alcohol Policy minister should be unacceptable to us all. Sixty per cent of domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related. Sixty per cent of all assaults are alcohol-related, and we drink at 1.5 times the national average.
When I came to the Northern Territory 30 years ago, apparently the statistics showed we even outdrank the Germans. It was the Wild West, and it was clear something needed to be done. Today, our government is continuing that journey. Strong action needs to be taken to change the story for the benefit of Territorians.
The five-point Enough is Enough package contains the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in the Territory’s history. They are the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in our nation’s history and the minister is to be commended for the development of these landmark reforms. I welcome these initiatives, including the ID system, which are aimed at the problem drinker.
Enough is Enough is not operating in isolation, it has not come from nowhere. Government has delivered significant alcohol reforms across the Territory, including takeaway restrictions and Alcohol Courts. However, we know there is more to be done and this package builds on that. It compliments the policies and initiatives which are in place.
As the minister for Corrections, 72% of prisoners say their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. As we know, the Territory has the highest rate of recidivism in the country - 47%. The Territory’s correctional services have a role to play in addressing alcohol abuse and its link to crime. Alcohol programs in our prisons are currently delivered by both Corrections and external providers - the Health department’s In-Reach program in Darwin, and the Safe and Sober program delivered by Central Australian Congress in Alice Springs.
In July and August, 73 prisoners participated in the alcohol program run by Corrections. In Alice Springs, 114 prisoners were treated by the Safe and Sober program in July and August. From January to August, 113 prisoners were given treatment through the In-Reach program in Darwin. Last month, I was pleased to join with the Chief Minister in announcing a five element, $68m package to deliver the new era in corrections.
In response to the member for Nelson’s concern, does this guarantee a person will be safe and sober? No, we live in a democracy; we do our best. In a correctional services environment, we have several opportunities in a very regulated, structured environment to ensure we have maximum impact. However, upon release, that person is released into a democracy; that person is released into choice. That person has a choice between work and a beer after work, or metho in the bus shelter. Some things have not changed.
This government is about doing the best it can. The new era in corrections is delivering a stronger focus on rehabilitation, education, and training to break the cycle of reoffending and support offenders with the tools to choose a better path in life. This is vital.
As part of our new era, the government will introduce tougher sentencing options for the courts. New community custody orders and community-based orders will give courts the power to order non-violent and low-level offenders into rehabilitation, education and work programs. This is a very positive move forward. We are working with the justice sector, and this will make a difference. Importantly, the orders will be supported by the recruitment of an extra 31 community corrections offices across the Territory.
To further support the new court orders, the government will fund additional alcohol and drug treatment beds to be operated by non-government organisations, building community capacity and bringing more people on the journey to address alcohol-related offending. Five beds will be built and funded in Alice Springs, 10 beds will be built and funded, and an additional five beds funded for a total of 15 beds in Katherine. A further five beds will be built and funded in Darwin. Construction of these additional beds is to commence in 2011-12, and I look forward to seeing them rolled-out. It will mean a significant boost to the alcohol and other drug sector to deliver residential and outreach programs.
Another 20 beds will be delivered with the establishment of a multipurpose supported accommodation treatment centre in Alice Springs adjacent to the gaol. This will bring the total investment in alcohol treatment beds to 45 extra beds under the new era in corrections, getting offenders into treatment. These beds will be for people who are mandated into treatment, and will also offer opportunities within the community, like the member for Port Darwin outlined, for people who choose to go into treatment, who have made a conscious decision to change the situation in their lives, and their families’ lives, which is ruining opportunities for both.
The multipurpose centre in Alice Springs will be operated by a non-government organisation and will deliver alcohol and drug treatment. Partnerships with the non-government sector will be essential in delivering stronger alcohol rehabilitation programs with our correctional system. These programs will be supported by the construction of the new Darwin Correctional Precinct, which will have dedicated training space for education, awareness and rehabilitation. The Doug Owston Correctional Centre will have capacity to deliver programs in a way which is not possible at the outdated Berrimah gaol.
As the Minister for Transport and the member for Barkly, I spend regular intervals on our roads. I understand firsthand the realities of staying safe on our roads, and how taking simple steps like putting your seat belt on can make all the difference in an accident. I have been on the journey in the last 30 years, and I have witnessed people riding in the back of open vehicles, not wearing seat belts, where people have been drinking and driving - not only being drunk behind the wheel, actually drinking while operating a motor vehicle with people in the motor vehicle and in the back. The Wild West, once again. We have come a long way from those days, but it so important we keep on this agenda. There is so much more to be done.
It saddens me when I hear a serious fatal accident has been caused, and a Territorian’s life damaged or lost, by something which is totally avoidable; that is, the decision by someone to drive after they have been drinking. Statistics show, from 2003 to 2008, there were 13 756 instances where an offender was sentenced by the courts for drink-driving offences. The most common drink-driving offences were high-range offences, 42%, and mid-range offences, 41%. Police advise that of the 31 fatal crashes in 2009, 19 involved alcohol. Some things have not changed in those 30 years, which means we have much more to do. This government has taken the reins and we are moving down the path.
Unfortunately, the Northern Territory has the highest rate of custodial sentencing in Australia for driving offences - about 25% of our prison population. More police are solving more crimes and, therefore, imprisoning more people in our Correctional Services institutions, and half of those people are imprisoned for drink-driving. That is why government is working to address driver behaviour to challenge this culture of drink-driving.
In April last year, this government’s new alcohol ignition lock laws came into effect. The alcohol ignition locks were new technology for the Territory and aimed squarely at repeat drink-drivers. The measures built on the driver’s licence disqualification theory, giving courts power to impose a mandatory licence disqualification period along with a period of time when an offender must drive on an alcohol ignition licence. Drivers who choose the alcohol ignition licence have an ignition lock fitted to their car and are only able to start the car if they pass the ignition lock breath test. An alcohol ignition lock licensee must only drive a vehicle with a device fitted. If they do not apply for an alcohol ignition lock licence, and fail to install the device in their vehicle, they will remain disqualified.
I remember being scoffed at in this House about AIL devices. I have a few statistics here. As of 15 September 2010, the courts have imposed 1123 AIL periods, comprising 68 for six months, two for nine months, 926 for 12 months, four for 15 months, 81 for 18 months, one for 21 months, 34 for two years and seven for three years. This is the challenge, the choice, an opportunity to change addictive behaviour, offending behaviour. If you want to come on board and directly attack your addiction, then you can make application and be back on the road with an AIL device fitted. You can show society you are responsible …
Mr Elferink: How many devices have been fitted so far?
Mr McCARTHY: As the member for Port Darwin said, not a big take-up rate. That shows the challenge we have in the Northern Territory, which is obvious to all of us in this House and in the community. I have many constituents in my electorate who share their stories of alcohol abuse and the terror they have to live with due to the affects of alcohol abuse.
We are talking about addressing offending behaviour. We are talking about the psychological effects of people becoming educationally aware of their offending behaviour. Offenders become eligible to apply for an AIL once they have completed their mandatory disqualification period and successfully completed the drink-driver education course; three steps to show our community you are seriously addressing your addiction. As of 15 September 2010, 84 offenders have become eligible for an AIL. Ten of these offenders have elected to apply for an AIL licence, and eight have had the AIL installed; eight Territorians who have directly ‘fessed up, faced up, and are now, in a community sense, publicly demonstrating they want to change their addictive behaviour.
Earlier, I mentioned the new 20-bed supported accommodation and treatment centre, to be constructed in Alice Springs as part of the new era in corrections. With about 25% of the prison population made up of driving offenders, government is determined to address this offending behaviour through education and rehabilitation in prison. On average, these prisoners serve 75 days in prison which can make it difficult to access prison-run programs. Instead of sitting around in gaol, we want these drivers to head into treatment and driver education. We want these offenders to leave having completed alcohol treatment programs and with valid learner driver permits.
As part of the new era, the supported accommodation centre will deliver an intensive driver offending program with targeted education and awareness about alcoholism, drink-driving and offending behaviour - structured days to deliver structured outcomes. Courts will be given the power to order driving offenders facing imprisonment of 12 months or less into the new program, which will include alcohol and other drug treatment; drink-driving education; a mechanical workshop; and driver licensing training.
Over many years, Tennant Creek has developed a reputation for alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, and a number of policies and programs were trialled to address the problems. Regulations were imposed on the community by people living outside the community and, to be honest, what I saw most was problem drinkers finding a way around the regulations, following the grog. It is important to note, when we talk about Tennant Creek and the unfortunate stigma people have attached to it, that it is a region and, as a service centre, is directly impacted by people from all over a geographic region twice the area of Victoria.
Our elements in this policy are not only addressing the town of Tennant Creek, but also the region. The minister has it right, when we talk about the flow of grog, people following the grog, and ensuring these initiatives capture the whole package, and do not just focus on certain elements …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank honourable members.
That is why I believe the Enough is Enough package delivers a real opportunity to tackle alcohol-related issues, including crime, because it turns off the tap to the problem drinker.
The introduction of an ID system, a Territory-wide banned drinker register, will put the brakes on the problem drinker travelling from outlet to outlet, community to community, following the grog. It will eventually impact on the punters in Bennett Park, as described by the Leader of the Opposition, and in the bus shelter at the Lakemba Railway Station – and I could go through a long list of other venues. It is targeting the problem drinkers. One by one, they will be forced to face their issues and their addictions.
The penalties for knowingly supplying someone on the banned register with takeaway grog are also important because they provide support for family members to say no to the humbug, to say no to the pressure to buy grog for banned drinkers.
In 2008, the government, with community support, introduced the Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan. It identified a range of strategies and issues around key areas of reducing alcohol supply, harm reduction strategies, and demand reduction strategies. Leading organisations in town, including the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation, NT Police, Department of Health and Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group, established working partnerships to reduce the harm of alcohol in Tennant Creek. Seventy per cent of alcohol sales in the Territory are takeaways and this is the root cause of so much alcohol-related harm.
As part of the alcohol management plan for Tennant Creek, in March 2008 the licensing commission announced restrictions on trading hours, restrictions on the sale of products such as cask wine and fortified wine, and bans on the sale of large quantity products such as long necks and wine casks larger than two litres. A licensing commission officer was also appointed to Tennant Creek and the community has got behind the changes. For example, no alcohol is sold at football matches at Purkis Reserve. What a great challenge! In Tennant Creek, we took up that challenge and we delivered it. At our annual show the bar area is cordoned off so families can feel safer, particularly children, and there are low-alcohol products sold on that day. These are just some of the small steps implemented through the alcohol management plan.
The Menzies School of Health Research has recently released its independent evaluation of the government’s Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan and other measures to reduce alcohol-related problems. According to Menzies research, alcohol consumption has dropped by 4.5% in Tennant Creek since the introduction of the alcohol management plan in 2008. That equates to 2760 litres of pure alcohol or 163 565 cans of heavy beer, no longer being drunk in Tennant Creek. That is a massive change in the community and a change for the better. Menzies also found that since the introduction of the alcohol management plan, alcohol-related assaults have dropped by 24.8%, and incidents of antisocial behaviour have dropped by 27%. Presentations to the hospital emergency department are down by 36%.
One of the most telling findings of Menzies research is that 84% of the people surveyed supported the declaration of Tennant Creek as a dry town and the majority of people also supported all the restrictions on takeaway alcohol trading. That is what bringing a community forward with reforms is all about, that is what this policy is all about. This policy takes us further on the journey of addressing the offenders and the offending behaviour.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are united on this side and I am sure those on the other would quietly be united with us. We are united in wanting to address the harm caused by alcohol abuse in our community. The Enough is Enough package delivers reforms which target the problem drinker. There have been some great steps forward in this journey and there are many more to come with this policy, a policy from the Henderson government. I commend the minister for the statement in this House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, reading the statement and listening to the minister speak about alcohol policy and reform made me think of the 25 or 26 years I have been in the Northern Territory and how often I have seen alcohol as an issue over the years – including 10 years of a Martin/Henderson government and the former CLP government. It appears to me none of the programs have given us the desired effect and left us in a terrible situation. I quote from page 2 of the statement:
This is a report card of how the Territory is 10 years after a Labor government and a former CLP government. Some of the figures quoted of the amount of alcohol consumed in the Northern Territory I suspect, to some level, have to do with our wonderful tourism industry. People come to Darwin and, like most holiday destinations, chill out, have a few drinks and perhaps drink more here than they would interstate. For goodness sake, we have the weather for it. People can relax, sit back to watch the sunset and have a Chardy or two or a beer. I wonder if the policies we introduce time and time again, government after government, really get to the crux of the problem.
The problem is problem drunks, and I cannot stand by and let legislation, policies, and programs be introduced where the target audience seems to be everyone. Not everyone in the Northern Territory is a problem drunk. Do we have a few? Damn right we have a few, and they are the ones we should be targeting with any legislation, any program. The problem with most policies and programs I see today is they are not thought out from the ground up. They are thought of from an office up too high, above the clouds in some cases, and because they do not have the mechanics to work on the street, they fall over. When I worked for the Darwin City Council on the Public Places Program, we worked with the Northern Territory Police to deal with some of the antisocial behaviour and drinking which occurred in our suburbs. Was it a successful program? With the resources they had, yes, it was, but it only moved the problem.
The problem with councils in most jurisdictions is they are complaint driven. When a complaint is made by residents to a council or the police about a group of itinerants, or whoever, sitting in a park causing problems, someone is expected to do something. With the Public Places Program, unfortunately, with the resources it was given, quite often the problems were not addressed. They just moved into an area where people could not see them and therefore there were no more complaints. The problem was not solved; the complaints were solved.
This is the crux of this program and perhaps the many programs we have had in the past - they fail because they do not work at the street level. Consideration has not been given to how you follow through on many of these recommendations. Much of it will be down to the police officer on the street who has to intervene because someone has reached that position in a program. Unless there are enough police on the beat and enough places for the police to take these people to, to address their problem, we are not going to deal with this. We will be here in another five or 10 years talking about the same thing previous members have spoken about every year this House has been here.
On the front of the statement it says:
I agree with that.
No, you have not.
They will be affected every time they attempt to buy alcohol because they have to produce identification. If someone turns up to a bottle shop who is a reasonable, healthy person who enjoys a social drink from time to time, and does not have some identification on them, they will be treated like a criminal. They will not be able to buy alcohol because they do not have identification.
All the things you speak of today would work if the proper resources and mechanics were put in place to ensure they happened. I have worked in enough government departments to realise that sometimes the programs introduced are not given the time to work. They fall over at the grassroots level. They fall over at the coalface where there are not enough resources to deal with them or back-up facilities to support those people on the ground. What happens is statistics do not improve, so rather than spend more money on resources and focus on the problem, governments decide to have another focus group. ‘Let us get some more consultants in to develop a new program and start the process over again’ - and we go around and around.
For goodness sake, let us focus on the problem; let us focus on the drunks who are causing the problems for the decent people living in the Northern Territory. It does not matter if it is in Mitchell Street, Katherine, Alice Springs, or any other place. We have sociable and reasonable people who enjoy a drink. I enjoy a drink, but I do not do the things you see some of these idiotic people do. That is where you should be focusing programs; not on trying to blame the whole community for a small minority in the Northern Territory. That is where the focus should be.
It says here:
That is where you start to think where some of the focus or resources should be. Some of the programs which have been developed in the past - probably from this government and previous governments - would work if the resources were in the right area. We are focusing on the wrong thing. Because something has not worked a little, let us develop a new one. When that does not work, let us develop a new one. When that does not work, let us call in a consultant and develop a new one. Put the resources where they need to be.
There was one thing which really angered me when I read this statement:
How in the world can you come into this place and say that? How can you make a statement like that when you see the result? A couple of pages earlier you said 60% of assaults are alcohol-related, 67% of domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related. Let us go back through the Northern Territory News and other media outlets over the years. You can go back further than 10 years. I am not just blaming this government but previous governments as well. Have look at the reports back then. We are dealing with the same problems here today. To come in here and say you have done more to reduce alcohol misuse is absolutely wrong.
It goes on to say these reforms are targeted at the problem drinker. I disagree. Not everything here is targeted at the problem drinker. The mechanics you introduce are mechanics you will find very hard to enforce. The time of police officers and other people who are required to deal with these problem people will be taken up with the process rather than dealing with the issue.
I wrote down a question earlier about how the program could work when Joe Bloggs can buy drinks for his friends. I could be buying drinks for two or three different friends. I do not know they have been banned from alcohol and, all of a sudden, I could find myself in trouble. But, I do not think I would find myself in trouble because there are not the resources to deal with every person who goes into a bottle-o or other premises to purchase alcohol in the Northern Territory. You would have to follow every person who goes out - when they drive home, whether it is to drive to a motel, to drive out camping, or go boating. You would have to follow every person to ensure they have not purchased alcohol on behalf of someone else. It is not possible with the resources of this government, even if you doubled the money. Even if you doubled the police officers, it is not going to be enough to enforce that part of the program.
That is where I get frustrated. We introduce programs which you hope will work from the point of view that, if you do enough advertising, people will be scared and think, oh, we cannot do that. The reality is people do not work like that. We are a strange beast. How successful was prohibition in America many years ago? If prohibition was tried in the Northern Territory would it work? I do not think so.
Humans are very resilient; they will get their alcohol no matter what practices you put in place. I applaud anyone who is trying to do the right thing. I know the Labor government acknowledges there is a problem. I also acknowledge it is trying to do something right. If this side of the House could support a program which is going to work - I do not think you would have any objection from this side of the House if it could be demonstrated it is going to work. What is the problem? It is just another program which we have had before, and before that, and before that.
There are many things within this report I would like to speak on. One is the Enough is Enough package and the five-point action plan. I will only speak about a few of them. The banned drinker register - whilst I understand and appreciate the intent of what it is trying to achieve, I do not think there will be the resources to back it up and make sure it works 100%. If someone has been banned, yes, the system will work for that person who goes in and tries to buy alcohol, and is told: ‘Sorry, mate, I cannot serve you’. That will work. Where it will not work is when that person tries and fails; they will be resourceful and will find ways of getting their alcohol. ‘Adam, mate, could you get me a carton of beer, because I cannot, because I am banned’. I am not going to tell anyone that I am banned but I am going to ask someone to get that alcohol for me.
Another example was brought up earlier. I could be having a barbecue at home and three, four, or five people are coming over, and I decide to do a drinks run: ‘Does anyone else need some drinks?’ Absolutely, Joe needs some, Fred needs some, Turk needs some - Turk will need a lot. The problem is I am not to know whether any of those friends of mine have been banned. If I purchase alcohol for them and take it home, how has that helped the situation?
The Alcohol Court reforms: we have had them. I know you have renamed them. It is a SMART Court now; it is not going to be like the Alcohol Court. How successful has the Alcohol Court process been? There is no reason it should not have been successful, because we have plenty of alcoholics who should be going through that program, plenty of people who have caused enough antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory to have that court full every single day. How many people have gone through that process? I know how to fix it, let us rename it. Let us call it the SMART Court; that will make all the difference because it is a smarter court.
The only thing which has been successful is the money you have spent on the awareness campaigns, because they are everywhere. There are stickers in the mail box, there are television advertisements on time and time again, and as the member for Nelson pointed out, enough is enough with the advertisements. You made your point, but how often does the local itinerant sit in front of a television and watch these advertisements? How often do these people read the newspaper? Some of them might, unfortunately, have to sleep under them, but how often do these points need to be made before enough is enough when it comes to the money spent on the advertising?
It says here:
How are you going to ban problem drinkers, given there are no mechanisms in place to handle the number of people who will probably go through the system. The issue is that the process is going to take up most of the time to manage, when that time, energy and focus should be on the people you are targeting. If someone is antisocial, if someone has a serious problem with alcohol, let us give them the help they require by putting them away where they cannot get alcohol and can receive the support they need. Perhaps, and this is the killer here, the member for Braitling is right, these people do not have jobs, let us find them jobs.
We have heard the Chief Minister speak today. There are going to be 4500 new jobs in the Northern Territory in the next four months. We have many people who do not have jobs and, as the member for Braitling pointed out, perhaps they would not be drinking as much if they worked. I am sure the economy will support it.
It says here:
How are things going there, member for Katherine?
Mr Westra van Holthe: Not well.
Mr CHANDLER: They are saying by extending this across the Territory, they are going to fix it, like they fixed it in Katherine.
Mr Westra van Holthe: That is right. Like the 8600 drunks locked up in Katherine in calendar year 2009.
Mr CHANDLER: Working very well there. Member for Braitling, how is it working in Alice Springs? Working wonderfully - they say they are rolling it out across the Northern Territory because it works in Alice Springs and Katherine - absolutely ridiculous. It says here:
As I said before, humans can be very resourceful. It reminds me of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, there will be phone a friend, ask the audience, dial a drink. How are going to stop people obtaining alcohol if that is their wish? You will not.
These bans: first ban, second ban, third ban, three months, six months, 12 months. How are you going to enforce them? How are you going to enforce it when you will not have the resources to support the mechanisms to put these people through programs which are going to keep them away from alcohol?
It talks about the tribunal and says the:
The minister stood here and roused at the CLP for its policy which does not have an enforcement capacity. Yet, you come in here and talk about the things you are going to do, but you do not have the administrative systems in place for us to debate, or for us to know how you are going to do it. You may have addressed half the mechanisms which I have an issue with because I do not see what those mechanisms are. The administrative systems will be released for comment later this week. How are we supposed to have an informed debate in this House when you release half the information? You may have the answers; I will sit down and shut up.
Until we see those administrative systems, how do we know whether this system is going to work? Do not come in here and criticise our policy because you think we have overlooked something! You have done exactly the same thing in your own policy.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said before, the new court, the SMART, Substance Misuse and Assessment Referral Treatment - I wonder what the brief was to come up with that, where was the focus, was it on the name? Let us be really smart here and come up with a terrific acronym which is going to make all the difference. What is the cost of changing the name of the Alcohol Court to the SMART Court? Department changes, name changes, things like that, must cost governments across the country a fortune.
The awareness campaign: I appreciate the advertisements on television. I assume you are trying to target the Mitchell Street mob, the people who get out of hand with too much drink, too many drugs, and cause problems on Mitchell Street. Perhaps you may hit some of that target audience with the television and newspaper advertising. However, we have another generation out there, white and black - our itinerant population who rarely have a chance to sit in front of the television.
Nothing in this program provides the mechanics to deal with what you are trying to achieve. No one on this side of the House is going to criticise a program with the capacity to improve things and make a difference. I just do not see it in this program. Look at the results of the last 10 years, even governments before that. We are talking about exactly the same things we were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago. I am sick and tired of the focus in government circles where we continue down the road of looking to fill time by making new programs to make it look like you are doing something when it does not achieve anything.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my worry is policies and programs worked out at in an office rarely work on the street. The mechanics do not add up, and is too often why programs have not and do not work. I worry we will be debating this subject in another 12 months with you, the government, introducing yet another program. I ask you to watch this space because we will be debating this subject in the future. I only wish when programs are developed they be developed in consultation not with highly paid consultants from around the world, but with police officers, regulatory officers in local government and the people who deal with the issues on the street. When you understand the mechanics of what they do you will introduce programs which will work from the ground up; not try to work from the top down.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Alcohol Policy’s statement, Enough is Enough - Proposed Alcohol Reforms. In early September this government took new action against alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. The Enough is Enough alcohol reform package announced by this government contains the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in the Territory’s history and the most comprehensive in the nation.
The majority of Territorians enjoy a drink safely and responsibly. A night out enjoying a drink with friends, or a beer or wine with dinner, is part of the great Territory lifestyle. It is something we all enjoy together. However, a minority of Territorians who choose to drink at unsafe levels are having a significant impact on the wider community. That can happen anywhere. It can happen in the bush, in regional towns, and in Darwin. I remember when I first arrived in Territory in 1988, Cavenagh Street was the old Mitchell Street and had 6 am closing. You can imagine the condition people were in at 6 am and the violence and brawls. Almost a nightly brawl occurred; it was a rough and tumble place then. It has changed; society has changed also.
It is amazing that 60% of assaults are alcohol-related, 67% of all domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related, and a staggering 72% of people in Berrimah gaol have been convicted for crimes committed under the influence of alcohol.
The level of alcohol-related deaths in the Territory is three times that of the national average. Alcohol-related hospital admissions are more than double the national average. About 60% of police work is alcohol-related, particularly responding to alcohol-fuelled assaults and domestic violence. Not only do Territorians drink at high volumes, the way in which we drink is risky and harmful, with Territorians binge drinking at twice the national average. This, ultimately, causes a significant cost to our community.
When it comes to problem drinking, we are saying enough is enough; we need to stop this harm. That is why we have deliberately targeted these reforms to turn off the tap for problem drinkers; to stop the violence and antisocial behaviour. The majority of Territorians will not be affected.
As the Minister for Business and Employment, I know the business community wants action taken to make our streets safer for both locals and visitors to enjoy a night out on the town, and we are working with industry to implement these initiatives. The Minister for Alcohol Policy mentioned further amendments to the Liquor Act have been made when it comes to the liquor accords. These changes strengthen protection for industry concerning unfair trading and national competition policy issues.
It provides a greater incentive for the liquor industry to work together to develop accords to address alcohol-related issues. Accords are in place in Alice Springs, Darwin, and Tennant Creek. Activities include multi-venue barring, voluntary restriction on products and pricing, and the introduction of agreed codes of practice. It clearly shows industry is on board in our fight to tackle problem drinkers. Many businesses in our community rely on the income from our tourism market, and the benefits of a thriving night life. When the safety of the community is put at risk by problem drinkers so, too, is our local business community. As the Minister for Alcohol Policy outlined in her statement earlier, the social and economic costs of alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory is far too high. More than damaging to business, problem drinkers can cost the taxpayer in a major way.
Across the Territory last year there were 54 000 incidents of people taken into protective custody due to alcohol misuse. We know from research undertaken by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies for the Menzies School of Health Research, the total cost of alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory was estimated to be more than $640m. That is more than $4000 per adult in the Northern Territory, which is more than four times the national cost per adult of $943 ...
Mr Tollner: Who told you to say this, Rob?
Mr KNIGHT: Having a drink is part of the Territory way of life, member for Fong Lim. Harm to our community and the members in it, through drinking, is not part of that way of life.
This government has a long history in undertaking alcohol reform and is committed to taking tough action to reduce alcohol-related crime, antisocial behaviour, and alcohol misuse. These important changes build on the work already undertaken by this government. In 2004, the Northern Territory government released the NT Alcohol Framework. The NT Alcohol Framework was a comprehensive plan for alcohol reform. Much has been achieved since the release of the framework. One of the most important achievements of past reforms has been the implementation of regional alcohol management plans across the Territory.
The alcohol management plans are developed between the community and government to respond to specific alcohol-related issues. For example, Groote Eylandt has experienced significant success through its alcohol management plan. Since 2004-05 to 2008-09, antisocial behaviour incidents in Groote Eylandt have decreased by 74%, property crimes have decreased by 68%, protective custody incidents have decreased by 90%, and the level of aggravated assaults has also decreased by 68%. Importantly, the alcohol management plan has also seen attendance at work improved among employees at the local mine ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Maybe rather than sitting here for the next 15 minutes listening to the minister read this onto the record, he can table the document and do us all a favour, and we can get on to another speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat, there is no point of order!
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like all members on the other side of the House, member for Fong Lim, including – or perhaps you should put your thoughts on paper before they come out of your mouth - we all prepare speeches and read them to ensure we get the facts and figures right …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. We know you had six years in the federal parliament.
Absenteeism for Indigenous employees dropped from 7.8% in 2004-05 to 2.4% for the 2005-06 period. Another important outcome of the Groote Eylandt Alcohol Management Plan was the massive reduction in commercial break-ins. Since the implementation of the plan, commercial break-ins have decreased by 79%. As the minister for Business, I am proud to say the reforms of this government have helped make private enterprise and community stores safer, stronger and more secure.
In the past, some local businesses have been repeatedly targeted for break-ins. The cost of alcohol abuse to these businesses from property and theft was considerable. Consider the difficulties and time spent in putting through insurance claims, only to have to go through it again in a matter of days. It is not surprising some of these businesses would consider pulling up stumps and taking out their valuable regional jobs with them. That is why the reductions in commercial break-ins achieved through these alcohol management plans are such an important part of sustaining the employment and operational security of Northern Territory small businesses. The most recent data for the 12 months to March 2010, compared to the 12 months to March 2009, shows a reduction in commercial break-ins of 7% across the Territory. Most significantly, commercial break-ins in Darwin are down by 7%; Palmerston has seen a reduction of 39%; and Alice Springs is down 21%. This is great news for businesses.
The government has made good progress in these areas, but there is more to be done. Government is now seeking to build on these accomplishments by developing an alcohol management plan for the Darwin/Palmerston region. The Darwin/Palmerston region encompasses our capital city, two central business districts, and the Mitchell Street strip with its many restaurants, bars and late night venues. These cities contain a number of large and small shopping centres, as well as indoor and outdoor recreational areas, and a number of licensed outlets, both on premises and takeaway. It is envisaged that the alcohol management plan for the Darwin/Palmerston region will help reduce the alcohol-fuelled incidents which impact on small business owners who operate in areas which contain licensed venues.
The Northern Territory government has also introduced precinct legislation to target individuals who cause alcohol-fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour in and around late night venues. Problem drinkers will be banned from the precinct and issued with on-the-spot fines. These reforms, along with existing initiatives and strategies to combat alcohol-fuelled crime, will help ensure Northern Territory small businesses can continue to operate in safe and secure local communities; a healthy local business market means a healthy and robust economy for all Territorians, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: As Minister for Young Territorians, I know the problems drinking can cause young people. It is an issue raised during the Youth Round Table discussions. The lure of the nightclub and pub strip, member for Fong Lim, or to drink alcohol can be tempting for young people before they turn 18. It is difficult to overstate how far we have come in the battle to stop underage drinking since this government embarked on its agenda of comprehensive alcohol reforms compared to previous governments, which were happy to turn a blind eye to underage drinking. Under the CLP, underage drinking and inexperienced drinkers could be served drink after drink, well beyond their safe level of intoxication, often by a bartender who had no training or responsibility in the safe service of alcohol.
The safety of our young Territorians has been a large driver behind the ongoing comprehensive alcohol reforms of this government. As a parent, there are few things more terrifying than receiving a distress call in the early hours of the morning from one of your kid’s friends saying they do not know where your son or daughter is.
Thanks to this government, it is now mandatory for everyone serving alcohol in a licensed venue to have undertaken the appropriate Responsible Service of Alcohol training to work in the industry. The establishment of the drinking register and the installation of ID scanning systems will go a long way towards preventing problem drinkers. They will also help in the fight to eliminate underage and excessive drinking.
Liquor inspectors regularly attend licensed venues to ensure compliance with licence conditions. Police, security guards, licensees and inspectors will now have the authority to seize any suspected fake identification. Critically, it is now an offence to use a false ID to attempt to gain entry into a licensed venue or to purchase alcohol. Just as importantly, it is now an offence for a person to alter ID in an attempt to appear older than they are. It is an offence to loan someone a genuine ID for the purposes of entering a licensed venue or purchasing alcohol. When found, illegal IDs must be forwarded by the licensed venue to the Director of Licensing so offenders can be prosecuted.
We have introduced fines of up to $1000 for people found guilty of using a fake ID, or up to six months in prison. If caught more than once, offenders can face a fine of $2000 or 12 months in prison. It is a strong deterrent. To help make young Territorians aware of these changes, an education campaign is under way in Territory schools in which licensing inspectors educate young Territorians about the risks associated with using false identification to purchase alcohol and tobacco products.
School liaison inspectors are also working directly with the parents of underage Territorians found using false and altered identification to educate their children about the seriousness of their actions. Direct engagement with young Territorians is one of the key ways to help keep our youth informed of the dangers of excessive drinking.
In 2009, a Youth Round Table made up of youths between the ages of 15 and 25 called for more youth targeted advertising campaigns to help confront alcohol-related issues. This government responded. The Henderson Labor government launched the Championship Moves advertising campaign. The Championship Moves campaign has been heavily promoted across television, radio and the Internet to provide safe-drinking advice to young Territorians, as well as a list of helpful hints about other youth-friendly support services. Feedback from the youth community is that the campaign has been well received and is reaching more young Territorians. In 2010, the Youth Round Table also raised the issue of alcohol-fuelled violence and, in particular, the issues surrounding excessive alcohol use in the city.
As we have already heard, alcohol is the principal driver in crimes such as assault. In 2009, 60% of all assaults were alcohol-related. Initiatives like late night 3 am lockouts, CCTV cameras in city hot spots, use of plastic cups in some late night venues and the establishment of a secure taxi rank have all helped tackle the problem of alcohol-fuelled violence in the city. We have introduced a $133 on-the-spot fine for troublemakers as well as bans from the newly designated pub district precinct to help deter potential troublemakers.
For many young Territorians, enjoying a night out in the town is a big part of growing up. However, we need to ensure when they go out, they can do it safely, away from violence. The impact of problem drinking on young members of the community is too great. That is why the Northern Territory government has announced a five-point plan which will ban problem drinkers from being able to purchase and consume takeaway alcohol. Takeaway alcohol makes up 70% of alcohol sold in the NT. Most of the harm caused by alcohol arises from excessive consumption of takeaway alcohol.
This five-point plan turns off the tap for problem drinkers; it impacts on those in the Territory who drink irresponsibly. In addition to these reforms, wine casks and wine-based products in containers larger than two litres will be banned from sale across the Northern Territory. These products provide high-level alcohol in large containers at a cheap price and are the drink of choice for problem drinkers.
I congratulation the Minister for Alcohol Policy on her work with the industry to remove cheap, bulk, premixed vodka products from shelves in the Northern Territory and out of the hands of problem drinkers. Cheap, sweet tasting, premix drinks have proven to be popular amongst young drinkers, and the bulk sale of such drinks can encourage excessive alcohol consumption. This government is committed to taking the necessary steps to encourage responsible and safe consumption of alcohol amongst legal-age young Territorians. We are committed to protecting young Territorians from alcohol-fuelled violence and the interest and wellbeing of young Territorians has been a key driving force behind these reforms.
We want to hear from the community about our package of reforms. The community can provide feedback through our 1800 number, and through the website or e-mail. Written submissions will also be accepted. An information leaflet with a tear-off survey has been sent to households across the Territory …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time to allow my colleague to complete his speech, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Stakeholder presentations and discussions have also taken place across the Territory. We need to take the community with us, and the community wants a response to problem drinkers. Government, industry, the community and individual Territorians will all need to play their part in reducing the unacceptable level of alcohol-related harm in the Territory and the consequent high cost of alcohol abuse in the Territory.
I congratulate the Minister for Alcohol Policy on these reforms. It is a very serious issue for all sectors of the community and all parts of the Northern Territory. I am looking forward to these reforms rolling out, particularly in my electorate where people chase grog all over the countryside. To have someone banned in one of the remote parts of my electorate and not able to go to any bottle shop in the Northern Territory to get alcohol is a big win for me. It is a big win for job creation, giving those people who readily get alcohol, member for Fong Lim, on a frequent basis - gives them time to think about it. These are good reforms.
I met the people who developed the ID system; it is being used down south. It is being used in the nightclub strips and has been highly successful. People want it. It is a great thing to do and I hope it has results.
Madam Speaker, we will keep working to reduce alcohol abuse. This is a response to a changing society and we are trying to protect the community from this small segment of the drinking population which causes problems.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a copy of the 2011 Legislative Assembly sittings dates.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Braitling:
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr Knight: You look at your notes. He is looking at notes.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: Do not worry, member for Daly, I will be showing you what is in front of me. You will see my goodies.
This is my first foray into ICT - the world of ICT in my new portfolio. I thank my good colleague, the member for Drysdale, for his outstanding work in covering this for the last couple of years. Now, I have the opportunity to talk about it. I did not think I would be talking about it so soon. The humorous adventures of parliament last Thursday in Question Time forced me to do something about it.
I have known about this anomaly called the National Broadband Network for some time. I have heard about it. It is a bit weird for many of us; we are not all technocrats, we do not all understand it. Getting our feet in there and trying to understand it is always going to be a challenge, but it is always going to be a fun adventure. I thought I learnt a great deal last Thursday when I sat here in Question Time and listened to those dorothy dixers - the most educational process I have seen for a while. I will go through a couple of them. The member for Nhulunbuy asked the Chief Minister:
The Chief Minister said:
It is interesting when you look at the NBN and see exactly where it is going to go. It is not going to go to every school, every doctor’s surgery or every part of the Northern Territory.
Then we got on to the next question from the member for Arafura to the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy. I am pretty sure this is the one which really made me laugh. You will hear it when I get to it:
Before I give the answer to that question I will go through some of my research notes, member for Daly. I have a map here. I will not table it because I will have to research it again. It is interesting for those in this Chamber who can see, there is a little map here. Everyone can see the dots. There are just a couple of them where the NBN is actually going. For those on camera, we have a dot on Alice Springs, a dot on Katherine, a tiny little thing which looks like a dot on Nhulunbuy, and a few dots on and around Darwin.
Those look like the places where it is going to be. So, I did some research and found a list of locations where the NBN is going to go. There are pages, lists and lists, of where it is going to go. Queensland and NT cities and towns - this is optical fibre. Let us go through the Territory ones: Alice Springs, Darwin, Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, McMinns Lagoon, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Palmerston, Robertson Barracks, Tennant Creek, Tindal, Virginia, Bees Creek. That is it. Everywhere else is Queensland.
Surely, they must be doing something else because, under the Coalition’s previous plan in 2007 and 2010, we had all this wireless technology. I thought, surely, there is going to be some wireless stuff rolled out as part of the plan. Sure enough, there were more communities on wireless. Forgive me if this takes me a while to get through; it is a very exhaustive list. This is Queensland and NT cities and towns Next Generation wireless. I will start with A and go all the way through to Z. It will take me a while. Here we go: Amoonguna. That is it.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: That is all; that is all they are doing. It took me a while, I worked up a sweat, I printed a lot of clippings to find that. That took me a while, but we are getting to the answer of that question.
The Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy said:
Well, now we know where it is going.
They will be video conferencing? They will not have the NBN.
They will be able to have a webcam.
Because they do not have that now, minister for ICT.
Well, hello! Research and development has come a long way with these gumbies. They may even be able to watch parliament live in action. Hello to those people at Yuendumu.
This is the question I liked. This is the minister trying to tell us the NBN is going bush when it is not:
We are going to spend $43bn of Labor money which is borrowed from our kids so people can use Facebook in the bush, and it is not even going there; Amoonguna is two minutes out of Alice Springs:
It is not going into the bush. You are misleading people. You know you have that wrong. You sat there with all your dorothy dixers, and the dorothy dixers go on and on, talking about working:
I will not go on because it makes me laugh too much.
Jokes aside, improvements in technology are good. They improve our business, communication and our information flow. They help kids to be educated, of which I am very supportive. The problem with the NBN is that the general population does not understand it. I would hazard a guess that 25 people in this Chamber do not understand the NBN. It is a very interesting thing to try to become involved in.
What many people would not know is that there is fibre-optic cable in many areas across the Northern Territory. Many places which do not have fibre-optic cable have wireless. People would also not be aware that every school, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston, Darwin and Nhulunbuy, all have 20 MB per second. The government is trying to sell the furphy that it is rolling out the NBN to solve these problems. That is available now and not one school uses 20 MB per second. People would be aware that in the Chan Building across the road which houses all the IT for the Northern Territory government, it is only at 80% capacity and their numbers are much higher than the NBN the way it is currently spoken about.
People do not understand what ‘fibre to the node’ is or what ‘fibre to the house’ is. People do not know that as part of the $43bn plan, the government, like the unions with their right of entry, will be digging up their front yards and coming in to rewire their houses. People do not understand that is what is going to happen: digging up your garden, fence, driveway, and so forth.
People do not understand that if the NBN goes to people’s houses and there are power blackouts, they will need to have battery back-ups, because the Internet, phones, pay television, if it goes through the fibre-optic cable, will all be on power. We know how good the Minister for Essential Services is with power in the Top End; everyone will need battery back-ups for their phones. Once the NBN comes in, in any great model we hear in this place, the customer complaints line at Power and Water will go down because every time there is a blackout no one will be able to call them. There will be no complaints. It is very important people understand that.
The purpose of this matter of public importance is to try to get to the value for money. We on this side of the Chamber want to know how much we will be spending on the NBN. We want to know what the cost benefit analysis is. What will be the benefit to the community, in a social, economic and cultural manner for the costs we will have? There is fibre-optic across the Territory at the moment. Then we want to be able to analyse if it is better to run our wireless technology, or some other form, to ensure we have it.
Many people will say in the northern suburbs: ‘I want NBN because I want fast Internet speeds’. There are many people in the northern suburbs who only have 512 kbs of data downloads; they are not purchasing what is available to them to enable bigger data downloads.
What people also would not understand is the anti-competitive nature with which the government is treating the National Broadband Network. Everyone is supposed to abide by the Trade Practices Act, but they seem to be looking for some special rules in Canberra. I can report that the member for Grayndler, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Mr Albanese, on 20 October 2010 moved a bill to keep the NBN outside of the scrutiny of the Trade Practices Act so we could not analyse what the cost will be to the Australian taxpayer and the community. We know with the roll-out of the NBN in Tasmania that people are not taking up the option to have the NBN which is why they are forcing it upon people.
Under the current telecommunications system there is something called a universal service obligation which, in a nutshell, means that Telstra has a responsibility to provide pay phones and some basic level of telecommunication service to people across Australia, particularly to the Northern Territory and remote communities. That is currently being reviewed under NBN Co Limited, with a view to setting up a new company called the Universal Service Obligation Company, where someone else will take over. We know that company will be based in Canberra.
Trying to have a telephone fixed in the communities will be so hard it will not happen. People’s lives will be put at risk when they are trying to use telephones which are never going to be fixed. In Issue 10, August-September 2010, of The Government Technology Magazine, which comes out on a periodical basis, we see a report which talks about the cost to developers of installing the new fibre-optic cables for greenfield sites, not brownfield sites. They are estimating it will cost up to $3500 to install fibre-optic cable in greenfield sites. The cost of copper wire in greenfield sites is about $800 per dwelling, so we are seeing the cost of housing going up, which will have greater social impacts in the Territory.
I cannot go on with this conversation all day. In the Territory we do not know where the NBN is going to go. Yes, we want an improvement to our telecommunications services. We do not know where it is going to go or how much it is going to cost, and we need to have scrutiny of the government, federal and Territory, because they work in cahoots, to make sure we are receiving value for money.
I support the bill the shadow minister for telecommunications, Luke Hartsuyker, and the shadow minister for regional communications, Malcolm Turnbull, have put forward to try to ensure there is transparency and to address the oversight by the Productivity Commission to look at the cost benefit analysis. I hope it goes through federal parliament. I implore all federal Independent members, in the lower and upper houses, to support that bill. I hope it goes through so we can have a good look at it. If it is value for money and will benefit the Territory we will jump on, but at the moment it does not look like it.
How can we have any faith in Labor in a value-for-money argument? Look at what we have seen with projects including the Building the Education Revolution and the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. Value for money is not Labor’s forte. Value for money is not something the socialist, union paradigm seems to support.
Something which has come to hand recently shows me this government does not support value-for-money principles. Recently, the Territory government underwent a review of their telecommunications. Tenders went out about 18 months ago for new service providers. It was a bundle service before, I understand; now it has been broken down into a number of areas including PABX network, satellite, hardware supplies, etcetera. The government had 12 months to have their suppliers in place. They were on a reduced rate for a number of things and were paying around $0.04 for a local call compared to $0.22 for a normal local call. Because of government’s ineptitude and the leadership failure of the minister for Business, the previous contract expired on 31 May 2010 and it took until 10 September 2010 for the new contract to be negotiated. Instead of paying cheap rates for Internet, mobile phones, local calls and STD calls, it was paying maximum, full tote odds. The Northern Territory government, across every Northern Territory government employee, was paying maximum, full tote odds - millions of dollars wasted.
I note the minister for Business is not saying a word because he knows how much money this Territory government wasted. I call on him to tell this Chamber how much money was wasted by not having a contract because of your ineptitude. I call on him to tell us, in conjunction with his colleagues, how many portfolios in the Northern Territory government have already blown their communications budget for this financial year. I call on the Northern Territory government, and the minister for Business, to tell this House how much money has been wasted. A rough, bottom of the scale estimate is $4m. Estimates are up to $12m of waste in that four month period where you did not have a contract for the provision of telecommunication supplies in the Northern Territory.
If hypothetically it was $10m, what could $10m have done? If it was at the lower scale of $4m, what could $4m have done to protect children in the Northern Territory? What could $4m have done going towards foster carers in the Northern Territory dealing with a massive load of children in need. What could it have done to support staff at FACS, minister for Business? You have to come into this Chamber tomorrow and tell us how much money you spent on ICT for the Northern Territory government between 31 May 2010 and 10 September 2010.
No imbecile would run a business like that. No CEO would run a business like that. No chief financial officer would run a business like that. It is no wonder, minister, you have to read your speeches. Does someone tie your shoelaces too? How on earth can we have faith in the National Broadband Network when we cannot get a minister to sign a contract for the Northern Territory ICT? For four months we went without a contracted IT provider. You have to come to this Chamber and explain yourself. You have to tell us the day we had a contract, the day we did not have a contract, the day we received a new contract, and which departments have blown their budget and by how much.
This will be coming out with estimates; however, you have to come to this Chamber tomorrow because you have no credit in this House. You, your Chief Minister, your deputy, any ministers who have communications budgets within the departments - telephones, satellite phones, mobile phones, computers, hardware, PABX systems, head sets - have to tell us how much money they have wasted.
On this side there is no faith in you, your federal reds, your union Labor-based colleagues, in rolling out the NBN across the Northern Territory. You have already misled this parliament by saying it is going out in the bush when it is not. Minister, you know it is not going in the bush. You stood here with dorothy dixers all last Thursday, and it is not going out in the bush. The bush already has better download speeds than you can even try to deliver in some of those locations. Look at your schools with your 20 MB second.
Madam Speaker, tomorrow I will move that this is referred to a committee to have a full investigation and report about the exact costs and the benefits for the Northern Territory.
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for our colleague.
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions in MPIs.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing on the matter of public importance. He has raised a very important issue; the importance of government detailing a cost benefit analysis on the National Broadband Network to ensure Territorians achieve value for money on service and delivery. I agree with the member for Braitling on the importance of making sure Territorians receive value for money on service and delivery. There is no doubt about that. However, I cannot agree with him on the other part of his MPI; the importance of government producing a detailed cost benefit analysis on the NBN. I will outline in my contribution why I cannot agree with that part of the MPI.
I am a true believer in the NBN and the benefits it will bring to Territorians. From day one I have been a true believer in the NBN. I hope one day the member for Braitling will become a true believer in the NBN.
If we apply the same to other major projects we have seen rolled out across Australia over many years then, maybe those projects would not have happened. What Tony Windsor said recently about the NBN, and the calls by the federal opposition spokesman on technology, Malcolm Turnbull, is right. If we applied the need for a cost benefit analysis to the Snowy River scheme, perhaps it would not have gone ahead. We could say the same about the Adelaide to Darwin railway line. If, when the CLP was in government, it had done a cost benefit analysis on the Adelaide to Darwin railway, they would probably have found it was not a viable project and it would not have gone ahead.
Mr Bohlin: We were not talking about $43bn that is not going to move two pieces of …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HAMPTON: We are talking about major projects …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition members, order! Order, member for Drysdale!
Mr HAMPTON: If you want to put this in terms of the NBN, then let us look at other major projects. Tony Windsor has raised good points in this debate. Let us look across the board at some other major projects which have made significant differences to the Australian economy, particularly to the Northern Territory with the Adelaide to Darwin railway line. The CLP was in government. If it had put it up against a cost benefit analysis, would it have stacked up? Would we have the Darwin to Adelaide railway today? I do not think so.
The other reason I cannot support it is there has already been a study of the costings through the National Broadband Network Implementation Study, done by McKinsey & Company and KPMG, which are very reputable organisations in Australia. This study confirms the NBN can provide consumers with faster speeds and better download limits for prices comparable to what they pay today. That is a very important point. We have one line of fibre through the Territory, owned by one company. We are paying some of the highest prices in this country for Internet connections.
The study by McKinsey & Company and KPMG confirmed the NBN can provide consumers not only with faster speeds and better download limits, but comparable prices. Why can’t Territorians have comparable prices for Internet connections?
The study confirmed that the NBN business model establishes that taxpayers are paid back their investment with a modest return by year 15 of the project on the basis that privatisation is completed. The study also confirms the government’s decision to focus on fibre as the far superior future-proof technology for delivering high-speed broadband. I will put the cost benefit analysis of the NBN into Territory context for members opposite.
On the costs side, we have remote and regional Territorians who do not have access to basic telecommunications. That is something the member for Braitling touched on in his contribution and he is very passionate about it, quite understandably. I, as a bush member, see those gaps, the electronic divide and the technology divide, which are getting bigger in the bush. That is why I am a true believer in the NBN, because I see the NBN can close the gaps on the electronic and technology divide.
Mr Tollner: It is not going into the bush, mate. No fibre to the home in the bush.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HAMPTON: There was recently a situation in Papunya. The Central Australian Youth Link Up Service was doing some work there and it lost its only viable access to the Internet. The problem was raised with me as Minister for Central Australia, and it is a problem created by the previous Coalition government and its continuing policies on remote communication. This is exactly the problem the NBN has been designed to fix.
The Northern Territory government is committed to providing Internet access for our remote communities, and Papunya is one of our identified growth towns. The NT and federal Labor governments have taken action to hook Papunya up to broadband. In the interim, the Northern Territory government will fund a new satellite link to keep the people of Papunya wired-in so they can access services, talk to friends and family, pay their bills, do their online banking, and maybe even watch parliament online. This is a temporary fix until Papunya becomes part of the National Broadband Network which is already being rolled out across Australia, including the Northern Territory.
It has been announced that, in the second release of locations of the fibre access nodes, one site has been identified in the Northern Territory, and that is in Casuarina. While the actual location of the fibre access node cannot be yet determined in Casuarina, it has been identified as the site to be rolled out. The identification of the footprint of the fibre access nodes will be determined by the engineering design requirements and will follow public consultation. Discussions are currently under way with the Darwin City Council and other stakeholders, including ourselves. The initial installation at Casuarina will service between 2000 and 4000 premises. From what I hear today, this is what the shadow spokesman on IT wants to stop. He wants to stop this service installation to between 2000 to 4000 premises in Casuarina alone.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! He is clearly misleading the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Braitling. Resume your seat, please!
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The other important thing this government has done a great deal of work on with the Commonwealth, particularly with the Glasson Report which was commissioned by the current government, is an initiative called the Digital Regions Initiative. This is a $60m initiative and a key element of the Australian government’s response to the regional telecommunications independent review report, which was called the Glasson Report.
On 14 September 2009, we lodged a joint submission, with the Department of Health and Families, the Department of Education and Training, as well as Northern Territory Police and Emergency Services. It was announced by the Prime Minister on 10 December 2009 that the Northern Territory, through this submission, was successful in gaining $7m through the Digital Regions Initiative. This is another important element of this government’s IT commitment to the bush. The $7m would be available to the Northern Territory to progress Health eTowns initiatives. Round one of the funding of $7m for Health eTowns would deliver remote video diagnostics, together with education and training services to 17 of the 20 growth towns.
When I hosted the Ministerial Council of IT Ministers in Alice Springs, just before the announcement, I had people from my department of DBE, who I work alongside, who worked very hard to put that submission together for the digital regions initiative. We gave a very good presentation on how important it is to have this type of technology and this funding, particularly in remote parts of the Northern Territory. We were also able to present them with ideas for medical carts, where people in remote clinics, whether they are in Papunya or Maningrida, can access specialists from anywhere in the world using these medical carts.
Mr Tollner: That is not part of the NBN. John Howard delivered that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: It is all about remote service delivery, member for Fong Lim.
This government is about making sure Territorians achieve value for money on service and delivery. We are talking about IT as well as the NBN and the Territory should be proud we have been able to access the Digital Regions initiative. $7m, a big slice of the cake, and it will go a long way in ensuring Territorians, particularly those in the bush, who the member for Braitling claims to care so much about, will achieve value for money on service delivery when it comes to electronic health.
We hear loud and clear from Territory businesses that one of their main concerns is how much they are paying for Internet access. That is something the member for Drysdale would be happy to see them keep paying. They are paying nine times more for the same product in the NT than they do in Sydney - costs which are passed on to every customer in the Northern Territory, every home and business, jacking up the cost of living for Territorians. That is a very important point about the NBN and it is why I am a true believer in it. I do not want to see Territory businesses or families continue to pay nine times more than people in other parts of Australia are paying for the same product.
We have Territorians who cannot engage in the digital economy, they struggle to get access to e-Health or e-learning services. The Henderson government does not believe Territorians should have to continue paying these types of costs and be left out of the digital economy.
The Henderson government believes Territorians deserve the same communication access, opportunities and benefits other Australians have: lower costs for families and businesses; universal access to basic communication technology; e-services delivery including e-Health remote and distance education; and access to the digital economy. The NBN is how we will be able to deliver a range of government services to the bush in the future, complementing our A Working Future policy.
I have already mentioned Tony Windsor’s comments. There is no doubt that the NBN was a very significant issue at the last federal election. It was something the Independents considered very carefully when they compared the opposition’s policy on telecommunications and broadband with what the government presented. We know the opposition was very worried about providing its costings to the Independents, whereas the government did. That is another reason why I cannot …
Mr Bohlin: The NBN has not been costed.
Mr HAMPTION: … support this motion. As I said, the implementation study has been done and the member for Drysdale might want to read that.
Mr Bohlin: I have read it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting, please!
Mr HAMPTON: Mr Windsor, recently on ABC radio and tonight on SBS, said if they had done a cost benefit analysis on the Snowy hydro scheme or the Adelaide to Darwin railway they probably would not have been completed, because they probably would not have stacked up as viable projects at the time. Look at those projects now; they are very important to the nation and the Northern Territory, particularly the railway.
Another federal bush cross-bencher, Bob Katter, has been a member of federal parliament for a long time representing a very large regional and rural electorate. Bob Katter has also signalled he will not support the Coalition’s cost benefit red herring either. Federal bush Independents like Mr Windsor have been strong supporters of the National Broadband Network, citing it as one of the reasons they backed the Gillard Labor government following the election.
At a local level, two western Queensland mayors were in Canberra yesterday to lobby the federal government for better telecommunications in remote areas. As reported on the ABC, they said:
That is something I, and this government, have been saying since day one. They also said:
When is the opposition going to get it? I encourage the opposition, and the members for Braitling and Drysdale, to become true believers.
I have been to Canberra since the federal election to talk to Senator Conroy about the benefits of the NBN to Territorians, as those two mayors from Queensland did. We had a good meeting, and the Territory is in a great position to receive the benefits of the NBN. It is the type of lobbying and representation I have done which attracts benefits to Territorians such as the Digital Regions Initiative, in which we were so successful.
Having been a member of a bush electorate for the last four years I care about the bush, which is why I support the NBN. I can see the benefits to my electorate and my constituents. It is not only Labor that supports the NBN. The federal Independents and the Greens support it - it is great to see the Greens on board - local councils and shire mayors support it. The Australian Industry Group recently released a report titled Innovation - New Thinking, New Directions, which states:
On the release of the report, Senator Conroy said:
The Australian Industry Group has thrown its support behind the NBN saying the opportunity is needed - a strategic response to ensure its advantages are recognised and acted upon as soon as possible.
A question I have for the member for Braitling is, if there was to be a cost benefit analysis, what would be the cost to taxpayers in delaying the roll-out of the NBN? We are seeing it being rolled out as we speak with fibre being laid through the Northern Territory. Maybe members opposite want to stop this most important national project. What would the costs be in stopping the National Broadband Network roll-out, particularly for those in the Northern Territory?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have covered much of what the MPI is about. I do not support the MPI; I support this government’s initiative and the direction we have been working in with the NBN. I am a true believer of the NBN and a true believer that Territorians should have value for money in service delivery.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a crying shame what happens in this parliament. First, the member for Daly spoke about alcohol policy and had to read every word of his speech because he has no idea what he is talking about. Unless he has a speech writer upstairs drafting words for him, he is lost for words; he clearly has no idea what he was talking about.
A very important matter of public importance has been raised by the member for Braitling, who has clearly done his research; he is across his brief. He spoke of his concerns, only to see the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy read from a written speech. Again, the man seems to have no concept of what he was talking about. Some speech writer upstairs said: ‘Oh well, Mr Hampton, here is what he wants to talk about. This is your response to whatever he says’. Clearly, the minister was not listening to what the member for Braitling said because, in his response to the member for Braitling, he made no reference to the points the member for Braitling raised - many very good points. I scratch my head and wonder what hands the Northern Territory is in when we have the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy waltzing into this place and refusing to even – well, obviously, he listened to the concerns of the member for Braitling, but he had no idea of a response to them.
The member for Braitling pointed out where the National Broadband Network is going. I think Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine were the locations - no mention of the bush by NBN Co. The minister for ICT stood and said he supports the bush. Well, good on him, we all support the bush; it is a very important part of the Northern Territory. However, to suggest that fibre is going to go to homes in all of these remote locations is harebrained talk. It is utter nonsense. The minister should know better than to come in here suggesting to Territorians in remote locations that they will have fibre connected to their homes.
My goodness, this government cannot even deliver a home for most Territorians in the bush, despite the fact it had $1bn or so handed to it from the Commonwealth to provide emergency homes. Now the minister is talking about getting on Facebook and the like when there is no fibre going to the homes. I do not know what a person has to say in this place, but you are not listening. The NBN website says there is no fibre going to the homes in remote parts of the Northern Territory.
The minister talked about going to Papunya and seeing what it means out there, and going to places like Maningrida and what happens there. Well, it is already in existence there. That was done by another government. A large fibre-optic bearer was constructed through Arnhem Land by the previous federal government. The Howard government constructed that network and, yet, we do not see e-Health or fibre to the node in those places. It has nothing to do with the NBN. For the minister to come in here talking this sort of nonsense defies reality.
You have to ask who will be delivering this. This was the bright idea of Kevin Rudd when he was Prime Minister, before he was unceremoniously knifed in the back by the gang of four. It was that gang of four which put in place the house insulation scheme – the billion dollar package to insulate houses. $1bn is a hell of a lot of money. What happened there? We had hundreds of houses burned down around the country. We had four deaths, and we have thousands of businesses going broke. Now we have several hundred houses around the country which have to be inspected to make sure they are safe. This $1bn home insulation program has turned into a multibillion dollar disaster. If you cannot put pink batts in the roofs of houses, what chance do you have of doing a $43bn roll-out of telecommunications fibre-optics? None at all.
Why, after almost 30 years of privatising telecommunications in Australia, is the Australian government buying it all again? I grew up in the bush, in western central Queensland, and my father was the postmaster. He worked for the PMG and I was at the post office. The PMG was 100% government owned. It was in charge of post and telecommunications, as well as weather recording and a range of other services. Over time the PMG was split up - it became the post office and Telecom. Telecom then became Telstra. Telstra was privatised through a number of share floats and now we have a very competitive telecommunications marketplace in Australia with several hundreds, if not thousands, of providers of telecommunications and technological services in Australia. For some reason, this socialist federal government has decided it needs to renationalise telecommunications in Australia.
The member for Braitling raised the comments the Chief Minister made last week. It was interesting that the Chief Minister seemed quite amazed when I said the NBN was a socialist program. I cannot imagine why the Chief Minister cannot see it, because it is a socialist program. Since when in Australia, a freewheeling, free-trading country, do we have to buy into the telecommunications industry when we spent 30 years getting out of it. Of course it is socialist policy and it is absolute madness. To sit in this place is absolutely embarrassing, because you find a government which is incapable of defending the Rudd Labor government and fails to understand the most basic issue of the NBN: $43bn is more than the capitalised value of the whole of Telstra, and we are going to put $43bn into it.
The headline of an article written by Kevin Morgan which appeared in The Australian today was, ‘Rollout looking more and more like a Ponzi scheme’. ‘Ponzi scheme’ is a term for a rip-off. This article explains that the costs of the NBN have not accumulated yet, but $43bn is the starting price because what the government is proposing to do will almost certainly cost it much more than that. $43bn is more than the capital value of the whole of Telstra, but for some reason, the leftist, socialist government we have in Canberra believes that is going to help competition.
There are so many things to be very concerned about. It is a $43bn gamble with taxpayers’ money which is supposed to take fibre to the home, whether the customer subscribes to it or not. Whether I want it in my house or not, it is coming. I have no choice about it. That is absolutely crazy. The speeds I can get down those two copper wires – even if the government puts fibre to the node, the node being the little box which sits at the end of the street, it would still give me the option of using the copper to the node. No, the government insists fibre is coming to the home. Why they insist on - I do not need 100 Mbps. You can get 100 Mbps through the copper if your copper line is less than about 500 m long. So with copper to the node I can still get 100 Mbps, but no, the federal government insists it must come to my home.
As the member for Braitling pointed out, there are already oodles of places where we have access to 100 Mbps in the Northern Territory. Every school in the Darwin area has that capacity. How many schools are using it? Zero! We are spending $43bn of taxpayers’ money on something which our schools have the capacity for now. The minister talks about e-learning and all these wonderful things schools will be able to use, and none of the schools which have the system now are using it. What a ridiculous situation.
There are also questions about government digging up my front yard and those types of things. We do not know what the cost will be to me if I want to connect it. I understand, after talking to some of the providers, if I want 100 Mbps as a plan, it will cost me around $200 per month.
I have two young boys who are Internet mad. They are constantly playing games, researching their homework, Facebooking - all of those wonderful things. They are not doing medical imaging but give them time and they will probably be doing that too. I do not think we pay anywhere near $50 per month for the broadband access we have. This government insists we will have fibre to our home.
Something which I cannot see – well, I will not say I will not see it in my lifetime because technology does change so quickly - but to give you an idea, if I want to do some high-resolution video streaming …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You will find the mobile telephone coverage would have been a waste of money, considering a person can hire a satellite phone for a few dollars a week and still take the trip down the Stuart Highway.
Getting back to these speeds, I can watch high-resolution video streaming now with about 6 or 7 Mbps. In other words, I can watch a high-definition, high-resolution movie through the tube which comes into my house with the copper wire and the dodgy old system we have in place.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a $43bn joke. This Northern Territory government is a joke. The ministers have no idea what they are doing here. The member for Braitling did a fantastic job outlining the wastage which is occurring in this area. I congratulate him for bringing on this MPI and shame on the government for failing Territorians.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, well done to the members for Braitling and Fong Lim. They have raised questions this government will fail, time and time again, to answer. It is time to ‘fess up and tell the public the true cost of the NBN; tell mum and dad what it will cost them per month to have a phone and Internet service via fibre-optic in their house.
Yes, we all want better broadband Internet access; however, let us go back to reading of the Appropriation Bill 2009-10 on 19 June 2009 when I made comments in reference to the minister for ICT:
A great deal of information on the NBN is hitting the Internet. I have a piece titled ‘NBN – The Wrong Policy for Australia’ from Mr Malcolm Turnbull’s Internet site. It was published on 16 August 2010. I will read a segment of it:
That is a very commonsense comment. $43bn is not value for money; $6bn is much more logical and will target the problem areas. The NBN has not addressed a single target area – the government says, spread it across the country and it will solve everything.
An explanation of that:
Affordable, nation building, value for money - I do not think so. I would love to read the next part in total but I will not because I do not have the time and it is a complex thing. The member for Fong Lim mentioned it. This is an article from The Australian by Kevin Morgan, 26 October 2010. It was released at 12 am. The member for Fong Lim mentioned it, ‘Rollout looking more and more like a Ponzi scheme’. This is so close to the truth it is not funny. It says:
That one sentence, which is the second sentence of this article, identifies the lack of competitive nature of the NBN. The government will force, through government regulation, the shutdown of part of a private company which, as the member for Fong Lim has pointed out, we have taken years to privatise. It will force it out of the marketplace by getting rid of the copper line which will force all the current Telstra customers to optic fibre. That will mean massive costs for all families. One by one, as this NBN rolls out, you will be forced, with no other option, to take up fibre in your home to maintain even basic telephone services, and it will cost you a fortune. Members should read that; it is a great article from The Australian today.
The Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy states in paragraph 4 of ministerial on 29 April 2010:
Putting fibre to your home or business does not automatically produce cash; it is about good business sense. If you are not supporting the businesses in the first place, how will you deliver a greater cash flow simply by saying: ‘Here, take the fibre’? I am not sure how this will deliver greater environmental opportunities. We all have the Internet here. I do not know whether it has delivered any greater environmental opportunities lately in this parliament. This is a string of words which have been put together to confuse people and make them think: ‘Gee, they sound like good words. They must be delivering the right stuff’.
The minister went on in paragraph 14 to say:
I wish the world could see this, because, on the front cover of Government Technologies Review August/September 2010, Issue 2, there is a picture of the former Prime Minister looking very happy - not! I think he knows this scheme is harebrained. He knows the scheme has so many pitfalls, it will not work and it will cost the country a fortune. It is a great article titled ‘Greenfield wiring costs wind up property developers’.
Go into Lyons and find out the cost of getting a telephone in your house. I am not talking about Internet yet. Because Bellamack will be a fibre-optic site, you will not be able to say: ‘Oh, I just need to hook up my telephone. It is $200 to start up, $20 a month, $5 a month to rent the phone. Your phone bill is about $100’. No, $4500, thank you very much, because of the Universal Service Obligation which will have a new company set up. They have to set up a new company, new directors, and pay a great deal of money to a new company like NBN Co. More expenditure and no one has said what the outcomes are exactly, what the cost is going to be to mum and dad. I cannot afford a $4500 fibre-optic installation just to have my phone working because of the deal the government wants to make. It wants to force the telecommunications company to rip out all the copper networks around Australia and force you onto fibre-optic.
Mr Hampton: You would still have towers on every street.
Mr BOHLIN: You, minister, must tell the people these costs. You must start to cough up the costs. Minister, you have not been truthful with this community. The federal government has not been truthful with this community. It has refused to have this program analysed for cost. It has refused to say what the total cost will be. The NBN Co CEO has roughly said: ‘This cost is very shaky. We do not know’.
There is another article from The Australian, by Fran Foo on 22 October this year, ‘Hidden back-up charge for users in fast broadband service’. Everyone in the Northern Territory should read this article because it is extremely accurate. If you have a power blackout which, by geez, happens in the Territory because we have a failed Minister for Essential Services, you will not have a telephone unless you buy a UPS - uninterrupted power supply. It is a battery pack which plugs into the wall, which means your kids have to be protected from it. They have to throw a box on the wall with a key to it so your kids cannot stick their fingers in the socket. The battery backup for my computer at work cost over $1000 - they are saying $50, but I reckon that is a bit lean. Go to a computer shop and buy it.
Minister, you must tell your comrades in Canberra to back the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 because this must become the truth for the people of Australia. They must know the real cost of the NBN, what it will cost them for 100 Mbps, what it will cost them if they only want a telephone. Not everyone wants the Internet, believe it or not, but it will cost them $4500 once you force Telstra to rip out the copper networks.
Minister, you and this government must start coughing up the real figures so that we know. Stop your wishy-washy spin! Start telling the truth and the figures, because the families deserve to know the figures! They need to know how much they have to spend from you, a failed minister.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have listened carefully to the debate tonight. It is an important debate for Australia on the National Broadband Network and, as the minister said, it was a pivotal issue on which Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott decided to throw their support behind Julia Gillard to become Prime Minister. They did that on the basis they believe it is good for regional Australia. It is my understanding that the predominant technical opinion of the broadband network is one of support.
Many technical experts are scratching their heads about why the Coalition is so vehemently opposed to it. I suspect the vehement opposition comes about because of political motives and because the opposition thinks it can make some political capital out of this. However, there seems to be division in the federal opposition ranks. I have listened carefully to some of the seeming ambivalence of the former Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. He holds the shadow portfolio now and seems to be ambivalent towards the government’s position. So Tony Abbott needs to watch his back on this issue because it could go either way.
I was very interested in the contribution from the member for Fong Lim. He is passionate about this issue. He says he supports the bush. He talks about delivery of the best for Territorians. It is about the delivery of technology to Territorians. I am reading largely from a debate in the Senate in October 2003 from a speech made by Senator Crossin who outlined some of the history of the promises made by the member for Fong Lim about having mobile telephone coverage along the Stuart Highway:
He was very adamant then.
Let us move forward in time to 11 November 2002. He had another interview with the ABC and he said:
Here is the huff and puff man, the former member for Solomon, the current member for Fong Lim. He huffs and puffs during elections, promises something and does not deliver. As he says, in his own words: ‘Do not look at what they say or they say they are going to do, look at what they actually do and what they do not do’.
You are exposed again, member for Fong Lim. You have history as the federal member, so I do not think you have a place in this debate. You have huffed and puffed but you failed Territorians in your election promise. You are not qualified to speak the way you did in this debate.
I do not support the MPI brought on by the member for Braitling, for all the very good reasons put forward by our minister, who is a very good minister. He went to see Senator Conroy and had a very constructive discussion with him. The sooner they roll out the national broadband, the better. It will not be an unfulfilled promise like we had from the member for Fong Lim when he was the member for Solomon. That was part of a constellation of promises which he did not fulfil.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister and the rest of government do not support this MPI.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the passing of a Territory sporting legend, Clifford ‘Gympie’ Lew Fatt, on 8 September this year.
Gympie was the fourth child of Walter and Monica Lew Fatt and was born in South Australia in 1945, after his mother and family were evacuated from Darwin because of the war. He was one of seven brothers and three sisters. Returning to Darwin after the war at the age of 15, Gympie - no one knows how he got his nickname - started his first job cleaning buses at the Darwin bus depot at night. He was so scared working at night he used to carry his sleeping 10-year-old brother from bus to bus as he cleaned so he was not there alone.
In 1980, Gympie commenced work at the Legislative Assembly as a clerk, and he was there for approximately 15 years before moving into a position with Aboriginal Hostels, starting as an administration clerk, then into the regional manager’s role, where he worked until his retirement in 2004.
Many Territorians know Gympie for his sporting ability, which developed very early. He excelled in basketball, tennis, rugby, hockey, boxing, soccer, and especially in Australian Rules football. Gympie played in a golden era of Territory football, first for Nightcliff, or Works and Housing, then transferring to St Mary’s when he was very young because his brother, Terry, was appointed coach; he was instrumental in the success of the club for many years to come. Recognition of his silky skills and just how good a player he was can be seen in the individual honours he received throughout his football career. He is the only player in NTFL/AFLNT history to have won the best and fairest in the Colts, Reserves and League competitions.
Gympie won the Best and Fairest Award for St Mary’s four years in a row from 1963 to 1967. In the 1964-65 season he won the pinnacle of Top End football individual awards, the Nichols Medal. He was instrumental in St Mary’s winning back-to-back premierships in 1965-66 and 1966-67. Gympie played his last game for St Mary’s in his mid-40s, but continued to play in the NTFA competition with Tracy Village until his retirement at the grand old age of 55.
Gympie was awarded life membership of St Mary’s and the NTFL, and maintained his involvement with Saints through coaching the Reserves, Under 16 and Under 18 teams. The club and the football public salute a true legend of the NTFL.
Gympie was a very modest, quiet man who did everything with a minimum of fuss, from playing, to coaching football, to life. Everyone who met Gympie would know he was a true gentleman with integrity and honesty.
Our thoughts are with his wife, Shirley, his children, Alisa, Jenna, Anita and Yvette, in this time of sorrow. I extend my condolences to them all, and the rest of the Lew Fatt family, on the passing of Clifford ‘Gympie’ Lew Fatt - a Territory legend.
I thank all the competitors, volunteers, workers and supporters of the Alice Springs Masters Games. I will put on my medals - a bronze and a gold - I have not received my silver yet, but I am certainly going to get that when I get back to Alice.
The 2010 Masters Games were held from 9 to 16 October, and the Friendly Games were, again, a huge success. Since the first games in 1986, the biannual Alice Springs Masters Games has grown into a major event on the Territory, national and international sporting stage. This year there were more than 5000 registered competitors and support workers, and Alice Springs was absolutely buzzing - even several days of wet weather did not dampen their enthusiasm.
It was a busy and enjoyable games for me with medal presentations throughout the games, highlighting softball, netball, the Masters Mile presentations, as well as competing in basketball with my team, Wrecked’em. I am very proud to announce I won a gold medal and a bronze medal for soccer with the Alice All Stars.
One of the highlights of the games was the very important Alice Springs versus Darwin football match at Traeger Park, played in front of a huge crowd, and in the rain. I inform the House the Alice Springs team ran rings around Darwin, which included the member for Fong Lim, and was expertly umpired by the member for Nelson - although, I must say there was a free kick I should have received for in the back!
There were some memorable moments, both on and off the sporting field and I, for one, am still feeling the effects of the Masters Games. I can attest to the magic work done by the sports medicine team at the Masters Games. I send a big thanks to Karen for getting me up and moving, and also to Dr Geoff Thompson, Pippa Tessman and the team at Sports Med who worked wonders for all the athletes during the games week. Pippa is also a very valuable member of the Masters Games Steering Committee.
I thank the other members of the steering committee, including our Chair, Mr Peter Hoey, for the advice and guidance they give to ensure the games are a great success. Thanks also to the Alice Springs Mayor, Damien Ryan; Peter Flink; Kylie Bonanni and Bill Van Dijk, together with Pippa and Peter who volunteered their time; it is very much appreciated. They joined more than 500 people who put up their hands to support the games through volunteering their time. This embracing of the Masters by the local community is what makes our games the Friendly Games, and it is why people keep coming back time and time again.
One of the familiar faces on board since the beginning is the Alice Springs Masters Games patron, Dawn Fraser, the legend of Australian sport. It was a pleasure to catch up with Dawn and the Honorary Ambassador, Daryl Somers, who was joined in the ambassadorial duties by our very own John Ah Kit.
Many of the achievements at the Masters are inspirational. One example is Bruce Campbell, an 83-year-old competitor who completed the Masters Mile. There was also the 75-year-old competitor, Val Worrell, who has the world record for the hammer throw - and the list goes on.
A big thank you must go to the Masters Games Manager, Jim Lawrie, and his team on the ground: Claire, Letitia, Sheree and Craig - and, of course, the very supportive Major Events team headed up by Paul Cattermole, the mover and shaker; Tiffany Manzie; Pam Gray and others who worked hard to ensure the games were again a big success.
The Alice Springs Masters Games is a magnificent showcase for Alice Springs and the Northern Territory and, as the minister for Sport and the Minister for Central Australia, I am proud to be associated and involved with another successful Masters Games.
I am certainly looking forward to the 14th Alice Springs Masters Games; hopefully, I will still be the minister for Sport. I will ensure I get to the training track earlier next time to avoid any injuries.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quickly read out the names of my team mates in the soccer, the Alice AllStars: Chris Zahra, Richard Gray, Tim Higgins, Wayne Gaskon, Scott Peters, Glenn Scott, Gary Rankin, Fred Miegel, Chris Brocklebank, Bruce Brodie, Stephen Palchulicz, Srour Ahmed, Stephen Theriault and Dave Ezard.
My basketball team mates were: Brad Puls, Mark Coffey, Gerrard Coffey, Ken Napier, Sean Parnell, John Gaynor, Brett Sayer, Lance Goodwin, Dean Griffith, Paul Murray, Dave Brown and Tony Sealy.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to again speak about youth crime in Alice Springs. I have been made aware that on Friday, 22 October 2010 at 4.15 pm, a number of youths were arrested and charged with offences in Alice Springs. In October, 21 youths were arrested with a combined total of 236 offences in relation to a series of unlawful entries, stealing, and damage to motor vehicles. There was an article in The Centralian Advocate today which talked about two boys, aged 12 and 14, who were included in that.
The community in Alice Springs expects much more from this government. They expect this government to ensure justice is done. We know in Alice Springs, the sentences never fit the crimes or the heartache which occurs in town. I am calling on the Northern Territory government to publish every month the sentences which have been handed out to these criminals in Alice Springs. The community has a right to know what sentences the people who commit these crimes are receiving.
Too often, we see criminals back on the street; too often, we see youths who commit crimes put back on the street to commit more crimes. We want to know if youths are receiving youth diversionary programs; we do not want to know their names, but we want to know their ages, the crimes they have committed, and the punishment they have been given. I am calling on the Northern Territory government to publish the sentences which are administered to the criminals in Alice Springs, so that Alice Springs residents can try to have some faith in the system, or can be made aware of the failures which are occurring, and why the crime is so bad on the streets.
Moving on to another matter, I would like to recognise the Northern Land Council’s Indigenous Employer Awards which were conducted over the weekend. I note that SIHIP won the Chairman’s Award for Indigenous Employment. I find it surprising that SIHIP can win an award for anything; they have achieved an award for Indigenous employment although they should be achieving housing awards. It is unfortunate they cannot build houses as well as they can employ people.
Now that I am no longer the shadow minister for Infrastructure or Transport, I encourage the minister for Infrastructure and Construction to investigate the roadworks on Fog Bay Road in the electorate of Daly. I have been in conversations about the upkeep and repair of that road with many constituents who travel along it. I travelled there on the weekend to investigate the repairs. The roadworks done on Fog Bay Road are of a poor standard and have deteriorated in a bad way, even before the Wet Season has come about. I would like that roadwork to be reinvestigated.
I would like the government to make good on their commitment - particularly the member for Daly, I would like him to make good on his commitment to have that road fixed. The member for Daly thinks Fog Bay Road is a good road. He will not speak on it tonight, because no one has prepared a speech on Fog Bay Road. I would like the member for Daly and the Minister for Construction to commit to fixing Fog Bay Road so the many residents of Dundee Beach, Dundee Forest, Bynoe Harbour, and everywhere else out there, have good and proper roads, can get into town in the Wet Season and can still come to work and support the economy of Darwin.
I also ask the minister for Planning to review the interventions by his department in relation to the Telstra tower in Larapinta. I know the minister has taken active interest in this.
I know the height of the Telstra tower in Larapinta has been reduced by 6 m in the planning phase through DCA. It can now be seen through because there is a lattice-type effect on the tower. The equipment box has been moved down the hill; it was going to be at the back of the hill, so it would not be seen by people living in Gilbert Place or Grant Road or other roads. But now, allegedly on advice from the Planning department, it has been recommended it be moved onto a forward hill, so it will be right behind someone’s house, but it has come down the hill. I want to see whether that advice can be confirmed. I understand Telstra would not mind. The equipment box is on the other side of the hill. If the minister could look at that for me I would really appreciate it. I am sorry, minister, I have been talking about your portfolio on a number of occasions, and I am happy to talk to your staff about that personally.
I also ask the minister to further investigate how blocks in Albrecht Drive, Larapinta, could have had - actually, I will leave that for tomorrow night. I will come back to that matter.
I do ask the minister for Planning - and I know the member for Araluen and member for Greatorex have been involved in this – to investigate what outcomes can be delivered to the residents of the Sienna Caravan Park. It is a difficult situation. I know there are regulation changes for caravan parks, but all those residents are now going to be homeless, and I ask that this be looked at. I know the member for Greatorex and the member for Araluen are looking further into that. I did have some work to do with those people before, but the carriage is now passed over to my good colleagues in Alice Springs. I have investigated and spoken to many people there, including the owners and other people. I will leave that to my colleagues, but I encourage the minister to look into it.
On a final note, I find it absolutely disgraceful that the government did not return to the child services statement today. The Bath report should have been on our agenda; it had better be on the agenda for tomorrow. It must come back so we can debate it.
There are 147 recommendations in that report which need to be debated and, more importantly, at the end of June there were 870 children who had been reported at risk and were awaiting a formal investigation by Northern Territory Families and Children. It is an absolute disgrace. I want this government to report tomorrow on how many of those reports have still not been investigated. This debate better be back on the table tomorrow, because if it is not, I will be taking to task.
In 2006, we had the Little Children are Sacred report of the Northern Territory Labor government. This government, and many of the members of this government, sat on that report for six months. It was not until Mal Brough and John Howard saw it that they commenced a $1bn intervention; the same intervention which the member for Arafura called the black kids Tampa. There were 870 kids at the end of June whose situations had not been looked at although they had been reported as at risk. It is an emergency, it should not be let go.
I have just read the editorial of the paper; they got it right - something needs to be done and we need to take charge of this. We cannot sit back and play political games and announce things here or there. You had better bring this back on tomorrow; otherwise I will be taking it further in my political endeavours to try to make something happen. This is an emergency; do not think it is anything but. We are not here to play political games with kids’ lives; it is not about wishy-washy responses. This must be debated.
We must come up with solutions immediately to make sure these 870 kids, plus the new ones who have come up since the end of June, are being looked at, managed and protected. This report identifies they were not; and you, as a government, have done nothing to report to this House that something has been done. It is absolutely disgraceful!
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, in a similar vein to my colleague, the member for Braitling, when he raised some law and order issues at the beginning of his adjournment speech, I will give details of a very traumatic incident which happened in one of the shops near my electoral office.
It occurred on Monday, 11 October, and the business is Coolalinga Car Parts. Lindsay is the manager of the business and at approximately 3.50 pm he was assaulted in his shop by a person who took offence at something, or perhaps he did not like the products on the shelves. Lindsay came into my office sometime later. I have known this fellow since I was elected. He was smacked in the head, punched to the ground, and there was a witness.
Lindsay recovered, with the assistance of the other person in the shop and he called NT Police on 131444 at approximately 3.54 pm, 4.30 pm and 5 pm and could not get a response. He spoke to the owner of the shop and she telephoned and spoke to the police at 5.15 pm and was given a report number, P10192287. They requested Lindsay’s telephone number. Lindsay waited in the shop until 5.30 pm before realising the NT Police could not or would not attend to the assault. He was taken to hospital to have his wounds, cuts and bruises treated and tended to.
The next day, 12 October, Lindsay was on the telephone to police trying to find out what was happening when he received a missed call from an unknown number. He returned the call at 8.50 am and the police gave him a job number, #4631783. The police rang on 12 October at 2.09 pm to ask Lindsay to attend the Palmerston Police Station at 8 am on 14 October to make a statement - two days after he was assaulted in his shop. Lindsay gave the police the car registration number of the man who assaulted him in the shop, the direction the vehicle was heading and the name, telephone number and address of the witness. He is not sure if they have taken a statement from this witness, nor does he know whether they have tried to find the person who assaulted him.
He came to my office on 14 October to report the assault and the problems he had, and was in a very distressed state - very angry and very upset. He also went to Rob Knight’s electorate office, which is also in the vicinity of the Coolalinga shops. Rob Knight’s office contacted Fred McCue and he called Lindsay three times; once to apologise for the assault, which was very nice. On the other two occasions he was unsure what was happening and said he would keep Lindsay informed; however, he has not heard back from him since that time.
A sergeant at the police radio room also called Lindsay to apologise; although Lindsay felt the words were very shallow. I am not sure exactly why they were apologising, whether it was because they could not turn up to the business on the day of the assault or because he was asked to go to Palmerston Police Station to make the statement.
On 15 October, Lindsay rang the Humpty Doo police centre and the incident was on the computer and was being investigated. Lindsay has been in contact with his insurance company, which is very dissatisfied with the time it has taken to get a report on the assault, and the fact there has been no follow-up either with Lindsay or with the business on the assault of an employee. Lindsay has had to have dental treatment following the assault and he has recovered superficially from the cuts and bruising on his face.
We talk about law and order in this House and how assaults are meant to be commonplace. This gentleman was doing his job in a business in the Northern Territory, selling car parts or items for vehicles or homes to anyone who wants them, and a fellow comes in, assaults him, batters him and knocks him to the ground. Lindsay gave as much help as he could to NT Police regarding the assault, yet nothing seems to have happened.
What does this fellow have to do to get the attention of the NT Police? I have no issue with the police, Lindsay does not have an issue with the police; he knows their resources are stretched. His issue is that he has done as much as he can reasonably be expected to do. He has given a description of the person who assaulted him; the registration number and description of the person’s vehicle and the name and phone number of the witness. Yet nothing has happened, and it is now 26 October. This assault took place on 11 October.
I sincerely trust the powers that be on the fifth floor of this building who are associated with police and law and order will pick up the phone, ring Lindsay at Coolalinga Car Parts and explain why – when he was assaulted, needs medical treatment, needs follow-up treatment, and the insurance company and the business have issues - no one seems to care when a humble person in a business is assaulted.
I urge the government to assist this person because there are many people like Lindsay from Coolalinga Car Parts who are assaulted, knocked around, bashed, yet it does not seem to get through. What if Lindsay had not reported it? It would be another case of someone who feels they have been let down by the system, and it goes unrecorded.
I suspect there are many cases where there have been law and order issues or social problems, upheaval, people getting angry for whatever reason, and they get frustrated. Lindsay has come into my office several times. He is angry and upset and he is pretty average sort of guy. He is a hard-working bloke who enjoys his job, enjoys talking to people in the shop, and doing business with car enthusiasts and people of that nature, which always amazes me. My concern is this bloke has been let down by the NT Police and the Northern Territory government. I urge people listening to this to get on the phone, ring up this bloke, find out who assaulted him, and take him seriously.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make an adjournment speech at the end of the sanctimonious, bleating, hypocrisy of the member for Braitling.
I have spoken in this House before about encounters with domestic violence during my life, and I do not feel the need to go through that again. However, people like me who have directly experienced such violence, and have put themselves in harm’s way to attempt the rescue of other women at risk, are entitled to closely scrutinise expressions of concern about domestic violence committed by people who have a social or political interest.
The issue of domestic violence was recently in the public and political spotlight with the status of Leo Abbott as the Country Liberals candidate for Lingiari. In order to put that party’s current situation in context, it is worth bearing in mind, although the media attention given to the Leo Abbott saga was unprecedented, he was not the first CLP candidate to have a domestic violence skeleton in his closet.
It was my assessment when I first stood for election in 2001 …
Mr Tollner: Let us talk about who has skeletons in their closet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … and it remains my assessment now - the truth hurts and that is why …
Mr Tollner: There is a picture hanging out in that hallway there of a bloke who had a few skeletons in his closet.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … the Country Liberals have routinely preselected Aboriginal male candidates with a view to ticking the traditional man box, regardless of the individual’s flaws or vulnerabilities. It is my understanding the Leader of the Opposition was at the front and centre of the initial push for Leo Abbott to be preselected as the Country Liberal candidate for Lingiari.
The Territory is a comparatively small place. I am not the only Aboriginal person who knew the two Aboriginal women with whom Leo Abbott had relationships which were the subject of recent media scrutiny. It beggars belief that the Leader of the Opposition was not informed of the circumstances of the break-up of at least the second of those two relationships, given they were a matter of discussion and concern by many people in Alice Springs and elsewhere at the time. Both of the women …
Mr Tollner: You are scandalous!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Both of the women were significant and respected …
Mr Tollner: Have you no shame?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr TOLLNER: A point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker! She is dragging a person’s name through the mud.
Ms Lawrie: No, not really, just telling the truth.
Mr Tollner: This is just outrageous …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: There is, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are rules of decorum in this place …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Can we stop the clock?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please.
Mr Tollner: … and I urge you to ask the member to follow them.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Fong Lim. Member for Arafura, you have the call.
Mr Tollner: We could all walk in here with a bit of rumour, Marion …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr Tollner: Just remember that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you are on a warning!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Both the women were significant and respected individuals throughout the Territory ...
Mr Tollner: Well, name names; go on.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … they were not remote community phantoms; not that the anonymity of the victims reduces the gravity of domestic violence to any extent. The truth is, over the last few years at least two women have been on the receiving end of violent behaviour by Leo Abbott in the context of domestic violent relationships and, at least in one instance, this happened while Mr Abbott …
Mr Tollner: This is outrageous.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr Tollner: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is just outrageous; this is absolutely outrageous. There is no way known the member should be standing up here promulgating this sort of nonsense …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51.
Mr Tollner: … this scuttlebutt …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, member for Fong Lim. I have said, and I reiterate, there is no point of order here.
I remind the member for Arafura, when discussing individuals to be mindful they have no right of reply through the House. You have the call, member for Arafura.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I get to the sanctimonious, bleating, hypocrisy of the member for Braitling, because Mr Abbott played a major role in the roll-out of the Indigenous engagement strategy as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Intervention.
I am not going to reveal the identities of these women, but I strongly suspect the Country Liberals, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, knew prior to the formal preselection who they were, and some versions of what happened to them, regardless of whether it was denied by Mr Abbott ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: I do not think that is true, is it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This is the issue …
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: They have covered that up for years and you have the hypocrisy to stand in here and rub in that absolute nonsense.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Mr Westra van Holthe: Your assertions are not true.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yeah? I would not say that if I was you.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member wishes to make assertions about the activities of people who are members of this House, then she should do so by substantive motion.
I ask you to caution her in relation to speaking of third parties who do not have any protection in this House. It has been a long-standing principle by the Speaker of this House that that caution is issued from the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, I will issue that caution once again, member for Port Darwin, but there is no point of order.
I remind you, member for Arafura, that under the terms of freedom of speech there are limited opportunities for persons other than members of parliament to respond to allegations made in this parliament.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am very mindful of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hypocrisy of members - look at a number of adjournment debates in this parliament where members from the other side have slandered and defamed the character of people and individuals in the community. People in glass houses should not throw stones. The truth hurts, and you do not want to face the truth.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quoted as having said – fact! - in the Northern Territory News published on 14 August 2010:
Mr Westra van Holthe: Fact? In the Northern Territory News?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, you choose to read the Northern Territory News and hold the Northern Territory News when it suits you, member for Katherine, so do not start with your hypocrisy. You are a joke and a hypocrite. As a former copper, you should know …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask you to direct the member to …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, member for Arafura, if you could direct your comments …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The truth hurts.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura, make your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I quote from the Northern Territory News on 14 August:
Let us decode these words into plain English, taking into account the sad reality that the standard modus operandi of a serious domestic violence perpetrator is to do whatever it takes to ensure the other party does not publicly reveal the full extent of his behaviour. Quote:
This is a quote from the Leader of the Opposition:
Those words mean the Leader of the Opposition knew that there was a domestic violence problem …
Mr Giles: If you have proof, bring out the police report.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am quoting.
Mr Giles: Bring out the police report.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Will you listen?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Giles: Bring out the police report. Let us debate Abbott versus Bob Collins.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, cease interjecting, please.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Braitling, you are on a warning. Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: At the very least, it was incumbent on his party, and ultimately him as its leader to find out exactly what that something was, and to decline …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Cease interjecting, member for Fong Lim!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, please pause. Stop the clock, please.
I remind members of the opposition, in particular the members for Braitling and Fong Lim, you are on warnings and you continue to interject. If you do it again you will know the consequences. Please allow the member for Arafura to continue with her comments.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the bully boy attitude of these blokes. This is how they carry on. We are talking about a serious issue like domestic violence and these blokes …
Mr Giles: You are slandering someone when there is no proof.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, it is not slandering or casting aspersions. I am actually reading quotes from the Northern Territory News and decoding what those words say; but because it is so touchy, because the tentacles go far and wide to certain members of the CLP and they are touchy, touchy, and this is the bully boy attitude women in this Chamber have constantly had to put up with since 2001.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura, I remind you to direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry. I will continue tomorrow night.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, hopefully to restore some decorum to this House, I will raise some issues pertaining to my electorate.
I turn to the promise in relation to the development of an area called Flagstaff Park. I remind members that in the 2007-08 Budget Highlights and Mr Stirling’s, the then Treasurer, appropriation bill, that $6m was appropriated for Myilly Point redevelopment, including the Flagstaff Park upgrade.
There is very little evidence that $6m was ever spent on Flagstaff Park. If that is the product of $6m worth of expenditure, the government certainly did not get bang for its buck. So, the question arises, what did you do with the $6m? Moreover, where is the redevelopment of Flagstaff Park, and what point have we reached in its redevelopment?
I have in my possession several media releases from the government from as early as July 2008, when the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Delia Lawrie, put out a media release saying plans were unveiled for the new Darwin Park, and there was an announcement of some area set aside for a restaurant to help cover the cost of redevelopment of the site. It did not cause much of a hoo-ha, but everyone looked forward to the redevelopment of the park.
The promises included shade covered picnic tables, a viewing platform, a site for a restaurant and function area with beach views, extensive revegetation and green open spaces, sealed exercise tracks with exercise stations and shade planting along the footpaths, development of Nurses Walk to Mindil beach, stair access to Marina Boulevard in Cullen Bay, and additional car parking.
None of the above has occurred. Considering there was money placed aside in the 2007-08 budget, and it was mentioned in the budget speech, it is a fairly disappointing result. The question I put is, what happened to the money, and where are we at with the development?
That was media release number one. Then for some reason, two media releases were put out on 16 January under Ms Lawrie’s name. They contain the same text but for some reason came out on different headers. On 16 January 2009, the promise was for shade covered picnic tables and barbecues, a viewing platform, a site for a restaurant and function area with beach views, extensive revegetation and green open spaces, sealed exercise tracks with exercise stations and shade planting along the paths, development of Nurses Walk to Mindil beach, stair access to the Marina Boulevard in Cullen Bay, and additional car parking. One of those media releases was on 7 July 2008. Eight months later, on 16 January 2009, none of the promises from the 2008 media release have been fulfilled, merely replicated and cut and pasted into the 2009 media release.
The Flagstaff Park announcements have been made often and they have been made long. The only problem is, once again, one of the great hallmarks of this government is there is a vast chasm which exists between the promises made in the media release and the manifestation of those promises in reality. I note there is a different picture of the then Planning minister, Delia Lawrie, on each of the three media releases. So, three hairstyles later, we still do not have any change to Flagstaff Park.
I urge the government to keep its promises, or at least tell Territorians where it is at with it and what is proposed. The last promise is now ancient, and the truth is the redevelopment of Flagstaff Park is starting to look more like a hoax with every passing day.
That leads me to my next issue in that area - the redevelopment of the old hospital site. We had an original proposal which had its problems. Mickey Dewar did a review of what was proposed for the old hospital site and, on 9 June 2009, the Northern Territory faithfully reported that plans for redevelopment of the old hospital site had been simplified by keeping the trees and removing the hedging maze which was part of the original proposed plan for the old hospital site.
A section of the site, on the Lambell Terrace end, the redevelopment of a little high-rise to pay for the rest of the park, had been moved towards the Cullen Bay end. The residential area was moved from the corner of Lambell Terrace and Shultz Street to Kahlin Avenue because neighbours had complained that high-rises, which might be up to eight storeys, would peer into their back yards.
The plan is intended to be cost neutral because the parkland development would be paid for by the sale of residential land; however, the government will not enforce a policy of 15% affordable housing which is mandated for all residential developments. ‘We have not applied the 15% affordable housing to this residential component, as you can appreciate its locality at the top end of the market similar to the Waterfront’ she said. ‘Architects will be able to compete for the design of the parks and cultural centrepiece. Construction on the park is expected to start early next year’. That is this year, and now it is October this year, not early this year, and it is to be completed by 2012.
Can the minister advise why the redevelopment of the park has not commenced and what the minister is doing to ensure the park will be developed? Will the minister continue to insist that the eight-storey unit blocks proposed for the park are going to pay for the park, or is he going to find some other form of money to pay for the development of the park?
People are constantly asking me what is going on with this site. Minister, I am grateful you are in the House and grateful you are listening to this issue. The people in Darwin as a whole, but particularly in the electorate of Port Darwin, have the right to know what is happening with this location. I will be sticking these comments in everyone’s letterbox in the area to keep them informed of my concern about the development of these parks in the future so they know the sorts of questions I am asking. I hope I will receive a reply in this House before I do that so the minister can inform the House, and the people of Port Darwin, what exactly is proposed for the development of these two parks. Are the most recently announced plans the ones to be adhered to, or have changes been made without advising anyone, or has the whole thing been abandoned as too hard?
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I share a letter from the National Gallery of Australia, dated 13 October 2010, to:
I also attach the names of the Northern Territory artists who came to the National Gallery of Australia opening of Stage 1. There are eight names on the list. It was truly a wonderful event and a great celebration of our Indigenous art in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to say how sorry I was to hear about Lindsay from the Coolalinga Car Parts. I have known Lindsay for many years. He has been involved in ANSTI, which is a small community that used to operate on Bees Creek Road, helping people with drug and alcohol addiction. I have also known him through his business at Coolalinga Car Parts.
It was a surprise for me to hear from the member for Goyder tonight that he had been attacked. He is a hard-working gentleman who is well-known in the Coolalinga district. It is sad to hear he has been assaulted, and I hope they can find the person who did this sooner rather than later.
On another note, I will also talk about the Masters Games. I know a number of our northern members of parliament went to the Masters Games, and I think they all enjoyed it. Some came back with medals which I am sure they did not deserve but, if there are only two in a race, well, it is easy to get a silver medal. I know Ross Bohlin, the member for Drysdale, picked up a few medals; some of them might be counterfeit because I could not believe he had so many medals. The member for Fong Lim got some for lawn bowls. Lawn bowls is what I do. I could not even get a game, and he goes down there and …
Mr Tollner: Picked up two silvers, and a gold for basketball.
Mr WOOD: I will be talking to Paul Cattermole to see if there has been any underhand arrangements down there with giving out prizes ...
Mr Tollner: Well, there was.
Mr WOOD: If I see some judges going around in a Ferrari, I will know they are absolute …
Mr Tollner: When you bowl over arm, that is cricket.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I am a little suspect, but I am not suspect of the member for Katherine because I saw him running at Traeger Park. He …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not. I must admit, after you have seen me run, you will realise why …
Mr Tollner: I did see you run.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I know. It was certainly not in the same class as the member for Katherine who did extremely well in the athletics, and well deserved the medals he received.
Also, Karl Hampton, the member for Stuart, played some games. I think one was called football, but we would call it soccer. He also played AFL which I had the privilege of umpiring.
Mr Tollner: He was not the only one, either.
Mr WOOD: There was, once again, the member for Fong Lim from Central Queensland, who would not even know what an AFL football looked like. Because he is so tall they borrowed him as a ruckman, and that is about his only use in an AFL game.
The minister for Sport obviously tried his best. He complained a little while ago that the free kick I paid against him was unfair, but that is probably typical of small men who are well past it when they are playing football; they are always whingeing about umpire’s decisions. After all, I was a Masters umpire so I did know what I was doing.
It was a great game. Alice Springs had some advantages because it was a miserably cold, drizzly, rainy day suitable for people who come from Victoria or south of Tennant Creek, and they obviously had some advantages over the Darwin people who are used to playing in hot, steamy weather. But, it was a great game because Alice Springs won by about four or five goals in the end, although Darwin got very close to winning.
I mentioned to Paul Cattermole, who is the boss of Major Events, that the AFL match should be part of the Masters and, if they have a best and fairest, even if they had one for each team, they should get a Masters medal because it is a really good little break from all the other events of the week. It is good that Darwin and Alice Springs get together and play that game. I know we always talk about south of the Berrimah line, but I reckon nearly every player knew one another. If you go back in history, many of the players used to move from Alice to play in the northern competition during the Wet Season so people got to know one another over the years. The camaraderie between all players during that match was terrific.
I enjoyed it as well, and what was also great was all the other umpires were involved in the Under 17 match which was postponed because of the violence. At the beginning of the match, all players and umpires stood shoulder to shoulder with T-shirts and caps on saying we must stop the violence, which was great. At the end of the match the umpires received what they could not receive at the grand final previously, their medals. The team which won the premiership also received their medals and they got a great round of applause from everyone who was in attendance. I thought that was a great thing to do, to recognise the umpires - and there were a couple of very young umpires - for their contribution. It was great to see them come back from what was a fairly serious situation. It could have meant some of those umpires did not want to umpire ever again, so I congratulate the AFLNT for making sure that happened on the day.
From a local perspective, there are many rural people who go to Alice Springs. They all find the cheapest possible place to stay; it is not easy to find a cheap place in Alice Springs for that period of time. If Alice is to encourage more and more people to the Masters, the idea of upping the rents when Masters is on is not a good way to do it. Many people have to jam into the rooms to be able to afford to go there. I would love to encourage more people from the rural area, especially older people, to go to the Masters. It does not take long, you can drive down in a day-and-a-half safely, and it is a good way to encourage older people to participate in sport and stay healthy; that is one of the reasons I try to get involved.
I also do it to try to promote the idea that getting older is no excuse for not participating. I can tell you now that I cracked the whole one silver medal. There were three teams in the table tennis; I was in the mixed lollies. It was mixed all right, but we won a silver medal and I was very happy. I just enjoy getting together with lots of other people. A Danish team won our gold medal, and we all stood for the Danish national anthem.
We had members of the Humpty Doo Bowls Club there; Stan Smolski, Carolyn Smolski, Judy Thompson and Dave Gordon. Stan and Dave won a bronze medal.
Ian Jordan - people who know motorcycles and know anything about motor cars, sprint cars - you name it, he has been in it for years. He lives around the road from me. He was there looking after the motorcycles. It was great to see him there.
The netball team, the Noonamah Crocs; played its heart out. Unfortunately, rain came - and someone might explain to me one day why Alice Springs seems to be the only town in Australia that stops netball when it rains; in Tasmania they play in sleet, snow, hurricanes, you name it, but in Alice Springs they stop and have to play indoors at St Philip’s, right next to the netball team. That is okay, but a few people have asked me why.
In softball we had the Darwin Diamonds, which is nearly all rural people, and they had a terrific competition. Unfortunately, it rained and knocked them out as well. They were looking for a possibility of moving their bronze up to a silver but it rained and knocked them out. The positions at the time when the rain came meant they could not play for a higher medal, but they did very well. They are a great people, mad as you can believe but they enjoy themselves; they love going to Alice Springs, and I love it. Sometimes I am the one man cheering squad, but I try to get around to all these teams and cheer them on. In the case of the Noonamah Crocs, they had a croc which was marching up and down the sidelines at 10 o’clock at night, cheering them on to do the best they could.
I was involved with the cricket; I was playing for the Groote Eylandt Invitation XI. Being the only non-drinker in the team was a bit difficult at times. They played well for some of the time, and they did not play well for the rest of the time, and then the rain came, which did not really make any difference to our medal chances, because we were somewhere between third last and last. We had a great time, and it was great to meet the interstate teams as well.
Everyone enjoyed themselves. I had a great time; I will be going back again, hopefully, in two years time. I will be promoting the Masters as something as many people as possible, especially in my rural area, should try to attend. It is a great event, and we should try to promote the idea that just because you get older it does not mean you cannot be involved in sport. That is the wrong attitude. It is a great way to keep fit, meet new friends, and see Alice Springs. If you were in Alice Springs this year you saw summer, winter, autumn and spring all in the one week. Thank you, Alice Springs, for a wonderful Masters.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I concur with the member for Nelson. He is dead right about the Alice Springs Masters; it was a fantastic week. It was great to see all of the achievement, and it is great to see him getting around with his silver medal. I could not walk around this place with my two silver medals from lawn bowls; it would not seem right. But, in any case, congratulations to you, member for Nelson.
I wish to respond to the outrageous comments made by the member for Arafura. In my time in parliament, both here and in the federal parliament, I have never heard such an outrageous statement as I heard just then. To come into this place and smear a person on rumour and innuendo is completely wrong. It is a breach of decorum; it is a breach of everything we stand for in this place. As politicians, irrespective of which side of parliament we are on, we know only too well that rumour and innuendo abound, and 99 times out of 100, that rumour and innuendo is found to be false.
The only things we can be certain of are findings made by police in our court systems. To come in here running a smear on a person who has not been dragged through the courts - in fact the breach of the DVO in the transcript I read, said something along the lines that it was in all likelihood an honest mistake, that there was nothing threatening or intimidating in the e-mails or text messages the gentleman had sent to the lady, and there had never been any suggestion of violence before the courts. The police prosecutor who stood up before the court also said that.
What I find so galling is that the member for Arafura labelled the member for Braitling and me bully boys in her parting comments because we were offended by the comments she made. She somehow believes we should not be offended, that we should sit and listen to the tripe which she is prepared to dribble out in this place.
The member for Arafura comes in here and says she has two friends who she will not name and will not outline the circumstances of the so-called offences which she is so offended by but is prepared to come in here and smear the name of a person - I do not know if he is of good character or not, but he has not been found by a court not to be of good character.
Meanwhile, every single day we walk into this Chamber we have to walk through that corridor into the opposition lobby, straight past a picture of what we are all led to believe is one of the biggest monsters ever to exist in the Northern Territory. I speak of Bob Collins, the former leader of the Labor Party, the former leader of this party in the Northern Territory, and a Senator in the federal parliament, who we all know was facing charges of paedophilia, and not just one charge. If we take newspapers to be the gospel truth, as the member for Arafura does, evidently there were people all over Australia lodging complaints with police about former Senator Bob Collins. Unfortunately, as members of the Labor Party know well, Bob Collins was not the only paedophile in the Labor Party. There were other proven paedophiles in the Labor Party who went to gaol for being paedophiles.
I have not researched this; however, I recall a person who was a member of the House of Representatives for the seat of Capricornia and also the Leader of the Labor Party in Queensland, Mr Keith Wright, who was gaoled for fiddling around with young girls. He was charged, convicted and gaoled.
There was also the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, a person called Bill D’Arcy, who was convicted, sentenced and gaoled - put away for rape, as I recall it. Up there with Bob Collins as the worst case of any person I have ever heard of in Australia was Milton Orkopoulos, a member of the Labor Party in New South Wales, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the time, who was convicted and gaoled for the most heinous crimes - crimes such as getting young boys addicted to heroin and having sex with them, treating them as sex slaves. These are not isolated incidents; they are incidents which run right across the Labor Party all over Australia. There are a range …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is offensive. He is alleging these are not isolated incidents, and that they are common to the Labor Party and run all over the Labor Party in Australia. That is highly offensive, and I ask he withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you withdraw that very broad statement you have made in relation to members of the Labor Party.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spoken of four members who are all members of the Labor Party who all share ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Long Lim, I am not referring to that. The point of order was in relation to the sweeping statement about the number of - you were …
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I said these …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw in accordance with the point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr TOLLER: I withdraw. Madam Speaker, there are four members of the Labor Party across Australia who are paedophiles, and it would be fair to say in all these cases there were members of the Labor Party who were trying to cover up for them. In the trial of Milton Orkopoulos, there were ministers from the Labor Party in the New South Wales government turning up to his trial giving character references. They were covering up for a paedophile. They were ministers in the Labor Party. The people I am talking about have been convicted and gone to gaol. It is not hard to see there is a trend emerging here.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Again, going to the standing order, it is offensive. To say there is a trend among Labor politicians is absolutely wrong. These are isolated incidents.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold that point of order. Again, member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw.
Member for Fong Lim, did I hear you say you withdraw?
Mr TOLLNER: I said I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, these are not isolated incidents; they happened in the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales. We are aware of other Labor ministers and members who have been gaoled around the country, not for sex and paedophilia offences, as these ones have. Look at Western Australia and we see Brian Burke and Mr Grills; and look at Victoria and see all those dreadful people there who were gaoled. This seems to be a party of paedophiles and criminals, where it is condoned and where they will cover up these things ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A point of order!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, member for Fong Lim. Stop the clock, please.
Ms LAWRIE: Again, standing order - highly offensive. He is alleging members of the Labor Party are paedophiles and criminals. That is patently wrong.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again, member for Fong Lim. Thank you. And you are on a warning should you choose to make that assertion again.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I withdraw. But is it not funny, when you start to lift the lid on some of these things, as did the member for Arafura running rumour and innuendo, making things up as she went along - but the minute someone comes in here and starts speaking the truth, all of a sudden people on the other side get a little offended because they do not like to hear the truth …
Ms Lawrie: You would not know the truth if it slapped you in the face.
Mr TOLLNER: … because the truth hurts. People in the Labor Party go to gaol, and I have just named a whole …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired. Resume your seat! Your time has expired!
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight in adjournment I talk of two of my schools. One is not actually my school but it is on the edge, and that is the Gray Primary School. The other is the Driver Primary School. They are both participating in fantastic exercises where they have begun gardens within their schools. Some people might think it is just a garden, but the size of the Driver Primary School farm is massive.
It is a testament purely to the community around it, the community of Driver and the people who go to the Driver Primary School. It has been built with some money, but really through the love and dedication of many working bees. Since that time, many children have been involved in continuing to make the garden grow.
I hear great stories now of the Gray Primary School and its attempts to do likewise. I think it is important because this is about teaching our kids life skills. This is not academic, these are life skills - skills these children can take back into their homes and put into practice.
There was a time in our world when we all needed to know how to grow our own fruit and vegetables, nurture the chickens so we had eggs, nurture a lamb so it would eventually produce more lambs, produce wool and meat. Unfortunately nowadays, in the last 100 years, we as a society have gone so far from that principle of self-reliance. We have arrived at this time where everything has to come out of a plastic wrapper from the shop. That is why this is a life lesson for all our children who go to school.
I urge any school which is not already considering a similar program - be it a Stephanie Alexander program like the one at Driver or not - to start one of these programs because our children today, including the parents, may at some stage, need the skills to grow their own fruit and vegetables; produce their own poultry and livestock.
It is not inconceivable, if we were to fall into another recession or we were to go into another GFC, that we may not be as lucky as we have been in the last GFC. I am not saying it is going to happen, but the reality is we do not have any more money to put into stimulus packages. Much of that money was ill spent and could have been better targeted; which has always been our claim on this side. We do not have the reserves; we do not have the capacity to stretch much more. Our kids may find themselves needing to learn how to grow to be able to survive at home.
When I was at Kintore as the officer in charge of the police station, we had a reasonable shortage of diverse fruit and vegetables way out in the scrub, some 500 km by road. So, every month or so, we went into town and bought our goods. We could get them shipped out every fortnight, but we decided we would grow our own. We set a small garden, and it was really small, it was probably the size of a queen-size bed, and we produced so much in the way of zucchinis, squash and bok choy we actually grew sick of eating some of the vegetables from our own little garden patch.
It concerns me there is this continued trend to cram our new sub-developments with smaller and smaller lots, with ever increasing house sizes on them so there is no land around for people to grow their own vegetables and experience the joy the kids at the Driver Primary School and Gray Primary School will experience of being able to go to that tomato bush and pick off a juicy red, ripe tomato, or to pick your own bananas, paw paw, snake beans, bok choy, or sweet corn.
It is a skill which should be learnt. It should occur in our schools but also, in a community sense, it should be available for the entire community to experience. I know in England there are community farm lots, so the family has a community farm lot down the road and they buy one when someone moves on from that lot so they can experience the same rewards, because they are so congested at times they do not have space at home.
Let us not make those mistakes made in other countries and let us limit how small we go, because when we continually jam in smaller and smaller lots, all we do is reduce the flexibility of our community. I am not saying every block of land needs to be a 1200 m, because I know that can be somewhat wasteful at times, but the standard block of land should not be 600 m or smaller; it should not be accepted that is the standard block of land. We should be able to have some diversity.
Unfortunately, I do not have time at home, because of our commitments with work, to produce my own fruit and vegetables at the moment, but I do have a lime tree, a five star fruit tree, a guava tree, and some other ornamental plants. It is the skills I learnt as a kid growing up on the blocks that, if we need to, we can pass on to others. If we need to, we could use it to supplement our own diets because one day it may be too expensive for your family to buy everything from the corner store.
We talk about our Indigenous communities and our mainstream communities and the need to ensure they have a good diet. Well, let us grow our own. I have proven beyond a doubt, and so have organisations like Centrefarm, that through the Ti Tree region it is not being in a desert which will prevent you from growing, it is the lack of will or pure laziness which will prevent you from growing your own produce.
We should not be so reliant on a shop; we should be encouraging and supporting schools to teach - as Jamie Oliver has done in England, and Stephanie Alexander does here in Australia - our kids how to grow the produce and how to cook and produce fantastic nutritional meals in the kitchen so they will have a healthier and longer life without the added burden of mass-produced food. Or, if there is a financial crisis we cannot control anymore, they will have the capacity as a family to do something and cut a few budgetary costs every week.
So, well done to Driver Primary School and Gray Primary School for their efforts. I know we have done our bit with the working bees, and will continue to do so. Good on those staff members involved, because it has been enthusiastically run by all. Keep at it, kids, and enjoy those lovely, juicy fruits and vegetables.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students accompanied by Ms Pat Munn and Ms Tania Tamaotai. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
Building on Vacant Land opposite Karama Shops
Building on Vacant Land opposite Karama Shops
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 665 petitioners praying that the development of apartment blocks on the land opposite Karama shops does not proceed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we are extremely concerned by Joondanna Investments’ intention to build a series of apartment blocks of up to four storey, on vacant land opposite the Karama Shopping Plaza. The plans are incongruous with this settled suburban locale, especially given absolute lack of consultation and the potential for detrimental impact on amenity, even loss of amenity. The density of 76 multi-storey apartments and 152 car spaces is concerning and complicated by traffic management flow.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Development Consent Authority refuse consent to allow this development to go ahead in its present configuration. Additionally, the people of Karama were led to believe that a community centre would be erected on this land, although this was never going to happen, it being zoned residential. In the alternative we seek the DCA to rezone the area in question for community purposes.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2009-10
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2009-10
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2009-10.
MOTION
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2009-10
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2009-10
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act I am pleased to table the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. The statement forms part of the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and presents the Territory’s fiscal performance for the year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the final fiscal results report as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement 2009-10 highlights the eighth consecutive surplus under a Labor government. The key outcomes of the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report are:
I now turn to more detail to the outcome for the 2009-10 financial year.
The final cash outcome for 2009-10 is a $66m cash surplus, which is an improvement of $262m from the May 2009 budget estimate, and $203m from the revised estimate in May 2010. The improvement since May 2010 comprises an underlying budget improvement of $53m with the remainder due to additional Commonwealth funding and timing of Commonwealth expenditure. The expenditure associated with this additional revenue will have a worsening effect on 2010-11 and future years and will be incorporated into the 2010-11 mid-year report.
I turn to the 2009-10 accrual outcome. The operating surplus of $536m represents a $322m improvement compared with the original budget estimate. This largely reflects increased Commonwealth funding being applied to capital spending and higher GST revenue, offset by the nett effect of carryovers into and out of 2009-10. GST revenue has increased by $170m since the May 2009 budget estimate due to the recovering national economy, resulting in an increased GST pool. However, while the growth has improved, GST revenue has not yet returned to pre-global-financial-crisis levels, and remains $137m lower than estimated in May 2008.
Tied Commonwealth funding increased by $191m, largely as a result of increased funding for housing, health, education, and roads including brought forward grant funding for Tiger Brennan Drive and additional funding received for the Alice Springs transformation plan. The fiscal balance outcome of a $43m deficit includes the nett additional investment in capital, which also affects the operating balance. Capital investment plays an essential role in the government’s fiscal strategy. It is essential for the delivery of government services and, importantly, contributes to the economic development of the Territory.
The government has maintained infrastructure investment at high levels to protect jobs and support the economy in a recovering economic environment, while capping the growth in operational spending. Total infrastructure spending for 2009-10 was $1.5bn, or six times the depreciation levels. This is $200m higher than the $1.3bn projected in May 2009, and is reflective of investment in a number of key areas, particularly the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program and roads.
I turn to the Territory’s balance sheet for the general government sector. Nett debt for 2009-10 is $719m, $118m lower than the 2008-09 outcome. The improvement is largely the result of the flow-on effect of the cash surplus achieved in 2009-10, together with a $48m increase in the market value of investments in the Conditions of Service Reserve, commonly called the COSR. This increase is a result of the general improvement in economic conditions subsequent to the recent volatility in financial markets, and reverses most of the unrealised loss experienced in 2008-09. The nett debt to revenue ratio has also reduced to 15%, an improvement from the estimate of 28% in the May 2009 budget, and is now one-quarter of the 61% recorded in 2001-02.
Nett financial liabilities have increased by $210m from the 2008-09 outcome, predominantly as a result of a lower bond rate used to value the Territory’s superannuation liabilities. In accordance with accounting standards, the Territory’s superannuation liability has been revalued using the 10-year bond rate. As at 30 June 2010, the bond rate was 5.2%, compared with 5.6% at 30 June 2009. This has resulted in an increase in the estimate of the present value of the Territory’s superannuation liability.
While there has been an increase in absolute terms, when measured as a ratio to revenue, nett financial liabilities as at 30 June 2010 have decreased to 85%, down from 90% in 2008-09.
It is important to note that the 2009-10 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement has once again resulted in an unqualified audit opinion. The 2009-10 outcome shows that this government is committed to managing the Territory’s finances responsibly in a recovering economic environment, while maintaining our commitment to invest in Territory infrastructure and support Territory jobs and economic growth. Expenditure growth during 2009-10 has been one-third of that in previous years, demonstrating the Henderson government’s strong commitment to fiscal restraint. The improved position in 2009-10 establishes a strong foundation for the budget position over the medium term.
The challenge over the next two to three years will be managing the effect of timing differences each year as the cash surplus from 2009-10 flows through to the budget and future years, maintaining a surplus operating balance to support capital investment, and continuing to limit the expenditure growth in future years in line with Territory’s fiscal strategy.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that leave be granted to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
PERSONAL INJURIES (LIABILITIES AND DAMAGES) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 115)
(Serial 115)
Continued from 11 August 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I respond to the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Amendment Bill (Serial 115). I have no major problems with the structure of the bill; however, once again, we are starting to discover the yawning chasm between what the Attorney-General says in this place and what is written in the bills. I do not believe she properly checks this information before she brings it into this House.
In her second reading speech, the Attorney-General said to this House that this will exempt providers of food for charitable purposes; the supermarkets and the like which give food to charities for further distribution will be protected from liability absolutely, which is not the case. The bill refers to the protection being in good faith, so if there is an action which would be classified as mala fides on the part of the distributor of the food or its agent, then there is no such protection as an absolute indemnity from liability in civil proceedings.
Whilst I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which a mala fide act in reference to food being distributed would not be a criminal act, and therefore sidestep the issue of tortuous liability, it is not inconceivable that such circumstances may occur. Such circumstances highlight the differentiation between what the Attorney-General said to this House in her second reading speech and what is in the bill before the House. I draw members’ attention to the issue I am raising. In the bill it says, in new section 7A(1):
- A person who donates food or a grocery product (the donor) in the circumstances specified in subsection (2) does not incur civil liability for a personal injury caused by the consumption of the food or use of the grocery product.
- This legislation encourages donations. By encouraging donations without exposure to liability for civil claims …
- The circumstances are
(a) that the donor donated the food or grocery product:
(b) that the food was fit for human consumption, or the grocery product was safe to use, at the time it left the possession or control of the donor; and
That is not a carte blanche protection from civil liability which was promised in the second reading speech. It is far from it. Some fairly strict controls and standards have been established by this legislative instrument.
Any person generally who gives to a charitable organisation deserves an indemnity. For the Attorney-General to come into this place and promise Territorians this was a carte blanche protection in the language which she used and then to read the bill and find there are several qualifying factors gives one leave to say there is an unjustifiable disconnect between what the Attorney-General says and what the bill this House is being asked to pass says.
I have no problem passing this bill in its current form because it does require reasonable conditions and as a consequence it will not find disfavour from this side of the House.
It is also interesting that we find ourselves in a situation where we have to pass this bill. The circumstances contemplated by this bill arise out of circumstances which are not entirely different to the circumstances which occurred in the most seminal of cases when it comes to tort law which was the famous Donoghue v Stevenson - for the purposes of Hansard, 1932 AC 562.
There is an interesting debate in that where Lord Buckmaster ,who was one of the presiding justices in the case, was a dissenting judge because he was unsure how far a third party liability would go. There is an interesting exchange in the Law Lords considering this matter as to how far this legislation would go. To familiarise members of this House of the circumstances of that case, it was brought in relation to a snail in a bottle of ginger beer and the question before the court was: was the producer of the material liable for the product which was finally sent into the marketplace? The majority of those Lords determined there was a liability but Buckmaster’s question about creating this third party social liability was:
- … if we go one step beyond that, there is no reason why we should not go 50.
Buckmaster’s concern was how far does liability resonate along the chain of participants?
In reassuring Buckmaster and the court, Lord Atkin made the point:
- At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of ‘culpa,’ is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot in a practical world be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief.
The bill before the House moves to protect someone engaged in charity. Whilst I understand the law of tort has moved on substantially since the time that seminal case existed, it is still a worthwhile exercise to contemplate that, with the passage of time, the boundaries have extended far beyond where Atkin thought they would ultimately exist. This means legislators like us are stuck with whether we have to protect supermarkets from engaging in charitable conduct. I sometimes wonder whether the law of tort has departed substantially and unreasonably from the areas and boundaries considered by Lord Atkin 80 years ago.
I also note this legislative instrument has twins in other jurisdictions. I will not go into that. I note, fortunately, in the world of common sense and common decency, other organisations have decided to move without waiting for the Northern Territory government to pass this law.
I draw honourable members’ attention to the Australian Food News from 12 October 2010:
- Foodbank South Australia, part of the largest hunger relief organisation in Australia, collected and transported the food, including breakfast cereal, long life milk, pasta, pasta sauce and canned fruit and vegetables, to help its sister organisation, Foodbank Northern Territory, put food on the shelves of its new warehouse.
I seek leave to table the article.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: I hope, and would expect in the normal course of things, nothing would flow from this other than to observe it is not retrospective legislation. Foodbank has taken the risk in spite of this legislation not existing. I say good on them; I do not believe it should be a risk. If you are engaged in charitable conduct, whilst you would expect it would be natural to believe reasonable care would be taken, you should not carry an unreasonable liability for a charitable act.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would like second reading speeches to reflect the contents of the bills.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I note the opposition’s support for this bill, which is welcome. The member for Port Darwin raised a few issues which the Attorney-General will be able to address in her summing up remarks. I support the bill to amend the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act.
It is a series of very sensible amendments. It is a Good Samaritan bill, as has been outlined by the Attorney-General and the member for Port Darwin. The amendments will protect individuals and corporations who want to donate products – food, groceries and so on – to a charity or cause. The effect of the amendments will be to protect them from civil liability for personal injuries arising from the consumption and/or use of the goods. The need for these protections may seem self-evident, and the need for the amendments came to our attention after Woolies decided they wanted to enter into a charitable arrangement. As the Attorney-General has already outlined, Woolworths wants to start donating to the Food For Life program established by Baptist Care and run in partnership with Foodbank Australia.
The member for Port Darwin has talked about how some of those long-life products are already being donated by Woolworths to Foodbank, but fresh items have not yet entered into the arrangement. This is where the amendments will protect Woolworths and allow it to do that. Woolworths came to government because it saw the lack of provisions specific to food donations as a potential obstacle to a company which wants to be charitable. The current act does not prevent people from donating but companies nowadays will talk to their lawyers before making decisions. It was clear that lack of protection prevented professional corporates, if not others, from making charitable donations of their food and groceries.
No one wants to see good food go to waste. No company wants to throw out products which are still good. No one wants them wasted. We are here today debating these amendments because they are a good idea, and government was very happy to follow up on Woolworths’ suggestions.
There is a huge potential in the Territory for food to be donated. The two statistics which stood out for me from the Attorney-General’s second reading were: in Victoria, this type of legislation saw food donations triple, and we waste 30 000 tonnes of food in the Territory each year. The effect of this bill should be a very good outcome. Not so much for Woolies – yes, Woolies is involved with Foodbank; yes, great for Foodbank - but the benefit is ultimately for the people who will receive the food.
It is a timely debate. I am not sure if other members saw this. I know most people in this House are now on Facebook. Yesterday, the Environment Centre NT posted some photos of food they found at the dump over the weekend. There are some extraordinary pictures of fresh food left at the dump because, I assume, as it currently stands it cannot be donated to charity. The quality of the food was extraordinary. There were carrots still in their wrappers, and avocados. A picture tells a thousand words. You can see picture after picture of perfectly good food which has not yet expired, but is at a stage where the company does not feel comfortable passing it on.
What we are hoping with this bill is – well, we are not just hopeful, we will definitely see it – is companies will, instead of taking this food to the dump, take it to the refrigerated offices of Foodbank or others who want to pass that food on to charities. I have nine pictures all up. It is quite extraordinary and quite timely, in some respects, those pictures being posted by the Environment Centre yesterday. It is what we want to do here, as a government - and obviously the opposition are in support – and as a parliament today.
There are some caveats, some cautions, we have put into the act, some necessary precautions around the donation of food. I quote from the Attorney-General’s second reading:
- In the technical operation of the bill, and to ensure appropriate checks and balances in the donation of food the immunity will only operate if:
Those are sensible amendments. I know Woolworths and Foodbank, in response to the bill, have talked about where they sit. Foodbank currently provides food products to around 29 organisations in the Darwin/Palmerston area. These laws will provide incentive to provide more - that was paraphrasing Mr Fisher. There are many donations at the moment of long-life food, but we are now trying to move into the fresh food area. Mr Bell of Woolworths said their stores:
- … already work with Food for Life in Darwin to turn packaged groceries, which we can no longer sell, into healthy and nutritious meals for those in need. The change in legislation will now enable us to donate surplus fresh food which would otherwise go to landfill.
What we are seeing now is fresh food being provided, which is crucial; 30 000 tonnes do go to waste. It will be a very good outcome. There are some sensible precautions about how it is donated. People and companies want to act charitably. Now there is one fewer impediment and we will see Territorian families - which is the important thing - benefit from those good deeds.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. It is long overdue. I was talking to my colleague from Brennan and he had some pictures on his webpage of food being thrown into our local tip in Darwin. It reminded me that sometimes we lose perspective on many things which happen in the world. There has been a great deal of talk about population control, and Australia might cap its number of people because it cannot support that number of people. That is a fair debate which we should all be interested in. Then you look at the amount of food which is thrown away, and you say, do we have this in perspective? If we did not waste things, would we be even discussing some of these matters? We obviously produce far more food than we need, because we throw it out. We are still not hungry, so you would have to say this is about trying to reduce that waste. It will not eliminate it, but it does allow us to send a message to the big retailers that they can now safely, within some limitations, allow people to use the food they normally would not leave on their shelves for human consumption.
Section 7A in this bill says:
- A person who donates food or a grocery product (the donor) in the circumstances specified in subsection (2) does not incur civil liability for a personal injury caused by the consumption of the food or use of the grocery product.
So governments are able to put out broad statements saying people will not incur a civil liability for a personal injury.
The reason I digress is because when we have looked at things like could people swim in Howard Springs, and asked why the government cannot say something similar, that is, you will not incur civil liability for a personal injury subject to you understanding this is fresh water and you could get ear infections and tummy infections, or whatever. When we have suggested that as a possibility for allowing those water bodies to be used by the public for swimming, all the information I have received is that it cannot happen. I have seen the legal reports given to the government which say you cannot put that type of proviso over that recreation lake; you simply cannot swim in there if the water does not come up to a set standard.
You may say that is drifting from relevance of the area we are debating, but that clause seems to say that in some circumstances the government is happy to remove any civil liability for a personal injury, as long as you follow certain things. However, when it comes to, say, swimming in the Howard Springs pool - which has not been open for swimming for I do not know how long, although the government has spent quite a bit of money on it - for some reason, that does not apply. I raise that and wonder whether we have consistency in our legal opinions.
There are a couple of issues I will raise about allowing food companies to donate food. In the second reading the minister said:
- The program involves Baptist Care Northern Territory sourcing food and grocery products from donors which it then supplies to disadvantaged individuals and families through existing emergency relief agencies and charities. Baptist Care Northern Territory also distributes donated items direct to the public through warehouses. This food is safe for human consumption but not suitable for retail sale.
My question is: why isn’t suitable for retail sale? If it is an edible item it is either going to be safe or not safe, according to the regulation …
Mr Elferink: Past its best before date, mate; no one buys it.
Mr WOOD: … I will come to that as well. I will ask the minister what the guidelines are in relation to when food is safe. As the member for Port Darwin just mentioned, do we go by an expiry date or do we go by a best before date? Is there a clear guideline in the Northern Territory as to what should be stamped on food? Is there some leniency on either side?
This bill does not just cover fresh fruit and vegetables, it covers grocery products. Chewing gum might have gone outside its use-by date. Has anyone found out that eating chewing gum outside a use-by date is dangerous? In other words, are their certain products which still can be used even though the use-by date has expired?
I can imagine that for things like meat or …
A member: Beer.
Mr WOOD: Beer would just taste terrible. Some low calorie soft drinks have use-by dates and they taste terrible after the use-by dates.
If, for instance, Woolworths donates to the Baptist group and there are two days left on the expiry and they pick it up two days before, does that mean three days later they cannot distribute that food because the expiry date has passed?
I am asking some practical questions about how it works because some shops will hold onto their products until the very last date, saying that it is still suitable, but by the time it is handed over to a group, put in its warehouse and distributed to people, it could be out-of-date. Can that be distributed that it is out-of date or are certain foods less covered by the exactness of that use-by date?
If you ate some food products after a certain date you may become sick. Other products simply go stale; they are not going to cause you any major problem. I will give you an example; I used to run a little store at Daly River and the potato chip distributors in Darwin used to give me the latest date because they knew we lived further away and did not a have fast turnover of sales. By giving me chips with the latest date he knew I would always sell a reasonably fresh product to the customers. However, even if the date ran out, the main problem with it was they became a bit soggy or they just did not taste too good. I am not sure they became inedible.
Once you bring in these rules, are they applied exactly, or is there room to move so you do not hand a potential waste problem from one company and give it to another company which cannot distribute the food because the date runs out and has to take it to the tip?
I am interested to know whether this covers restaurants and doggy bags. The restaurants give you your food back. Are they covered by this legislation? I know there have been some concerns that some of the flash restaurants in Darwin are a little – well, doggy bags do not quite match the dcor. Further down the track we are used to doggy bags because we like to feed our dogs. There has been some talk about whether companies are liable. If you take that food home and you re-cook it or eat it and you are sick, the company could be, in theory, liable. I suppose if the dog dies the company could be liable too.
I am wondering whether this principle that a person who donates food or grocery product is exempt from civil liability - I know they are not donating it - you are giving it to them and they have given it back to you. I do not know whether food handed back to you in a restaurant would be covered under this legislation.
Another one out of left field, many people go to Woolies, Coles, and other distributors to collect food for animals. I am interested to know whether there is a process which says the person distributing the food has to be given guarantee of what the food is being used for. Someone may say they are using it for animals but taking it to the nearest restaurant or their shop to reuse. Does there have to be some proof you are a genuine benevolent institution?
This bill is about personal injuries and I am interested to know if companies supplied food to someone who used it for animals, do people take it at their own risk? I presume that is what happens, but animals have died from eating food obtained from restaurants or food chains because the food was off. Even though it is not suitable for human consumption, sometimes it is not fit for animal consumption and some diseases in animals have occurred from food which has been rotten or had fungal diseases.
I suppose you think this is an excuse to bring up chickens, however I took food from Woolworths and Coles - I am not blaming them at all – and there is a risk of picking up disease and rotten food can be a cause of disease in animals. I know that from losing quite a number of chickens. It was more my fault than that of the people who supplied me the food. I did not know whether there were any restrictions on companies supplying food which was not for human consumption.
I support the bill. It is an important change. I wonder why it has taken so long and ask how relevant has it been. I look back at companies like Rite Price which, for many years donated food, especially to the Little Sisters you see going around in the white bus. It did not worry about whether there was a use-by date; it looked at the food to see whether it was suitable for human consumption. Long before this legislation people used common sense and ensured when they gave food to people it was suitable for human consumption. They did not particularly worry about the consequences. If something had gone wrong there would have been much concern about the actions. What we have now is legislation which will ensure if there is a problem people are covered, which is important.
This will help reduce waste and help people who are not as well off as others in society and need assistance in obtaining food. There are probably more people who need assistance than you think, especially in these days of high rents and high mortgages. There are people who are not itinerants or homeless; there are families which sometimes must have difficulty putting a meal on the table. To provide food, which normally would have been thrown into the tip, to help those people is a very good thing, and a very good reason for this legislation to be passed.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forth this legislation and I fully support it.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the House today for its support for what I call food bank legislation. I agree it has been a long time coming; it is overdue. I am delighted that once I was approached by Woolworths and Baptist Care I very quickly responded and instructed my agency to proceed with drafting the legislation. Sometimes you have the opportunity, as Attorney-General, to act on requests which come forward. This was one of those times and I took that request up with gusto and brought it forward as quickly as I could because I wholeheartedly support Foodbank. I also thank my colleagues in our Caucus and Cabinet who quickly seized the opportunity to support the passage of this legislation.
I am disappointed, though, that in debate today the member for Port Darwin chose to mislead the House regarding my second reading speech …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If she wants to make an allegation that I have misled this House, she can do so by a substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, if you can re-word, please, and withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay. The member for Port Darwin went out on a very long limb, took a stretch, a liberty with words, put words into my second reading speech which are not there ...
Mr Elferink: Rubbish!
Ms LAWRIE: Hansard will show the member for Port Darwin alleged the immunity from liability referred to in my second reading speech included the word ‘absolutely’. That is what the member for Port Darwin said …
Mr Elferink: No, I said it implied it.
Ms LAWRIE: On any reading of the second reading speech, there is no ‘absolutely’ regarding immunity from liability. There is no ‘carte blanche’, which was another allegation made erroneously by the member for Port Darwin. No carte blanche exists; no carte blanche is described in the second reading speech. What the second reading speech, quite appropriately, does is reflect the legislation - again an erroneous allegation made by the member for Port Darwin where he insinuated the second reading speech did not reflect the legislation. He is wrong, absolutely wrong, and it is disappointing that he does not understand a simple piece of legislation. On a simple second reading speech, again he gets it wrong and does not understand it. Given that is the case, I urge the member for Port Darwin to seek a briefing on legislation in his new role as shadow …
Mr Elferink: I had a briefing on this, and they agreed.
Ms LAWRIE: … and that he very carefully understands his role. I point out he just said, ‘I had a briefing and they agreed’. I also point out to him that he is wrong. Again, you are speaking mistruths in this House. You are alleging the staff in my office agree with you. I can assure you, because I have had conversations with my staff since your contribution to this debate, member for Port Darwin, my staff do not at all agree with you. Not only do the staff not agree with you but the lawyer responsible for this legislation does not agree with you either. You stand erroneously on your own with your strange, warped and weird interpretation of anything which comes before this House. You have form on that. That is why you were sacked as the shadow Treasurer. I am sure the opposition will reach the point where it will embrace the idea of sacking you as shadow Attorney-General. I look forward to that day. Until then, I will have to continue to point out where you are consistently wrong.
The legislation, as reflected in the second reading speech, very clearly steps out the technical operation of the bill, the assurance to provide for the appropriate checks and balances in the donation of food. That is, there is no carte blanche immunity; there is no absolute immunity and nowhere in the second reading speech is that insinuated, or could you interpret that into the second reading speech. I refer the member opposite to the second reading speech where it clearly says:
… the immunity will operate only if:
1. the goods were donated in good faith for a charitable or benevolent purpose with the intention that the consumer will not have to pay for them, and
- Donors will also have an obligation to inform the recipient of any relevant handling requirements in relation to the goods, such as where the food needs to be refrigerated. If the food is only safe to consume for a particular period of time, the donor will also have an obligation to inform the recipient of the relevant time limit.
I urge the member for Port Darwin to get serious about the role of debating legislation in this Chamber and understand that good debate provides for a contribution, like the member for Nelson does. The member for Nelson genuinely and legitimately stepped through the issues of food donation, the timeliness of this legislation, questions about the coverage of this legislation, including legitimate left field questions which I will respond to. That is a serious debate. That is a contribution I will take seriously. It is sensible, legitimate and will provide additional information to the public or anyone who is interested in this subject or how the legislation applies.
The member for Nelson asked if the food is not suitable for retail sale, why is it okay to distribute it? Large retailers often take food off the shelf before it has expired. It is the difference between the best before date and the use-by date. I am advised that, depending on the goods, there is quite a gap there. For some goods, the best before date varies by up to three months from the use-by date. Larger retailers, particularly those which promote the freshness of what they are retailing, take food off the shelves far earlier than they have to; hence, the flourishing of the Foodbank distribution which is occurring around our nation. That is the difference; it is the best before date compared to the use-by date. Large companies which have large volumes are able to take the food off the shelves earlier.
I pick up on what the member for Nelson said about Rite Price. I knew Rite Price well, growing up in that area. I knew how charitable they were, but they were taking a risk. They did not have the legislative protections which exist within this legislation. Smaller business operators sometimes do take a risk, but the large retail companies who have the bulk of the goods to be distributed to charitable organisations do not take the risk. That is why legislation such as this is important.
This legislation provides for a system to distribute goods which might be okay to give away but are not attractive to sell because they are beyond the best before date, not the use-by date.
I am advised that doggy bags are not covered under this legislation. The legislation only covers restaurants which donate for a charitable or benevolent purpose, that is, the consumer has not paid for the meal. It does not cover people giving people the leftover element of the meal they have paid for in a doggy bag. I understand your concerns, member for Nelson. I understand the debate which is going on in the community about the issue of doggy bags; many of us do not want to see it wasted. I have often asked for a doggy bag to take home to feed my pets. I respect it, though, when a restaurateur says no. I understand they have made their own business decision to protect themselves against liability. It is an impressive issue which is emerging more and more these days.
You will see different practices; the practices have not been captured by legislation. It would be an interesting legal mind which could construct a system that could capture the varying scenarios of doggy bags and the variety of restaurants and places in which doggy bags could be requested.
It is a challenge, a challenge not yet met by any legislative structure in the nation. I think most people, in a commonsense approach, if they want a doggy bag, they ask for it; if they are advised they cannot - some restaurants provide them, some do not - most people in a commonsense approach accept that. I always make it clear if I am asking for a doggy bag that my intention is to feed my dog. I let the restaurant people know, and sometimes because you say it is for your dog they will give you a doggy bag.
I am advised if the shelf life of a product is less than two years it must have a use-by or best before date and after this the food may lose its quality. That is the difference between quality and safety. I am advised if food should be consumed by a certain date for health and safety reasons then it must be marked with a use-by date. There are some products which have very clear labelling; they must be marked with a use-by date because the product will potentially affect health and safety if consumed after that date. There are other products which are best before date products. They will not necessarily pose a health and safety risk. In the example you used of the potato crisps, they have lost their quality, they have gone a little soggy, but some of us will cop that for a free feed, particularly when you are camping. They are the scenarios in the Territory where that sometimes occurs.
I do not have immediate advice for you on some of the more technical questions you raised, particularly around the issues of animals. It is not envisaged in this legislation and it is something I would have to give further consideration to and come back to you about. I recognise there is this practice which many of us undertake to acquire food to feed animals; that is a legitimate issue you have raised. I do not have any advice as to whether there is any legislative structure anywhere which has been able to capture that appropriately. I am open to doing some further research and seeing what further advice we can provide you with, member for Nelson, because it is a very legitimate issue to raise in this debate.
Without wanting to reopen too significantly the issue of water quality control, I will say there are very real health issues posed by accidentally ingesting water which has significant E. coli bacteria levels. That is quite a different scenario to the scenario which we are supporting through this legislation where we are allowing food past its best before date, without posing health and safety risks to people, to be distributed for charitable or benevolent purposes. They are largely different scenarios. There is a debate there about where those E. coli bacteria levels are struck at and how …
Mr Wood: You have survived after all these years.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on that interjection that I survived. Yes, I did spend my childhood swimming in Berry Springs and Howard Springs. I will give you the tip though, I was not too fond of swimming in Howard Springs even in those days because I could see the water flow and the quality of the water was not to my likening. It might have had something to do with the snakes which would often drop down out of the trees, hit the water and swim past you. That is not one of my favourite recreational swimming experiences of my childhood.
Increasingly, with the environmental health requirements which we are confronted with in the contemporary era, water quality testing is required of services, and governments are required to respond when water quality does not meet safe levels.
Without wanting to reopen that debate too much, I understand why, member for Nelson, you would raise it in the context of this debate, but there would be no way around that health and safety risk to the recreational swimmer which is a very different scenario to being able to distribute food which is still safe, for charitable or benevolent purposes.
I thank the member for Fannie Bay for his contribution. He had some very graphic photographs of food at dumpsites. I look forward to hearing further from Baptist Care about the work which it is doing. Baptist Care has indicated it is expanding its premises and that this has really given it a significant leg up in its operations in the Territory. I will be open to hearing of the charitable food distribution industry as it flourishes. How it goes in the Territory is something which is near and dear, Madam Speaker, to your heart; you have been a very strong supporter of this legislation.
I believe each of us in this parliament fundamentally supports and accepts the need to ensure people who are disadvantaged and impoverished have the opportunity for free food to feed their families. The benevolent distribution of companies such as Foodbank and Baptist Care, supported by those large retail giants, is a mark of what defines our great nation as a civilised and decent nation.
Madam Speaker, not always do you have legislation before this Chamber which everyone would, in their heart of hearts, support. I believe this is one of those rare occasions, and I am delighted to bring the legislation to the House this morning.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot let the Attorney-General get away with the comments she made in relation to my intent to mislead this House and her denial of what she said in this place.
I remind honourable members what she said was, quote:
- The purpose of this bill is to amend the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act to provide that individuals and corporations who donate food and grocery products receive immunity from civil liability for personal injuries arising from the consumption and/or use of those goods.
Receive immunity – that is an absolute concept. She went on to say:
- This legislation encourages donations. By encouraging donations with exposure to liability for civil claims, charitable organisations will be able to …
And she went on.
Those are both absolute statements. That is the nature of the way she does business in this House.
Madam Speaker, this is the Attorney-General who admitted she brought legislation into this House without reading it. This is the Attorney-General who has overseen those ridiculous Waterfront by-laws without asking the Department of Chief Minister to show them to her before they reach this House. This is the Attorney-General who wanted to fine beggars $6000. Why? Because she had not read the material. It is about time she tidied up the way she does her business.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students, accompanied by Mrs Beryl Brugmans, and Ms Sarah Makin. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Paper - Standing Orders Committee – Fifth Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Note Paper - Standing Orders Committee – Fifth Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Continued from 21 October 2010.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I commend this report to all members.
The major part of the report centres on a reference given by the Assembly to the Standing Orders Committee concerning a review of the estimates process, following on from the estimates which occurred this year. I will read the reference as it was given to the committee:
- The Standing Orders Committee agreed to undertake a review of the Estimates Committee process for 2011 with specific consideration and report no later than November 2010 on the specific matters of firstly:
1. Extending the 2011 Estimates Committee to run over two weeks.
To clarify for the students from Palmerston High School, the estimates process is a committee process of government which examines all the expenditure of government, department by department, line by line. It is a very important part of your government because it enables opposition and Independent members to query the government on how it is spending money. It involves senior public servants and others being present so they can answer questions posed to them by the opposition and the Independents. It also, in some cases, enables government to talk about the very good things it believes it is doing in its departments. It is a very valuable exercise for ministers because we can all learn - whether you are in Palmerston High School, a minister in this government, an opposition member, or an Independent member - about the myriad operations of government.
It is a good process. It is fair to say that all members in this parliament look forward to the estimates process. It is an opportunity for opposition shadow ministers to question the minister. It is of interest to the media and the public as all these proceedings are open to them. It is all about openness and transparency. Although the opposition, government and Independents members may have different views about various things, one thing we do agree on is that the estimates process is a very important process for this parliament.
The estimates process has gone through a number of changes over the years; I have detailed those to this Assembly. We are always looking to improve the estimates process. The Standing Orders Committee had very fruitful and productive conversations about proposals for how we might change the estimates process for 2011. I will come back to that.
Members would also know that as part of this report other issues were also examined. It was an opportunity for the Standing Orders Committee to report to the Chamber on a number of issues it had been considering. One of them was ‘the right of reply’; which exists in other parliaments, particularly the Commonwealth parliament. If a citizen is named within the parliament and they feel aggrieved by what was said, currently in the Northern Territory they do not have a right of reply. They cannot come in and say: ‘The member for So and So mentioned me as part of parliament. They said certain things about me, and my business. Apart from the media I do not have a right to come back and say they are wrong, and that these are the facts’.
What we have to do is balance that possible right of reply by citizens with the intrinsic right of this Assembly, and all parliaments, of free speech - to be able to say things in this parliament, balanced against the rights of citizens, and balanced against the fact we have privilege within this place. We have to balance that against the right of citizens not to be aggrieved or have things which are untrue said about them within the parliament.
So as a committee we had discussions. These discussions regarding the right of reply, as I am sure the Clerk would tell members, have been going on for quite some time. It has been a very long-running saga but it is good that the Standing Orders Committee has reached agreement that we will introduce a right of reply subject to certain conditions and I will come to those in a minute. Basically, they mirror the federal parliament, but there have to be checks and balances because there are people who would want to use this parliament as a way to get the bee in their bonnet across to the public. Unfortunately, there are a few people in the public arena who would want to do that, who feel aggrieved about anything they might construe as a reference to them, their business activities or their organisation. So there have to be safeguards. We do not want this parliament becoming a vehicle for people with an axe to grind about a range of issues. That was another matter discussed and agreed upon by the Standing Orders Committee.
There is also an amendment to the Notice Paper to include business relating to committee reports. This issue arose because with the Council of Territory Cooperation, headed by the member for Nelson, under current standing orders, the committee report of which he is chair has to be introduced by government. That is a committee which, I am sure the member for Nelson would argue very strongly, is separate to government. It is an independent committee, and it is appropriate the member for Nelson, as chair of that committee, should submit that report, as all other chairs do in all other committees. They are government chairs, so it is appropriate that we make that change.
There is also a further amendment to Standing Order 118 to allow a question paper to be tabled in the Assembly and included in the Parliamentary Record. This arises from the fact that there are many questions which are generated as part of the work of this Assembly, the work of the opposition and of the Independents. Some of those questions are quite complex and long and often the answers are quite complex and long, taking up a great deal of paper, a precious resource. So we have determined, as a Standing Orders Committee, that those answers and questions should still be available publicly, but there should be an avenue for them to be recorded electronically, thus saving paper, carbon dioxide, and our forests, which I am sure is a matter of great concern to the young students from Palmerston. I am sure they are very environmentally conscious, and it is also up to this Assembly and its workings to be environmentally conscious.
I turn to the specific recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee. The recommendations are as follows, and I acknowledge there is a dissenting report from the opposition members. To let the students from Palmerston know, if the opposition does not agree with these reports it has the avenue to put in writing a dissenting report, which is different from the report of the majority, stating its point of view about what it would like to see and why, and why it disagrees with the majority report.
I will turn to the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee. This is the majority report:
- A global time limit of 60 hours with allocation of time within that 60 hours of a maximum of eight hours for the Chief Minister and for the Treasurer and a maximum of seven hours for each other minister for the Estimates Committee hearings and the Government Owned Corporation Committee …
That is a very important recommendation. We have increased the time for the Estimates Committee. It is not as much as the opposition wanted; I think they wanted 70 hours, but we believe this is a substantial increase. It is an increase of around 20%, by my calculations, on what we had in 2010. There has been an increase; there has been an increase of the time limit for the Chief Minister and the Treasurer. These are two very important portfolios, and eight hours is a long time for any minister to be in the chair.
I know the opposition feels it has an endless number of questions, but there has to be a limit on the time a minister appears, because a minister needs to be focused every minute of those eight hours. They have to discuss matters with their senior public servants. I can say, as a minister who has gone through quite a number of Estimates Committees, there is a great deal of energy and concentration involved. When I think back to my university days, the maximum we had for written examinations was three hours, yet we expect ministers to go through a process of eight hours and there is a great deal of information. I believe eight hours is fair.
The government has also accepted that both portfolio ministers for the Government Owned Corporation, which is the Power and Water Corporation, should be present during the Power and Water Corporation hearings. It is a crucial body. There has been much public focus on the performance of the Power and Water Corporation, and members have felt frustrated as they do not feel they can ask questions of both portfolio ministers. For the benefit of the students from Palmerston, there are two portfolio ministers for Power and Water. One is the minister who relates to the operational/organisational aspects of the portfolio, minister Knight, and the other is the Treasurer, who is known as the shareholding minister. Although it is a company there is only one shareholder, the Treasurer.
The government continues to make substantial investments in Power and Water. Recently we announced a substantial infrastructure spend of $1.5bn over five years. That is a substantial amount of money which the Estimates Committee needs to scrutinise and that is what will happen. Not only will the board and Chief Executive of Power and Water appear before the Government Owned Corporation’s Estimates Committee, we will also have the shareholding minister, who is the Treasurer, the Under Treasurer, and the Minister for Essential Services. That will provide adequate scrutiny of the Power and Water Corporation.
We allowed flexibility for the Public Accounts Committee to determine the appearance times of ministers because we acknowledge, and have agreed as government, that as portfolios shift and ministers have different portfolio responsibilities, there needs to be flexibility in the amount of time ministers appear before the Estimates Committee.
The second recommendation is:
the hearings to be held over two weeks on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
Members will recall that we increased by three the number of Assembly sitting days and this is a balance which we have struck. In their original submission to the Standing Orders Committee, my recollection is that the opposition agreed with that course of action; however, their dissenting report takes a different position. No doubt the opposition will talk about why that is the case.
the Portfolio Minister and the Shareholding Minister appear during the time of the Government Owned Corporation appearance in addition to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
I have already outlined why the government has agreed to that and it will be a positive change to estimates next year.
We have agreed in principle to the right of reply and there are guidelines which I will read to the Assembly now:
- (1) Where a person who has been referred to by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Assembly, makes a submission in writing to the Speaker:
- (a) claiming that the person has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that person’s privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to a person; and …
That provides sufficient safeguards. I remember, in this Assembly, the former member for Greatorex referring to a woman in public housing, saying she was a prostitute and giving her address and mobile number. In that case the person referred to would have the right of reply in this Assembly.
- (b) requesting that the person be able to incorporate an appropriate response in the Parliamentary Record;
- and if the Speaker is satisfied:
There is some departure from the protocols in the Commonwealth in that the Speaker will have a determining role in this. The Speaker will determine:
- (c) that the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Standing Orders Committee; and
- (d) that it is practicable for the Standing Orders Committee to consider the submission under this resolution,
There are checks and balances. The Speaker has a role and the Standing Orders Committee has a role, which will allow much wisdom and common sense to be applied to right of reply.
- the Speaker shall refer the submission to that Committee:
- (2) The committee may decide not to consider a submission referred to it under this resolution …
On the basis that it is vexatious, frivolous, etcetera.
- (3) If the committee decides to consider a submission under this resolution, the committee may confer with the person who made the submission and any Member who referred in the Assembly to that person.
(4) In considering a submission under this resolution, the committee shall meet in private session.
- (5) The committee shall not publish a submission referred to it under this resolution or its proceedings in relation to such a submission, but may present minutes of its proceedings and all or part of such submission to the Assembly.
(6) In considering a submission under this resolution and reporting to the Assembly the committee shall not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the Assembly or of the submission.
- (7) In its report to the Assembly on a submission under this resolution, the committee may make either of the following recommendations:
- (a) that no further action be taken …
- (b) that a response by the person who made the submission be published in the Assembly or incorporated in the Parliamentary Record.
My recollection is it is not retrospective; it is prospective. No doubt there have been people over the life of this Assembly, over many years and decades, who have felt aggrieved. I say to those people we need to start somewhere - it is from now on; it is contemporary and we are not making it retrospective. That needs to be made clear. Within the guidelines there is time limit beyond which a person cannot make a reference, and from memory it is three months. Someone cannot go through the proceedings of the Assembly a year later and say: ‘Oh goodness me, someone mentioned my name; I am going to make a complaint and see if I can have a right of reply’. There are time strictures around it.
I have already alluded to other changes - changes to the Notice Paper which include business relating to committee reports. I commend that change to the Assembly. That comes about principally through enabling the Chair of the Council of Territory Cooperation to present its report to this Assembly, which is appropriate. I have also mentioned the electronic aspects of the Question Paper to be tabled.
Before I finish, there was something I omitted which is part of the opposition’s submission. The opposition wanted a series of generic written questions to be submitted to the Estimates Committee. It was the view, I believe - I hope I am not misrepresenting the member for Nelson; no doubt he will say what he has to say. I believe the majority of the members felt the Estimates Committee was an oral process where people are interrogated; there could be lines of questioning. That is very important. Not accepting the written questions as part of the Estimates Committee does not preclude the opposition from submitting their questions.
We already have a process where government has undertaken to respond to questions within 30 days, where possible. There is nothing to stop the opposition, if they have a series of generic questions for government ministers, submitting those well in advance of the 30 day time line and the government will endeavour to answer those questions. There is nothing stopping the opposition members from following through on the answers to those questions as part of the estimates process.
I know the opposition was disappointed about that. I know it will probably argue in the Assembly that this is something which needs to be done in the Estimates Committee. I say to opposition members that there is a great deal of work done by public servants around estimates time. It is a major undertaking. As a minister, when I took over Education towards the end of last year, one of the first things I said to the Education department was: ‘I want a process starting now for our estimates briefings to be ready for estimates when it occurs next year’. It takes a long time. It is not a matter of weeks, it is months and months. It starts a bit less than a year out from the estimates hearings.
There is much information to be gathered and I commend those public servants who work so hard around estimates, providing briefs to ministers, etcetera. The opposition needs to acknowledge that. The resources within the public service are finite. I acknowledge and respect the opposition’s right to ask questions and expect detailed answers to its questions. However, it has to acknowledge and understand there is finite capacity within our public service to service those needs. Focused questions are amongst the very best.
I acknowledge that the questions asked by the opposition about credit card transactions, what checks and balances there are to provide certainty that money is being spent in the proper way and there is no fraudulent use of those credit cards, are the sorts of questions the opposition should be asking government departments. Those credit cards were brought in by government and the public service to cut down on paperwork and red tape and to free up transactions by the public service. Another good line of generic questioning by the opposition was about inappropriate use of computers. That is a very reasonable and important set of generic questions asked by the opposition.
I am not saying there should not be generic questions; they form part of a picture across government. What government is saying is that it wants you to submit those questions before, as part of the process which exists now and keep the estimates process as predominantly an oral process.
Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the House. I thank all members for their participation in what has been a very constructive process for the Standing Orders Committee. I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Standing Orders Committee Report. I will start with the section on estimates. The opposition members did lodge a minority report, commonly known as a dissenting report, in relation to a number of items we raised in that committee:
- The opposition do not believe there should be any reduction to the number of sitting days as a result of a second week being allocated to the Estimates Committee.
While an extra week for Estimates Committee is welcome the decision to make the expansion at the expense of normal sitting days has simply retained the status quo rather than delivering genuine improvement in the Territory’s parliamentary process.
The Territory parliament already has the fewest number of sitting days of any parliament in Australia and the intention behind the request to extend Estimates Committee operating days was to address this imbalance. The committee’s failure to embrace this opportunity is an opportunity lost. Greater scrutiny of government is the only way to create a more effective, efficient and robust government.
This year, estimates sat on Friday through to Friday. It was an interesting process. We try to get to the bottom of all sorts of things and to do one of our jobs, which is to hold government to account.
We have just seen that we have agreed to an extension of hours, which means there is now extra time for estimates which we are going to try to fit into a different system of allocating the time. We sat for six days; we have now taken those six days and spread them over two weeks instead of spreading them from Friday to Friday. In the past, the government, through the Standing Orders Committee, changed the hours of operation of this parliament, where it was, to a large degree, open-ended during sitting times. It was debated through the committee and the government chose to, except on General Business days, close the parliament at 9 pm and go into Adjournment.
What that did was cut down the average time of sitting by about three days. Government can be commended for saying: ‘Okay, in that case, we better have an extra three days of sittings’. As a result, we did get those extra three days, and this year we are sitting into December at the end of the November sittings, which then accounts for those days.
However, what we have now is an increased number of estimates hours and we are taking it over two weeks. The opposition believes we should retain that extra week at the end. This will allow us plenty of time during estimates where we can run through the process and, as the member for Johnston pointed out, it allows people to spread the load over a number of days. This not only has an impact on ministers, but has an impact on the good public servants who, from my experience in the estimates processes, obviously work hard.
Having been a public servant, I am aware that other public servants who are involved in the estimates process have to work extremely hard in a very short period of time to try to cover all the different contingencies and questions which are likely to arise during the process. It is for those reasons, and some others which are already included in the dissenting report, that we would much rather see the retention of the three days at the end and this increase in the estimates taken into account over the extra week allocated to the estimates process.
In relation to questions on notice, at the last estimates earlier this year, on a number of occasions there were requests put in under the current standing orders process, where you put in a written request and the ministers have 30 days to respond to that. What happens under those standing orders occasionally is that ministers write back and say sorry, unable to get the answer, we will get it to you some time later. Or, on occasion, the answer is handed to the responsible shadow minister, or to the opposition, several minutes before the matter is due to be heard in committee.
To get over that process, the opposition submitted that:
- The process of questions on notice specifically for Estimates Committee desperately needs reform.
The opposition believes that by submitting generic questions to agencies 60 days before sitting days with responses to be returned no later than seven days before Estimates Committee will improve the process for both parliamentary members and departmental staff.
Generic questions are an important part of scrutinising the operation of departments and provide a valuable picture about the operations of different departments through their responses to a consistent set of questions. Time for questioning ministers during estimates is a finite resource and should be used to explore the intricacies of how the budget will impact each agency’s unique and complex operations and services.
This motion is about balancing the necessity of routine generic questions with the responsible interrogation of budgetary process within departments. It is not a motion to amend the current operating practices of routine questions on notice, although some departments do need to improve the expediency of their replies.
There is often a delay in receiving responses and in the estimates process it can save many people a great deal of time. It also allows the hard-working public servants - it is interesting because when you speak to them you hear anecdotal evidence that public servants are burning the midnight oil, they are up late and incurring enormous overtime. If we were able to get these questions to them earlier and give the department and its staff more time to consider their responses and to research, then perhaps the pressure would not be on at the end of the 30 day period when they are obliged to give answers. In that case the opposition is likely to receive more answers in a timelier manner.
A little like a court case, these days we have hand-up briefs so the defence counsel does not waste the courts time by going through the tedious things and people having to move to the back of the room and ask questions and receive responses. It means the whole process flows much more easily.
In relation to the Estimates Committees hours of operation:
- The opposition believes the global hours of operation for the Estimates Committee be extended to 70 hours and that the division of hours be divided and weighted to reflect the importance of a minister’s portfolio.
Division of hours must be proportionate to the complexity each minister’s responsibilities entail. A maximum seven hours to question a minister regardless of their responsibilities does not allow proper scrutiny of senior ministers’ responsibilities and represents a potential waste of time if the seven hours allocated to a junior minister is not fully utilised.
The opposition believes these matters should be revisited after the completion of the 2011 Estimates Committee.
Madam Speaker, we agreed with most of the issues mentioned by the member for Johnston. There was some robust debate, but votes were taken and the recommendations, as contained in this report, we accept at this point. In relation to the estimates, I ask that the government take note of our minority report and hopefully we can review this process after the 2011 estimates process, and again discuss some of these very important matters.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the standing orders report. There are a number of recommendations in the current standing orders report and there is a minority report - a dissenting report - which the member for Sanderson has spoken to.
As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee, the first recommendation I will talk about is the change to the hours for the Estimates Committee. It is the one I have the most personal interest in and I believe it is the most important. We had a number of changes to this year’s Estimates Committee process which worked well and the recommendations in today’s report build on those.
Hours for the Estimates Committee this year increased to a global of 50 and we allowed the Public Accounts Committee to have flexibility in determining how many hours each minister appeared before the Estimates Committee within that global of 50 hours. There may have been a misunderstanding by members of the opposition about how we were fixing the hours for the next Estimates Committee process - it is not seven hours for all ministers, it is up to seven hours, based on how we weighted it in the Public Accounts Committee. There will be a weighting done through the Public Accounts Committee process.
This year, even though government has the numbers on the Public Accounts Committee, we sat back and said: ‘Well, opposition and Independents, work out how many hours you want to allocate to a minister within that global’. This year it was a global of 50, next year it will be a global of 60, which is a 20% increase - an increase of 10 hours. The opposition made an ambit claim for 70 hours – it is in their dissenting report – however, everyone would admit an increase from 50 to 60 hours is a huge increase.
As Chair, I care more about how the Estimates Committee is managed. I believe it will be held over six days over two weeks – Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday one week, and Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday the second week. That is a very sensible change; on average, 10 hours a day. It will not necessarily work out to be 10 hours a day because it depends on how we weight the hours per minister, and that will affect the finishing times for each day. By having it over six days over two weeks we will better manage our sitting times as an Estimates Committee. There will still be late nights but it should be more manageable.
We have seen when there is disorder on the committee, which happens from time to time - although I like to think, by and large, the Estimates Committee is very well behaved - it often happens late at night. By managing the six days over two weeks it will be better than squeezing it into four or five days. The way we are pacing it next year will lead to a much better Estimates Committee; a much better prepared and behaved Estimates Committee.
We will also see better prepared shadow ministers, ministers, and witnesses - time will tell. Often an argument over hours hides an argument over the quality of questions or the preparation of shadows for their portfolios, which we saw in the opposition’s first analysis of the first Estimates Committee we had this term. Often the debate becomes slightly confused, but we have increased it by 10 hours, a very big increase, and it will go for six days over the two weeks, which will see a better prepared, better behaved Estimates Committee. We will not sit for 10 hours a day because it will depend on how we weight each minister. As a rule of thumb, each minister should appear before the committee only once.
We need to come back into the Chamber on the second Thursday; so it is 60 hours for estimates, plus returning to the Chamber to debate the Estimates Committee report and pass the budget and any other business. It is 60 hours plus parliament on that second Thursday afternoon/evening.
This was the first year we had the flexible arrangement of allocating the time for each minister. Informally, we arrange a time for each portfolio within the time for each minister. The flexibility provided for a much better managed Estimates Committee; the Estimates Committee was much happier with who they spoke to, when they spoke to them, and how long they spoke to them for. Knowing in advance how long we may give to each portfolio within that minister’s appearance time allowed better preparation and meant public servants knew when they were appearing before the committee, which led to a much better result.
Next year there will be a maximum of eight hours for the Chief Minister and the Treasurer and a maximum of seven hours for the other ministers, including the Government Owned Corporation. Seven hours, which we had this year for the Treasurer and the Chief Minister, is about as much as someone should do; however, we have gone to eight. Something we need to remember is under our recommendations the portfolio minister, Mr Knight, and the shareholding minister, the Treasurer, Ms Lawrie, we are saying they will now appear at the same time as the Government Owned Corporation, Power and Water which, depending on how the hours are weighted, could mean 15 hours for the Treasurer before the Estimates Committee, and 14 hours for minister Knight. That depends on how we weight the hours, however, they will both appear twice, and they could both appear for easily double figure hours. The Treasurer will almost certainly appear for double figure hours during the Estimates Committee process.
That is something we are doing this year, but it is something where we need to see how it goes. It is important. We have agreed as a Standing Orders Committee and as a government that the portfolio minister and shareholding minister will add something by appearing at the same time as the Government Owned Corporation, so that is sewn in. But the overall hours that both ministers will appear, we will see how that goes this year, but it will be appearing before the Estimates Committee for a long time and it is something we need to bear in mind.
We recommend that:
- The number of proposed sitting days of the Assembly be reduced to reflect any additional days and hours allocated for the Estimates Committee.
That is what we did this year. We added an extra day to the Estimates Committee and we substituted it for a day in the sittings in November. The recommendation is that we do that again next year. We have increased the hours; we have made the sensible decision of doing it over six days, over two weeks. It is a decision the opposition agreed to in its second submission to the Standing Orders Committee - that is on page 16 of the standing orders report. I apologise that I did not quite hear the member for Sanderson address this, he might have; I was in and out of the Chamber as Whip. On page 16 it says:
- In exchange for extra hours during Estimates the Country Liberals would not oppose a reduction of three sitting days during next financial year.
So next year brings three days into Estimates Committee, not a problem. That is in the opposition’s submission. In the dissenting report it has changed its mind and says it should not. There is an inconsistency between the submission and the dissenting report. We think it is a sensible way to manage the business of government. We did it this year and we are proposing next year we do it with the extra few days.
The opposition also touched on the question of generic questions. This is an issue which is confusing. When you talk to people about it there is often confusion between generic questions and written questions. They can be both and not both at the same time, so it can get a little complicated when you are talking about it. There is no problem with generic questions when asked in the Estimates Committee process. We have a philosophy of a public and transparent examination of the Territory budget, line by line, question by question. That means a public asking and answering of questions during the Estimates Committees process, on the record, transmitted, public welcome, asking and answering. There is no problem if the opposition wants to ask generic questions during that time.
The Leader of Government Business gave a couple of examples where the generic question process during the Estimates Committee led to some very good questions being asked. At the Estimates Committee before last, from memory, the opposition was asking generic questions about the use of computers. In one department there was an answer which was different from the norm about how many people used a computer inappropriately. The opposition went down a new trail of questions after that. So, generic questions can be quite important. It depends on which ones you ask and how you ask them. It leads into another philosophy of estimates which is that estimates be conversational, that there be a free flow of questions and answers, and you can ask generics. By asking generics, you also give yourself an opportunity to lead into other questions as a result of the answer you receive.
The question then is: how does the written question process operate? We have always thought that with the Estimates Committee the question should be asked and answered, they should be public, they should be heard. There is a process already before parliament which any member of parliament can use. It is called the written question process. It is tougher than the process the opposition outlined in its dissenting report where if you put a question through the written question process, then the minister is meant to answer within 30 days. We did not use that written question process as well as we could have at this year’s estimates; I acknowledge that as a government. I believe we will use it better next year.
Any shadow minister preparing for the Estimates Committee has many ways in which they can inform themselves about their portfolio and what questions they may want to ask. One way is through the existing written question process. It is there and it can be used. In some respects, the opposition’s proposal was to create an additional written question process and to make it, in some respects, more lenient. It is sensible to use the existing written question process and to use it better - that is on both sides. We definitely could have used it better on our side this year. I agree that it improves the process of shadow ministers going into the Estimates Committee informed. One way to be informed is through the written question process, but that process already exists. You can provide your questions 30 days out, six days out, whatever you decide. The member for Sanderson talked about six days out and then seven days prior, so a 53-day period in between. They can still provide their questions six days out but we would be required to provide our answers around the 30 day mark.
That is what we have said, that is in the standing orders. That process is there and we were not convinced there should be an additional written question process parallel to the existing written question process. I hope people listening can understand the difference between written questions and generic questions. It can get a bit messy. There were times in the committee when we were talking about exactly the same thing without necessarily realising it, because it can get a bit confusing.
The written question process is also subject to a recommendation in the standing orders report we are debating today. We want to ensure written questions and answers are placed on the Parliamentary Record. That is an amendment to one of the standing orders.
There is also a recommendation for the Routine of Business. The need for this emerged with an Independent chairing a committee, the Council of Territory Cooperation, which the member for Nelson chairs. That does not sit neatly with Government Business, with an Independent member chairing the committee, so we needed to find a better way of handling it as part of the Routine of Business. You can see the routine on page 6 of the standing orders report. It will now come on after Papers in the Routine of Business, which is a sensible and practical amendment. It is a minor amendment of how we handle the Routine of Business in the House.
The Leader of Government Business spoke about this at great length. We had the recommendation about the right of reply on page 2 of the report. This is where a person who has been referred to by name or in such a way as to readily identified, has the right of reply if that person has been adversely affected in reputation, or in respect of dealings or associations with others, injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that person’s privacy has been unreasonably invaded by a reason of that reference to the person. As members in this House, we always need to take great care with how we talk about other people. Most members do that. We have a right to free speech but we have to be careful about how we exercise it. The right of reply also needs to be taken seriously.
I believe the Speaker, who is the first person who will look at a request for a right of reply, and the Standing Orders Committee, which will then consider a request for a right of reply, will take that request seriously. Incorporation of remarks into the Parliamentary Record is a fairly significant and serious response to someone’s concerns and we do need to take it seriously when we consider it. As it is made clear in the standing orders and the guidelines, they should not be trivial or frivolous requests. As the Leader of Government Business has discussed, there would probably be members of the public who will see this as a new forum for an expression of their thoughts on debates. We are not a letters to the editor page; the parliament is here for serious and informed debate.
We have said it will be up for review in 12 months’ time, but over the next 12 months, we need to look at giving people a right to reply so they can have the opportunity to go provide a response on the record when their reputation has been damaged. We will see how that goes. We do need to take what we say here seriously and carefully. We will need to apply those same thoughts in trying to decide if someone has the right of reply. It is a serious and significant response to something a member may have said in this Chamber.
Essentially, as a parliament, we are adopting the guidelines and standing orders of the House of Representatives. We will see how that goes over the next 12 months and then, I assume, discuss it as the Standing Orders Committee to this parliament. As the Leader of Government Business said, as members in this Chamber we always need to balance the right to free speech which we have with the right of reply of a member of the public. It is a serious business we take on as parliamentarians, and we are now providing a protection to members of the public who may feel aggrieved by something that we say in this Chamber. It is a serious issue. How we manage that has been talked about for a long time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Standing Orders Committee report to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Standing Orders Committee Fifth Report to the 11th Assembly. It has opened up a number of issues for debate. Some of these issues have come around a number of times. Overall, the recommendations are good, although the opposition has some issues with the operations of the Estimates Committee and the reduction in hours for sitting times. Overall we have improved on the way the Estimates Committee is run today.
I was part of the original committee from this parliament which went to Tasmania to look at how an Estimates Committee operated. If you compare the Estimates Committee which was started in this parliament to what we have today, regardless of whether people think we could have more hours or could do things differently, the government has allowed for consistent expansion of the scope of the Estimates Committee. I congratulate the government on accepting those changes. Not everyone thinks there have been enough changes, but sometimes you have to take things into context. The changes which we have seen have been good.
From my point of view, the estimates process is one of the most important parts of parliament. It allows not only scrutiny of ministers but also scrutiny of government departments over a wide range of portfolios. In some ways it is limited and, to some extent, that is where the Council of Territory Cooperation has a little more flexibility. We only have one Estimates Committee sitting per year and if you want to ask more questions you either ask them in Question Time, or through parliamentary debate, or you wait until the next time the Estimates Committee sits, whereas the Council of Territory Cooperation can continue asking the questions. It is a little different in relation to asking ministers questions; although, we always tell ministers they are most welcome to attend and answer questions at the CTC meetings.
I will look at some of the smaller recommendations; for instance, there has been an amendment to Standing Order 118 to allow Question Papers to be tabled in the Assembly and/or included in the Parliamentary Record which is to be made available electronically. That is good. Anyone who sees the size of the Parliamentary Record - if you add in all the written questions it becomes quite a good doorstop. I am not sure many people today look at the printed copy when they are looking at what happened in parliament. Some years ago that was the only thing I looked at but today it is much easier to look at the NT Hansard website where you will find a copy of the questions and the main part of the Parliamentary Record.
From the point of view of reducing costs and waste in publishing documents which perhaps are not going to be accessed because they are in a format which is becoming out-dated, it makes sense that there has been a recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee, which has been agreed on all sides, which allows the Parliamentary Record to be available electronically.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have much more to talk about so I do not know whether to stop at this point.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you have 15 minutes remaining on the clock. We could go for an extra five minutes.
Mr WOOD: I would take longer than five minutes so I would prefer to …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then we will resume your comments after Question Time. Thank you, member for Nelson.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Adopt Report - Standing Orders Committee – Fifth Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Adopt Report - Standing Orders Committee – Fifth Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, continuing my comments in relation to the Standing Orders Committee 5th Report, most of the recommendations were supported, however, there was a dissenting report relating to the number of hours the Estimates Committee should be sitting.
I will go to the other changes first. The recommendation:
- The Notice Paper be amended to include a separate category to consider committee reports, Auditor-General reports, and government responses and a new Standing Order 93A.
As the minister said earlier, that was included because, in the case of the Council of Territory Cooperation, it is not a government committee; it is a committee which has a non-government member as Chair. It did not fit neatly into existing standing orders. By putting it on the Notice Paper in a separate category, where committee reports, Auditor-General reports, and government responses were placed, it allowed that committee to have a proper place when it came to the requirement to report back to the Legislative Assembly.
I support the recommendation that:
- A right of reply be adopted by the Legislative Assembly to mirror the right of reply in the House of Representatives and guidelines based on the House of Representatives’ guidelines be adopted and reviewed in 12 months.
Some of this came from comments made in parliament on our last visit to Central Australia. A person was offended by those comments and, from some of those discussions, it came to notice it was difficult for people outside of the parliament to put forward a defence if they felt someone had said something about them which was not true.
This recommendation, based on using the House of Representatives’ guidelines, covers fairly the need for a person to have an opportunity to comment if they believe they were the subject of adverse comments in parliament. If you read through the right of reply of persons referred to in the Legislative Assembly, you will see there are plenty of checks and balances to ensure people who want to respond are not doing something which is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or offensive. The Speaker has a role to play, as well as the Standing Orders Committee, when considering whether such a submission should be allowed. The guidelines here allow someone to respond, but they also ensure the person who is asking to respond is not doing it for the wrong reasons.
I did not support the opposition’s dissenting report. I supported the report we have here. The increase in the number of sitting hours of the Estimates Committee is good. The Estimates Committee is a very important part of our parliament. It gives us a chance to scrutinise and question ministers and departmental people. It has increased, quite substantially, the number of hours we question our ministers, when you compare it with when the government first introduced an Estimates Committee to our parliament.
A few things have been said in relation to the arrangement that if we work on the extra three days for the Estimates Committee, that will be reduced by the number of extra sitting days which were added on to the sitting days a couple of years ago. The minister mentioned something about the CLP saying one thing and then another. You may be referring to page 16, Attachment A - this is from Greg Charter, Chief of Staff of the Leader of the Opposition. On page 16 it says, under the heading Reduction in the Number of Sitting Days:
- In exchange for extra hours during estimates the Country Liberals would not oppose a reduction of three sitting days during the next financial year. However, we believe the option of restoring the lost three sitting days should be reconsidered at the end of that financial year.
- The opposition do not believe that there should be any reduction to the number of sitting days as a result of a second week being allocated to Estimates Committee.
My understanding was the opposition would support this and we would discuss it at next review after the next Estimates Committee.
There is a great deal of talk about whether this parliament does enough work. It has the least number of sitting days of any parliament and therefore we should just add three days on. I am not a great believer in that. I think we should work here when we need to work here and not work here when we do not need to. It is a costly place to run. You should not dream up legislation just for the sake of having some legislation to discuss. If there is work to be done, let us do that work. If the idea of an extra three days is just to show people we are working harder but we are not actually achieving much, then I would say those three days were added for political reasons rather than real reasons. We would be better off in our own electorates doing the work many of us have to do there,
I would rather see those three days that were added on at the end of the last sittings used in the Estimates Committee where you can see real debate and discussion about government policies, budgets and programs. That is far more important than putting on a pretence that we are working hard at the end of the year, when I know most people have plenty of work to do in their electorates at that time of year. A fair bit of political argy bargy was going on at the time of those changes, and the government decided: ‘We will give in to what the CLP said, that we are not working hard enough and add the extra three days’. If we use our time more efficiently in the existing time and hours, you get most of the work done in that time.
The other issue was the number of hours. Sixty hours is a good compromise for the 70 hours the CLP wanted. Each year, the CLP has wanted extra hours and we have increased the number of hours after just about every Estimates Committee. Sixty hours is a good standard to look at.
How many hours each minister needs to face up before the Estimates Committee, the member for Fannie Bay has given us some hours there, but we also have to realise the Public Accounts Committee has a fair say in what happens within its own committee. We need to make sure the Standing Orders Committee and the Public Accounts Committee are not tripping over one another when it comes to things like how many hours each minister should be at the Estimates Committee for. We should work those hours according to the portfolios. Some ministers have portfolios which require much more investigation than others. To a large extent that is what the Public Accounts Committee should be doing.
Mr Gunner: It is.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I got a little confused when you were discussing it before. You did finish your discussion by saying you hoped people could understand all that you said. I probably got confused too.
There is a question about generic questions. I do not have a problem with generic questions, as long as they are limited and available to the public. I do not want to see the Estimates Committee become a forum where many questions which have been written previously are asked and then answered by the minister or a public servant in front of a public which does not have any idea what is going on.
The beauty of the Estimates Committee is it is in the public arena. We, as politicians, the ministers, and the departments with their various ministers, are there for everyone to see and hear which promotes the idea of an open and transparent government. The media and reporters are there, there will be people who are interested in hearing what is going on, and if you get too much written down you get away from one of the basic benefits of the Estimates Committee.
There is room for some generic questions. As long as the public knows what those generic questions are so they understand the answers, I do not have a problem. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned we have written questions these days which have limitations on when answers should be presented by the departments. That is also available to everyone and the answers to those questions can be used as a basis for questioning ministers and departments during the Estimates Committee. I would not get too hung up over the generic questions; it runs fairly well as it is.
I thank the other members of the Standing Orders Committee for their work and insights; I am relatively new to this committee and it has been a learning curve for me. I do not have any problem with members lodging dissenting reports. It is healthy as it allows other options and opinions to be debated.
I also thank the staff, and Madam Speaker for allowing us to use your room. The longer I am on the Standing Orders Committee the better my understanding of the importance of the committee. The Clerk and other people will find other issues for us to debate over the following year. I will be interested in what happens with the right of reply; it will be interesting to see if anyone uses it now that we have it in place. It is good it is there because it opens up parliament. We are not a closed society and although we love the idea of freedom of speech, we need to be careful how we use it and, if it is used inappropriately, now we have a system which will allow a person who could be offended by statements made in this parliament to reply to those comments.
Madam Speaker, I support the Standing Orders Committee’s Fifth Report.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members of the Standing Orders Committee for the time, effort and thought they have put in to the preparation of this report.
I know the opposition has a view on a number of matters, which they have expressed in their dissenting report, but, overall, we have come to substantial agreement on a range of matters which will not only facilitate the estimates process, but enhance it and make it better for everyone.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report to the Assembly.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination – Report on Overseas Travel – Member for Goyder
Remuneration Tribunal Determination – Report on Overseas Travel – Member for Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the member for Goyder’s overseas travel report, pursuant to paragraph 4.2 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Enough is Enough – Proposed Alcohol Reforms
Enough is Enough – Proposed Alcohol Reforms
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the recently announced proposals on the alcohol reform measures.
The Enough is Enough alcohol reform package announced last month contains the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in the Territory’s history and in our nation. Many Territorians enjoy a drink safely and responsibly; however, a number of Territorians are drinking at unsafe levels and their alcohol misuse is having a significant impact on the wider community. We have deliberately targeted these reforms at the problem drinker. The majority of Territorians will not be affected.
These reforms turn problem drinkers off-tap to stop the violence and antisocial behaviour. Alcohol misuse continues to be a scourge on our community, families and Territorians. The statistics paint a stark picture and point to the level of alcohol crime in our community. Sixty percent of all assaults are alcohol-related, with 67% of all domestic violence incidents being alcohol-related. Last year, there were 55 000 incidents of police taking people into protective custody or sobering-up shelters. Seventy-two percent of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol.
The Report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory 2010, Growing them strong, together, heard evidence from Territorians that grog is a key contributor to child abuse and neglect.
The level of alcohol-related deaths in the Territory is three times the national average. Between 2000-05, 48% of road deaths in the Territory involved drinkers with an illegal blood alcohol concentration. Alcohol-related hospital admissions in the Territory are more than double the national average. In 2008-09, 59% of police work was alcohol-related, particularly responding to alcohol-fuelled assaults and domestic violence.
We are saying enough is enough. We need to stop this harm. The Territory has the highest alcohol consumption per capita of any state or territory. In 2008, Territorians consumed 14.5 litres per capita compared to 9.83 litres nationally. We drink at a rate approximately 1.5 times the national average. This is the case for both the non-Indigenous and Indigenous population. The non-Indigenous population drinks at 1.5 times the national average, the Indigenous population drinks at 1.7 times the national average. Not only do we drink at high volumes, the way in which we drink is risky and harmful, with Territorians binge drinking at twice the national average. This ultimately comes at significant cost to our community.
A recent study, The Harms from and Costs of Alcohol Consumption in the Northern Territory commissioned by the Menzies School of Health and Research and undertaken by the South Australian Centre for Economics Studies, found alcohol misuse costs the Territory around a staggering $642m a year. This equates to $4197 for every adult Territorian compared to $944 nationally. This study took into account workforce impacts, healthcare costs, and the costs of associated crime and policing. The healthcare costs are alarming. Alcohol contributes to more deaths and hospitalisations in the Territory than anywhere else in Australia. Northern Territory Police report that 59% of their workload is attributed to responding to alcohol-related issues. The social and economic costs of alcohol misuse are unacceptable.
Although this government has done more than any other Territory government or Australian jurisdiction to reduce alcohol misuse and alcohol crime and antisocial behaviour, we recognise more needs to be done.
As I touched on earlier, these new reforms are targeted. They go to the heart of what is costing the Territory both socially and economically each year. They target the problem drinker. These reforms are focused on takeaway alcohol sales because takeaway alcohol sales make up 70% of all alcohol consumed in the Territory. It is also because takeaway alcohol sales are consumed in an unsupervised environment, and there is no doubt this consumption is contributing to unacceptable violence and crime.
The Enough is Enough reforms turn the tap off to problem drinkers by banning problem drinkers. The banned drinker register and ID system at point of sale enforce those bans. The Enough is Enough package is made up of a five-point action plan with:
1. the banned drinker and mandatory alcohol treatment orders;
2. banned drinker register;
3. Alcohol Court reforms;
4. increased rehabilitation services; and
5. awareness campaigns.
Action 1 - the banned drinker and mandatory alcohol treatment orders: under these reforms, we will ban problem drinkers. This measure does not criminalise the chronic problem drinker. It is, however, a tough love approach and a direct health intervention. These bans will apply across the Territory, including places where significant alcohol restrictions already exist; for example, Alice Springs and Katherine. This measure provides consistency across the Territory as to how alcohol is accessed. In practice, this means if you are a banned drinker in Alice Springs, you will also be banned from accessing alcohol anywhere in the Territory. People will no longer move simply to follow the grog.
A problem drinker is clearly defined as a person who has been taken into protective custody three times in three months; is involved in alcohol-fuelled violence and assaults, including family and domestic violence; is a repeat drink-driver or drives under the influence at very high levels; is considered at risk; or places others at risk.
The police bans: police will have the power to issue bans of up to 12 months to prevent problem drinkers from purchasing and consuming takeaway alcohol. These are administrative bans. We are not criminalising alcohol misuse; instead, we are providing a system to turn off the tap to problem drinkers for their own safety, the safety of others, and to reduce antisocial behaviour. Bans will increase in length with repeat occurrences: the first ban - three months; second ban - six months; third ban – 12 months.
Referrals can also be made to the new Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. Police bans will be linked to participating in treatment, and the level of treatment required will be determined by the length of the ban. The level of treatment will increase in intensity each time a banning and treatment notice is issued. The length of bans can be reduced by participating in treatment.
The Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal: these reforms also introduce an independent tribunal known as the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. The tribunal is a further administrative measure to determine ban applications and review banning notices for problem drinkers who have not committed an offence. This tribunal will hear the referrals of people with alcohol or other drug misuse problems who are considered at risk, or place others, such as children, at risk. The tribunal will also hear reviews of police banning notices, and people who have been issued more than three police-generated banning notices will be automatically referred to the tribunal.
Referrals to the tribunal can be made by family members, non-government organisations, police, Health, and other agencies. The tribunal will have the power to issue a range of orders such as alcohol bans and mandatory treatment. Once a person comes before the tribunal, they will have to undertake clinical assessment. As stated, the tribunal is not a court and is not for people who have committed a criminal offence.
Membership of the tribunal will include a presiding person who is an experienced lawyer or magistrate, plus one or two other experts. Other members of the tribunal would have relevant experience in the area of alcohol and other drugs, and could include legal professionals, medical practitioners, counsellors, or clinicians.
People who have committed an alcohol or drug-related offence will be referred to the enhanced Alcohol Court, the SMART Court. An exposure draft of the legislation, the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill, which establishes these administrative systems, will be released for comment later this week.
Action 2 - the banned drinker register: key to the success of these reforms is the capacity to enforce the bans. The CLP’s policy on this issue does not have any enforcement capacity. While it states it will declare a habitual drunk, it has no means of stopping the flow of alcohol. In fact, the CLP has, on numerous occasions, stated it does not support an ID system. Under the CLP, the rivers of grog would still flow. It is not committed to tackling crime in the Northern Territory.
Under the Enough is Enough reforms, it is proposed to roll-out a banned drinker register across the Territory to support the alcohol bans. The banned drinker register will be introduced to all takeaway alcohol outlets which currently do not have an ID system. The banned drinker register is an electronic record of all banned drinkers across the Territory. Under this system, a person purchasing alcohol will scan their ID, which will be compared to the register. A person who is not banned will buy their alcohol as normal. A person who is banned will not be permitted to buy alcohol.
The system does not record information on alcohol purchases. It simply compares an ID to the register. The scan will take less than 15 seconds and a range of ID can be used. The banned drinker register will be able to read the following types of identification cards: driver’s licences, including all government-issued licences from around the country, and driver’s licences of 50 other nations, including state-based licences issued in the United States; the evidence of age card, or 18-plus card; and Indigenous organisation-issued ID cards, including the Tangentyere ID card, the Larrakia ID card, and the Council of Elders Tennant Creek ID card.
The system provides a critical tool to enforce the bans. It also provides an important tool for attendants at takeaway outlets to refuse sales to problem drinkers. The liquor industry welcomes this tool. They support the banned drinker register. It is a small inconvenience to tackle the scourge of alcohol and help cut alcohol-related crime. We will fund the roll-out of the banned drinker register across the Territory at an estimated cost of $6m.
Action 3 - Alcohol Court Reforms: a new court known as the SMART, Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court, will be established, replacing the Alcohol Court. The court will deal with people charged with a criminal offence where alcohol or drug misuse is involved. It will also be able to make court orders for juveniles as well as adults, and can make orders such as bans and mandatory treatment at any time during the sentencing process. It can also ban the person from consuming or purchasing alcohol.
The SMART orders would be flexible to suit each case. A SMART order would not mean the offender does not go to gaol or serve a sentence for their crime. The SMART order could be part of an overall sentence. A person could do time in gaol plus have a SMART order requiring them to attend rehabilitation and receive counselling.
An exposure draft of the SMART bill will be released for public comment later this week, with public comments to close in mid-November.
Action 4 - Increased Rehabilitation Services: since 2001, we have increased alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services. We have done this in partnership with the Australian government, and will continue this effort. There are now over 300 treatment, rehabilitation and sobering-up shelter beds across the Territory. We will focus on delivering new models of treatment and care which expand on residential services. We are currently consulting with the health sector on a range of options for expanded services which acknowledge not everyone will require a residential option. We are also focused on expanding treatment and outreach support options in remote areas across our growth towns. Treatment options may include brief interventions by GPs, counselling and support, bed-based treatment services, as well as outreach intensive interventions, and treatment services in remote communities.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, these proposals recognises there are people who are beyond benefiting from traditional treatment methods for whom an alcohol ban is an effective health intervention. There are others, such as those who sleep rough in the long grass who, for a variety of reasons, do not attend or complete residential treatment. This package includes treatment provided through outreach and case management, and includes brief interventions as well as intensive treatment and after care.
The Central Australian Aboriginal Congress has, through the Grog Mob program and the newly-established Safe and Sober program, had some success in this area. This success has included increasing Indigenous participation in treatment in Alice Springs to reduce alcohol consumption and, in some cases, to stop drinking. Its work provides a model which can be applied across other regional centres and remote communities.
Respite and withdrawal models will also be considered. The Mt Theo outstation is an example of this model of care applied to substance misuse. These services enable drinkers to participate in rehabilitation and withdrawal services closer to their communities.
Action 5 - Awareness Campaigns: the Enough is Enough reforms will be accompanied by a large scale community education and awareness campaign to promote safe and responsible drinking. This has already commenced. $500 000 a year will be provided for ongoing community education and awareness to promote safe and responsible drinking so we can change the culture of drinking in the Territory. We will build on work done to date around antisocial behaviour and alcohol-fuelled violence on premises, such as the highly successful Championship Moves campaign.
Feedback to proposed reforms: an early assessment of the comments submitted to the reform package indicates widespread support. An online survey is available and information has been mailed to homes in Darwin and Palmerston. The public feedback is there is a majority agreement that people who commit alcohol crime should be banned from buying alcohol. The bans should be enforced. People who commit alcohol crime should be forced to undertake rehabilitation and treatment.
The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT (AMSANT) has welcomed the reforms. It welcomes the tribunal as a strategy for getting people into treatment outside of the criminal law process stating the:
- … orders … for the first time creates consequences for people who have a major alcohol problem without recriminalising public drunkenness and without waiting for them to commit an offence.
That is the AMSANT media release of 1 September this year. Donna Archie of AMSANT also stated in support of the reforms on ABC radio in Alice Springs on 2 September:
- Given the devastation that alcohol causes in our communities across the Northern Territory then there is an absolute political imperative for both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government to take this seriously and I think Delia Lawrie has taken the first step in doing that.
Dr John Boffa, the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition, has also welcomed the reforms stating:
- For the first time we’re having a consistent approach across the Territory.
It gives us the capacity to act early, to act in a way that is not criminally sanctioned and to act in a way that I think creates consequences in terms of prohibition orders and in terms of referral for treatment … which could make a significant difference.
The government has dealt with the alcohol problem as a health problem, as a mental health problem outside the criminal justice system and they are to be commended for that.
That was on ABC radio on 2 September.
A joint media release on 2 September, issued by Amity Community Services, the NT Council of Social Service and FORWAARD also welcomed the reforms stating:
- While some of the measures may cause inconvenience to some in our community, we would urge people to accept that this is a small sacrifice to pay for a much greater good.
As treatment agencies we are only too well aware of the enormous cost of heavy alcohol use to the individuals themselves, and to their families, friends and the wider community … Limited restrictions of this kind, coupled with additional resources for treatment and public education, will result in a safer and healthier Territory …
The Responsible Drinkers Lobby in Alice Springs has also welcomed the reforms. I quote Ms Liz Martin of the Responsible Drinkers Lobby in an e-mail she sent to me following the announcement of the reforms:
- … these initiatives are a great step forward and obviously well thought out … I believe they do reflect the wishes of the majority of our community. Well done!.
Other new measures: wine cask ban. To coincide with the Enough is Enough reform package, the Licensing Commission has announced a ban on the sale of cask wine and wine-based products in containers greater than two litres across the Territory. This ban will take effect from 1 January 2011. The commission has outlined the reason for this ban. Primarily, these products provide high level alcohol in large containers at a cheap price and are the drink of choice for problem drinkers. The banning, or restricted sale of these products, has been in place in every regional centre outside Darwin. These bans have been central to achieving large reductions in pure alcohol consumption, as well as achieving reductions in other alcohol-related harm in those regions.
The Darwin and Palmerston Alcohol Management Plan: the cities of Darwin and Palmerston are the only regional centres where the level of pure alcohol consumption has steadily been increasing since 2003. A draft alcohol management plan, AMP, for Darwin and Palmerston has been released for public comment. The mayors of the Darwin and Palmerston Councils have worked with the Territory government to develop this draft plan. An alcohol management plan for Darwin and Palmerston will be a regional plan which recognises people live and work across both cities and alcohol measures put in place in one city will have an impact on the other.
The alcohol management plan also recognises the need for diversity. It acknowledges the needs of the capital city, with its entertainment strip, is not the same as those of the suburbs. The regional AMP will support local plans and accords tailored to meet the needs of particular localities. Key elements of the draft AMP include:
introduction of designated precinct areas in Darwin and Palmerston CBDs, allowing police to issue on-the-spot fines, and/or ban problem drinkers who cause alcohol-fuelled violence. The Darwin CBD precinct is already in operation, and Palmerston and Alice Springs are about to come online;
introduction of a banned drinker register in all takeaway outlets and licensed premises;
introducing liquor accords amongst licensees in identified locations;
review and extend dry areas; and
banning the sale of four and five litre casks.
An AMP for Darwin and Palmerston, where almost half the Territory’s population lives, is needed if the Territory is to reach the Territory 2030 target of reducing the per capita consumption of alcohol to the national average by 2020. It is also needed if we are to reduce the unacceptably high levels of alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, and the high cost of alcohol-related harm in the Territory.
The AHA Accord for Mitchell Street: shortly after announcing the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms, hoteliers across 14 of Darwin’s busiest entertainment venues announced a liquor accord. The liquor accord aims to improve the amenity and safety of our CBD while still allowing patrons to enjoy drinking socially. The Australian Hotels Association-led liquor accord includes:
all spirits to be served in plastic glasses between 11 pm and 4 am;
all beer glasses will be changed to shatter glass;
security and crowd controllers will wear high-visibility vests after closing and work with NT Police on the streets as a preventative measure;
there will be no advertising of promotional prices on or off premise, this includes point of sale, print, radio, and television;
happy hour at all venues will finish by 7 pm and only starting times will be advertised;
crowd controllers at all venues will stay in contact by radio or phone and will work together to refuse entry across the whole CBD to anyone who is antisocial, violent or intoxicated; and
introducing a patron code of conduct.
Venues will also work with Darwin City Council to improve the amenity of the CBD and keep the entry points to licensed premises clean and tidy.
This accord is a significant, positive step. The introduction of shatter glass is significant. Currently, the Victorian government is funding a trial of shatter glasses. This accord is a credit to the hoteliers involved and to the Australian Hotels Association. The measures directly target problem drinkers in venues and reduce the risk of alcohol-fuelled violence through improved security measures.
Building on past achievements: this government has a long history and a substantial record in taking action to address alcohol-related harm and antisocial behaviour. It has made it a priority to tackle alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour in and around late night venues. The Henderson government recently introduced new laws to declare precinct areas where a number of on-premise liquor outlets and late night venues exist, and where violence and antisocial behaviour incidents were occurring.
On 1 October, we declared the whole of the Darwin CBD a precinct area, including the Waterfront and Esplanade. Precinct areas for Alice Springs and Palmerston are soon to commence. Precinct areas provide police with more powers. These powers allow police to ban problem drinkers who cause alcohol-fuelled violence in and around on-premise venues from the precinct area, or from venues. Bans can last up to 48 hours and, through the court process, people can be banned from the area for up to 12 months. People can be banned from one or two venues, or from all drinking outlets. This can also include the whole precinct area.
Other nightclub measures: other initiatives delivered previously by the government to tackle alcohol-fuelled violence in the Darwin CBD precinct include introducing 3 am lock-outs and a controlled taxi rank in Mitchell Street, and funding the CitySafe police patrols with more police on the beat to monitor and patrol community safety in and around the CBDs, and in hot spot areas in Alice Springs and Darwin. We have the CCTV network in place as well.
Alcohol management plans: a key initiative from the alcohol framework has been the development of localised alcohol management plans. There are now 10 AMPs in place and 17 AMPs being developed or updated across the Territory. The 10 AMPs in place include Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Maningrida, Groote Eylandt, Nhulunbuy, Elliott, Jabiru, Borroloola and, now, Palmerston and Darwin. They deliver local responses to address alcohol issues specific to that community or region, and are developed with input from the community, industry, and other stakeholders.
In all regional centres where an AMP is in place, there has been a reduction in the consumption of pure alcohol. Alcohol wholesale supply data from 2001 to 2008 shows consumption of pure alcohol has dropped by 22% in Nhulunbuy, 18% in Alice Springs, 14% in Katherine, and 4.5% in Tennant Creek. Groote Eylandt, in particular, has had significant success through its AMP, and this success continues today. Since 2004-05 to 2008-09, antisocial behaviour incidents have dropped by 74%, property crime has dropped by 68%, commercial break-ins have dropped by 79%, numbers in protective custody are down by 90%, and the level of aggravated assaults has reduced by 68%. Since the AMP was introduced in Nhulunbuy in early 2008, we have seen a significant 68% reduction in antisocial behaviour incidents, and the number of persons in protective custody has fallen from 90 in 2004-05 to 10 in 2008-09.
ID systems: to support the alcohol management plans, an ID system was implemented in Alice Springs and Katherine. The ID system enforces the alcohol prohibition orders and supply restrictions of the alcohol management plans. For the period 1 January 2009 to 30 September this year, the ID system recorded 14 181 refusals of people attempting to purchase above daily restricted levels, or people on prohibition orders attempting to purchase alcohol.
In 2009, the ID system was introduced in Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt to enforce court prohibition orders and manage the enforcement of individual permit systems. The system has proved highly effective in achieving compliance to individual permit restrictions, resulting, as I outlined earlier, in significant reductions in alcohol-related harms.
Antisocial behaviour and dry areas: the Enough is Enough reforms target alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. This builds on the antisocial behaviour act this government introduced in 2006. The act provided for the establishment of the Alcohol Court and dry areas which has enabled towns, public places, and private residences to be declared dry. Currently, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Mataranka are all dry towns. I think we can add Batchelor to that now. Also, a number of dry public places have been declared in other communities and regional towns such as the foreshore in Darwin. Over 400 private homes have voluntarily been made dry.
This government also amended the Residential Tenancies Act to establish antisocial behaviour agreements for public housing tenants. The amendments also allow third parties, such as neighbours, to make an application for the termination of a tenancy based on unacceptable antisocial behaviour.
The industry working together – accords: we have also made further amendments to the Liquor Act regarding liquor accords. These changes strengthen protection for industry in relation to unfair trading and National Competition Policy issues, and thereby provide a greater incentive for the liquor industry to work together to develop accords to address alcohol-related issues. Accords are in place in Alice Springs, Darwin and Tennant Creek. Activities include multi-venue barring, voluntary restrictions on products and pricing, and the introduction of agreed codes of practice. I sincerely congratulate the liquor industry for pursuing the accords. I also thank Chris Vaughn in Alice Springs for leading the charge.
Other measures: we have also made the Responsible Service of Alcohol course mandatory for all staff, and are now introducing this for crowd controllers. We have worked with the Licensing Commission in introducing a moratorium on takeaway licences. We are in negotiations to buy back three takeaway licences in Alice Springs. The Department of Justice assessed current licences in Alice Springs against the principles of the Liquor Act, particularly whether certain licences would be granted today under current alcohol licensing policy. Under this assessment, three licences have been identified as inconsistent with the current alcohol licensing practice and do not meet the needs of the community.
We have delivered significant measures to tackle alcohol-related harm but we recognised more needed to be done. The Enough is Enough package is currently in the public domain for comment. As Alcohol Policy Minister, I have briefed many stakeholders including the alcohol industry, with the Australian Hotels Association, Australian Liquor Stores Association, down to the level of local licensees; legal professionals; social welfare groups; health professionals; NT Police and other government departments; Indigenous organisations; alcohol reference groups; and the key large supermarket retail chains of Woolworths and Coles.
The Territory government will also host information forums in all major centres throughout the Territory. The package of proposed reforms is out for community consultation and feedback until mid-November. The target date for implementation of these significant and substantial reforms is 1 July 2011.
The Enough is Enough five-point plan is a comprehensive package to tackle alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. It will take problem drinkers off tap and mandate treatment. It is a strong health intervention to help turn around the lives of Territorians and the family dysfunction caused by chronic alcohol misuse.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, these reforms have been built on evidence-based research and on the success of alcohol measures this government has implemented and outlined in this House today. The reform measures are bold and go far beyond what any government anywhere has attempted to do. We believe they will work. We are determined to reduce alcohol-related harm to individuals, their families and our community.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak in relation to the ministerial statement by the Minister for Alcohol Policy. I acknowledge the hard work done by many people in our community on this issue of alcohol abuse: police officers, health professionals, educators, staff of non-government organisations, carers, families, and numerous other people who come under the umbrella of the community. They work tirelessly to try to improve the program. It is interesting because they also are crying out for some help and leadership from the government.
I do not blame the government for trying anything, because what it has been doing to date has not been successful, and here we see another policy initiative. You only have to look at the figures. You only have to look at what is going on in our community and what confronts us on a daily basis. Of course the government needs to do something and needs to be seen to be doing something. What I fear is that this is another spin on what is getting tough on crime.
I will come to that term a couple of times during this talk on alcohol policy, because it is something this government throws out on a regular basis – tough new laws, tough on this, tough on that – but we do not see results. It is easy to stand up and say we are going to get tough on crime, but the government has failed miserably in bringing in results and showing the consequences of those tough new laws.
The opposition and the government approach the regulatory management of excessive alcohol consumption from two different directions. It appears the government refuses to accept that individuals are responsible for their own behaviours. It also refuses to ensure individuals are held accountable; the government refuses to punish those who commit crime under the influence of alcohol and refuses to force treatment on habitual drunks.
The government claims it can control the supply of alcohol to such an extent that every person will be checked for quantity, frequency and outstanding control orders. Public bars, restaurants, home brew, all of these are uncontrolled sources which allow alcohol into the community. It appears the tighter government grips alcohol supply, the more it slips through its fingers.
Law abiding citizens and those who wish to breach orders can source their alcohol from other places, for example, mail order and wine clubs. The secondary supply market appears to be impossible to police outside the immediate area of the bottle shop. For example, will people in their own homes be required to stop issuing alcohol to visitors in fear of being guilty of secondary supply? Is the government proposing the same type of management of alcohol which applies to the trafficking and sale of drugs? The answer is no. It just wants to appear to be doing something.
I am sure there are some initiatives in there which are very positive but, overall, I wonder whether they will have the success the government claims these initiatives will bring. It seems to me that big brother will be watching the average citizen even more and penalising the majority for the actions of the minority.
The minister’s statement says:
- 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol.
I will be seeking a briefing on where we are in alcohol management and I will ask if it is purely alcohol or if it is a combination of alcohol and other drugs. That is important. We see here:
- Last year there were 55 000 incidents of police taking people into protective custody or sobering-up shelters.
My understanding is 36 000 of those were taken into protective custody, and another 20 000 into sobering-up shelters. I am led to believe that in 2008 that figure was 26 000. What has happened? In the last couple of years we have had an enormous increase in the abuse of alcohol. The tough new laws and the previous initiatives have worked miserably.
The government, on their own statistics in this statement, says the Menzies School of Health Research - and I commend the Menzies School of Health, a fine organisation with people who are passionate about what they do and who try to ascertain what is happening in the community - found that alcohol misuse costs the Territory a staggering $642m per year, which equates to $4197 for every Territorian compared to $944 nationally. We have a problem and it is spiralling out of control. Further in the report we see the government has only allocated $500 000 for the educational spin they are going to put on trying to educate people in the public and, I assume, educate people who are problem drinkers, about the ills of pursuing excessive alcohol abuse.
The government says it targets problem drinkers. The target is more the majority of the community which has to wear restrictions for the government failing to tackle problem drinkers. It says the reforms are focused on takeaway alcohol sales because takeaway alcohol sales are consumed in an unsupervised environment. I suggest much takeaway alcohol is consumed by responsible drinkers in an unsupervised environment, and that there is a small number of people in the community who are habitual drunks. I accept there are probably other people in the community who are on their way to becoming habitual drunks. We, as a community, need to help them. There are many responsible drinkers who consume alcohol in their homes, in parks, at barbecues and throughout the Territory, and they do so in a responsible way.
The banned drinker register - and I quote from page 5 of the report:
- … banned drinker register – an ID system at the point of sale - enforces those bans.
That may be fine, however, I ask the government to consider wine clubs - what about mail order clubs? You can ring people and say: ‘I have a credit card or a debit card and I would like to order a box, a carton, a pallet load of alcohol and I would like it delivered’, and you can nominate where you want it delivered. I can ring these people, give my debit or credit card details, and have a pallet of wine, a pallet of whatever I like, delivered to a point I nominate.
For instance, we all know if you drive from Darwin to Palmerston on the Stuart Highway at the 11 Mile there is a fruit vendor - a guy who has been there for many years - nice people - you can ask for your pallet to be delivered to that point and they will offload it from the truck and leave it on the side of the road for you.
What happens when you ban people? People will get around these things as they always do; we have an issue there.
What about home brew? If the person is banned they could be off to Coles or Woolies or some other business which sells home brew kits and supplies. Are we going to have those businesses check the banned drinker register? What about people who are making home brew in the middle of nowhere and supplying other people? These people end up drunk somewhere, lying around. That is an issue, and we will have trouble trying to track where they bought it from, given the state of some of these people.
A problem drinker, under this plan, is someone who has been taken into custody three times in three months - that is similar to our policy, three times in six months; someone who is involved in alcohol-fuelled violence and assaults, including family and domestic violence - not a bad idea; a repeat drink-driver who is under the influence of DUI at very high levels - so what happens when someone who is charged with DUI has an issue? Does that mean the spouse cannot have any alcohol in the house? What happens to the spouse if they know the person is on the banned drinker register and the banned person raids the spouse’s alcohol supply?
Further on it says ‘knowingly supplies’. That is fine. However, it is going to be an enormous task for police to prove whether people knew or did not know. Speaking as an ex-police officer, it is going to be very interesting and challenging to enforce that, especially when you have to go to court and give evidence and prove people knew. There are some major problems with that part of it.
A person can be referred to the tribunal by family members, non-government organisations, police, Health and other agencies. I sincerely hope the government has considered the issues of privacy in relation to people who have a particular dislike for other people. To report someone seems to be another way you can get at them. I hope there are some severe penalties for frivolous complaints and that the tribunal takes those seriously and deals with them.
It says the tribunal will have a range of orders such as alcohol bans and mandatory treatment. I note that the brochure the government put out to Territorians says:
- Mandatory Alcohol Rehabilitation Treatment
The first dot point says:
- Banned problem drinkers can …
I reiterate the word ‘can’:
... be ordered into mandatory treatment or alcohol counselling.
It is an interesting play on words, if you ‘can’ be ordered. I thought ‘ordered’ meant mandatory. I wonder what the government looks at when it says ‘you are ordered’ to do something or ‘it is mandatory’ or ‘you are ordered that it is mandatory sentencing’. Do we have a new interpretation of those two words, ‘ordered’ and ‘mandatory’? It is an interesting proposition.
The statement says:
Once a person comes before the tribunal they will have to undertake a clinical assessment.
What happens to people who are arrested for other offences which are alcohol-related? Will they have to undertake clinical assessments as well? The statement says:
- … the tribunal is not a court, and it is not for those people who have committed a criminal offence.
What happens to those people who have committed criminal offences? The main offender goes to a tribunal and does not receive a criminal offence. If you are a secondary supplier and are, unfortunately, in the wrong place at the wrong time, or you leave your alcohol somewhere, you could find yourself with a criminal record as a result of someone who does not have a criminal record.
Under the heading banned drinker register, the statement says:
- The CLP’s policy on this issue does not have any enforcement capacity. While they state they will declare a habitual drunk they have no means of stopping the flow of alcohol.
If you remove the habitual drunks, say in Darwin the 300 or so people who are consuming this alcohol, and put them in a rehabilitation facility, you are going to see a huge reduction in the flow of alcohol.
If you give police the authority to arrest people for street offences - the government will say, ‘Yes, they already have that power’, and that is great. That is okay, however, when you talk to police officers out there - I know quite a few of them well – it appears they are not being backed up in the courts. The other problem is there is so much work out there - as we see, 58% of all of their jobs are alcohol-related - they do not have time to do the arrests for the basic street offences which are the result of the alcohol abuse and are creating many different and awful situations on our streets which good Territory people have to confront every day.
The reports says:
- In fact - the CLP have on numerous occasions stated they do not support an ID system. Under them the rivers of grog would still flow.
I expect, when other government members stand up, they will hammer the CLP and say we support the rivers of grog, we want to turn …
Mr Conlan: It is our policy.
Mr STYLES: I think I heard them say that is our policy - turn on the rivers of grog. I reiterate what I just said: if you put the people into a meaningful rehabilitation program you are going to reduce the amount of alcohol flowing through the community. It says:
- They are simply not committed to tackling crime in the Northern Territory
I would like to point out that in this House there are four ex-police officers, and they all sit on this side of the House. It is quite remarkable that the government would say the four ex-police officers who have dedicated so much of their working lives to enforcing the law would not be committed to tackling crime in the Northern Territory. I find that amazing. I can only speak for myself and say that as a police officer and detective I was very committed to tackling and preventing crime in the Northern Territory. I stress the word ‘preventing’. I worked in the preventative area for many years. There are many other people on our side who are also very committed to tackling crime, so I find that a little strange.
It says in the statement:
- A person who is banned will not be permitted to buy alcohol.
There are many people who, by law, are not permitted to purchase drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy and speed, but they still do. They get around the problem. We have a major problem in our community with habitual drunks. Our policy is to get these drunks off the street, put them into meaningful rehabilitation, give them some skills, lift their self-esteem, and try to get them back on the road to recovery. There are many people who are in transition to becoming habitual drunks. We believe, with the help of the community and the non-government organisations and service providers, we can turn these people around. It is going to be hard and expensive, but it is something we need to do as a community.
People will get around not being permitted to buy alcohol. If you are on the banned drinker register you go to buy alcohol, you are turned away, you leave, who buys it for you? They will get it. These people are addicted. The minister said the banned drinker register will stop people suffering from alcohol dependency purchasing and drinking alcohol. That is a very bold statement. I want to say that again for those opposite and anyone listening: the minister said banning drinkers will stop alcohol dependent people from purchasing and drinking alcohol. Police officers at the coalface tip alcohol out, people go and get it. I do not see how you can make a statement like that and believe that it is going to work.
The statement says:
- The liquor industry welcomes this tool.
That is, the banning register. I am not surprised the industry welcomes it. The industry has been the subject of systemic policy failures for some years. I am not saying the industry has not contributed to the problem, however, like the minister, I have met with people in the town, with members of the AHA, and a range of other people, and they are also attempting to deal with the issue. There is also the issue of banned drinkers, or people who should be banned, who are consuming alcohol and drugs off-premises then attending premises and creating all sorts of havoc.
I suspect the industry is very supportive of any move which it believes may have any resemblance of tackling the problem, because it has seen a steady increase in the problems on the streets. It is not just the Mitchell Street precinct or other licensed premises I am talking about, it is across the Territory. We have seen a general demise in the situation, and an increase in some of the issues our law and order people and our community have to face.
What we see is tough new laws, but we have seen substantial increases in abuse, assaults and other issues. Health costs have increased. Police resources are consumed. When we look at some of these issues it says ‘can be’, ‘may be’, ‘ordered’ to do various things. When we talk about mandatory alcohol rehabilitation it is a little wishy washy. I refer to the statement:
- Treatment options may include:
I have been on the phone and I have been talking to people and people have been telling me they do not believe it will work. GPs have supposedly been doing this for many years and it is not working simply due to the economics of it. There are people in industry who are making comments about that.
Other things people were telling me in the course of the day, it says here:
- Our primary concern is that it is easy for others to buy grog for banned drinkers.
Sure, we have secondary supply rules and regulations but the problem is when people buy alcohol for other people, it is a matter of proving who bought what. When there are many people sitting in a group there is then an issue of who bought what. For a police officer to ask that bunch of people, who might be severely intoxicated: ‘Who bought this and who bought that’, I expect many people would say: ‘I do not know. I am just sitting here and drinking it and having a good time’. That is going to be a major evidentiary factor in dealing with these issues.
The report states that alcohol misuse costs the Territory $642m a year, yet the government is only allocating $500 000 to the education program. am interested to know what the budget allocation to the rehabilitation side of this will be. I ask the minister if she would enlighten the House. It is something we will be seeking from our briefing.
Other comments made by NGOs:
- The primary reason that people enter rehab is to address their lifestyle and drug abuse issues. The idea of them entering rehab to reduce their alcohol ban because you are getting time off for good behaviour and therefore return to their drinking and violent ways is totally unacceptable.
People have seen this and have asked questions. I will quote one of those questions:
- At what level will a DUI conviction place upon the banned drinker register? Does this mean that if you are convicted of DUI you are not able to purchase takeaway alcohol? Does this mean that, technically speaking, if your spouse or partner buys takeaway alcohol and you have been convicted of DUI then they are guilty of an offence if you consume that alcohol at home under the secondary supply provisions?
An interesting question. Does that mean, for instance, if I am having barbecue at home I have to set up a scanner at the control point in my driveway and scan all my visitors? If they tell me a lie and I provide them, as part as my hospitality, a glass of red wine or a cold beer, what happens to me? How do I check? If they get a bit plastered and they stagger onto the street - I would not let that happen but there may be people who would allow that to happen. I do not know whether you are familiar with alcohol dumps; you can sit and consume alcohol which sits in the upper part of your digestive system and when you stand up it flows down into your stomach and is processed - alcohol is easily absorbed through the stomach wall - and you get a major hit. It is a spike; it may be for a short time, but what if that happens? Am I in trouble? Are those people in trouble? There are many variables which are not covered in this statement.
What if you live at the Waterfront? Apart from having to issue instructions, in pictures, to the kids of your visitors if they want to use the public toilet, you are also going to need checks to ensure you are not supplying people as a secondary supplier. I am interested in how that will be enforced; it is going to be a major challenge.
Other new measures in the statement include the ban on wine casks. There has recently been a ban on two litre casks of mixed drinks. The price of those casks equated to $2.30 for a standard drink, but when you start banning four and five litre casks - what about bottled wine? Is the government going to do something about the bottled wine known as cleanskins? My understanding is the price of those can equate to as little as 20 cents per standard drink. Quite cheap, quite nasty, and I suspect problem drinkers will be attempting to have someone deliver cases of cleanskins to the 11 Mile so they can pick them up from the side of the road.
People may change their purchasing habits - go from hotel bottle shops, local supermarkets and the big retail chain liquor stores to buying over the phone and having alcohol delivered. Apart from the fact it takes money out of the Territory, it does not provide jobs, and this is for responsible people. I hope the government has some way of tackling the issue of preventing people who are banned from purchasing over the Internet or the telephone.
Bans which last for 48 hours through the court process - and they can ban people from an area for up to 12 months: I see in the information available …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. You can have ban after ban; there does not seem to be any criminality or any problem. However, if you are the partner or the flatmate who accidentally purchases alcohol and is convicted of supplying these people - I am not saying it will happen all the time, but there may be cases - that person commits a criminal offence.
There are a number of issues. I would like to go to the brochure which has been sent out to the public, and I quote from that brochure:
- Proposed alcohol reforms to turn off the tap to problem drinkers.
The first point is:
- Why do we need it?
- … people who commit alcohol-related crime will be banned from purchasing alcohol. This system will enforce the ban.
- How does it work?
- Under tough new laws, people who commit alcohol-related crime or antisocial behaviour will be banned from purchasing alcohol.
We have heard you can do that without going to bottle shops, or anywhere in the Territory which has your details on a register which says you are banned. You can get around that because you can use the telephone and the Internet to purchase alcohol. We have seen, under these tough new laws in 2008, 26 000 apprehensions, going up to 2010 at 35 000 - and that was under tough new laws in 2008. The next part of this brochure says:
- What happens to people who are banned?
People who are banned from purchasing alcohol will be required to undertake education and rehabilitation before the ban will be removed. People who attempt to violate the bans, or repeat offenders, will be subject to extended bans and further extension rehabilitation.
There is no facility to handle recalcitrant people who do not want to be rehabilitated. It just says there will be an extended ban and further extensive rehabilitation. It would be nice to know what the government has as a final solution to that problem.
There are a number of issues which need to be covered in this. I know the government is trying to do something about this alcohol policy issue and trying to fix the problem we have in our community. It appears though, after nearly 10 years of this government, not much has improved. In fact, it has become far worse. We have seen statistics go up and up.
The government says the CLP is going to turn on the rivers of grog, we want to open bottle shops earlier, and things like that. I inform the government, the Chief Minister, as the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, is probably hearing one thing - it is interesting because, at the coalface, there is a different request from people who are saying: ‘If you are going to do things, can we please deal with these issues in the day time?’ It is nowhere more apparent than in Alice Springs where people are being assaulted at night. Police officers constantly tell me they have trouble finding the offenders in these instances. They would like to see these places open earlier. There are other issues we can deal with, although the government will say we just want to have extended hours, turn on the tap, and have them literally fall down.
There are some positives - I am genuine when I say this to the government - if you have to open these places, open them earlier so people like police and other service providers can deal with these people in the day time. I hope some of these reforms work because, as a community, we need to have a far better outcome for the next 10 years than the one we have had.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, even although there are many faults in this policy and there is room for improvement, I sincerely hope something will change in the community, although I do not have a great deal of confidence that much will change.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a very important statement for this House to debate because, as we are all well aware, the abuse of alcohol contributes to so much of the violence and dysfunction we see every day in the Northern Territory.
We had a debate in Question Time today in regard to crime figures. The statistic you just cannot walk past is that 60% of all violent crime in the Northern Territory is alcohol-related, and 67% of family and domestic violence assaults are alcohol-related. Tragically, it is predominantly Indigenous women who are at risk of family and domestic violence and the vast majority of those assaults are alcohol-related.
To pretend, as a parliament, a community, a society that crime figures in the Northern Territory are going to improve without dealing with the abuse of alcohol patently cannot be substantiated. If you are not tackling alcohol, you are not tackling crime. It is more than crime. It impacts on health, education, and the welfare of our children. Almost every aspect of society is adversely affected by alcohol abuse, and the cost to our society – these figures come from 2004-05, so I am sure it is more today – is $640m a year. That is an extraordinary amount of taxpayers’ money going into picking up the pieces from excessive alcohol consumption which could go to schools, health, and infrastructure across the Territory.
As police minister, I deal with this every day. Around 40% of all policing costs relate to alcohol, particularly when you go to regional centres: Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy, around 80% of those costs are alcohol-related. They are extraordinary numbers, and if we can get on top of the alcohol issues, we will start seeing significant improvements across the board.
We have established our Territory 2030 plan and target. The target is that, by 2030, we will reduce alcohol consumption to the national average. That will be a very tough task. We do have a predominantly young population, and our young population likes to work hard and party hard, but we have to get messages to every level of the community. We also have a very hot climate. I first came to the Territory as a tradie, and after working in our hot climate there is nothing better than sinking a few cold beers.
The target will not be achieved without tough decisions; it is not about just leaving it up to the individual, this is about debates we have to have across our community, with government taking the lead and making some tough decisions which will not be politically popular. However, we have come to the point where, unless we do something, we will continue to see our society being significantly impacted by the abuse of alcohol.
The reform agenda the minister put forward in her statement today is the most comprehensive in Australia, if not the world; but in Australia, no jurisdiction has attempted the scale and breadth of the reforms we are proposing. People at the front line – police, doctors, ambos, teachers, domestic violence workers, child protection workers, night patrol workers, sobering-up shelter workers – all tell us that you will not combat alcohol without controlling the supply. That is the advice we have received from the front line and the Menzies School of Health Research. Anyone who believes increasing access to alcohol will contribute to reducing the problems flies in the face of all the evidence.
Seventy per cent of all alcohol sold in the Northern Territory is sold as takeaway alcohol, and that is the root cause of so much of the trouble. Yes, we have our problems on premises, but the problems on premises are nothing like the problems we see off premises.
You have to deal with demand to try to reduce demand for alcohol, but if you ignore the supply, you are ignoring the issue. That is the threshold difference between the government’s approach and the CLP’s approach. We believe you have to tackle both sides of this equation; you have to tackle demand and reduce supply.
Our government believes alcohol is a product which must be regulated. It is not a right to be able to sell alcohol. It is a privilege which is licensed and licensees are permitted to sell alcohol under regulations and terms and conditions which the government of the day sets to minimise the harm caused by alcohol. It has to be regulated.
I had a bizarre conversation on Radio 8HA in Alice Springs where the caller and our friend, Mr Renzi, was saying the hotels in Alice Springs which support a particular clientele are doing nothing wrong. Mr Renzi is a friend of mine on Facebook so I understand where he is coming from. He is trying to start some controversy on that radio station to boost listener numbers. It was one of the most bizarre radio interviews I have done in my years in politics - we all have a responsibility here. I stand by the comments I made in Alice Springs because we all have a responsibility. No one has a God given right to profit from people destroying their own lives. We believe people who enjoy alcohol responsibly should be able to continue to do so, but we will take steps to ensure those who do not, those who commit crime or antisocial behaviour or are destroying their own lives, will not continue to have unhindered access to alcohol.
I was listening to the member for Sanderson and the ludicrous assertion that somehow people on the banned drinker register - and if we talk about the thousands of cases of protective custody every year in the Northern Territory - that somehow that demographic of people which, tragically, are so badly affected by alcohol are somehow going to be able to access the Internet and have some sort of dial-a-service is quite bizarre. His argument is to do nothing; we are saying we have to try.
Let us look at some success the government has had in dealing with this alcohol issue in Groote Eylandt and Gove. In Groote Eylandt, since the restrictions were put in place in conjunction with the community there, the number of people taken into protective custody has decreased by 90%. That is an extraordinary number and shows restrictions can work. Everyone remembers what Groote Eylandt used to be like. That is a community which has really turned the corner and is functioning so much better in so many ways.
In Alice Springs, the Menzies report shows consumption is down by 18%; and serious assaults are down by 21%. That means there are fewer people presenting at Alice Springs Hospital because of serious assaults, bodily harm, stabbings and the like. It is more than an average statistic; it is a substantive statistic.
Sometimes there is a debate that the government is picking on Alice Springs and it is asked why Alice Springs has these restrictions when Darwin does not? Alice Springs has, per capita, three times the rate of protective custody and three times the rate of alcohol consumption of Darwin and Palmerston. To say there should not be an increased effort in Alice Springs denies that the problems in Alice Springs are so much more extensive than they are in Darwin. That is not to say we do not have problems in Darwin. These reforms will apply to people who live in Darwin and Palmerston and across the board. To say you should not try things in Alice Springs because it is not fair, you are not doing them in Darwin, does not support the fact there is three times the rate of protective custody and alcohol consumption in Alice Springs. Already, Darwin is higher than the national average.
When restrictions came in they did make some significant improvements. Even with the 18% drop in pure alcohol consumption in Alice Springs it still has a much higher rate of alcohol consumption. The CLP has promised to remove the bans in Alice Springs which would result in over 500 extra 4 litre casks of wine being sold every day. That is a significant amount of additional alcohol which would be sold.
People banned from purchasing alcohol will be free to do so again. I had a debate in this House with the member for Greatorex who says if you allow the bottle shops to open earlier and trade to closing time at night they are not going to make more money. Why would anyone spend money running a business and not profit from it? Why would anyone open their doors unless they were covering their costs and making a profit? Extending takeaway hours in Alice Springs would lead to more alcohol being sold and consumed. Why would a businessperson trade if they were not profiting from the extra hours and covering the expenses they incurred by having their doors open longer.
The CLP criticised me for criticising the practices of some of the pubs in Alice Springs. I have spoken about that and I do not retract my comments. I ask the members of the CLP if they would like their children to drink in these places. I think the answer is no, and if it is not good enough for your kids why should it be good enough for anyone else.
We are intending to introduce the banned drinker register and this is a key difference between the government and the opposition. The CLP are opposed to it, but without it you cannot enforce the alcohol bans. You cannot have a public policy saying we will ban people from drinking alcohol if they commit certain offences or behave in a certain way and then have no capacity to enforce those bans. We estimate across the Northern Territory - Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Darwin - once these bans come into force hundreds of people will be banned, particularly people being taken into protective custody three times in three months.
How will the people selling takeaway alcohol know who is banned unless there is a register? You cannot have a policy position saying people will be banned from accessing takeaway alcohol unless you can enforce it; otherwise it is a Clayton’s ban. Anyone involved in the field will tell you the first intervention with an alcoholic is to turn off the tap. I accept if you have chronic drug and alcohol problems you will do anything to find that next drink, however, you have to do everything you can to turn off the tap.
Mandatory treatment for repeat protective custody is a health intervention. The member for Sanderson asked what you do if people do not access mandatory treatment or if they walk out of it. I suppose you have to try. He talked about there being no criminality provisions associated with this. The government is not going down the path of criminalising alcoholism. If the opposition’s position is to criminalise alcoholism it can argue it, however, this is essentially a health intervention. There are over 300 rehab and sobering-up shelter beds across the Northern Territory. There needs to be many more and we are working on that with the Commonwealth.
We are also working with the non-government sector and the Police Commissioner told me he believes these reforms are the best government policy he has seen in a decade. We are having consultations and I urge all Territorians who have an interest in this area to have their say.
Let us look at third party endorsements for the government’s policy position. Dr John Boffa of the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition has been a critic of our government for quite some time regarding what he believes has been a lack of effort in Alice Springs. At other times he has been supportive; however, he always works off an evidence base. John has said:
- The government has dealt with the alcohol problem as a health problem, as a mental health problem outside the criminal justice system, and they are to be commended for that.
The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT has welcomed the reforms stating:
- orders … for the first time creates consequences for people who have a major alcohol problem …
Given the devastation that alcohol causes in our communities across the Northern Territory then there is an absolute political imperative … to take this seriously. And I think Delia Lawrie has taken the first step to doing that.
Amity Community Services, the NT Council of Social Service and FORWAARD have also welcomed the reforms stating:
- While some of the measures may cause inconvenience to some in our community, we would urge people to accept that this is a small sacrifice to pay for a much greater good …
- Limited restrictions of this kind, coupled with additional resources for treatment and public education, will result in a safer and healthier Territory …
Liz Martin of the Responsible Drinkers’ Lobby in Alice Springs has also welcomed the reform stating in an e-mail to me:
- … these initiatives are a great step forward and, obviously well thought out … I believe they do reflect the wishes of the majority of our community. Well done!
We can have all the argy-bargy we want in here, but that is a significant cross-reference of the community which has applauded the government in the bold steps it is taking.
In the words of Amity Community Services, the NT Council of Social Service, NTCOSS, and FORWAARD, in the spirit of their comments to me, I implore the opposition, in contributing to this debate and their policies in this area, not to pursue the popular politics of advocating and amplifying the ‘inconvenience to some in our community’, and remember it is ‘a small sacrifice to pay for a much greater good’.
Yes, people will be angry at having to show ID to access takeaway alcohol. The system will not record any personal details; it will only contain identification of people who are banned. If you are not banned, nothing changes. It is a small inconvenience to enforce alcohol bans on people who abuse alcohol, cause trouble, or are addicted to alcohol to the significant detriment of their health. If the opposition wants to run a campaign based on a small inconvenience and a small sacrifice, shame on it. We will not be deterred from what we are doing because we do believe it is for ‘a much greater good’.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement forward today. I believe our government is showing significant leadership on the community’s largest problem. Of course this will not fix all of the problems. There is no single silver-bullet solution. But it is wrong to say what we have today in alcohol policy is serving the people of the Northern Territory well. We have to take urgent steps. The government is committing to do so. I urge the opposition to consider these reforms in good faith and, in the event it cannot support them, put forward some coherent policy which has the backing of respected NGOs and clinical groups across the Northern Territory.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I listened intently to what the Chief Minister and the Minister for Alcohol Policy said. It is a very important ministerial statement. The Chief Minister said it is the biggest issue in the Northern Territory. I am not sure if it is the biggest issue; it is one of the broader social issues in the Northern Territory and something which definitely needs attention.
Much reference has been made to Alice Springs in the speeches to date, particularly by government, about the level of alcohol consumption in Alice Springs. When we look at alcohol in the Northern Territory, and alcohol misuse, abuse, and the general effects of alcohol, a key difference is the demographic of people who use and abuse alcohol in the Top End compared to that in other areas of the Northern Territory.
It is interesting to see the media attention to situations or incidents which occur in places like Mitchell Street on a Friday or Saturday night and then see the type of alcohol incidents which occur in other parts of the Territory. I would describe many of the demographics in areas such as Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Springs and other remote parts of the community as being made up of unemployed Indigenous people who fill up much of the protective custody. In my reading, there is a different demographic in Darwin, so we have two issues we are trying to deal with.
I note in the plan there is discussion of the Alcohol Court which was invented by Chris Vaughn, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce in Alice Springs. That is a positive step which has now been replicated in Darwin and government has sought to regulate that approach. As I read through the statement and the five-point plan the government has identified as part of their Enough is Enough alcohol reform plan, I believe there are some very positive moves.
The Chief Minister spoke about how people will become annoyed about having to show their licences, and in Alice Springs we are quite annoyed we have to show our licences every time we want to purchase an alcohol product. If you are going to do it in one part of the Territory, you should do it everywhere. It will annoy people in Darwin, I know, but if the government is serious about this five-point plan and really wants to implement it, it will be a necessity to do.
The concern I have is that this is just a plan, it is all talk, and government will not follow through on the actions within this plan. If you are going to have a banned drinker register, a tribunal and a court process which is going to ensure rehabilitation is mandatory, then the licence mechanism needs to be put in place. I know not all Territorians will be happy with that. However, the problem I have is based on the experience that in Alice Springs the Alcohol Courts have been a dismal failure. Only a couple of dozen people have gone through them over a couple of years and barely a handful of people have completed rehabilitation programs. Nothing has changed on our streets.
While Enough is Enough sounds good in principle, and in principle I support the concept, in reality and in practice, what has been seen in Central Australia has not been good enough. We hear a great deal of commentary, particularly from the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister, about rivers of grog and the CLP’s approach to these issues. I have thought long and hard about this and consulted many people, and I believe it is better to change the hours for the supply of takeaway alcohol. If takeaway alcohol sales started at 10 am, you would not see the rush of people into what are commonly referred to as ‘animal bars’ in Central Australia. You would see people with a more temperate approach to how they purchase alcohol.
At the same time, I have concerns with people hanging around the Northside Shops in my electorate of Braitling. I see people hanging around there all hours of the night while the trading hours continue to 9 pm at the takeaway alcohol outlets. People are standing there waiting to buy more grog, humbugging everyone. It detracts from the aesthetics of the shopping centre, and from the shopping experience of people who go there. It also hurts the small businesses as people do not want to go to the shops because of the disgraceful way these people look, the fights you have to go through, the people spitting, swearing and carrying on, and all the rubbish which goes on at the Northside Shops.
Maybe we should look at opening the outlets earlier, at 10 am, and shutting them at 7 pm at the Northside shops. We do not want to impinge on small business, but we do need to manage these things better. I support the concept of trying to deal with people earlier in the day rather than later at night when it is a more difficult problem.
There has been much commentary about how the government is trying to deal with this issue after the event, after people have developed an alcohol problem, and it is trying to deal with the supply of alcohol on a more continuous basis, rather than the demand. I saw an article in the Centralian Advocate newspaper two weeks ago, commentary about a new grog plan. I do not have the date here; I think it was on Friday, 15 October. There was a comment about how they are now looking at only having alcohol that is 3.5% or less available between 11.30 am and 2 pm in licensed premises. That means if you go into a licensed premises and you want to purchase alcohol you are not going to be able to buy full-strength beer or a glass of wine without also having a meal. That is a very poor approach to policy. That is not going to change the situation in Alice Springs. All it is going to do is detract from the good people of Alice Springs and not the people who have alcohol problems.
If you knock off work on a Friday afternoon at 12 pm and you want to have a schooner of VB at the local club, you will not be able to do that any more. If you want to go for lunch and have a glass of Riesling you will no longer be able to do that. That is not saying we need to have alcohol rights, it is saying you are attacking the people who do not do the wrong thing. You are not addressing the people with alcohol problems, who are chronic alcohol abusers, or the people who deliberately do the wrong thing. You are not addressing the demand side of the equation.
The demand side of the equation is the area where this government continues to fall down in a number of areas. We know the links between housing circumstances and alcohol abuse. We know the links between education and alcohol abuse - education in terms of the schooling system. There are links in a number of areas, but people do not address that. We know we need to send people to mandatory rehabilitation services to try to help them, rather than placing more rules on the good folk of the Northern Territory, which will impinge on their Territory rights, their lifestyle rights, once again. Instead of attacking the good people through this 3.5% alcohol model they are trying to introduce in Central Australia, they should be saying to people: ‘If you are on welfare you should not be drinking’, or they should be considering models like that.
Look at the demographic in the areas outside of Darwin and people who are on unemployment benefits; I am not saying everyone, but the people we see with substance abuse problems are from a very similar demographic. We saw the changes which came through with income management as part of the Intervention, where 50% of the welfare was quarantined. We know people are still utilising their other welfare dollars to purchase alcohol. Let us make these people find a job and get into training.
The best way to stop people from drinking in the middle of the day, and topping themselves up until 2 pm and buying takeaway alcohol is making them get a job. Get them into work, then they will not be drinking. We do not drink at 11.30 am because we have jobs. This is where the government fails in this area.
It is the same when you read the Bath report and take that in connection with the Little Children are Sacred report, the responses are required before the fact. Yes, we have to do things after the fact, which is what the Bath report looks at, however, we also have to act before the fact. What we see with alcohol, education, health, and child and family services is that people need to have appropriate housing; people do not have appropriate housing. The correlation of social outcomes, including alcohol abuse, is quite significant. I have a great concern the government is not looking at other areas; it is only addressing the supply issue.
The ministerial statement today would be a sound approach if it was not only policy and the government was going to implement it and have some real measures. The discussion in this House about mandatory sentencing does not mention being sentenced to rehabilitation to try to improve the circumstances in which you live and take on some personal responsibility. It says you can be sent to rehabilitation services - that is not good enough. The government talks about 300 beds. There are not 300 beds; its annual report says there are only 217 rehabilitation beds in the Northern Territory. We know of those beds for rehabilitation services, the majority have been taken up by Correctional Services because the gaol is full. They cannot manage people in the gaol any more and are moving them into rehabilitation services because they cannot be housed in the gaol, and they are trying to call it a rehabilitation system. That is not the case, and we have not even started talking about the community correction side of things where people who have done the wrong thing are being put back on our streets rather than in gaols.
I reiterate my concerns about the proposed 3.5% alcohol approach between 11.30 am and 2 pm. I am totally against that proposal. It does nothing but detract from the good people of Central Australia. If you want to show some leadership, you should be trying to deal with the people who have the demand issues, who are causing the problems in our community. We know across the Territory, particularly in areas outside Darwin, there is a common group of people who continually do the wrong thing and we are not targeting those people; we are not sending them to rehabilitation. The banned drinker register is not doing anything. It is like youth on our streets, nothing is happening despite government talk.
Until I see action by government in this area, I reserve my opinion on whether I support this approach. It is a significant issue in the Northern Territory; it is good to see a statement on this, and good to see a plan. However, there have been plenty of plans in the Northern Territory where nothing has been done.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister for bringing this on. I will listen intently to the debate throughout the afternoon to see where it takes us.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for his contribution. Having spoken about alcohol and its effects since the day I came into parliament - this is an issue which keeps coming back to parliament all the time - I know it is sometimes impossible to work together as a parliament to look at practical approaches to what is a serious issue across the Territory.
I comment on the member for Braitling’s statement about the socio-economic group we see mostly in the streets, especially in Alice Springs, however there is a high socio-economic group we see in Mitchell Street which also has a problem. It is not necessarily a problem for one group of people in the Northern Territory; it goes across the board.
I have read the minister’s statement. One of the areas the member for Braitling touched on is we have to be a little more holistic. This is generally talking about what can we do for those problem drinkers, and we discuss many issues in relation to alcohol-related violence, however, there are also the health issues. The abuse of alcohol creates huge demands on our hospitals and clinics in the short term. It also puts huge demands on our hospitals and hospice and palliative care staff when some of the damage done by excessive alcohol comes back to a person later in life and, unfortunately in many cases, is the reason they die.
We should not be looking at the cost of problem drinkers just from the point of view they are a nuisance or cause violence. There is a broader range of issues we have to look at, as well as those bigger issues about the effects on families. When we are talking about the child protection report, we cannot leave alcohol out of that. Kids are abused and frightened when parents are drunk. It is not something new; it has been around for a long time. You do not have to be a black kid to be frightened if your parent is drunk and shouting and screaming in the house; you could be any colour. When I was a kid this was something you did not talk about much. I had an auntie, and mum would say in whispers that her husband used to belt her. That was like talking about something which was nearly taboo. These issues have been around a long time and, to some extent, we have to have a cultural change. I do not think that is addressed in this document.
Australians love their beer. We go to the footy, we have a beer. Everywhere we go, we have a beer. In the Territory, we have a beer at the local school fete. When we are standing around with our mates, if we do not have one in our hand in a stubby holder we are not really dressed appropriately. Much of our culture revolves around having a beer. I do not have a problem with that. However, we tend to then produce a society which sees it as being the norm. I am not sure that is a good thing.
You then have advertising companies, in conjunction with breweries, which hop on the bandwagon and we now have a very close relationship in Australia between sport and alcohol. Once upon a time, it was tobacco and alcohol. I am bemused as to why tobacco was picked on and not alcohol. I have said time and time again, how many people have been picked up for driving with a cigarette in their mouth? It has not been the cause of too many accidents unless they cough at the wrong time. Plenty of people have been picked up for drinking while driving. We know that is the cause of many of our road accidents in Australia. How much violence in the home was caused by tobacco? Maybe people got cranky because someone should not have been smoking in bed or something like that. Generally speaking, in many cases alcohol has caused violence in the home.
We have two drugs which are legal in Australia; we banned the advertising of one but not the advertising of the other. It is the other which, in the long term, in the broader picture, causes many more problems than tobacco. I am not promoting tobacco, but we picked the wrong one. We picked one, and not the one we suffer the consequences of.
I am not saying people should not drink, but we have a very clever society today, especially when it comes to the advertising industry. It knows it can put clever advertisements out there. It knows if it can relate to sport it has a captive market. You do not have to look far in major sport in Australia to find out who are the big backers. In many cases, it is the alcohol industry. It knows where its money comes from, and it is going to support it. Perhaps the government has to step in and say that connection should be further apart.
I lived on Bathurst Island; the social club was right next to the football oval. In Milikapiti the social club was right next to the football oval. We took that same type of thinking into those communities so kids who grew up their saw alcohol and sport as being part and parcel of the way things were done. That connection has to be broken. I know alcohol plays a big part in some of our local clubs being able to afford to exist, because through their licences they are able to raise enough funds to keep the clubs going.
The member for Brennan would know if you go to a cricket do in Palmerston or at Freds Pass alcohol is part of the day’s game and that is how they make money. When the Katherine Football Club decided it would not sell alcohol at venues in Katherine, its income decreased rapidly and it found it hard to exist. That is where the government needs to help. We see the healthy side of sport, and we want to promote that, but sometimes with sport comes the ugly side, which is drunken spectators and that type of thing, which does not do anything for families who want to have a nice day at the football.
We still have not touched on some of those issues. I remember talking about when the vodka drinks first came in with all their beautiful colours; the reason they came in lovely colours and were so sweet was to tell people: ‘Look, what a lovely drink it is’. I am not a drinker but I understand that those vodka drinks do not taste like vodka. They are sweet enough to taste like lolly water, but they have a high alcohol content. That was done to get people drinking that product. We still have them on the market; no one makes any noise about them, and yet we talk about young people binge drinking.
Governments have not been strong enough in taking on the industry about more responsible selling and advertising of their product. We put warning labels on tobacco, and we tell you all the harmful things about tobacco, but do we put the same effort into the harmful effects of the abuse of alcohol? Alcohol is a great substance, it is great at a family party, or Christmas party, people’s spirits are lifted and they have an enjoyable day. I do not have a problem with that; I can get that from iced coffee.
Alcohol is part of our society and it is a part of many societies. It is not that which is the problem - it is the abuse. The alcohol industry has hold of that and tried to increase its market by getting young kids more interested in spirits. I do not remember too many spirits being drunk when I was a kid, it was more beer, but nowadays it tends to be the promotion of some of those products.
To get back to the minister’s statement, I have a series of questions which need to be asked, and I will go through them in order of the statement. I hope the minister will be able to explain what some of these police bans are about. For instance, has the government had any discussion with the police regarding police bans? How will they work in practice? Does a police officer just walk up and say: ‘You’re banned, here’s a ticket’? Will police have to make referrals and have a register of how many times a person has already been banned? How much paperwork will be required? Will it mean extra police? Will it actually work? That is the question I am really asking, because I have seen many ideas before. Will it make a difference? That is the key to many of these things - will it make a difference?
The statement says the Alcohol and Other Drug Tribunal, the AOD, would have some power to tell people they need mandatory treatment. It says:
- The tribunal will have the power to issue a range of orders such as alcohol bans and mandatory treatment.
Where would the tribunal get this power and what if the person says they do not want mandatory treatment? Will that person go to gaol? If so, where does it say that because it is not clear - and this is only the tribunal, not the SMART Court mentioned further on.
The next section, Action 2, is the banned drinker register. I know there is politics and the government has stated that under the CLP the rivers of grog would still flow. Can the government show me figures across the Territory, not just in individual towns, of whether the rivers of grog have stopped flowing in their time in parliament? I have seen some broad figures for individual communities, but if I was to take the whole of the Territory could the government put its hand on its heart and say they have stopped the rivers of grog flowing?
If I look around today I do not think things have changed. I think things are worse. Do the figures on people who go to sobering-up shelters correlate with a reduction in the rivers of grog? I am not sure. We need to take some of the politics out because we all, CLP, ALP and Independents, want to see a slowing down of the rivers of grog. You can make cheap shots but that does not achieve anything in this debate. We all need to work together to find solutions.
Whilst banning drinkers in small communities like Gove and Groote Eylandt may work, will it work in larger communities like Darwin or the rural area? People who need grog will find ways around it, especially in larger communities. How difficult will it be to police that? In the rural area there is a pub at Virginia, a pub at Howard Springs, a liquor licence at Coolalinga, a liquor licence at Howard Springs next to the tavern, another liquor licence at Humpty Doo and another tavern, another pub at Humpty Doo, the Noonamah Pub, a liquor licence at Berry Springs, Litchfield Pub, the golf course, and I have probably forgotten others. What I am saying is, in a larger community, who is going to be able to track whether I send a mate up to the golf course to get grog? The ideas may suit certain areas but I am not sure they will suit other areas. Sometimes there is an argument that if something is done in Alice Springs it should be done in Darwin. Maybe it can work in one place because it is a smaller community; it is confined to a smaller area. In other cases it will not work because it is a much larger area.
Who will pay for the scanners? Who will monitor them, especially when they are remote licences? There are pubs out the back of Bourke; who is going to make sure that those scanners are being used properly? People talk about the BasicsCard being the way to control what people buy but I heard a story recently that one store keeper charges people double for beer and smokes, which you are not allowed to buy with BasicsCards, and then uses the BasicsCard to pretend they bought a bag of potatoes. People will find ways around things, which is what worries me. If you are going to have this system throughout the Territory, how are you going to back it up and make sure it is operated correctly?
Does the AHA support the ID system? It mentions in the paper it does. I would like to see more information about how much of it they support and what would happen to people at the coalface when they refuse to serve a banned customer? Is there going to be more cost for taverns and pubs to have more security? That needs to be looked at. Who else will have access to the banned register? Will it be something only the Licensing Commissioner knows about, or will it go elsewhere so people can use it to focus on people who need help?
Will the Commonwealth help? I believe this will cost $6m. I ask whether the Commonwealth will throw some money into this program. After all, it has been involved in the intervention, and one could ask if the intervention is part of the problem or part of the solution. It could be part of the problem. Does the Commonwealth have a role to play because there has not been much discussion about whether the intervention has caused some of the problems?
Action 3 is about the Alcohol Court reforms. What went wrong with the Alcohol Court? The new court is called the smart one - does that mean the other one was a dumb one? A report was done last year on the effectiveness of the Alcohol Courts. Will the SMART Court take up where the Alcohol Court left off? Will it be more effective, because the Alcohol Court went for three years and we have now changed it? My suspicion is it was not effective which is why the government has brought in this new SMART Court. What positive changes can the government show were achieved by the Alcohol Court? We set up an Alcohol Court; it cost a great deal of money, could the government put on the table how many people changed their life through the Alcohol Court? Was it of any use? That is one of the questions we will be asking of the Court.
The other one was banning orders. This is another question which comes from the Alcohol Court reforms. Are banning orders …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan. The other point I want to raise is under Action 3, the Alcohol Court reforms. Is a banning order to stop people from drinking alcohol or just purchasing it? How are you going to stop someone drinking it? That is getting a little hard - someone sitting on the loo having a swish on a beer. You have a fair chance of stopping someone from purchasing alcohol – but to stop them drinking it! Can the existing courts do some of the work the SMART Court will be doing where there is an offence involved? According to this, the SMART Court, which is replacing the Alcohol Court, will deal with people charged with a criminal offence. Why could we not refine the existing system, because it is a criminal offence, instead of setting up a new court? We have the tribunal for people who have not caused an offence, why are people not dealt with normally and if there are issues about alcohol, that court has the right to sentence people to mandatory rehabilitation?
This talks about increased rehabilitation services. I do not have figures here; however, there are many rehabilitation services. Every community has some sort of body with sobering-up shelters or rehabilitation. We even have people visiting who have some new approach to rehabilitation. I would like to see an audit of how many people have gone through these rehabilitation programs and changed permanently.
Are we paying out a great deal of money to rehabilitation centres - God bless them, they try to do a good job - but are they effective? Can I follow the life of Mr A who has been in a rehabilitation centre and have proof that man now has a job, his family is being looked after, and he does not touch the drink?
Before we start pouring more money into increased rehabilitation services, we should have a full and detailed audit of whether the existing systems have done anything. I am not being negative about them; they may have. How am I supposed to make a judgment to support increased rehabilitation services if I do not know the existing ones are doing any good? It should be the responsibility of the government, before it spends any more money, to have its departments, or whoever it needs to, do some in-depth analysis about where rehabilitation services are going so we do not waste money, and we can say we are doing something good for the community.
The government says - and it uses a little quote from the community about rehabilitation:
- The Central Australia Aboriginal Congress has, through the Grog Mob program and the newly established Safe and Sober program, had some success in this area.
If I asked them, could they tell me what ‘some’ means? Were there 10 people who went through the Safe and Sober Program and are still safe and sober? That does not give me much feeling of success, we need more detail.
Regarding awareness campaigns, as someone said to me, how do you get an awareness program out to the people sitting in the park over the road? They have no television and do not read the paper. We need to be specific about who we are trying to target with awareness programs. Not many of those longrassers have a house, let alone a television. How much will the campaign cost? Much as I am not against the existing campaign, it has been going on and on; you can wear out a good thing. If there is one complaint I am hearing from people in my area it is, ‘Take those ads off the television. How much are they costing us?’ You can get your message across, smartly, but you get to a point where it starts to gnaw at you. If you are trying to win friends in the debate about doing the right thing in the way we use alcohol, then ensure you do not turn people off, who start going crook at the government saying: ‘You are spending to much money now. We got the message’. How much the program cost would be a good question to ask at the next Estimates Committee.
Can people tell me whether it was effective? If you are going to spend a great deal of money on advertising companies, spend money to find out if those advertisements were effective. If you are going to spend this much money on advertising, you need to be see whether you are getting the right reaction, otherwise it is not a very good awareness campaign, it works against you.
The other complaint I have heard was that - because I have probably been worn out by the advertisements myself – it is asking people to respond to this idea of a Safe Territory. There does not appear to be any link on the advertisement to tell you how to do it. This person was not to rapt in it; that is why they took notice of it. They wanted to respond to the government’s advertisements, and said there did not seem to be any way you could have your say, unless you lived in Palmerston or Darwin, because they put out a survey. If you live in the rural area, it was a bit more difficult.
Could the government say how many surveys were sent out, how many were returned, will there be an independent analysis of the survey, and will that be released for comment? I know the government has said there were X number of surveys but, when you look at the Menzies report on Tennant Creek it is pretty in that it tells you how many people they rang, how many people did not answer the phone, how many people refused to fill it in. Of those who did fill it in, you can get a demographic of age and gender and that sort of thing. I am interested to know whether this analysis was the sort of detail you get from the Menzies School of Health Research.
If we are talking about an awareness campaign, we keep ignoring the fact that drunkenness is a problem too. We seem to go for this harm reduction strategy, but we never ask: is being drunk a good thing? Is losing control a good thing? It seems that is okay as long as you do not hurt anyone, but is it really a good thing? Kids, go to a party, get drunk, as long as you stay home, wake up with a hangover, that is fine. Are we teaching people that being drunk is a good thing? I do not believe it is, not because I mind people drinking, but because when you reach the stage of losing control, there are many other implications which can occur, especially with young people. We should say to them that that is not the way to go. No one promotes that, no one says anything about it.
I have talked about restrictions in advertising. The government should also look at its own policies in regard to alcohol in government buildings and in schools. Should there always be beer at a school function? Why not just have soft drinks at primary schools? I do not know where the government is with that.
One area we are still mucking about with, we are tinkering with it, you see that in the statement, is Mitchell Street. I have some of that information from Newcastle. Newcastle cut back the hours its main street was open which cut back by quite a large percentage on the number of violent offences and call-outs. The government says, people should drink responsibly, is drinking at 2 am, 3 am and 4 am drinking responsibly? Why can you not drink to 12 am or 1 am, leave the place open for a few hours and people can still enjoy themselves? Surely that is responsible drinking.
Are we too scared to take on the licensees who we gave all the licences to in Mitchell Street? Why do we have to have people drinking that late? It seems to me we are pampering to a few, and are a bit scared to upset the apple cart in Mitchell Street. All we are doing is saying that we will bring in accords; we will ban a few people from here and there. I am not saying people should not drink or have a good time, but why does it have to go that late at night? That is when we seem to have the problems.
We go crook at Aboriginal people in Alice Springs and other communities, and we try to bring in restrictions on them, but who brings in restrictions on the whitefellas in Mitchell Street? We do not do it. We should be tougher. I am not saying people should not have a good time. The plastic glasses and shatter proof glasses are fine, but that is tinkering. We need to cut down the hours. Have a look at the Newcastle example. The minister needs to go to Newcastle to see what has been done there and what the effect has been. We are not tough enough on some of these issues. We are saying be tough on crime, we are saying these things have to stop, but when it comes to the crunch we seem to step back a little and say, oops, too hard, too unpopular. We could do much better.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her important statement. I hope we can work together as a team, rather than nitpicking all the time. We have to solve this problem, otherwise the Territory will have it for many years to come.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Alcohol Policy, and the proposed alcohol reforms in the Northern Territory. No one will deny the heavy toll which alcohol wreaks on the lives of Territorians; the enormous cost to our society and health system, and the enormous cost, on a personal level, to families, relatives, friends and neighbours.
The issue of alcohol is very important. We have to tackle it in a different way. We managed to tackle petrol sniffing, which wiped out communities and a generation of people, and we have done it really well. We have to look at alcohol seriously. How are we going to do it? I heard the comments my colleagues in this House made, from both sides of parliament, about reducing alcohol sales and reducing the volume of alcohol sold.
The reality is that we have to face the real issue of alcohol. Alcohol in Australia is a cultural issue which probably derived from the original settlers in Australia bringing habits from another country. Alcohol is not new to the western culture. Alcohol is celebrated in my own culture, but in a different way. Alcohol has been drunk in Greece from 4000 or 5000 years ago, but it was always part of a celebration, part of a meal. It was not the main ingredient of a party; it was an accessory. In many cases, even today, when you go somewhere to drink alcohol, most likely you go where you have something to eat with it. The majority of the problems started appearing in my country of origin when the new trends appeared in the beginning of the 1990s when premises like nightclubs, bars and pubs became very fashionable. Then the alcohol problems started to mount.
We ask why we see young people drink. If you go to any sport or recreational activity, you will see many young kids holding cans in their hands. They are probably cans of Coca-Cola, Lift or Sprite. As time goes by and the kids get older, that can coverts from Coca-Cola and Lift to VB or another alcoholic beverage. We have to attack alcohol from a very early age by not creating the habit. We need to do things differently so kids do not transition from the cold drink can to a cold beer can.
Alcohol-related harm costs each of us $4197 every year, or a total of $640m each year through death, disease, injury, loss of productivity and costs associated with policing crime. By comparison, the Australian cost per person is only $943 per year. From a health perspective, alcohol is the cause of about 120 deaths per year and the per capita rate is three-and-a-half times higher than the national average. In addition, about 2500 people are going to hospital each year as a result of alcohol consumption, with the corresponding cost for in-patient care of $30.3m in 2004-05.
The cost affects us all, whether we consume alcohol or not. It affects us through stressed health services and child protection systems, and much more personally through the loss of loved ones, family dysfunction and the suffering of those affected by injury and illness, all of which are preventable. The Department of Health and Families is at the front line in responding to this harm: medical officers, nursing personnel, health workers, child protection teams, life care professionals and disability workers, to name just a few, to assist families and individuals affected by the scourge of alcohol.
We recognise reducing alcohol-related problems is a whole-of-government responsibility. The Department of Health and Families has a key role in delivering treatment services for people with alcohol issues and care services providing an intervention for people who are intoxicated. These services support people with all kinds of substances abuse issues; however, alcohol continues to be the main drug of concern for people seeking treatment.
During 2009-10, there were 3742 close treatment episodes in the Northern Territory; 71% recorded alcohol as the principle drug of concern. The majority of treatment services are provided by the non-government sector, while the department delivers specialised alcohol treatment, such as medically supported withdrawal management. There is a continued interest in residential rehabilitation options, or beds, and it is true the Territory population profile and demographics justify a greater focus on this type of service.
Since 2004, we have increased residential rehabilitation treatment beds across the Northern Territory by 107, in conjunction with the Australian government. We now have 293 treatment beds in the Territory. Our government has increased residential services with the Nhulunbuy Special Care Centre. That was constructed and funded to operate a 16-bed residential service, ensuring access to bed-based and out-patient treatment at a time when none had previously existed. The redevelopment of the Aranda House facility in Alice Springs provided 10 additional residential beds for volatile substance and other drug abuse in Alice Springs.
There are eight residential beds for young people affected by volatile substance abuse at the Council of Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services in Berrimah. There are five residential beds for young people affected by volatile substance and other drugs of misuse in Alice Springs; increased resources for treatment services through a fee-for-service model as part of the Alcohol Court; and upgrading Banyan House in Darwin from 17 to 22 beds. In addition, the St Vincent de Paul Society is delivering a transitional after-care services at Bees Creek, providing 10 additional beds. Over the same period, new funding opportunities have been generated through the Council of Australian Government commitments in the Northern Territory Emergency Response. This has resulted in further 49 residential beds for the Territory, operated by the non-government sector with new facilities in Katherine and Alice Springs, specifically an additional 10 beds for women at the new Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Program Unit women’s facility in Alice Springs, the Kalano Community Association Inc Venndale Residential Rehabilitation Centre in Katherine increased its bed capacity from 11 to 20, with 28 proposed new transitional after-care beds in Kalano, and 12 in DHA in Alice Springs.
While not treatment services, sobering-up shelters exist across each region and offer care for approximately six hours to assist with sobering-up of clients who have misused alcohol. The service provides care and protection for people who are vulnerable as a result of intoxication, and plays an important role in the suite of alcohol services to prevent antisocial behaviour in the community. Last financial year, there were over 20 000 admissions to sobering-up shelters Territory-wide, involving 5270 people. That means, at an average, each person was admitted at least four times. New sobering-up shelter services and facilities have been expanded since 2004, and we now have 108 beds. We have opened a long overdue service in Nhulunbuy. In addition, the Australian government has funded the Department of Health and Families to replace the ageing facilities in Katherine and Tennant Creek with new, purpose-built, larger sobering-up shelters. I look forward to reporting to you about the opening of this new service in the near future.
As well as bed-based services, there have been other opportunities and innovative approaches to support people to address their alcohol problems. The Prison In-Reach program, delivered by the Department of Health and Families, is providing assessment, counselling, and group work programs to adults and young people in the Darwin Correctional Centre, the Don Dale Juvenile Detention Centre, and people on remand.
The hospital-based intervention project delivers screening, brief intervention, supported withdrawal management and referral support through the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals. Seven alcohol and other drug workers are operating out of our remote health centres. There are also 18 funded alcohol and other drug workers located in Aboriginal medical services across the Territory, all of which make up the remote alcohol and other drugs workforce. There is a Safe and Sober initiative in Alice Springs which was developed collaboratively by local treatment agencies and funded by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs through the Alice Springs transformation plan. There are a number of outreach programs delivering outreach therapeutic interventions, case work, and after care for people in town camps affected by alcohol. FaHCSIA has allocated resources of $5.4m over four years to seriously address this critical issue.
Extensive and creative training programs are provided by the department and support a student load of about 1100 to undertake Certificate III and IV and Diploma level training in alcohol and other drugs. All alcohol and other drug program training is free, and available for staff and volunteers of all services in the Territory who work with clients who may have alcohol and other drugs issues.
Of particular relevance to our alcohol reforms is the national accredited training in brief interventions developed by the Department of Health and Families in 2004. This program was so successful it has since been adopted as a unit of competence in the national Community Services Training Package. The course is offered as a four day participatory workshop via external mode through completion of a workbook and assessment task. The delivery can also be tailored to suit the needs of Indigenous clients or other service requirements. Over the last three years, 370 students completed this course from the alcohol and other drug sector, primary health and mental health services, Indigenous organisations, supported accommodation services and government agencies such as Northern Territory Police and Northern Territory Corrections.
While these are some of the efforts and investments vested in supporting treatment and treatment access, they are in no way all of it. There are many long-standing alcohol services and dedicated health practitioners in the Territory tackling an ever growing number of clients who are increasingly sicker, more damaged and more complex. They have spoken with me about the chronic effect of alcohol dependence, urging a much greater investment in treatment services and for radical changes in the approach to prevention by targeting those at greater risk of harm. The alcohol reforms do that by giving credence to the view that specific approaches to problem drinkers are needed and must apply to all people with alcohol problems equally. They recognise, for many people, not drinking for a period, even a long period in many instances, is both appropriate and necessary.
The proposed alcohol reforms are now subject to public consultation and provide an opportunity for a significant new growth in alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services to be considered and negotiated. The reforms also provide for new pathways and options for those people most affected by alcohol to be referred to treatment, either through incentives arising from banning notices, through referral following an assessment from the tribunal, or through the SMART Court.
The Department of Health and Families is working closely with key stakeholders in determining the scope and locations of expanded treatment services and developing new models in areas where treatment access has been very limited, such as remote towns. We are also working on more engagement with primary healthcare services such as GPs and Aboriginal medical services to provide brief interventions to their patients, counselling for patients to seriously consider the impact their drinking behaviour is having on their health and the opportunity to do more about it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in recognition of the very real cost of alcohol-related harm, propelled by the petitions from those on the front line, I stand in support of the alcohol reforms and commend the courage of the proposed approach.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was wondering whether I would speak at all because, as I heard a couple of other members say, we seem to be talking about this all the time. I am certain I have made similar statements at a variety of times over my many years in this parliament.
What we discuss in here is in the presence of a group of drinkers which I saw just before the lunch break and, then, during the lunch break. There were about 15 of them happily drinking in the park in full view, without any concern whatsoever. Some had made the effort to conceal the liquid they were happily drinking. They were sitting on the ground on little mats and were in a very happy group. They seemed to have a bottle of lemonade which was red in colour. They had not gone to much trouble at all and, on the sandstone bench was a bottle of Cooper’s Sparkling Ale. It was sitting in full view with no concern whatsoever. I was greeted as I walked past. Perhaps they thought if I had a bit of time on my hands, I could sit down with them; such was the lack of concern. Yet, we are concerned and we speak about alcohol-fuelled violence and all the problems entailed in this matter.
I find it a bit silly if we talk when we cannot face the challenges we have within cooee of this parliament. We say all sorts of things but they have no effect on those who are simply unconcerned. It was quite an amazing thing to see; to see the stark contrast.
I recognise the government has travelled a considerable distance in their thinking, moving from the left. The left’s view is it is society which is at fault. We need to feel sorry for individuals and to try our best to reach out to them and do all we can, with all manner of programs, to change society, because people are not responsible for themselves. That is the view of the left, and we have seen that approach taken by Labor over 10 years which has resulted in what we have within cooee of the parliament; those who have no concern because they expect the left will be providing increased funding for a range of new programs.
Government, in the 10 years, has recognised the policies and the thinking of the left result in social disaster. Now, we move to a more conservative view where individuals are required to accept personal responsibility. It is commonly called the tough love approach; if you care for someone - as some may even consider in their own families if someone has a drinking problem - there comes a tipping point in the family where intervention is required which may be against the expressed will of the person who is in need of serious help.
We have that tipping point in our community now, and that is why I acknowledge the government has changed its language. It has come so far but will not cross that bridge because still there is the lingering evidence of the battle between the left and conservative values contained in this brochure. The constituency is largely conservative. They know individuals are responsible for their actions. Most families and people who take responsibility for themselves expect others to do the same. They expect certain values and standards to be upheld and defended. Most people are instinctively conservative. So when you put out a brochure such as this, it sends all the right messages, and most people think yes, that is right, good stuff. Alcohol abuse causes crime. Yes, and enough is enough, that is what many people are thinking. It ticks all those boxes. The focus groups would have confirmed that. You only have to tune in and listen.
Then it gets to banned drinker register; that is good. Then it talks about mandatory alcohol rehabilitation treatment, which is where we have the problem. Mandatory is compulsory. That is what I understand, and what anyone else would see mandatory as meaning, such as mandatory sentencing. There is a dreadful, lingering battle within the organisation called the Labor Party, Labor government. Those of the left are saying they have inserted a pivotal word ‘can’; banned problem drinkers ‘can’ be ordered into mandatory treatment. The picture which is being painted, which is exactly what the community is expecting of us, is brought down by one word, ‘can’, which erodes the creditability of the whole proposition.
I acknowledge there is significant movement in the right direction to remind people we, as a society, cannot make any progress unless we hold individuals responsible. They may need our help, but first they need to be reminded there are certain standards which need to be defended; those standards are more important than the individual. Once we recognise that, we move to point two, which is to intervene and provide some help, but that comes secondly.
That is why the Country Liberals have described policies, which I remain committed to, and which are a serious investment in a program which does exactly that: number one, defines and defends community standards and, number two, holds individuals responsible and, in the assessment of their capacity to be responsible, never exempting a person from being responsible. It is so undignified to send a message to someone that they are not in control, they have no responsibility. My dog does not have control, but human beings do, and it removes their dignity if you suggest to them they are not responsible, society is. That is the wrong message to send to any human being. They are responsible, and that is a message of dignity to a person. If you are having difficulty, let me help you up, but you cannot exempt them from responsibility. So the word ‘can’ is a slap in the face to a very fine and noble sentiment the community is expecting and is undermined by that word.
I will not say any more, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have said enough on this.
Dr Burns: What about your policy? Let us hear about that.
Mr MILLS: Our policy has been described again and again.
Dr Burns: I am interested in it again.
Mr MILLS: I am not going to stand again. I have had enough of standing in this parliament and describing the types of programs which are necessary to put in place. I am saying you have basically adopted the position which was described in 2008 by the Country Liberals, and I commend you for that. If you remove the word ‘can’ and replace it with ‘will’, the whole process would have integrity; that being, ultimately there comes the point, as in the Country Liberals position, if you are taken into protective custody three times in six months you are required, no ifs, no buts, no possibilities, to embark on a program of treatment. If you choose not to, then you are required, without any ifs or buts, to enter into treatment, which is a prison farm where there would be rehabilitation delivered to you. That is the end of the story. Now, it is …
A member interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, exactly, but it requires a significant investment and moral courage to go down that path. It has been described again and again, and if the honourable member on the other side, for the sake of the exercise, would like to have it all wheeled out again and explained to him, I think he is being disingenuous. He knows exactly what I am talking about.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, goodness knows how often we talk about liquor in this place. I am going to try something different. I am going out on a limb here, but I will do it anyhow. I want to talk about my personal experiences, because it is well known around the traps, in fact it is well documented in the newspaper of this fine jurisdiction, the Northern Territory News, that I am a man of sober habits. There is a reason why I am a man of sober habits: I was once a man of very unsober habits. I want to give people a bit of a world view of where I was and why I had such a strong influence on the policy of the Country Liberals in relation to alcohol abuse in this community.
I remember my first alcoholic drink; I was five years old. My father was a new immigrant to this country and had some work to do at the new Darwin River Dam at the time. I was five or six, and Mrs Van der Beek, who was also a family friend, decided to give little Johnny a beer. It was only a little Carlton Draught in the bottom of a cup; it was out of one of those old steel cans with the seam up the back. I did not even like the taste of it that much, but I wanted it to change me. That is my strongest memory of that event. I remember the events in detail, the liquor, the cup, everything.
I wanted it to change me and I believe from that day onwards I had an alcohol problem. I sought it out on every possible occasion. I was a slave to it, and whilst I was not a regular drinker from the age of five, by the time I was 13, I was. I stole most of the liquor I drank; I certainly could not afford it. While I was stealing that liquor, I would sometimes steal money to support that alcohol habit. I became more isolated and the growing feelings I had from that personal experience were feelings of insecurity, isolation, remorse, doubt and an excruciating resentment. Moreover, I started to demonstrate some of the classic symptoms of people who use and abuse alcohol and drugs, particularly the mood swings, the ones where you were up, hundred miles an hour, change the world, last there for a couple of hours and the next four days, you were in a deep, dark, awful place.
I managed to stumble into the police cadets, I bullshitted my way - sorry, well, seeing I am not being asked to withdraw it, I will leave that word, because it is true – through the interview and I jagged it. I was just downright lucky. I became a police cadet and by that stage, I was drinking maybe once or twice a week - binge drinking, really off the planet. I would drinks spirits, because spirits would get me drunk more quickly. I sought it out on every occasion. In the last couple of years before I stopped drinking I went to a very dark place.
Honourable members are probably not aware of a thing called an Accident Report Form. When you are a police officer you have to do an A4 tick and flick sheet at every accident. I do not know if you still have to do them. My brain had become so scrambled I was incapable of filling out those forms effectively. I remember getting one back which had about 10 red circles on it because I did not have the capacity to concentrate long enough to fill out a simple form.
The police force’s response was to do what all good public servants did in times like that, and possibly still do, I do not know, they gave me another job. They stuck me in the radio room. I continued to turn up to work. I did not miss much work with my drinking, but there were times when I turned up to work and I was drunk. At this stage, the feeling of isolation which was my life was profound.
I wonder if members could get a sensation of sliding down a tapering tube and towards the bottom of the tube you were coming to a point where you were becoming suffocated and the more you struggled the more you slide down that tube. That was very much the sensation I had every single day - a non-ending feeling of guilt, shame and even remorse at times when I had no reason to feel remorseful. I showed all the resentments, attitudes and ghastliness of mind and spirit which are attributed to a drug addict of any sort.
I do not believe there is a major difference in the forms of addiction or the chosen drug, be it heroin, alcohol or whatever. My drug of choice was alcohol because it was easily available. I sought oblivion, I suspect, in the same way a heroin addict seeks oblivion. The motivation is the same.
By the time my drinking was over I had had hallucinations. I had had delirium tremens. I often found myself standing in front of the toilet wondering which end of myself I should point at it first. I ended up having an episode in which I should have been arrested at the casino. The casino did not prefer charges. I made a complete fool of myself; I fell out of the air-conditioning system because it had entered my mind while I was walking down Mindil Beach that I could somehow get past the air-conditioning system. By the time the police arrived I was in such a bad state no charges were offered or preferred and I was taken home.
That was 29 September 1986. My memory is not as sound as it should be, there are bits missing, which had much to do with the fact I already had two bottles of Bundy under my belt since that morning. When I woke the next day I was confronted by a police sergeant, who will remain nameless, and was told, in no uncertain terms, my police career was over. I was scared, frightened and alone.
I want to wind the clock forward 24 years. I went to the back of Natasha Griggs’ office recently and sitting at the back door was an old dero. He had passed faeces into his shorts. His sinuses had given way so there was at least 150 ml of slime sitting in front of him. He had clearly wet himself. Yet he tried to engage me in pleasant conversation like: ‘How are you going, mate?’ If he had not been in such a state of denial I would have called an ambulance; he was that sick.
What separates me from him is I choose not to drink today. The difference between someone like that and someone like me is a choice which is made, and it is not a choice made by government. Government cannot make people’s minds up for them. The most totalitarian states in the history of humanity - Pol Pot was not capable of making people’s minds up for them. That wonderful free country which exists between every individual’s ears can be a heaven and it can be a hell; however, it is capable of making choices.
Today I walked into Bennett Park and despite this government’s best efforts - I believe genuine efforts and genuine desires - the tsunami of need which is washing up against the very doors of this parliament is unaddressed despite the best intentions of the people opposite. The underlying presumption which rests with the people opposite is society is the vehicle which carries responsibility for these people who are victims. In the eyes of the people opposite, had they been the intervention back on 30 September 1986, they would have told me it is not my fault, it is not my responsibility; that the decision to drink was the consequence of my child abuse, or of a less than perfect home life. That is what the members opposite would have told me. While they would have said I needed help – that much was clear to anyone – the underlying presumption is the message which would have come through to me is it was someone else’s responsibility to fix this.
Fortunately, what I was told by a certain sergeant - which cannot be repeated in this place because the decorum of this House would be seriously upset, I can condense his message into a single point: ‘You are responsible for what you do; you fix it’. That message resonated with me and, despite the awful place my head was at and despite the fact I was shaking and sick, I heard it and I sought and got help. To those people who assisted me through that process, I am eternally grateful.
Fundamentally, the one principle, the threshold which was met at this point, was I had made a decision to turn myself over to a different style of thinking. I did not know what it was going to be. I was not what you would call the most rational person. It was not like an epiphany; I was still a confused mess. But, I did know one thing: I no longer wanted to be that which I was. I wanted to be healthy. I did not care what healthy was and if at that point the cure for my malady had been, ‘Stick a petunia in your bottom and run up the mall naked’, I would have said: ‘Give me the phone number of the nearest florist’. I was that desperate.
A policy of government which seeks to bring about behavioural change in individuals must confront those individuals with the responsibility they have to themselves before anything else. If you try to water down, or in any way temper the reality they must fix their own problem - that they are the source of the fix of their own problem, primarily, and from that they can form themselves into a vessel in which good information can be poured - you will be pouring water over a rock. The information will just simply roll off the sides.
It is for this reason I suspect this policy government is suggesting will fail. It seeks to introduce a mandatory behaviour after you have been brought into protective custody so many times. I agree with that. But, ultimately, where is the intervention? These people breach these orders. These people are habitual drunks. These people are drug addicts. An order will be something they wipe their bottoms with. We know that, in spite of the fact our policy has orders.
Our policy recognises this truth. When those, only 300-odd, people who are the real frequent flyers through our system come to the system the government is proposing, the government will stick an order on them and they will be expected to get treatment. They will even say mandatory treatment: ‘You will go and get treatment’. So, off they go and ignore that order. Then, they have breached the order. Where do they go next? Do they go to your tribunal or to a court? What does the tribunal do? The tribunal says: ‘You have to do an order’. Ultimately, there has to be a court-based sanction which leads to incarceration.
Under the policy proposed by government, your drunks will be put into gaol. There will be no information, from what I can make out, in that gaol for these drunks. I do not much care if your policy or our policy on this side of the House gets drunks into gaol. That is the ultimate sanction; that is where both of our policies are going to put these frequent flyers. We will just do it more quickly. It is the quality of what they receive at the other end. The treatment programs must draw these people into sharp relief within their own mind’s eye so they can see themselves for what they are. I know, even after three months, in our policy some of them will get out of bed one morning, be released, and the first thing they will do is drive into town, or catch a bus into town, and get back on the turps. If that is the case, they end up back in the system and they start all over again.
There is a three month window, which is why we put a three month mandatory component into breaching an order in the structure we are suggesting, it is in that three month window, in a low security thing - an addict off their drug who is sitting in a compound near Katherine, is not going to need a great deal of security. Ninety-nine per cent of them will be compliant, and those who are not can go into the big house. But, while they are there, that is where you have your window to intervene. And you do not say: ‘Oh, you are a poor little person who needs a new sense of direction’. The message has to be clear: ‘The buck stops with you, sunshine. You are buggerising up your life, your opportunities, family, and your chances in the community you live in’.
I am enormously grateful to that police sergeant who read me the riot act because, one, I was ready to hear it, and I suspect most addicts are not, but more than that, he gave me the message when he said it is not society’s fault, it is not the system’s fault, it is not an existentialist post-modernist deconstruction of Catholicism and Christianity’s fault. It is simply this: the buck stops with you.
That is what made the difference in me. I do not know whether I am going to drink again in the rest of my life, but I can tell you, I will not be drinking any time soon. I know that what separates me from the gutter is, perhaps, the first drink. In fact, I suspect one drink would be one too many and a thousand would not be enough. I know this much: as long as I continue to practice spiritual principles, check my psyche, check my motives, and be grateful for the blessed gift I have been given of a sober life and clean life, that I am able to make something useful of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I see potential in every drunk I see in the park across the road but I cannot force them, as a member of this House, and government cannot force them as an institution, to realise their actual potential. That has to come from within. All we can do is construct a system around them which will make that decision the easiest option for them. Once it becomes the easiest option, it is the option they will choose, God willing. Some of these people you will never reach. We bury them every day. We stick them into body bags, they pass silently from this world with no one to mourn them, but I believe most individuals, when confronted with the reality of their life and their own responsibilities, they are the ones who can be rescued.
Whilst I truly appreciate what the members opposite feel about wanting to get involved - it is a beautiful value, a worthwhile value, and a value I respect - ultimately, you have to make these people responsible for themselves. They have to land on their arse. That is where their rescue is, it is at the bottom of the pit. If we can get them to the bottom of the pit where they are prepared to make that decision for themselves quicker, so much the better.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for Port Darwin on being a survivor of addiction. I enjoyed that reflection; however, there were many parts that I disagree with. The bottom line was, survivor of addiction, and addiction can be deconstructed in various ways, but it has the basic bottom line.
I will share a bit of my childhood while I have the opportunity. I will recount an interesting anecdote. At 7 am, being prepared for school, with good food, a uniform, a supportive family which is going to give me the keys to survival, there was my father at the kitchen table with a couple of long necks of Tooheys Pilsener. Anyone visiting our house would think that man had a problem. However, what they did not know was that man had been up all night keeping Ansett jets in the air and engineering the most modern avionics in the country. He was a shift worker and he chose to have his couple of beers after work, which on occasion meant he was sitting at the breakfast table at 7 am having a beer while I was having Weet-Bix, juice and toast.
From there I would go to Lakemba Railway Station and there I took great interest in the metho drinkers who sat in the bus shelters. The metho drinkers were very interesting characters and I learnt a great deal of Australian history from them. They were the same metho drinkers, they were in the same camp every day, and had the same behaviours. There was a big difference though, between my father at the breakfast table at 7 am and the metho drinkers in the bus stop at the Lakemba Railway Station. There was the difference of addiction. They had their stories, they had their excuses, but where the member for Port Darwin and I agree absolutely, it is about helping ourselves. Only you can help yourself in times of addiction.
When I chose to come to the Northern Territory, I chose to come to a land which had no fences. I chose to come to the last frontier. I see that the Territory is growing up and it is growing up in the same way as I lived through in New South Wales. The Territory is experiencing the same growing pains. I congratulate our government, I stand and support the Minister for Alcohol Policy, and I support this policy in the Territory because we are continuing the journey of growing up Territorians.
One of the differences, avoiding the excuses of the metho drinkers, was that both camps had choices, but there was a big difference in education and awareness. There was a huge difference in understanding the behaviour which led to, in most cases with the metho drinkers, offending behaviour.
Enough is Enough is a good term. It is also a package and a significant milestone for the Territory. It is directly aimed at the problem, at the offending behaviour, in this case, at the problem drinker. It says we, government and Territorians, have had enough of the high rate of alcohol abuse and alcohol-related crime in our community. Yet, if I choose to go home to my roots and to link up with friends in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, who have done very well, they are facing the same problems.
If we talk about Mitchell Street in this debate, they are facing the same problems at the Coogee Bay Hotel, where the disposable income is quite grand. These are the same issues. As parents we talk about the same issues and we get back to the same point, we have to address the behaviour. We have to base it on education and awareness; we have to base it on choice.
The figures relayed by the Alcohol Policy minister should be unacceptable to us all. Sixty per cent of domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related. Sixty per cent of all assaults are alcohol-related, and we drink at 1.5 times the national average.
When I came to the Northern Territory 30 years ago, apparently the statistics showed we even outdrank the Germans. It was the Wild West, and it was clear something needed to be done. Today, our government is continuing that journey. Strong action needs to be taken to change the story for the benefit of Territorians.
The five-point Enough is Enough package contains the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in the Territory’s history. They are the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in our nation’s history and the minister is to be commended for the development of these landmark reforms. I welcome these initiatives, including the ID system, which are aimed at the problem drinker.
Enough is Enough is not operating in isolation, it has not come from nowhere. Government has delivered significant alcohol reforms across the Territory, including takeaway restrictions and Alcohol Courts. However, we know there is more to be done and this package builds on that. It compliments the policies and initiatives which are in place.
As the minister for Corrections, 72% of prisoners say their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. As we know, the Territory has the highest rate of recidivism in the country - 47%. The Territory’s correctional services have a role to play in addressing alcohol abuse and its link to crime. Alcohol programs in our prisons are currently delivered by both Corrections and external providers - the Health department’s In-Reach program in Darwin, and the Safe and Sober program delivered by Central Australian Congress in Alice Springs.
In July and August, 73 prisoners participated in the alcohol program run by Corrections. In Alice Springs, 114 prisoners were treated by the Safe and Sober program in July and August. From January to August, 113 prisoners were given treatment through the In-Reach program in Darwin. Last month, I was pleased to join with the Chief Minister in announcing a five element, $68m package to deliver the new era in corrections.
In response to the member for Nelson’s concern, does this guarantee a person will be safe and sober? No, we live in a democracy; we do our best. In a correctional services environment, we have several opportunities in a very regulated, structured environment to ensure we have maximum impact. However, upon release, that person is released into a democracy; that person is released into choice. That person has a choice between work and a beer after work, or metho in the bus shelter. Some things have not changed.
This government is about doing the best it can. The new era in corrections is delivering a stronger focus on rehabilitation, education, and training to break the cycle of reoffending and support offenders with the tools to choose a better path in life. This is vital.
As part of our new era, the government will introduce tougher sentencing options for the courts. New community custody orders and community-based orders will give courts the power to order non-violent and low-level offenders into rehabilitation, education and work programs. This is a very positive move forward. We are working with the justice sector, and this will make a difference. Importantly, the orders will be supported by the recruitment of an extra 31 community corrections offices across the Territory.
To further support the new court orders, the government will fund additional alcohol and drug treatment beds to be operated by non-government organisations, building community capacity and bringing more people on the journey to address alcohol-related offending. Five beds will be built and funded in Alice Springs, 10 beds will be built and funded, and an additional five beds funded for a total of 15 beds in Katherine. A further five beds will be built and funded in Darwin. Construction of these additional beds is to commence in 2011-12, and I look forward to seeing them rolled-out. It will mean a significant boost to the alcohol and other drug sector to deliver residential and outreach programs.
Another 20 beds will be delivered with the establishment of a multipurpose supported accommodation treatment centre in Alice Springs adjacent to the gaol. This will bring the total investment in alcohol treatment beds to 45 extra beds under the new era in corrections, getting offenders into treatment. These beds will be for people who are mandated into treatment, and will also offer opportunities within the community, like the member for Port Darwin outlined, for people who choose to go into treatment, who have made a conscious decision to change the situation in their lives, and their families’ lives, which is ruining opportunities for both.
The multipurpose centre in Alice Springs will be operated by a non-government organisation and will deliver alcohol and drug treatment. Partnerships with the non-government sector will be essential in delivering stronger alcohol rehabilitation programs with our correctional system. These programs will be supported by the construction of the new Darwin Correctional Precinct, which will have dedicated training space for education, awareness and rehabilitation. The Doug Owston Correctional Centre will have capacity to deliver programs in a way which is not possible at the outdated Berrimah gaol.
As the Minister for Transport and the member for Barkly, I spend regular intervals on our roads. I understand firsthand the realities of staying safe on our roads, and how taking simple steps like putting your seat belt on can make all the difference in an accident. I have been on the journey in the last 30 years, and I have witnessed people riding in the back of open vehicles, not wearing seat belts, where people have been drinking and driving - not only being drunk behind the wheel, actually drinking while operating a motor vehicle with people in the motor vehicle and in the back. The Wild West, once again. We have come a long way from those days, but it so important we keep on this agenda. There is so much more to be done.
It saddens me when I hear a serious fatal accident has been caused, and a Territorian’s life damaged or lost, by something which is totally avoidable; that is, the decision by someone to drive after they have been drinking. Statistics show, from 2003 to 2008, there were 13 756 instances where an offender was sentenced by the courts for drink-driving offences. The most common drink-driving offences were high-range offences, 42%, and mid-range offences, 41%. Police advise that of the 31 fatal crashes in 2009, 19 involved alcohol. Some things have not changed in those 30 years, which means we have much more to do. This government has taken the reins and we are moving down the path.
Unfortunately, the Northern Territory has the highest rate of custodial sentencing in Australia for driving offences - about 25% of our prison population. More police are solving more crimes and, therefore, imprisoning more people in our Correctional Services institutions, and half of those people are imprisoned for drink-driving. That is why government is working to address driver behaviour to challenge this culture of drink-driving.
In April last year, this government’s new alcohol ignition lock laws came into effect. The alcohol ignition locks were new technology for the Territory and aimed squarely at repeat drink-drivers. The measures built on the driver’s licence disqualification theory, giving courts power to impose a mandatory licence disqualification period along with a period of time when an offender must drive on an alcohol ignition licence. Drivers who choose the alcohol ignition licence have an ignition lock fitted to their car and are only able to start the car if they pass the ignition lock breath test. An alcohol ignition lock licensee must only drive a vehicle with a device fitted. If they do not apply for an alcohol ignition lock licence, and fail to install the device in their vehicle, they will remain disqualified.
I remember being scoffed at in this House about AIL devices. I have a few statistics here. As of 15 September 2010, the courts have imposed 1123 AIL periods, comprising 68 for six months, two for nine months, 926 for 12 months, four for 15 months, 81 for 18 months, one for 21 months, 34 for two years and seven for three years. This is the challenge, the choice, an opportunity to change addictive behaviour, offending behaviour. If you want to come on board and directly attack your addiction, then you can make application and be back on the road with an AIL device fitted. You can show society you are responsible …
Mr Elferink: How many devices have been fitted so far?
Mr McCARTHY: As the member for Port Darwin said, not a big take-up rate. That shows the challenge we have in the Northern Territory, which is obvious to all of us in this House and in the community. I have many constituents in my electorate who share their stories of alcohol abuse and the terror they have to live with due to the affects of alcohol abuse.
We are talking about addressing offending behaviour. We are talking about the psychological effects of people becoming educationally aware of their offending behaviour. Offenders become eligible to apply for an AIL once they have completed their mandatory disqualification period and successfully completed the drink-driver education course; three steps to show our community you are seriously addressing your addiction. As of 15 September 2010, 84 offenders have become eligible for an AIL. Ten of these offenders have elected to apply for an AIL licence, and eight have had the AIL installed; eight Territorians who have directly ‘fessed up, faced up, and are now, in a community sense, publicly demonstrating they want to change their addictive behaviour.
Earlier, I mentioned the new 20-bed supported accommodation and treatment centre, to be constructed in Alice Springs as part of the new era in corrections. With about 25% of the prison population made up of driving offenders, government is determined to address this offending behaviour through education and rehabilitation in prison. On average, these prisoners serve 75 days in prison which can make it difficult to access prison-run programs. Instead of sitting around in gaol, we want these drivers to head into treatment and driver education. We want these offenders to leave having completed alcohol treatment programs and with valid learner driver permits.
As part of the new era, the supported accommodation centre will deliver an intensive driver offending program with targeted education and awareness about alcoholism, drink-driving and offending behaviour - structured days to deliver structured outcomes. Courts will be given the power to order driving offenders facing imprisonment of 12 months or less into the new program, which will include alcohol and other drug treatment; drink-driving education; a mechanical workshop; and driver licensing training.
Over many years, Tennant Creek has developed a reputation for alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, and a number of policies and programs were trialled to address the problems. Regulations were imposed on the community by people living outside the community and, to be honest, what I saw most was problem drinkers finding a way around the regulations, following the grog. It is important to note, when we talk about Tennant Creek and the unfortunate stigma people have attached to it, that it is a region and, as a service centre, is directly impacted by people from all over a geographic region twice the area of Victoria.
Our elements in this policy are not only addressing the town of Tennant Creek, but also the region. The minister has it right, when we talk about the flow of grog, people following the grog, and ensuring these initiatives capture the whole package, and do not just focus on certain elements …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank honourable members.
That is why I believe the Enough is Enough package delivers a real opportunity to tackle alcohol-related issues, including crime, because it turns off the tap to the problem drinker.
The introduction of an ID system, a Territory-wide banned drinker register, will put the brakes on the problem drinker travelling from outlet to outlet, community to community, following the grog. It will eventually impact on the punters in Bennett Park, as described by the Leader of the Opposition, and in the bus shelter at the Lakemba Railway Station – and I could go through a long list of other venues. It is targeting the problem drinkers. One by one, they will be forced to face their issues and their addictions.
The penalties for knowingly supplying someone on the banned register with takeaway grog are also important because they provide support for family members to say no to the humbug, to say no to the pressure to buy grog for banned drinkers.
In 2008, the government, with community support, introduced the Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan. It identified a range of strategies and issues around key areas of reducing alcohol supply, harm reduction strategies, and demand reduction strategies. Leading organisations in town, including the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation, NT Police, Department of Health and Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group, established working partnerships to reduce the harm of alcohol in Tennant Creek. Seventy per cent of alcohol sales in the Territory are takeaways and this is the root cause of so much alcohol-related harm.
As part of the alcohol management plan for Tennant Creek, in March 2008 the licensing commission announced restrictions on trading hours, restrictions on the sale of products such as cask wine and fortified wine, and bans on the sale of large quantity products such as long necks and wine casks larger than two litres. A licensing commission officer was also appointed to Tennant Creek and the community has got behind the changes. For example, no alcohol is sold at football matches at Purkis Reserve. What a great challenge! In Tennant Creek, we took up that challenge and we delivered it. At our annual show the bar area is cordoned off so families can feel safer, particularly children, and there are low-alcohol products sold on that day. These are just some of the small steps implemented through the alcohol management plan.
The Menzies School of Health Research has recently released its independent evaluation of the government’s Tennant Creek Alcohol Management Plan and other measures to reduce alcohol-related problems. According to Menzies research, alcohol consumption has dropped by 4.5% in Tennant Creek since the introduction of the alcohol management plan in 2008. That equates to 2760 litres of pure alcohol or 163 565 cans of heavy beer, no longer being drunk in Tennant Creek. That is a massive change in the community and a change for the better. Menzies also found that since the introduction of the alcohol management plan, alcohol-related assaults have dropped by 24.8%, and incidents of antisocial behaviour have dropped by 27%. Presentations to the hospital emergency department are down by 36%.
One of the most telling findings of Menzies research is that 84% of the people surveyed supported the declaration of Tennant Creek as a dry town and the majority of people also supported all the restrictions on takeaway alcohol trading. That is what bringing a community forward with reforms is all about, that is what this policy is all about. This policy takes us further on the journey of addressing the offenders and the offending behaviour.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are united on this side and I am sure those on the other would quietly be united with us. We are united in wanting to address the harm caused by alcohol abuse in our community. The Enough is Enough package delivers reforms which target the problem drinker. There have been some great steps forward in this journey and there are many more to come with this policy, a policy from the Henderson government. I commend the minister for the statement in this House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, reading the statement and listening to the minister speak about alcohol policy and reform made me think of the 25 or 26 years I have been in the Northern Territory and how often I have seen alcohol as an issue over the years – including 10 years of a Martin/Henderson government and the former CLP government. It appears to me none of the programs have given us the desired effect and left us in a terrible situation. I quote from page 2 of the statement:
- Alcohol misuse continues to be scourge on our community, families and Territorians.
The statistics paint a stark picture and point to the level of alcohol crime in our community:
This is a report card of how the Territory is 10 years after a Labor government and a former CLP government. Some of the figures quoted of the amount of alcohol consumed in the Northern Territory I suspect, to some level, have to do with our wonderful tourism industry. People come to Darwin and, like most holiday destinations, chill out, have a few drinks and perhaps drink more here than they would interstate. For goodness sake, we have the weather for it. People can relax, sit back to watch the sunset and have a Chardy or two or a beer. I wonder if the policies we introduce time and time again, government after government, really get to the crux of the problem.
The problem is problem drunks, and I cannot stand by and let legislation, policies, and programs be introduced where the target audience seems to be everyone. Not everyone in the Northern Territory is a problem drunk. Do we have a few? Damn right we have a few, and they are the ones we should be targeting with any legislation, any program. The problem with most policies and programs I see today is they are not thought out from the ground up. They are thought of from an office up too high, above the clouds in some cases, and because they do not have the mechanics to work on the street, they fall over. When I worked for the Darwin City Council on the Public Places Program, we worked with the Northern Territory Police to deal with some of the antisocial behaviour and drinking which occurred in our suburbs. Was it a successful program? With the resources they had, yes, it was, but it only moved the problem.
The problem with councils in most jurisdictions is they are complaint driven. When a complaint is made by residents to a council or the police about a group of itinerants, or whoever, sitting in a park causing problems, someone is expected to do something. With the Public Places Program, unfortunately, with the resources it was given, quite often the problems were not addressed. They just moved into an area where people could not see them and therefore there were no more complaints. The problem was not solved; the complaints were solved.
This is the crux of this program and perhaps the many programs we have had in the past - they fail because they do not work at the street level. Consideration has not been given to how you follow through on many of these recommendations. Much of it will be down to the police officer on the street who has to intervene because someone has reached that position in a program. Unless there are enough police on the beat and enough places for the police to take these people to, to address their problem, we are not going to deal with this. We will be here in another five or 10 years talking about the same thing previous members have spoken about every year this House has been here.
On the front of the statement it says:
- … a number of Territorians are drinking at unsafe levels and their alcohol misuse is having a significant impact on the wider community.
I agree with that.
We have deliberately targeted these reforms at the problem drinker.
No, you have not.
- The majority of Territorians will not be affected.
They will be affected every time they attempt to buy alcohol because they have to produce identification. If someone turns up to a bottle shop who is a reasonable, healthy person who enjoys a social drink from time to time, and does not have some identification on them, they will be treated like a criminal. They will not be able to buy alcohol because they do not have identification.
All the things you speak of today would work if the proper resources and mechanics were put in place to ensure they happened. I have worked in enough government departments to realise that sometimes the programs introduced are not given the time to work. They fall over at the grassroots level. They fall over at the coalface where there are not enough resources to deal with them or back-up facilities to support those people on the ground. What happens is statistics do not improve, so rather than spend more money on resources and focus on the problem, governments decide to have another focus group. ‘Let us get some more consultants in to develop a new program and start the process over again’ - and we go around and around.
For goodness sake, let us focus on the problem; let us focus on the drunks who are causing the problems for the decent people living in the Northern Territory. It does not matter if it is in Mitchell Street, Katherine, Alice Springs, or any other place. We have sociable and reasonable people who enjoy a drink. I enjoy a drink, but I do not do the things you see some of these idiotic people do. That is where you should be focusing programs; not on trying to blame the whole community for a small minority in the Northern Territory. That is where the focus should be.
It says here:
- In 2008-09 59% of police work was alcohol-related.
That is where you start to think where some of the focus or resources should be. Some of the programs which have been developed in the past - probably from this government and previous governments - would work if the resources were in the right area. We are focusing on the wrong thing. Because something has not worked a little, let us develop a new one. When that does not work, let us develop a new one. When that does not work, let us call in a consultant and develop a new one. Put the resources where they need to be.
There was one thing which really angered me when I read this statement:
- Although this government has done more than any other Territory government and any other Australian jurisdiction to reduce alcohol misuse and alcohol crime and antisocial behaviour we recognise that more needs to be done.
How in the world can you come into this place and say that? How can you make a statement like that when you see the result? A couple of pages earlier you said 60% of assaults are alcohol-related, 67% of domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related. Let us go back through the Northern Territory News and other media outlets over the years. You can go back further than 10 years. I am not just blaming this government but previous governments as well. Have look at the reports back then. We are dealing with the same problems here today. To come in here and say you have done more to reduce alcohol misuse is absolutely wrong.
It goes on to say these reforms are targeted at the problem drinker. I disagree. Not everything here is targeted at the problem drinker. The mechanics you introduce are mechanics you will find very hard to enforce. The time of police officers and other people who are required to deal with these problem people will be taken up with the process rather than dealing with the issue.
I wrote down a question earlier about how the program could work when Joe Bloggs can buy drinks for his friends. I could be buying drinks for two or three different friends. I do not know they have been banned from alcohol and, all of a sudden, I could find myself in trouble. But, I do not think I would find myself in trouble because there are not the resources to deal with every person who goes into a bottle-o or other premises to purchase alcohol in the Northern Territory. You would have to follow every person who goes out - when they drive home, whether it is to drive to a motel, to drive out camping, or go boating. You would have to follow every person to ensure they have not purchased alcohol on behalf of someone else. It is not possible with the resources of this government, even if you doubled the money. Even if you doubled the police officers, it is not going to be enough to enforce that part of the program.
That is where I get frustrated. We introduce programs which you hope will work from the point of view that, if you do enough advertising, people will be scared and think, oh, we cannot do that. The reality is people do not work like that. We are a strange beast. How successful was prohibition in America many years ago? If prohibition was tried in the Northern Territory would it work? I do not think so.
Humans are very resilient; they will get their alcohol no matter what practices you put in place. I applaud anyone who is trying to do the right thing. I know the Labor government acknowledges there is a problem. I also acknowledge it is trying to do something right. If this side of the House could support a program which is going to work - I do not think you would have any objection from this side of the House if it could be demonstrated it is going to work. What is the problem? It is just another program which we have had before, and before that, and before that.
There are many things within this report I would like to speak on. One is the Enough is Enough package and the five-point action plan. I will only speak about a few of them. The banned drinker register - whilst I understand and appreciate the intent of what it is trying to achieve, I do not think there will be the resources to back it up and make sure it works 100%. If someone has been banned, yes, the system will work for that person who goes in and tries to buy alcohol, and is told: ‘Sorry, mate, I cannot serve you’. That will work. Where it will not work is when that person tries and fails; they will be resourceful and will find ways of getting their alcohol. ‘Adam, mate, could you get me a carton of beer, because I cannot, because I am banned’. I am not going to tell anyone that I am banned but I am going to ask someone to get that alcohol for me.
Another example was brought up earlier. I could be having a barbecue at home and three, four, or five people are coming over, and I decide to do a drinks run: ‘Does anyone else need some drinks?’ Absolutely, Joe needs some, Fred needs some, Turk needs some - Turk will need a lot. The problem is I am not to know whether any of those friends of mine have been banned. If I purchase alcohol for them and take it home, how has that helped the situation?
The Alcohol Court reforms: we have had them. I know you have renamed them. It is a SMART Court now; it is not going to be like the Alcohol Court. How successful has the Alcohol Court process been? There is no reason it should not have been successful, because we have plenty of alcoholics who should be going through that program, plenty of people who have caused enough antisocial behaviour in the Northern Territory to have that court full every single day. How many people have gone through that process? I know how to fix it, let us rename it. Let us call it the SMART Court; that will make all the difference because it is a smarter court.
The only thing which has been successful is the money you have spent on the awareness campaigns, because they are everywhere. There are stickers in the mail box, there are television advertisements on time and time again, and as the member for Nelson pointed out, enough is enough with the advertisements. You made your point, but how often does the local itinerant sit in front of a television and watch these advertisements? How often do these people read the newspaper? Some of them might, unfortunately, have to sleep under them, but how often do these points need to be made before enough is enough when it comes to the money spent on the advertising?
It says here:
- Under these reforms, we will ban problem drinkers.
How are you going to ban problem drinkers, given there are no mechanisms in place to handle the number of people who will probably go through the system. The issue is that the process is going to take up most of the time to manage, when that time, energy and focus should be on the people you are targeting. If someone is antisocial, if someone has a serious problem with alcohol, let us give them the help they require by putting them away where they cannot get alcohol and can receive the support they need. Perhaps, and this is the killer here, the member for Braitling is right, these people do not have jobs, let us find them jobs.
We have heard the Chief Minister speak today. There are going to be 4500 new jobs in the Northern Territory in the next four months. We have many people who do not have jobs and, as the member for Braitling pointed out, perhaps they would not be drinking as much if they worked. I am sure the economy will support it.
It says here:
- These bans will apply across the Northern Territory, including in places where significant alcohol restrictions already exist, like Alice Springs and Katherine.
How are things going there, member for Katherine?
Mr Westra van Holthe: Not well.
Mr CHANDLER: They are saying by extending this across the Territory, they are going to fix it, like they fixed it in Katherine.
Mr Westra van Holthe: That is right. Like the 8600 drunks locked up in Katherine in calendar year 2009.
Mr CHANDLER: Working very well there. Member for Braitling, how is it working in Alice Springs? Working wonderfully - they say they are rolling it out across the Northern Territory because it works in Alice Springs and Katherine - absolutely ridiculous. It says here:
- In practice, this means that if you are a banned drinker in Alice Springs you will also be banned from accessing alcohol anywhere in the Territory.
As I said before, humans can be very resourceful. It reminds me of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, there will be phone a friend, ask the audience, dial a drink. How are going to stop people obtaining alcohol if that is their wish? You will not.
These bans: first ban, second ban, third ban, three months, six months, 12 months. How are you going to enforce them? How are you going to enforce it when you will not have the resources to support the mechanisms to put these people through programs which are going to keep them away from alcohol?
It talks about the tribunal and says the:
- … administrative systems will be released for comment later this week.
The minister stood here and roused at the CLP for its policy which does not have an enforcement capacity. Yet, you come in here and talk about the things you are going to do, but you do not have the administrative systems in place for us to debate, or for us to know how you are going to do it. You may have addressed half the mechanisms which I have an issue with because I do not see what those mechanisms are. The administrative systems will be released for comment later this week. How are we supposed to have an informed debate in this House when you release half the information? You may have the answers; I will sit down and shut up.
Until we see those administrative systems, how do we know whether this system is going to work? Do not come in here and criticise our policy because you think we have overlooked something! You have done exactly the same thing in your own policy.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said before, the new court, the SMART, Substance Misuse and Assessment Referral Treatment - I wonder what the brief was to come up with that, where was the focus, was it on the name? Let us be really smart here and come up with a terrific acronym which is going to make all the difference. What is the cost of changing the name of the Alcohol Court to the SMART Court? Department changes, name changes, things like that, must cost governments across the country a fortune.
The awareness campaign: I appreciate the advertisements on television. I assume you are trying to target the Mitchell Street mob, the people who get out of hand with too much drink, too many drugs, and cause problems on Mitchell Street. Perhaps you may hit some of that target audience with the television and newspaper advertising. However, we have another generation out there, white and black - our itinerant population who rarely have a chance to sit in front of the television.
Nothing in this program provides the mechanics to deal with what you are trying to achieve. No one on this side of the House is going to criticise a program with the capacity to improve things and make a difference. I just do not see it in this program. Look at the results of the last 10 years, even governments before that. We are talking about exactly the same things we were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago. I am sick and tired of the focus in government circles where we continue down the road of looking to fill time by making new programs to make it look like you are doing something when it does not achieve anything.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my worry is policies and programs worked out at in an office rarely work on the street. The mechanics do not add up, and is too often why programs have not and do not work. I worry we will be debating this subject in another 12 months with you, the government, introducing yet another program. I ask you to watch this space because we will be debating this subject in the future. I only wish when programs are developed they be developed in consultation not with highly paid consultants from around the world, but with police officers, regulatory officers in local government and the people who deal with the issues on the street. When you understand the mechanics of what they do you will introduce programs which will work from the ground up; not try to work from the top down.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Alcohol Policy’s statement, Enough is Enough - Proposed Alcohol Reforms. In early September this government took new action against alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. The Enough is Enough alcohol reform package announced by this government contains the most comprehensive alcohol reforms in the Territory’s history and the most comprehensive in the nation.
The majority of Territorians enjoy a drink safely and responsibly. A night out enjoying a drink with friends, or a beer or wine with dinner, is part of the great Territory lifestyle. It is something we all enjoy together. However, a minority of Territorians who choose to drink at unsafe levels are having a significant impact on the wider community. That can happen anywhere. It can happen in the bush, in regional towns, and in Darwin. I remember when I first arrived in Territory in 1988, Cavenagh Street was the old Mitchell Street and had 6 am closing. You can imagine the condition people were in at 6 am and the violence and brawls. Almost a nightly brawl occurred; it was a rough and tumble place then. It has changed; society has changed also.
It is amazing that 60% of assaults are alcohol-related, 67% of all domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related, and a staggering 72% of people in Berrimah gaol have been convicted for crimes committed under the influence of alcohol.
The level of alcohol-related deaths in the Territory is three times that of the national average. Alcohol-related hospital admissions are more than double the national average. About 60% of police work is alcohol-related, particularly responding to alcohol-fuelled assaults and domestic violence. Not only do Territorians drink at high volumes, the way in which we drink is risky and harmful, with Territorians binge drinking at twice the national average. This, ultimately, causes a significant cost to our community.
When it comes to problem drinking, we are saying enough is enough; we need to stop this harm. That is why we have deliberately targeted these reforms to turn off the tap for problem drinkers; to stop the violence and antisocial behaviour. The majority of Territorians will not be affected.
As the Minister for Business and Employment, I know the business community wants action taken to make our streets safer for both locals and visitors to enjoy a night out on the town, and we are working with industry to implement these initiatives. The Minister for Alcohol Policy mentioned further amendments to the Liquor Act have been made when it comes to the liquor accords. These changes strengthen protection for industry concerning unfair trading and national competition policy issues.
It provides a greater incentive for the liquor industry to work together to develop accords to address alcohol-related issues. Accords are in place in Alice Springs, Darwin, and Tennant Creek. Activities include multi-venue barring, voluntary restriction on products and pricing, and the introduction of agreed codes of practice. It clearly shows industry is on board in our fight to tackle problem drinkers. Many businesses in our community rely on the income from our tourism market, and the benefits of a thriving night life. When the safety of the community is put at risk by problem drinkers so, too, is our local business community. As the Minister for Alcohol Policy outlined in her statement earlier, the social and economic costs of alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory is far too high. More than damaging to business, problem drinkers can cost the taxpayer in a major way.
Across the Territory last year there were 54 000 incidents of people taken into protective custody due to alcohol misuse. We know from research undertaken by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies for the Menzies School of Health Research, the total cost of alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory was estimated to be more than $640m. That is more than $4000 per adult in the Northern Territory, which is more than four times the national cost per adult of $943 ...
Mr Tollner: Who told you to say this, Rob?
Mr KNIGHT: Having a drink is part of the Territory way of life, member for Fong Lim. Harm to our community and the members in it, through drinking, is not part of that way of life.
This government has a long history in undertaking alcohol reform and is committed to taking tough action to reduce alcohol-related crime, antisocial behaviour, and alcohol misuse. These important changes build on the work already undertaken by this government. In 2004, the Northern Territory government released the NT Alcohol Framework. The NT Alcohol Framework was a comprehensive plan for alcohol reform. Much has been achieved since the release of the framework. One of the most important achievements of past reforms has been the implementation of regional alcohol management plans across the Territory.
The alcohol management plans are developed between the community and government to respond to specific alcohol-related issues. For example, Groote Eylandt has experienced significant success through its alcohol management plan. Since 2004-05 to 2008-09, antisocial behaviour incidents in Groote Eylandt have decreased by 74%, property crimes have decreased by 68%, protective custody incidents have decreased by 90%, and the level of aggravated assaults has also decreased by 68%. Importantly, the alcohol management plan has also seen attendance at work improved among employees at the local mine ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Maybe rather than sitting here for the next 15 minutes listening to the minister read this onto the record, he can table the document and do us all a favour, and we can get on to another speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat, there is no point of order!
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like all members on the other side of the House, member for Fong Lim, including – or perhaps you should put your thoughts on paper before they come out of your mouth - we all prepare speeches and read them to ensure we get the facts and figures right …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. We know you had six years in the federal parliament.
Absenteeism for Indigenous employees dropped from 7.8% in 2004-05 to 2.4% for the 2005-06 period. Another important outcome of the Groote Eylandt Alcohol Management Plan was the massive reduction in commercial break-ins. Since the implementation of the plan, commercial break-ins have decreased by 79%. As the minister for Business, I am proud to say the reforms of this government have helped make private enterprise and community stores safer, stronger and more secure.
In the past, some local businesses have been repeatedly targeted for break-ins. The cost of alcohol abuse to these businesses from property and theft was considerable. Consider the difficulties and time spent in putting through insurance claims, only to have to go through it again in a matter of days. It is not surprising some of these businesses would consider pulling up stumps and taking out their valuable regional jobs with them. That is why the reductions in commercial break-ins achieved through these alcohol management plans are such an important part of sustaining the employment and operational security of Northern Territory small businesses. The most recent data for the 12 months to March 2010, compared to the 12 months to March 2009, shows a reduction in commercial break-ins of 7% across the Territory. Most significantly, commercial break-ins in Darwin are down by 7%; Palmerston has seen a reduction of 39%; and Alice Springs is down 21%. This is great news for businesses.
The government has made good progress in these areas, but there is more to be done. Government is now seeking to build on these accomplishments by developing an alcohol management plan for the Darwin/Palmerston region. The Darwin/Palmerston region encompasses our capital city, two central business districts, and the Mitchell Street strip with its many restaurants, bars and late night venues. These cities contain a number of large and small shopping centres, as well as indoor and outdoor recreational areas, and a number of licensed outlets, both on premises and takeaway. It is envisaged that the alcohol management plan for the Darwin/Palmerston region will help reduce the alcohol-fuelled incidents which impact on small business owners who operate in areas which contain licensed venues.
The Northern Territory government has also introduced precinct legislation to target individuals who cause alcohol-fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour in and around late night venues. Problem drinkers will be banned from the precinct and issued with on-the-spot fines. These reforms, along with existing initiatives and strategies to combat alcohol-fuelled crime, will help ensure Northern Territory small businesses can continue to operate in safe and secure local communities; a healthy local business market means a healthy and robust economy for all Territorians, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: As Minister for Young Territorians, I know the problems drinking can cause young people. It is an issue raised during the Youth Round Table discussions. The lure of the nightclub and pub strip, member for Fong Lim, or to drink alcohol can be tempting for young people before they turn 18. It is difficult to overstate how far we have come in the battle to stop underage drinking since this government embarked on its agenda of comprehensive alcohol reforms compared to previous governments, which were happy to turn a blind eye to underage drinking. Under the CLP, underage drinking and inexperienced drinkers could be served drink after drink, well beyond their safe level of intoxication, often by a bartender who had no training or responsibility in the safe service of alcohol.
The safety of our young Territorians has been a large driver behind the ongoing comprehensive alcohol reforms of this government. As a parent, there are few things more terrifying than receiving a distress call in the early hours of the morning from one of your kid’s friends saying they do not know where your son or daughter is.
Thanks to this government, it is now mandatory for everyone serving alcohol in a licensed venue to have undertaken the appropriate Responsible Service of Alcohol training to work in the industry. The establishment of the drinking register and the installation of ID scanning systems will go a long way towards preventing problem drinkers. They will also help in the fight to eliminate underage and excessive drinking.
Liquor inspectors regularly attend licensed venues to ensure compliance with licence conditions. Police, security guards, licensees and inspectors will now have the authority to seize any suspected fake identification. Critically, it is now an offence to use a false ID to attempt to gain entry into a licensed venue or to purchase alcohol. Just as importantly, it is now an offence for a person to alter ID in an attempt to appear older than they are. It is an offence to loan someone a genuine ID for the purposes of entering a licensed venue or purchasing alcohol. When found, illegal IDs must be forwarded by the licensed venue to the Director of Licensing so offenders can be prosecuted.
We have introduced fines of up to $1000 for people found guilty of using a fake ID, or up to six months in prison. If caught more than once, offenders can face a fine of $2000 or 12 months in prison. It is a strong deterrent. To help make young Territorians aware of these changes, an education campaign is under way in Territory schools in which licensing inspectors educate young Territorians about the risks associated with using false identification to purchase alcohol and tobacco products.
School liaison inspectors are also working directly with the parents of underage Territorians found using false and altered identification to educate their children about the seriousness of their actions. Direct engagement with young Territorians is one of the key ways to help keep our youth informed of the dangers of excessive drinking.
In 2009, a Youth Round Table made up of youths between the ages of 15 and 25 called for more youth targeted advertising campaigns to help confront alcohol-related issues. This government responded. The Henderson Labor government launched the Championship Moves advertising campaign. The Championship Moves campaign has been heavily promoted across television, radio and the Internet to provide safe-drinking advice to young Territorians, as well as a list of helpful hints about other youth-friendly support services. Feedback from the youth community is that the campaign has been well received and is reaching more young Territorians. In 2010, the Youth Round Table also raised the issue of alcohol-fuelled violence and, in particular, the issues surrounding excessive alcohol use in the city.
As we have already heard, alcohol is the principal driver in crimes such as assault. In 2009, 60% of all assaults were alcohol-related. Initiatives like late night 3 am lockouts, CCTV cameras in city hot spots, use of plastic cups in some late night venues and the establishment of a secure taxi rank have all helped tackle the problem of alcohol-fuelled violence in the city. We have introduced a $133 on-the-spot fine for troublemakers as well as bans from the newly designated pub district precinct to help deter potential troublemakers.
For many young Territorians, enjoying a night out in the town is a big part of growing up. However, we need to ensure when they go out, they can do it safely, away from violence. The impact of problem drinking on young members of the community is too great. That is why the Northern Territory government has announced a five-point plan which will ban problem drinkers from being able to purchase and consume takeaway alcohol. Takeaway alcohol makes up 70% of alcohol sold in the NT. Most of the harm caused by alcohol arises from excessive consumption of takeaway alcohol.
This five-point plan turns off the tap for problem drinkers; it impacts on those in the Territory who drink irresponsibly. In addition to these reforms, wine casks and wine-based products in containers larger than two litres will be banned from sale across the Northern Territory. These products provide high-level alcohol in large containers at a cheap price and are the drink of choice for problem drinkers.
I congratulation the Minister for Alcohol Policy on her work with the industry to remove cheap, bulk, premixed vodka products from shelves in the Northern Territory and out of the hands of problem drinkers. Cheap, sweet tasting, premix drinks have proven to be popular amongst young drinkers, and the bulk sale of such drinks can encourage excessive alcohol consumption. This government is committed to taking the necessary steps to encourage responsible and safe consumption of alcohol amongst legal-age young Territorians. We are committed to protecting young Territorians from alcohol-fuelled violence and the interest and wellbeing of young Territorians has been a key driving force behind these reforms.
We want to hear from the community about our package of reforms. The community can provide feedback through our 1800 number, and through the website or e-mail. Written submissions will also be accepted. An information leaflet with a tear-off survey has been sent to households across the Territory …
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time to allow my colleague to complete his speech, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Stakeholder presentations and discussions have also taken place across the Territory. We need to take the community with us, and the community wants a response to problem drinkers. Government, industry, the community and individual Territorians will all need to play their part in reducing the unacceptable level of alcohol-related harm in the Territory and the consequent high cost of alcohol abuse in the Territory.
I congratulate the Minister for Alcohol Policy on these reforms. It is a very serious issue for all sectors of the community and all parts of the Northern Territory. I am looking forward to these reforms rolling out, particularly in my electorate where people chase grog all over the countryside. To have someone banned in one of the remote parts of my electorate and not able to go to any bottle shop in the Northern Territory to get alcohol is a big win for me. It is a big win for job creation, giving those people who readily get alcohol, member for Fong Lim, on a frequent basis - gives them time to think about it. These are good reforms.
I met the people who developed the ID system; it is being used down south. It is being used in the nightclub strips and has been highly successful. People want it. It is a great thing to do and I hope it has results.
Madam Speaker, we will keep working to reduce alcohol abuse. This is a response to a changing society and we are trying to protect the community from this small segment of the drinking population which causes problems.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Legislative Assembly Sitting Dates 2011
Legislative Assembly Sitting Dates 2011
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a copy of the 2011 Legislative Assembly sittings dates.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
National Broadband Network –
Cost-Benefit Analysis
National Broadband Network –
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Braitling:
- Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance: the importance of government to detail a cost benefit analysis on the National Broadband Network to ensure Territorians achieve value for money on service and delivery.
Adam Giles MLA
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr Knight: You look at your notes. He is looking at notes.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: Do not worry, member for Daly, I will be showing you what is in front of me. You will see my goodies.
This is my first foray into ICT - the world of ICT in my new portfolio. I thank my good colleague, the member for Drysdale, for his outstanding work in covering this for the last couple of years. Now, I have the opportunity to talk about it. I did not think I would be talking about it so soon. The humorous adventures of parliament last Thursday in Question Time forced me to do something about it.
I have known about this anomaly called the National Broadband Network for some time. I have heard about it. It is a bit weird for many of us; we are not all technocrats, we do not all understand it. Getting our feet in there and trying to understand it is always going to be a challenge, but it is always going to be a fun adventure. I thought I learnt a great deal last Thursday when I sat here in Question Time and listened to those dorothy dixers - the most educational process I have seen for a while. I will go through a couple of them. The member for Nhulunbuy asked the Chief Minister:
- Can you update the House on why it is so important to the Northern Territory that the National Broadband Network is rolled out as soon as possible?
The Chief Minister said:
- With the NBN every home, every business, every school, every doctor’s surgery will have access to faster, affordable Internet access, and it is not just faster.
It is interesting when you look at the NBN and see exactly where it is going to go. It is not going to go to every school, every doctor’s surgery or every part of the Northern Territory.
Then we got on to the next question from the member for Arafura to the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy. I am pretty sure this is the one which really made me laugh. You will hear it when I get to it:
- Can you please update the House on what the National Broadband Network means for Territorians in the bush?
Before I give the answer to that question I will go through some of my research notes, member for Daly. I have a map here. I will not table it because I will have to research it again. It is interesting for those in this Chamber who can see, there is a little map here. Everyone can see the dots. There are just a couple of them where the NBN is actually going. For those on camera, we have a dot on Alice Springs, a dot on Katherine, a tiny little thing which looks like a dot on Nhulunbuy, and a few dots on and around Darwin.
Those look like the places where it is going to be. So, I did some research and found a list of locations where the NBN is going to go. There are pages, lists and lists, of where it is going to go. Queensland and NT cities and towns - this is optical fibre. Let us go through the Territory ones: Alice Springs, Darwin, Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, McMinns Lagoon, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Palmerston, Robertson Barracks, Tennant Creek, Tindal, Virginia, Bees Creek. That is it. Everywhere else is Queensland.
Surely, they must be doing something else because, under the Coalition’s previous plan in 2007 and 2010, we had all this wireless technology. I thought, surely, there is going to be some wireless stuff rolled out as part of the plan. Sure enough, there were more communities on wireless. Forgive me if this takes me a while to get through; it is a very exhaustive list. This is Queensland and NT cities and towns Next Generation wireless. I will start with A and go all the way through to Z. It will take me a while. Here we go: Amoonguna. That is it.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: That is all; that is all they are doing. It took me a while, I worked up a sweat, I printed a lot of clippings to find that. That took me a while, but we are getting to the answer of that question.
The Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy said:
- The NBN will allow us to deliver our e-Health and e-Business services in the bush in a way no other government has been able to do before … The NBN will also allow Territorians in the bush …
Well, now we know where it is going.
- … to establish Internet cafes that will allow people to have access to families via video conferencing …
They will be video conferencing? They will not have the NBN.
- … or webcam …
They will be able to have a webcam.
- It will also allow people in the bush to have access to Internet banking
Because they do not have that now, minister for ICT.
- … to even read the NT News …
Well, hello! Research and development has come a long way with these gumbies. They may even be able to watch parliament live in action. Hello to those people at Yuendumu.
This is the question I liked. This is the minister trying to tell us the NBN is going bush when it is not:
- … or to even share some information on Facebook with their friends.
We are going to spend $43bn of Labor money which is borrowed from our kids so people can use Facebook in the bush, and it is not even going there; Amoonguna is two minutes out of Alice Springs:
- Labor believes the digital divide between the towns and the bush the members opposite support is not good enough. Labor is delivering the NBN to fix it with our colleagues in Canberra. The Henderson government welcomes the NBN and the opportunities it brings to deliver … in the bush.
It is not going into the bush. You are misleading people. You know you have that wrong. You sat there with all your dorothy dixers, and the dorothy dixers go on and on, talking about working:
- … from home … leads to a greater greening benefit, lowering carbon emissions.
I will not go on because it makes me laugh too much.
Jokes aside, improvements in technology are good. They improve our business, communication and our information flow. They help kids to be educated, of which I am very supportive. The problem with the NBN is that the general population does not understand it. I would hazard a guess that 25 people in this Chamber do not understand the NBN. It is a very interesting thing to try to become involved in.
What many people would not know is that there is fibre-optic cable in many areas across the Northern Territory. Many places which do not have fibre-optic cable have wireless. People would also not be aware that every school, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston, Darwin and Nhulunbuy, all have 20 MB per second. The government is trying to sell the furphy that it is rolling out the NBN to solve these problems. That is available now and not one school uses 20 MB per second. People would be aware that in the Chan Building across the road which houses all the IT for the Northern Territory government, it is only at 80% capacity and their numbers are much higher than the NBN the way it is currently spoken about.
People do not understand what ‘fibre to the node’ is or what ‘fibre to the house’ is. People do not know that as part of the $43bn plan, the government, like the unions with their right of entry, will be digging up their front yards and coming in to rewire their houses. People do not understand that is what is going to happen: digging up your garden, fence, driveway, and so forth.
People do not understand that if the NBN goes to people’s houses and there are power blackouts, they will need to have battery back-ups, because the Internet, phones, pay television, if it goes through the fibre-optic cable, will all be on power. We know how good the Minister for Essential Services is with power in the Top End; everyone will need battery back-ups for their phones. Once the NBN comes in, in any great model we hear in this place, the customer complaints line at Power and Water will go down because every time there is a blackout no one will be able to call them. There will be no complaints. It is very important people understand that.
The purpose of this matter of public importance is to try to get to the value for money. We on this side of the Chamber want to know how much we will be spending on the NBN. We want to know what the cost benefit analysis is. What will be the benefit to the community, in a social, economic and cultural manner for the costs we will have? There is fibre-optic across the Territory at the moment. Then we want to be able to analyse if it is better to run our wireless technology, or some other form, to ensure we have it.
Many people will say in the northern suburbs: ‘I want NBN because I want fast Internet speeds’. There are many people in the northern suburbs who only have 512 kbs of data downloads; they are not purchasing what is available to them to enable bigger data downloads.
What people also would not understand is the anti-competitive nature with which the government is treating the National Broadband Network. Everyone is supposed to abide by the Trade Practices Act, but they seem to be looking for some special rules in Canberra. I can report that the member for Grayndler, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Mr Albanese, on 20 October 2010 moved a bill to keep the NBN outside of the scrutiny of the Trade Practices Act so we could not analyse what the cost will be to the Australian taxpayer and the community. We know with the roll-out of the NBN in Tasmania that people are not taking up the option to have the NBN which is why they are forcing it upon people.
Under the current telecommunications system there is something called a universal service obligation which, in a nutshell, means that Telstra has a responsibility to provide pay phones and some basic level of telecommunication service to people across Australia, particularly to the Northern Territory and remote communities. That is currently being reviewed under NBN Co Limited, with a view to setting up a new company called the Universal Service Obligation Company, where someone else will take over. We know that company will be based in Canberra.
Trying to have a telephone fixed in the communities will be so hard it will not happen. People’s lives will be put at risk when they are trying to use telephones which are never going to be fixed. In Issue 10, August-September 2010, of The Government Technology Magazine, which comes out on a periodical basis, we see a report which talks about the cost to developers of installing the new fibre-optic cables for greenfield sites, not brownfield sites. They are estimating it will cost up to $3500 to install fibre-optic cable in greenfield sites. The cost of copper wire in greenfield sites is about $800 per dwelling, so we are seeing the cost of housing going up, which will have greater social impacts in the Territory.
I cannot go on with this conversation all day. In the Territory we do not know where the NBN is going to go. Yes, we want an improvement to our telecommunications services. We do not know where it is going to go or how much it is going to cost, and we need to have scrutiny of the government, federal and Territory, because they work in cahoots, to make sure we are receiving value for money.
I support the bill the shadow minister for telecommunications, Luke Hartsuyker, and the shadow minister for regional communications, Malcolm Turnbull, have put forward to try to ensure there is transparency and to address the oversight by the Productivity Commission to look at the cost benefit analysis. I hope it goes through federal parliament. I implore all federal Independent members, in the lower and upper houses, to support that bill. I hope it goes through so we can have a good look at it. If it is value for money and will benefit the Territory we will jump on, but at the moment it does not look like it.
How can we have any faith in Labor in a value-for-money argument? Look at what we have seen with projects including the Building the Education Revolution and the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. Value for money is not Labor’s forte. Value for money is not something the socialist, union paradigm seems to support.
Something which has come to hand recently shows me this government does not support value-for-money principles. Recently, the Territory government underwent a review of their telecommunications. Tenders went out about 18 months ago for new service providers. It was a bundle service before, I understand; now it has been broken down into a number of areas including PABX network, satellite, hardware supplies, etcetera. The government had 12 months to have their suppliers in place. They were on a reduced rate for a number of things and were paying around $0.04 for a local call compared to $0.22 for a normal local call. Because of government’s ineptitude and the leadership failure of the minister for Business, the previous contract expired on 31 May 2010 and it took until 10 September 2010 for the new contract to be negotiated. Instead of paying cheap rates for Internet, mobile phones, local calls and STD calls, it was paying maximum, full tote odds. The Northern Territory government, across every Northern Territory government employee, was paying maximum, full tote odds - millions of dollars wasted.
I note the minister for Business is not saying a word because he knows how much money this Territory government wasted. I call on him to tell this Chamber how much money was wasted by not having a contract because of your ineptitude. I call on him to tell us, in conjunction with his colleagues, how many portfolios in the Northern Territory government have already blown their communications budget for this financial year. I call on the Northern Territory government, and the minister for Business, to tell this House how much money has been wasted. A rough, bottom of the scale estimate is $4m. Estimates are up to $12m of waste in that four month period where you did not have a contract for the provision of telecommunication supplies in the Northern Territory.
If hypothetically it was $10m, what could $10m have done? If it was at the lower scale of $4m, what could $4m have done to protect children in the Northern Territory? What could $4m have done going towards foster carers in the Northern Territory dealing with a massive load of children in need. What could it have done to support staff at FACS, minister for Business? You have to come into this Chamber tomorrow and tell us how much money you spent on ICT for the Northern Territory government between 31 May 2010 and 10 September 2010.
No imbecile would run a business like that. No CEO would run a business like that. No chief financial officer would run a business like that. It is no wonder, minister, you have to read your speeches. Does someone tie your shoelaces too? How on earth can we have faith in the National Broadband Network when we cannot get a minister to sign a contract for the Northern Territory ICT? For four months we went without a contracted IT provider. You have to come to this Chamber and explain yourself. You have to tell us the day we had a contract, the day we did not have a contract, the day we received a new contract, and which departments have blown their budget and by how much.
This will be coming out with estimates; however, you have to come to this Chamber tomorrow because you have no credit in this House. You, your Chief Minister, your deputy, any ministers who have communications budgets within the departments - telephones, satellite phones, mobile phones, computers, hardware, PABX systems, head sets - have to tell us how much money they have wasted.
On this side there is no faith in you, your federal reds, your union Labor-based colleagues, in rolling out the NBN across the Northern Territory. You have already misled this parliament by saying it is going out in the bush when it is not. Minister, you know it is not going in the bush. You stood here with dorothy dixers all last Thursday, and it is not going out in the bush. The bush already has better download speeds than you can even try to deliver in some of those locations. Look at your schools with your 20 MB second.
Madam Speaker, tomorrow I will move that this is referred to a committee to have a full investigation and report about the exact costs and the benefits for the Northern Territory.
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for our colleague.
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions in MPIs.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing on the matter of public importance. He has raised a very important issue; the importance of government detailing a cost benefit analysis on the National Broadband Network to ensure Territorians achieve value for money on service and delivery. I agree with the member for Braitling on the importance of making sure Territorians receive value for money on service and delivery. There is no doubt about that. However, I cannot agree with him on the other part of his MPI; the importance of government producing a detailed cost benefit analysis on the NBN. I will outline in my contribution why I cannot agree with that part of the MPI.
I am a true believer in the NBN and the benefits it will bring to Territorians. From day one I have been a true believer in the NBN. I hope one day the member for Braitling will become a true believer in the NBN.
If we apply the same to other major projects we have seen rolled out across Australia over many years then, maybe those projects would not have happened. What Tony Windsor said recently about the NBN, and the calls by the federal opposition spokesman on technology, Malcolm Turnbull, is right. If we applied the need for a cost benefit analysis to the Snowy River scheme, perhaps it would not have gone ahead. We could say the same about the Adelaide to Darwin railway line. If, when the CLP was in government, it had done a cost benefit analysis on the Adelaide to Darwin railway, they would probably have found it was not a viable project and it would not have gone ahead.
Mr Bohlin: We were not talking about $43bn that is not going to move two pieces of …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HAMPTON: We are talking about major projects …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition members, order! Order, member for Drysdale!
Mr HAMPTON: If you want to put this in terms of the NBN, then let us look at other major projects. Tony Windsor has raised good points in this debate. Let us look across the board at some other major projects which have made significant differences to the Australian economy, particularly to the Northern Territory with the Adelaide to Darwin railway line. The CLP was in government. If it had put it up against a cost benefit analysis, would it have stacked up? Would we have the Darwin to Adelaide railway today? I do not think so.
The other reason I cannot support it is there has already been a study of the costings through the National Broadband Network Implementation Study, done by McKinsey & Company and KPMG, which are very reputable organisations in Australia. This study confirms the NBN can provide consumers with faster speeds and better download limits for prices comparable to what they pay today. That is a very important point. We have one line of fibre through the Territory, owned by one company. We are paying some of the highest prices in this country for Internet connections.
The study by McKinsey & Company and KPMG confirmed the NBN can provide consumers not only with faster speeds and better download limits, but comparable prices. Why can’t Territorians have comparable prices for Internet connections?
The study confirmed that the NBN business model establishes that taxpayers are paid back their investment with a modest return by year 15 of the project on the basis that privatisation is completed. The study also confirms the government’s decision to focus on fibre as the far superior future-proof technology for delivering high-speed broadband. I will put the cost benefit analysis of the NBN into Territory context for members opposite.
On the costs side, we have remote and regional Territorians who do not have access to basic telecommunications. That is something the member for Braitling touched on in his contribution and he is very passionate about it, quite understandably. I, as a bush member, see those gaps, the electronic divide and the technology divide, which are getting bigger in the bush. That is why I am a true believer in the NBN, because I see the NBN can close the gaps on the electronic and technology divide.
Mr Tollner: It is not going into the bush, mate. No fibre to the home in the bush.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HAMPTON: There was recently a situation in Papunya. The Central Australian Youth Link Up Service was doing some work there and it lost its only viable access to the Internet. The problem was raised with me as Minister for Central Australia, and it is a problem created by the previous Coalition government and its continuing policies on remote communication. This is exactly the problem the NBN has been designed to fix.
The Northern Territory government is committed to providing Internet access for our remote communities, and Papunya is one of our identified growth towns. The NT and federal Labor governments have taken action to hook Papunya up to broadband. In the interim, the Northern Territory government will fund a new satellite link to keep the people of Papunya wired-in so they can access services, talk to friends and family, pay their bills, do their online banking, and maybe even watch parliament online. This is a temporary fix until Papunya becomes part of the National Broadband Network which is already being rolled out across Australia, including the Northern Territory.
It has been announced that, in the second release of locations of the fibre access nodes, one site has been identified in the Northern Territory, and that is in Casuarina. While the actual location of the fibre access node cannot be yet determined in Casuarina, it has been identified as the site to be rolled out. The identification of the footprint of the fibre access nodes will be determined by the engineering design requirements and will follow public consultation. Discussions are currently under way with the Darwin City Council and other stakeholders, including ourselves. The initial installation at Casuarina will service between 2000 and 4000 premises. From what I hear today, this is what the shadow spokesman on IT wants to stop. He wants to stop this service installation to between 2000 to 4000 premises in Casuarina alone.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! He is clearly misleading the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Braitling. Resume your seat, please!
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The other important thing this government has done a great deal of work on with the Commonwealth, particularly with the Glasson Report which was commissioned by the current government, is an initiative called the Digital Regions Initiative. This is a $60m initiative and a key element of the Australian government’s response to the regional telecommunications independent review report, which was called the Glasson Report.
On 14 September 2009, we lodged a joint submission, with the Department of Health and Families, the Department of Education and Training, as well as Northern Territory Police and Emergency Services. It was announced by the Prime Minister on 10 December 2009 that the Northern Territory, through this submission, was successful in gaining $7m through the Digital Regions Initiative. This is another important element of this government’s IT commitment to the bush. The $7m would be available to the Northern Territory to progress Health eTowns initiatives. Round one of the funding of $7m for Health eTowns would deliver remote video diagnostics, together with education and training services to 17 of the 20 growth towns.
When I hosted the Ministerial Council of IT Ministers in Alice Springs, just before the announcement, I had people from my department of DBE, who I work alongside, who worked very hard to put that submission together for the digital regions initiative. We gave a very good presentation on how important it is to have this type of technology and this funding, particularly in remote parts of the Northern Territory. We were also able to present them with ideas for medical carts, where people in remote clinics, whether they are in Papunya or Maningrida, can access specialists from anywhere in the world using these medical carts.
Mr Tollner: That is not part of the NBN. John Howard delivered that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: It is all about remote service delivery, member for Fong Lim.
This government is about making sure Territorians achieve value for money on service and delivery. We are talking about IT as well as the NBN and the Territory should be proud we have been able to access the Digital Regions initiative. $7m, a big slice of the cake, and it will go a long way in ensuring Territorians, particularly those in the bush, who the member for Braitling claims to care so much about, will achieve value for money on service delivery when it comes to electronic health.
We hear loud and clear from Territory businesses that one of their main concerns is how much they are paying for Internet access. That is something the member for Drysdale would be happy to see them keep paying. They are paying nine times more for the same product in the NT than they do in Sydney - costs which are passed on to every customer in the Northern Territory, every home and business, jacking up the cost of living for Territorians. That is a very important point about the NBN and it is why I am a true believer in it. I do not want to see Territory businesses or families continue to pay nine times more than people in other parts of Australia are paying for the same product.
We have Territorians who cannot engage in the digital economy, they struggle to get access to e-Health or e-learning services. The Henderson government does not believe Territorians should have to continue paying these types of costs and be left out of the digital economy.
The Henderson government believes Territorians deserve the same communication access, opportunities and benefits other Australians have: lower costs for families and businesses; universal access to basic communication technology; e-services delivery including e-Health remote and distance education; and access to the digital economy. The NBN is how we will be able to deliver a range of government services to the bush in the future, complementing our A Working Future policy.
I have already mentioned Tony Windsor’s comments. There is no doubt that the NBN was a very significant issue at the last federal election. It was something the Independents considered very carefully when they compared the opposition’s policy on telecommunications and broadband with what the government presented. We know the opposition was very worried about providing its costings to the Independents, whereas the government did. That is another reason why I cannot …
Mr Bohlin: The NBN has not been costed.
Mr HAMPTION: … support this motion. As I said, the implementation study has been done and the member for Drysdale might want to read that.
Mr Bohlin: I have read it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting, please!
Mr HAMPTON: Mr Windsor, recently on ABC radio and tonight on SBS, said if they had done a cost benefit analysis on the Snowy hydro scheme or the Adelaide to Darwin railway they probably would not have been completed, because they probably would not have stacked up as viable projects at the time. Look at those projects now; they are very important to the nation and the Northern Territory, particularly the railway.
Another federal bush cross-bencher, Bob Katter, has been a member of federal parliament for a long time representing a very large regional and rural electorate. Bob Katter has also signalled he will not support the Coalition’s cost benefit red herring either. Federal bush Independents like Mr Windsor have been strong supporters of the National Broadband Network, citing it as one of the reasons they backed the Gillard Labor government following the election.
At a local level, two western Queensland mayors were in Canberra yesterday to lobby the federal government for better telecommunications in remote areas. As reported on the ABC, they said:
- We need optic fibre connection to these communities.’
… it is very important communities are serviced by the fibre network.
That is something I, and this government, have been saying since day one. They also said:
- We certainly want to reinforce to Senator Conroy and others in parliament that we [need to be] part of the expanse of technologies that are going to be part of the National Broadband Network’.
When is the opposition going to get it? I encourage the opposition, and the members for Braitling and Drysdale, to become true believers.
I have been to Canberra since the federal election to talk to Senator Conroy about the benefits of the NBN to Territorians, as those two mayors from Queensland did. We had a good meeting, and the Territory is in a great position to receive the benefits of the NBN. It is the type of lobbying and representation I have done which attracts benefits to Territorians such as the Digital Regions Initiative, in which we were so successful.
Having been a member of a bush electorate for the last four years I care about the bush, which is why I support the NBN. I can see the benefits to my electorate and my constituents. It is not only Labor that supports the NBN. The federal Independents and the Greens support it - it is great to see the Greens on board - local councils and shire mayors support it. The Australian Industry Group recently released a report titled Innovation - New Thinking, New Directions, which states:
- The roll-out of a very high-speed national broadband network provides an unprecedented opportunity for Australian businesses to transform their innovation practice, in terms of realising cost savings, productivity, extending market reach and introducing brand new types of products and services.
On the release of the report, Senator Conroy said:
- The NBN will break the tyranny of distance once and for all by ensuring all Australians, no matter where they live, will have access to affordable, high-speed broadband.
The Australian Industry Group has thrown its support behind the NBN saying the opportunity is needed - a strategic response to ensure its advantages are recognised and acted upon as soon as possible.
A question I have for the member for Braitling is, if there was to be a cost benefit analysis, what would be the cost to taxpayers in delaying the roll-out of the NBN? We are seeing it being rolled out as we speak with fibre being laid through the Northern Territory. Maybe members opposite want to stop this most important national project. What would the costs be in stopping the National Broadband Network roll-out, particularly for those in the Northern Territory?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have covered much of what the MPI is about. I do not support the MPI; I support this government’s initiative and the direction we have been working in with the NBN. I am a true believer of the NBN and a true believer that Territorians should have value for money in service delivery.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a crying shame what happens in this parliament. First, the member for Daly spoke about alcohol policy and had to read every word of his speech because he has no idea what he is talking about. Unless he has a speech writer upstairs drafting words for him, he is lost for words; he clearly has no idea what he was talking about.
A very important matter of public importance has been raised by the member for Braitling, who has clearly done his research; he is across his brief. He spoke of his concerns, only to see the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy read from a written speech. Again, the man seems to have no concept of what he was talking about. Some speech writer upstairs said: ‘Oh well, Mr Hampton, here is what he wants to talk about. This is your response to whatever he says’. Clearly, the minister was not listening to what the member for Braitling said because, in his response to the member for Braitling, he made no reference to the points the member for Braitling raised - many very good points. I scratch my head and wonder what hands the Northern Territory is in when we have the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy waltzing into this place and refusing to even – well, obviously, he listened to the concerns of the member for Braitling, but he had no idea of a response to them.
The member for Braitling pointed out where the National Broadband Network is going. I think Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine were the locations - no mention of the bush by NBN Co. The minister for ICT stood and said he supports the bush. Well, good on him, we all support the bush; it is a very important part of the Northern Territory. However, to suggest that fibre is going to go to homes in all of these remote locations is harebrained talk. It is utter nonsense. The minister should know better than to come in here suggesting to Territorians in remote locations that they will have fibre connected to their homes.
My goodness, this government cannot even deliver a home for most Territorians in the bush, despite the fact it had $1bn or so handed to it from the Commonwealth to provide emergency homes. Now the minister is talking about getting on Facebook and the like when there is no fibre going to the homes. I do not know what a person has to say in this place, but you are not listening. The NBN website says there is no fibre going to the homes in remote parts of the Northern Territory.
The minister talked about going to Papunya and seeing what it means out there, and going to places like Maningrida and what happens there. Well, it is already in existence there. That was done by another government. A large fibre-optic bearer was constructed through Arnhem Land by the previous federal government. The Howard government constructed that network and, yet, we do not see e-Health or fibre to the node in those places. It has nothing to do with the NBN. For the minister to come in here talking this sort of nonsense defies reality.
You have to ask who will be delivering this. This was the bright idea of Kevin Rudd when he was Prime Minister, before he was unceremoniously knifed in the back by the gang of four. It was that gang of four which put in place the house insulation scheme – the billion dollar package to insulate houses. $1bn is a hell of a lot of money. What happened there? We had hundreds of houses burned down around the country. We had four deaths, and we have thousands of businesses going broke. Now we have several hundred houses around the country which have to be inspected to make sure they are safe. This $1bn home insulation program has turned into a multibillion dollar disaster. If you cannot put pink batts in the roofs of houses, what chance do you have of doing a $43bn roll-out of telecommunications fibre-optics? None at all.
Why, after almost 30 years of privatising telecommunications in Australia, is the Australian government buying it all again? I grew up in the bush, in western central Queensland, and my father was the postmaster. He worked for the PMG and I was at the post office. The PMG was 100% government owned. It was in charge of post and telecommunications, as well as weather recording and a range of other services. Over time the PMG was split up - it became the post office and Telecom. Telecom then became Telstra. Telstra was privatised through a number of share floats and now we have a very competitive telecommunications marketplace in Australia with several hundreds, if not thousands, of providers of telecommunications and technological services in Australia. For some reason, this socialist federal government has decided it needs to renationalise telecommunications in Australia.
The member for Braitling raised the comments the Chief Minister made last week. It was interesting that the Chief Minister seemed quite amazed when I said the NBN was a socialist program. I cannot imagine why the Chief Minister cannot see it, because it is a socialist program. Since when in Australia, a freewheeling, free-trading country, do we have to buy into the telecommunications industry when we spent 30 years getting out of it. Of course it is socialist policy and it is absolute madness. To sit in this place is absolutely embarrassing, because you find a government which is incapable of defending the Rudd Labor government and fails to understand the most basic issue of the NBN: $43bn is more than the capitalised value of the whole of Telstra, and we are going to put $43bn into it.
The headline of an article written by Kevin Morgan which appeared in The Australian today was, ‘Rollout looking more and more like a Ponzi scheme’. ‘Ponzi scheme’ is a term for a rip-off. This article explains that the costs of the NBN have not accumulated yet, but $43bn is the starting price because what the government is proposing to do will almost certainly cost it much more than that. $43bn is more than the capital value of the whole of Telstra, but for some reason, the leftist, socialist government we have in Canberra believes that is going to help competition.
There are so many things to be very concerned about. It is a $43bn gamble with taxpayers’ money which is supposed to take fibre to the home, whether the customer subscribes to it or not. Whether I want it in my house or not, it is coming. I have no choice about it. That is absolutely crazy. The speeds I can get down those two copper wires – even if the government puts fibre to the node, the node being the little box which sits at the end of the street, it would still give me the option of using the copper to the node. No, the government insists fibre is coming to the home. Why they insist on - I do not need 100 Mbps. You can get 100 Mbps through the copper if your copper line is less than about 500 m long. So with copper to the node I can still get 100 Mbps, but no, the federal government insists it must come to my home.
As the member for Braitling pointed out, there are already oodles of places where we have access to 100 Mbps in the Northern Territory. Every school in the Darwin area has that capacity. How many schools are using it? Zero! We are spending $43bn of taxpayers’ money on something which our schools have the capacity for now. The minister talks about e-learning and all these wonderful things schools will be able to use, and none of the schools which have the system now are using it. What a ridiculous situation.
There are also questions about government digging up my front yard and those types of things. We do not know what the cost will be to me if I want to connect it. I understand, after talking to some of the providers, if I want 100 Mbps as a plan, it will cost me around $200 per month.
I have two young boys who are Internet mad. They are constantly playing games, researching their homework, Facebooking - all of those wonderful things. They are not doing medical imaging but give them time and they will probably be doing that too. I do not think we pay anywhere near $50 per month for the broadband access we have. This government insists we will have fibre to our home.
Something which I cannot see – well, I will not say I will not see it in my lifetime because technology does change so quickly - but to give you an idea, if I want to do some high-resolution video streaming …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You will find the mobile telephone coverage would have been a waste of money, considering a person can hire a satellite phone for a few dollars a week and still take the trip down the Stuart Highway.
Getting back to these speeds, I can watch high-resolution video streaming now with about 6 or 7 Mbps. In other words, I can watch a high-definition, high-resolution movie through the tube which comes into my house with the copper wire and the dodgy old system we have in place.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a $43bn joke. This Northern Territory government is a joke. The ministers have no idea what they are doing here. The member for Braitling did a fantastic job outlining the wastage which is occurring in this area. I congratulate him for bringing on this MPI and shame on the government for failing Territorians.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, well done to the members for Braitling and Fong Lim. They have raised questions this government will fail, time and time again, to answer. It is time to ‘fess up and tell the public the true cost of the NBN; tell mum and dad what it will cost them per month to have a phone and Internet service via fibre-optic in their house.
Yes, we all want better broadband Internet access; however, let us go back to reading of the Appropriation Bill 2009-10 on 19 June 2009 when I made comments in reference to the minister for ICT:
We already know it will go to 90% of Australians - that has been said. So, there must be a plan starting to go forward from this government for the future governments of the Territory to join in the rest of Australia with this broadband plan. We must have these linkages; we must be planning and looking ahead. You cannot sit back in your armchair in your little office, and say, ‘Sorry, that is not our problem; that is a federal one’. Every person in the Territory will want to have their Internet connection.
A great deal of information on the NBN is hitting the Internet. I have a piece titled ‘NBN – The Wrong Policy for Australia’ from Mr Malcolm Turnbull’s Internet site. It was published on 16 August 2010. I will read a segment of it:
- All Australians understand that high-quality, reliable and affordable broadband is a critical part of the infrastructure our nation needs to prosper in coming years.
As one of the founders of OzEmail, Australia’s first big Internet company, I believe passionately in broadband and the power of the Internet.
But as a businessman and a member of parliament I also believe passionately in not wasting billions of taxpayers’ dollars on white elephants. Remember, every dollar of revenue diverted to Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN) is a dollar that can’t be spent on hospitals, schools, roads or public transport - let alone returned to you in lower taxes!
- So what’s the 2010 broadband debate about?
On the one hand we have Labor, which claims spending at least $43bn … of public money on the most expensive network in the world represents ‘nation-building’ and will deliver value for money for taxpayers and users.
On the other is the far more affordable $6bn coalition plan. It will fix those parts of Australia’s broadband infrastructure where government intervention is justified - by increasing competition in ‘backhaul’ … and subsidising fast connections in poorly-serviced suburban, regional and rural areas.
That is a very commonsense comment. $43bn is not value for money; $6bn is much more logical and will target the problem areas. The NBN has not addressed a single target area – the government says, spread it across the country and it will solve everything.
An explanation of that:
- A handful of countries have gone down the path of publicly subsidising high-speed broadband. But most have much higher population density than Australia (making it vastly cheaper to roll out an expensive approach such as Labor’s fibre to the home).
And none has even contemplated a taxpayer-funded spree on the scale Labor is proposing. According to industry expert Grahame Lynch, the taxpayer contribution to fast broadband in Singapore was around $200 per person. In New Zealand, it will be about $330 per person. In contrast, Labor’s extravagant plans will cost Australian taxpayers at least $4000 per household (or roughly $2000 per person).
Affordable, nation building, value for money - I do not think so. I would love to read the next part in total but I will not because I do not have the time and it is a complex thing. The member for Fong Lim mentioned it. This is an article from The Australian by Kevin Morgan, 26 October 2010. It was released at 12 am. The member for Fong Lim mentioned it, ‘Rollout looking more and more like a Ponzi scheme’. This is so close to the truth it is not funny. It says:
- The bill is essential to the government’s $43bn National Broadband Network as it forces Telstra to transfer its nine million customers to the fibre network and close its copper network which would compete with the NBN in return for an $11bn compensation package.
That one sentence, which is the second sentence of this article, identifies the lack of competitive nature of the NBN. The government will force, through government regulation, the shutdown of part of a private company which, as the member for Fong Lim has pointed out, we have taken years to privatise. It will force it out of the marketplace by getting rid of the copper line which will force all the current Telstra customers to optic fibre. That will mean massive costs for all families. One by one, as this NBN rolls out, you will be forced, with no other option, to take up fibre in your home to maintain even basic telephone services, and it will cost you a fortune. Members should read that; it is a great article from The Australian today.
The Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy states in paragraph 4 of ministerial on 29 April 2010:
- Also, new economic, social and environmental opportunities will be made possible for users of ICT across the Territory.
Putting fibre to your home or business does not automatically produce cash; it is about good business sense. If you are not supporting the businesses in the first place, how will you deliver a greater cash flow simply by saying: ‘Here, take the fibre’? I am not sure how this will deliver greater environmental opportunities. We all have the Internet here. I do not know whether it has delivered any greater environmental opportunities lately in this parliament. This is a string of words which have been put together to confuse people and make them think: ‘Gee, they sound like good words. They must be delivering the right stuff’.
The minister went on in paragraph 14 to say:
- It will also allow clinicians in these communities to utilise medical high definition videoconferencing cards …
- With the introduction of standard definition videoconferencing, families in these communities will also be able to communicate with other family members who have had to attend Darwin or Alice Springs Hospitals …
I wish the world could see this, because, on the front cover of Government Technologies Review August/September 2010, Issue 2, there is a picture of the former Prime Minister looking very happy - not! I think he knows this scheme is harebrained. He knows the scheme has so many pitfalls, it will not work and it will cost the country a fortune. It is a great article titled ‘Greenfield wiring costs wind up property developers’.
Go into Lyons and find out the cost of getting a telephone in your house. I am not talking about Internet yet. Because Bellamack will be a fibre-optic site, you will not be able to say: ‘Oh, I just need to hook up my telephone. It is $200 to start up, $20 a month, $5 a month to rent the phone. Your phone bill is about $100’. No, $4500, thank you very much, because of the Universal Service Obligation which will have a new company set up. They have to set up a new company, new directors, and pay a great deal of money to a new company like NBN Co. More expenditure and no one has said what the outcomes are exactly, what the cost is going to be to mum and dad. I cannot afford a $4500 fibre-optic installation just to have my phone working because of the deal the government wants to make. It wants to force the telecommunications company to rip out all the copper networks around Australia and force you onto fibre-optic.
Mr Hampton: You would still have towers on every street.
Mr BOHLIN: You, minister, must tell the people these costs. You must start to cough up the costs. Minister, you have not been truthful with this community. The federal government has not been truthful with this community. It has refused to have this program analysed for cost. It has refused to say what the total cost will be. The NBN Co CEO has roughly said: ‘This cost is very shaky. We do not know’.
There is another article from The Australian, by Fran Foo on 22 October this year, ‘Hidden back-up charge for users in fast broadband service’. Everyone in the Northern Territory should read this article because it is extremely accurate. If you have a power blackout which, by geez, happens in the Territory because we have a failed Minister for Essential Services, you will not have a telephone unless you buy a UPS - uninterrupted power supply. It is a battery pack which plugs into the wall, which means your kids have to be protected from it. They have to throw a box on the wall with a key to it so your kids cannot stick their fingers in the socket. The battery backup for my computer at work cost over $1000 - they are saying $50, but I reckon that is a bit lean. Go to a computer shop and buy it.
Minister, you must tell your comrades in Canberra to back the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 because this must become the truth for the people of Australia. They must know the real cost of the NBN, what it will cost them for 100 Mbps, what it will cost them if they only want a telephone. Not everyone wants the Internet, believe it or not, but it will cost them $4500 once you force Telstra to rip out the copper networks.
Minister, you and this government must start coughing up the real figures so that we know. Stop your wishy-washy spin! Start telling the truth and the figures, because the families deserve to know the figures! They need to know how much they have to spend from you, a failed minister.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have listened carefully to the debate tonight. It is an important debate for Australia on the National Broadband Network and, as the minister said, it was a pivotal issue on which Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott decided to throw their support behind Julia Gillard to become Prime Minister. They did that on the basis they believe it is good for regional Australia. It is my understanding that the predominant technical opinion of the broadband network is one of support.
Many technical experts are scratching their heads about why the Coalition is so vehemently opposed to it. I suspect the vehement opposition comes about because of political motives and because the opposition thinks it can make some political capital out of this. However, there seems to be division in the federal opposition ranks. I have listened carefully to some of the seeming ambivalence of the former Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. He holds the shadow portfolio now and seems to be ambivalent towards the government’s position. So Tony Abbott needs to watch his back on this issue because it could go either way.
I was very interested in the contribution from the member for Fong Lim. He is passionate about this issue. He says he supports the bush. He talks about delivery of the best for Territorians. It is about the delivery of technology to Territorians. I am reading largely from a debate in the Senate in October 2003 from a speech made by Senator Crossin who outlined some of the history of the promises made by the member for Fong Lim about having mobile telephone coverage along the Stuart Highway:
- Prior to the 2001 election, Mr Tollner stood up on a platform and said he certainly would not be supporting the sale of Telstra unless there was continuous mobile phone coverage along the Stuart Highway and that the conditions in the Northern Territory had improved.
He was very adamant then.
- In fact, on ABC radio in May 2002 [talking to Fred McCue]:
- Look Fred, that’s certainly something that I’m pushing for, I want to see continuous coverage along the Stuart Highway.
- He went on to say:
… there’s still a little bit …
… to go. But it’s certainly something that I want to see before I agree to privatisation of Telstra.
Let us move forward in time to 11 November 2002. He had another interview with the ABC and he said:
- Look firstly onto the full coverage of the Stuart Highway you will recall and listeners will recall that back in the election I said that I wouldn’t be supporting the full sale of Telstra until the highway was fully covered. Since then I’ve had some very technical briefings with a number of people from Telstra and also other telecommunication companies who tell me logistically we’re just not there at this stage.
- He went on to say:
- Look, unfortunately, I do have to back away from that promise because I’ve been now convinced that it’s not going to be possible.
Here is the huff and puff man, the former member for Solomon, the current member for Fong Lim. He huffs and puffs during elections, promises something and does not deliver. As he says, in his own words: ‘Do not look at what they say or they say they are going to do, look at what they actually do and what they do not do’.
You are exposed again, member for Fong Lim. You have history as the federal member, so I do not think you have a place in this debate. You have huffed and puffed but you failed Territorians in your election promise. You are not qualified to speak the way you did in this debate.
I do not support the MPI brought on by the member for Braitling, for all the very good reasons put forward by our minister, who is a very good minister. He went to see Senator Conroy and had a very constructive discussion with him. The sooner they roll out the national broadband, the better. It will not be an unfulfilled promise like we had from the member for Fong Lim when he was the member for Solomon. That was part of a constellation of promises which he did not fulfil.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister and the rest of government do not support this MPI.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the passing of a Territory sporting legend, Clifford ‘Gympie’ Lew Fatt, on 8 September this year.
Gympie was the fourth child of Walter and Monica Lew Fatt and was born in South Australia in 1945, after his mother and family were evacuated from Darwin because of the war. He was one of seven brothers and three sisters. Returning to Darwin after the war at the age of 15, Gympie - no one knows how he got his nickname - started his first job cleaning buses at the Darwin bus depot at night. He was so scared working at night he used to carry his sleeping 10-year-old brother from bus to bus as he cleaned so he was not there alone.
In 1980, Gympie commenced work at the Legislative Assembly as a clerk, and he was there for approximately 15 years before moving into a position with Aboriginal Hostels, starting as an administration clerk, then into the regional manager’s role, where he worked until his retirement in 2004.
Many Territorians know Gympie for his sporting ability, which developed very early. He excelled in basketball, tennis, rugby, hockey, boxing, soccer, and especially in Australian Rules football. Gympie played in a golden era of Territory football, first for Nightcliff, or Works and Housing, then transferring to St Mary’s when he was very young because his brother, Terry, was appointed coach; he was instrumental in the success of the club for many years to come. Recognition of his silky skills and just how good a player he was can be seen in the individual honours he received throughout his football career. He is the only player in NTFL/AFLNT history to have won the best and fairest in the Colts, Reserves and League competitions.
Gympie won the Best and Fairest Award for St Mary’s four years in a row from 1963 to 1967. In the 1964-65 season he won the pinnacle of Top End football individual awards, the Nichols Medal. He was instrumental in St Mary’s winning back-to-back premierships in 1965-66 and 1966-67. Gympie played his last game for St Mary’s in his mid-40s, but continued to play in the NTFA competition with Tracy Village until his retirement at the grand old age of 55.
Gympie was awarded life membership of St Mary’s and the NTFL, and maintained his involvement with Saints through coaching the Reserves, Under 16 and Under 18 teams. The club and the football public salute a true legend of the NTFL.
Gympie was a very modest, quiet man who did everything with a minimum of fuss, from playing, to coaching football, to life. Everyone who met Gympie would know he was a true gentleman with integrity and honesty.
Our thoughts are with his wife, Shirley, his children, Alisa, Jenna, Anita and Yvette, in this time of sorrow. I extend my condolences to them all, and the rest of the Lew Fatt family, on the passing of Clifford ‘Gympie’ Lew Fatt - a Territory legend.
I thank all the competitors, volunteers, workers and supporters of the Alice Springs Masters Games. I will put on my medals - a bronze and a gold - I have not received my silver yet, but I am certainly going to get that when I get back to Alice.
The 2010 Masters Games were held from 9 to 16 October, and the Friendly Games were, again, a huge success. Since the first games in 1986, the biannual Alice Springs Masters Games has grown into a major event on the Territory, national and international sporting stage. This year there were more than 5000 registered competitors and support workers, and Alice Springs was absolutely buzzing - even several days of wet weather did not dampen their enthusiasm.
It was a busy and enjoyable games for me with medal presentations throughout the games, highlighting softball, netball, the Masters Mile presentations, as well as competing in basketball with my team, Wrecked’em. I am very proud to announce I won a gold medal and a bronze medal for soccer with the Alice All Stars.
One of the highlights of the games was the very important Alice Springs versus Darwin football match at Traeger Park, played in front of a huge crowd, and in the rain. I inform the House the Alice Springs team ran rings around Darwin, which included the member for Fong Lim, and was expertly umpired by the member for Nelson - although, I must say there was a free kick I should have received for in the back!
There were some memorable moments, both on and off the sporting field and I, for one, am still feeling the effects of the Masters Games. I can attest to the magic work done by the sports medicine team at the Masters Games. I send a big thanks to Karen for getting me up and moving, and also to Dr Geoff Thompson, Pippa Tessman and the team at Sports Med who worked wonders for all the athletes during the games week. Pippa is also a very valuable member of the Masters Games Steering Committee.
I thank the other members of the steering committee, including our Chair, Mr Peter Hoey, for the advice and guidance they give to ensure the games are a great success. Thanks also to the Alice Springs Mayor, Damien Ryan; Peter Flink; Kylie Bonanni and Bill Van Dijk, together with Pippa and Peter who volunteered their time; it is very much appreciated. They joined more than 500 people who put up their hands to support the games through volunteering their time. This embracing of the Masters by the local community is what makes our games the Friendly Games, and it is why people keep coming back time and time again.
One of the familiar faces on board since the beginning is the Alice Springs Masters Games patron, Dawn Fraser, the legend of Australian sport. It was a pleasure to catch up with Dawn and the Honorary Ambassador, Daryl Somers, who was joined in the ambassadorial duties by our very own John Ah Kit.
Many of the achievements at the Masters are inspirational. One example is Bruce Campbell, an 83-year-old competitor who completed the Masters Mile. There was also the 75-year-old competitor, Val Worrell, who has the world record for the hammer throw - and the list goes on.
A big thank you must go to the Masters Games Manager, Jim Lawrie, and his team on the ground: Claire, Letitia, Sheree and Craig - and, of course, the very supportive Major Events team headed up by Paul Cattermole, the mover and shaker; Tiffany Manzie; Pam Gray and others who worked hard to ensure the games were again a big success.
The Alice Springs Masters Games is a magnificent showcase for Alice Springs and the Northern Territory and, as the minister for Sport and the Minister for Central Australia, I am proud to be associated and involved with another successful Masters Games.
I am certainly looking forward to the 14th Alice Springs Masters Games; hopefully, I will still be the minister for Sport. I will ensure I get to the training track earlier next time to avoid any injuries.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quickly read out the names of my team mates in the soccer, the Alice AllStars: Chris Zahra, Richard Gray, Tim Higgins, Wayne Gaskon, Scott Peters, Glenn Scott, Gary Rankin, Fred Miegel, Chris Brocklebank, Bruce Brodie, Stephen Palchulicz, Srour Ahmed, Stephen Theriault and Dave Ezard.
My basketball team mates were: Brad Puls, Mark Coffey, Gerrard Coffey, Ken Napier, Sean Parnell, John Gaynor, Brett Sayer, Lance Goodwin, Dean Griffith, Paul Murray, Dave Brown and Tony Sealy.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to again speak about youth crime in Alice Springs. I have been made aware that on Friday, 22 October 2010 at 4.15 pm, a number of youths were arrested and charged with offences in Alice Springs. In October, 21 youths were arrested with a combined total of 236 offences in relation to a series of unlawful entries, stealing, and damage to motor vehicles. There was an article in The Centralian Advocate today which talked about two boys, aged 12 and 14, who were included in that.
The community in Alice Springs expects much more from this government. They expect this government to ensure justice is done. We know in Alice Springs, the sentences never fit the crimes or the heartache which occurs in town. I am calling on the Northern Territory government to publish every month the sentences which have been handed out to these criminals in Alice Springs. The community has a right to know what sentences the people who commit these crimes are receiving.
Too often, we see criminals back on the street; too often, we see youths who commit crimes put back on the street to commit more crimes. We want to know if youths are receiving youth diversionary programs; we do not want to know their names, but we want to know their ages, the crimes they have committed, and the punishment they have been given. I am calling on the Northern Territory government to publish the sentences which are administered to the criminals in Alice Springs, so that Alice Springs residents can try to have some faith in the system, or can be made aware of the failures which are occurring, and why the crime is so bad on the streets.
Moving on to another matter, I would like to recognise the Northern Land Council’s Indigenous Employer Awards which were conducted over the weekend. I note that SIHIP won the Chairman’s Award for Indigenous Employment. I find it surprising that SIHIP can win an award for anything; they have achieved an award for Indigenous employment although they should be achieving housing awards. It is unfortunate they cannot build houses as well as they can employ people.
Now that I am no longer the shadow minister for Infrastructure or Transport, I encourage the minister for Infrastructure and Construction to investigate the roadworks on Fog Bay Road in the electorate of Daly. I have been in conversations about the upkeep and repair of that road with many constituents who travel along it. I travelled there on the weekend to investigate the repairs. The roadworks done on Fog Bay Road are of a poor standard and have deteriorated in a bad way, even before the Wet Season has come about. I would like that roadwork to be reinvestigated.
I would like the government to make good on their commitment - particularly the member for Daly, I would like him to make good on his commitment to have that road fixed. The member for Daly thinks Fog Bay Road is a good road. He will not speak on it tonight, because no one has prepared a speech on Fog Bay Road. I would like the member for Daly and the Minister for Construction to commit to fixing Fog Bay Road so the many residents of Dundee Beach, Dundee Forest, Bynoe Harbour, and everywhere else out there, have good and proper roads, can get into town in the Wet Season and can still come to work and support the economy of Darwin.
I also ask the minister for Planning to review the interventions by his department in relation to the Telstra tower in Larapinta. I know the minister has taken active interest in this.
I know the height of the Telstra tower in Larapinta has been reduced by 6 m in the planning phase through DCA. It can now be seen through because there is a lattice-type effect on the tower. The equipment box has been moved down the hill; it was going to be at the back of the hill, so it would not be seen by people living in Gilbert Place or Grant Road or other roads. But now, allegedly on advice from the Planning department, it has been recommended it be moved onto a forward hill, so it will be right behind someone’s house, but it has come down the hill. I want to see whether that advice can be confirmed. I understand Telstra would not mind. The equipment box is on the other side of the hill. If the minister could look at that for me I would really appreciate it. I am sorry, minister, I have been talking about your portfolio on a number of occasions, and I am happy to talk to your staff about that personally.
I also ask the minister to further investigate how blocks in Albrecht Drive, Larapinta, could have had - actually, I will leave that for tomorrow night. I will come back to that matter.
I do ask the minister for Planning - and I know the member for Araluen and member for Greatorex have been involved in this – to investigate what outcomes can be delivered to the residents of the Sienna Caravan Park. It is a difficult situation. I know there are regulation changes for caravan parks, but all those residents are now going to be homeless, and I ask that this be looked at. I know the member for Greatorex and the member for Araluen are looking further into that. I did have some work to do with those people before, but the carriage is now passed over to my good colleagues in Alice Springs. I have investigated and spoken to many people there, including the owners and other people. I will leave that to my colleagues, but I encourage the minister to look into it.
On a final note, I find it absolutely disgraceful that the government did not return to the child services statement today. The Bath report should have been on our agenda; it had better be on the agenda for tomorrow. It must come back so we can debate it.
There are 147 recommendations in that report which need to be debated and, more importantly, at the end of June there were 870 children who had been reported at risk and were awaiting a formal investigation by Northern Territory Families and Children. It is an absolute disgrace. I want this government to report tomorrow on how many of those reports have still not been investigated. This debate better be back on the table tomorrow, because if it is not, I will be taking to task.
In 2006, we had the Little Children are Sacred report of the Northern Territory Labor government. This government, and many of the members of this government, sat on that report for six months. It was not until Mal Brough and John Howard saw it that they commenced a $1bn intervention; the same intervention which the member for Arafura called the black kids Tampa. There were 870 kids at the end of June whose situations had not been looked at although they had been reported as at risk. It is an emergency, it should not be let go.
I have just read the editorial of the paper; they got it right - something needs to be done and we need to take charge of this. We cannot sit back and play political games and announce things here or there. You had better bring this back on tomorrow; otherwise I will be taking it further in my political endeavours to try to make something happen. This is an emergency; do not think it is anything but. We are not here to play political games with kids’ lives; it is not about wishy-washy responses. This must be debated.
We must come up with solutions immediately to make sure these 870 kids, plus the new ones who have come up since the end of June, are being looked at, managed and protected. This report identifies they were not; and you, as a government, have done nothing to report to this House that something has been done. It is absolutely disgraceful!
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, in a similar vein to my colleague, the member for Braitling, when he raised some law and order issues at the beginning of his adjournment speech, I will give details of a very traumatic incident which happened in one of the shops near my electoral office.
It occurred on Monday, 11 October, and the business is Coolalinga Car Parts. Lindsay is the manager of the business and at approximately 3.50 pm he was assaulted in his shop by a person who took offence at something, or perhaps he did not like the products on the shelves. Lindsay came into my office sometime later. I have known this fellow since I was elected. He was smacked in the head, punched to the ground, and there was a witness.
Lindsay recovered, with the assistance of the other person in the shop and he called NT Police on 131444 at approximately 3.54 pm, 4.30 pm and 5 pm and could not get a response. He spoke to the owner of the shop and she telephoned and spoke to the police at 5.15 pm and was given a report number, P10192287. They requested Lindsay’s telephone number. Lindsay waited in the shop until 5.30 pm before realising the NT Police could not or would not attend to the assault. He was taken to hospital to have his wounds, cuts and bruises treated and tended to.
The next day, 12 October, Lindsay was on the telephone to police trying to find out what was happening when he received a missed call from an unknown number. He returned the call at 8.50 am and the police gave him a job number, #4631783. The police rang on 12 October at 2.09 pm to ask Lindsay to attend the Palmerston Police Station at 8 am on 14 October to make a statement - two days after he was assaulted in his shop. Lindsay gave the police the car registration number of the man who assaulted him in the shop, the direction the vehicle was heading and the name, telephone number and address of the witness. He is not sure if they have taken a statement from this witness, nor does he know whether they have tried to find the person who assaulted him.
He came to my office on 14 October to report the assault and the problems he had, and was in a very distressed state - very angry and very upset. He also went to Rob Knight’s electorate office, which is also in the vicinity of the Coolalinga shops. Rob Knight’s office contacted Fred McCue and he called Lindsay three times; once to apologise for the assault, which was very nice. On the other two occasions he was unsure what was happening and said he would keep Lindsay informed; however, he has not heard back from him since that time.
A sergeant at the police radio room also called Lindsay to apologise; although Lindsay felt the words were very shallow. I am not sure exactly why they were apologising, whether it was because they could not turn up to the business on the day of the assault or because he was asked to go to Palmerston Police Station to make the statement.
On 15 October, Lindsay rang the Humpty Doo police centre and the incident was on the computer and was being investigated. Lindsay has been in contact with his insurance company, which is very dissatisfied with the time it has taken to get a report on the assault, and the fact there has been no follow-up either with Lindsay or with the business on the assault of an employee. Lindsay has had to have dental treatment following the assault and he has recovered superficially from the cuts and bruising on his face.
We talk about law and order in this House and how assaults are meant to be commonplace. This gentleman was doing his job in a business in the Northern Territory, selling car parts or items for vehicles or homes to anyone who wants them, and a fellow comes in, assaults him, batters him and knocks him to the ground. Lindsay gave as much help as he could to NT Police regarding the assault, yet nothing seems to have happened.
What does this fellow have to do to get the attention of the NT Police? I have no issue with the police, Lindsay does not have an issue with the police; he knows their resources are stretched. His issue is that he has done as much as he can reasonably be expected to do. He has given a description of the person who assaulted him; the registration number and description of the person’s vehicle and the name and phone number of the witness. Yet nothing has happened, and it is now 26 October. This assault took place on 11 October.
I sincerely trust the powers that be on the fifth floor of this building who are associated with police and law and order will pick up the phone, ring Lindsay at Coolalinga Car Parts and explain why – when he was assaulted, needs medical treatment, needs follow-up treatment, and the insurance company and the business have issues - no one seems to care when a humble person in a business is assaulted.
I urge the government to assist this person because there are many people like Lindsay from Coolalinga Car Parts who are assaulted, knocked around, bashed, yet it does not seem to get through. What if Lindsay had not reported it? It would be another case of someone who feels they have been let down by the system, and it goes unrecorded.
I suspect there are many cases where there have been law and order issues or social problems, upheaval, people getting angry for whatever reason, and they get frustrated. Lindsay has come into my office several times. He is angry and upset and he is pretty average sort of guy. He is a hard-working bloke who enjoys his job, enjoys talking to people in the shop, and doing business with car enthusiasts and people of that nature, which always amazes me. My concern is this bloke has been let down by the NT Police and the Northern Territory government. I urge people listening to this to get on the phone, ring up this bloke, find out who assaulted him, and take him seriously.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make an adjournment speech at the end of the sanctimonious, bleating, hypocrisy of the member for Braitling.
I have spoken in this House before about encounters with domestic violence during my life, and I do not feel the need to go through that again. However, people like me who have directly experienced such violence, and have put themselves in harm’s way to attempt the rescue of other women at risk, are entitled to closely scrutinise expressions of concern about domestic violence committed by people who have a social or political interest.
The issue of domestic violence was recently in the public and political spotlight with the status of Leo Abbott as the Country Liberals candidate for Lingiari. In order to put that party’s current situation in context, it is worth bearing in mind, although the media attention given to the Leo Abbott saga was unprecedented, he was not the first CLP candidate to have a domestic violence skeleton in his closet.
It was my assessment when I first stood for election in 2001 …
Mr Tollner: Let us talk about who has skeletons in their closet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … and it remains my assessment now - the truth hurts and that is why …
Mr Tollner: There is a picture hanging out in that hallway there of a bloke who had a few skeletons in his closet.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … the Country Liberals have routinely preselected Aboriginal male candidates with a view to ticking the traditional man box, regardless of the individual’s flaws or vulnerabilities. It is my understanding the Leader of the Opposition was at the front and centre of the initial push for Leo Abbott to be preselected as the Country Liberal candidate for Lingiari.
The Territory is a comparatively small place. I am not the only Aboriginal person who knew the two Aboriginal women with whom Leo Abbott had relationships which were the subject of recent media scrutiny. It beggars belief that the Leader of the Opposition was not informed of the circumstances of the break-up of at least the second of those two relationships, given they were a matter of discussion and concern by many people in Alice Springs and elsewhere at the time. Both of the women …
Mr Tollner: You are scandalous!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Both of the women were significant and respected …
Mr Tollner: Have you no shame?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr TOLLNER: A point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker! She is dragging a person’s name through the mud.
Ms Lawrie: No, not really, just telling the truth.
Mr Tollner: This is just outrageous …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: There is, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are rules of decorum in this place …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Can we stop the clock?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please.
Mr Tollner: … and I urge you to ask the member to follow them.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Fong Lim. Member for Arafura, you have the call.
Mr Tollner: We could all walk in here with a bit of rumour, Marion …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr Tollner: Just remember that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you are on a warning!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Both the women were significant and respected individuals throughout the Territory ...
Mr Tollner: Well, name names; go on.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … they were not remote community phantoms; not that the anonymity of the victims reduces the gravity of domestic violence to any extent. The truth is, over the last few years at least two women have been on the receiving end of violent behaviour by Leo Abbott in the context of domestic violent relationships and, at least in one instance, this happened while Mr Abbott …
Mr Tollner: This is outrageous.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr Tollner: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is just outrageous; this is absolutely outrageous. There is no way known the member should be standing up here promulgating this sort of nonsense …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51.
Mr Tollner: … this scuttlebutt …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, member for Fong Lim. I have said, and I reiterate, there is no point of order here.
I remind the member for Arafura, when discussing individuals to be mindful they have no right of reply through the House. You have the call, member for Arafura.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I get to the sanctimonious, bleating, hypocrisy of the member for Braitling, because Mr Abbott played a major role in the roll-out of the Indigenous engagement strategy as part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Intervention.
I am not going to reveal the identities of these women, but I strongly suspect the Country Liberals, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, knew prior to the formal preselection who they were, and some versions of what happened to them, regardless of whether it was denied by Mr Abbott ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: I do not think that is true, is it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: This is the issue …
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: They have covered that up for years and you have the hypocrisy to stand in here and rub in that absolute nonsense.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Mr Westra van Holthe: Your assertions are not true.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yeah? I would not say that if I was you.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member wishes to make assertions about the activities of people who are members of this House, then she should do so by substantive motion.
I ask you to caution her in relation to speaking of third parties who do not have any protection in this House. It has been a long-standing principle by the Speaker of this House that that caution is issued from the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, I will issue that caution once again, member for Port Darwin, but there is no point of order.
I remind you, member for Arafura, that under the terms of freedom of speech there are limited opportunities for persons other than members of parliament to respond to allegations made in this parliament.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am very mindful of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hypocrisy of members - look at a number of adjournment debates in this parliament where members from the other side have slandered and defamed the character of people and individuals in the community. People in glass houses should not throw stones. The truth hurts, and you do not want to face the truth.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quoted as having said – fact! - in the Northern Territory News published on 14 August 2010:
- There have been a number of conversations …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Fact? In the Northern Territory News?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, you choose to read the Northern Territory News and hold the Northern Territory News when it suits you, member for Katherine, so do not start with your hypocrisy. You are a joke and a hypocrite. As a former copper, you should know …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask you to direct the member to …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, member for Arafura, if you could direct your comments …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The truth hurts.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura, make your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I quote from the Northern Territory News on 14 August:
- There have been a number of conversations knowing there has been something there in the past, but constant reassurance that it had all been sorted out.
Let us decode these words into plain English, taking into account the sad reality that the standard modus operandi of a serious domestic violence perpetrator is to do whatever it takes to ensure the other party does not publicly reveal the full extent of his behaviour. Quote:
- There have been a number of conversations …
This is a quote from the Leader of the Opposition:
- … knowing there has been something there in the past …
Those words mean the Leader of the Opposition knew that there was a domestic violence problem …
Mr Giles: If you have proof, bring out the police report.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am quoting.
Mr Giles: Bring out the police report.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Will you listen?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Giles: Bring out the police report. Let us debate Abbott versus Bob Collins.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, cease interjecting, please.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Braitling, you are on a warning. Member for Fong Lim!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: At the very least, it was incumbent on his party, and ultimately him as its leader to find out exactly what that something was, and to decline …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Cease interjecting, member for Fong Lim!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, please pause. Stop the clock, please.
I remind members of the opposition, in particular the members for Braitling and Fong Lim, you are on warnings and you continue to interject. If you do it again you will know the consequences. Please allow the member for Arafura to continue with her comments.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the bully boy attitude of these blokes. This is how they carry on. We are talking about a serious issue like domestic violence and these blokes …
Mr Giles: You are slandering someone when there is no proof.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, it is not slandering or casting aspersions. I am actually reading quotes from the Northern Territory News and decoding what those words say; but because it is so touchy, because the tentacles go far and wide to certain members of the CLP and they are touchy, touchy, and this is the bully boy attitude women in this Chamber have constantly had to put up with since 2001.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura, I remind you to direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry. I will continue tomorrow night.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, hopefully to restore some decorum to this House, I will raise some issues pertaining to my electorate.
I turn to the promise in relation to the development of an area called Flagstaff Park. I remind members that in the 2007-08 Budget Highlights and Mr Stirling’s, the then Treasurer, appropriation bill, that $6m was appropriated for Myilly Point redevelopment, including the Flagstaff Park upgrade.
There is very little evidence that $6m was ever spent on Flagstaff Park. If that is the product of $6m worth of expenditure, the government certainly did not get bang for its buck. So, the question arises, what did you do with the $6m? Moreover, where is the redevelopment of Flagstaff Park, and what point have we reached in its redevelopment?
I have in my possession several media releases from the government from as early as July 2008, when the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Delia Lawrie, put out a media release saying plans were unveiled for the new Darwin Park, and there was an announcement of some area set aside for a restaurant to help cover the cost of redevelopment of the site. It did not cause much of a hoo-ha, but everyone looked forward to the redevelopment of the park.
The promises included shade covered picnic tables, a viewing platform, a site for a restaurant and function area with beach views, extensive revegetation and green open spaces, sealed exercise tracks with exercise stations and shade planting along the footpaths, development of Nurses Walk to Mindil beach, stair access to Marina Boulevard in Cullen Bay, and additional car parking.
None of the above has occurred. Considering there was money placed aside in the 2007-08 budget, and it was mentioned in the budget speech, it is a fairly disappointing result. The question I put is, what happened to the money, and where are we at with the development?
That was media release number one. Then for some reason, two media releases were put out on 16 January under Ms Lawrie’s name. They contain the same text but for some reason came out on different headers. On 16 January 2009, the promise was for shade covered picnic tables and barbecues, a viewing platform, a site for a restaurant and function area with beach views, extensive revegetation and green open spaces, sealed exercise tracks with exercise stations and shade planting along the paths, development of Nurses Walk to Mindil beach, stair access to the Marina Boulevard in Cullen Bay, and additional car parking. One of those media releases was on 7 July 2008. Eight months later, on 16 January 2009, none of the promises from the 2008 media release have been fulfilled, merely replicated and cut and pasted into the 2009 media release.
The Flagstaff Park announcements have been made often and they have been made long. The only problem is, once again, one of the great hallmarks of this government is there is a vast chasm which exists between the promises made in the media release and the manifestation of those promises in reality. I note there is a different picture of the then Planning minister, Delia Lawrie, on each of the three media releases. So, three hairstyles later, we still do not have any change to Flagstaff Park.
I urge the government to keep its promises, or at least tell Territorians where it is at with it and what is proposed. The last promise is now ancient, and the truth is the redevelopment of Flagstaff Park is starting to look more like a hoax with every passing day.
That leads me to my next issue in that area - the redevelopment of the old hospital site. We had an original proposal which had its problems. Mickey Dewar did a review of what was proposed for the old hospital site and, on 9 June 2009, the Northern Territory faithfully reported that plans for redevelopment of the old hospital site had been simplified by keeping the trees and removing the hedging maze which was part of the original proposed plan for the old hospital site.
A section of the site, on the Lambell Terrace end, the redevelopment of a little high-rise to pay for the rest of the park, had been moved towards the Cullen Bay end. The residential area was moved from the corner of Lambell Terrace and Shultz Street to Kahlin Avenue because neighbours had complained that high-rises, which might be up to eight storeys, would peer into their back yards.
The plan is intended to be cost neutral because the parkland development would be paid for by the sale of residential land; however, the government will not enforce a policy of 15% affordable housing which is mandated for all residential developments. ‘We have not applied the 15% affordable housing to this residential component, as you can appreciate its locality at the top end of the market similar to the Waterfront’ she said. ‘Architects will be able to compete for the design of the parks and cultural centrepiece. Construction on the park is expected to start early next year’. That is this year, and now it is October this year, not early this year, and it is to be completed by 2012.
Can the minister advise why the redevelopment of the park has not commenced and what the minister is doing to ensure the park will be developed? Will the minister continue to insist that the eight-storey unit blocks proposed for the park are going to pay for the park, or is he going to find some other form of money to pay for the development of the park?
People are constantly asking me what is going on with this site. Minister, I am grateful you are in the House and grateful you are listening to this issue. The people in Darwin as a whole, but particularly in the electorate of Port Darwin, have the right to know what is happening with this location. I will be sticking these comments in everyone’s letterbox in the area to keep them informed of my concern about the development of these parks in the future so they know the sorts of questions I am asking. I hope I will receive a reply in this House before I do that so the minister can inform the House, and the people of Port Darwin, what exactly is proposed for the development of these two parks. Are the most recently announced plans the ones to be adhered to, or have changes been made without advising anyone, or has the whole thing been abandoned as too hard?
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I share a letter from the National Gallery of Australia, dated 13 October 2010, to:
- The Hon Gerry McCarthy
Minister for Arts and Museums,
GPO Box 3146, Darwin NT, 0801
- Dear Minister,
Re: Stage One Opening Season at the National Gallery of Australia
In the absence of Director Ron Radford I am writing to thank you and the Northern Territory government for its generous grant towards artists’ travel costs and allowances which enabled them to come to the National Gallery of Australia for the Stage One opening week of events from 27 September to 3 October 2010.
It was a tremendous success and all who attended the many events and programs were mindful of this historic moment for Indigenous art in Australia. The opening of eleven new Indigenous galleries which includes over 700 works on permanent display makes the National Gallery of Australia the world’s largest permanent display of Australian Indigenous visual arts. It was very significant to be able to celebrate this milestone with the Northern Territory artists.
The leadership shown by your government and commitment to its creative talent, in particular Indigenous artists, was truly visionary. I am delighted that the Northern Territory was strongly represented at the opening day and during the programs which were intrinsic to the Stage One opening week. This was a very high profile opportunity for Indigenous artists to represent the Territory.
Thank you once again for your continued support. I hope that you will be able to come and visit the “new look” National Gallery of Australia in the near future.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Froud,
Acting Director
I also attach the names of the Northern Territory artists who came to the National Gallery of Australia opening of Stage 1. There are eight names on the list. It was truly a wonderful event and a great celebration of our Indigenous art in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to say how sorry I was to hear about Lindsay from the Coolalinga Car Parts. I have known Lindsay for many years. He has been involved in ANSTI, which is a small community that used to operate on Bees Creek Road, helping people with drug and alcohol addiction. I have also known him through his business at Coolalinga Car Parts.
It was a surprise for me to hear from the member for Goyder tonight that he had been attacked. He is a hard-working gentleman who is well-known in the Coolalinga district. It is sad to hear he has been assaulted, and I hope they can find the person who did this sooner rather than later.
On another note, I will also talk about the Masters Games. I know a number of our northern members of parliament went to the Masters Games, and I think they all enjoyed it. Some came back with medals which I am sure they did not deserve but, if there are only two in a race, well, it is easy to get a silver medal. I know Ross Bohlin, the member for Drysdale, picked up a few medals; some of them might be counterfeit because I could not believe he had so many medals. The member for Fong Lim got some for lawn bowls. Lawn bowls is what I do. I could not even get a game, and he goes down there and …
Mr Tollner: Picked up two silvers, and a gold for basketball.
Mr WOOD: I will be talking to Paul Cattermole to see if there has been any underhand arrangements down there with giving out prizes ...
Mr Tollner: Well, there was.
Mr WOOD: If I see some judges going around in a Ferrari, I will know they are absolute …
Mr Tollner: When you bowl over arm, that is cricket.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I am a little suspect, but I am not suspect of the member for Katherine because I saw him running at Traeger Park. He …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not. I must admit, after you have seen me run, you will realise why …
Mr Tollner: I did see you run.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I know. It was certainly not in the same class as the member for Katherine who did extremely well in the athletics, and well deserved the medals he received.
Also, Karl Hampton, the member for Stuart, played some games. I think one was called football, but we would call it soccer. He also played AFL which I had the privilege of umpiring.
Mr Tollner: He was not the only one, either.
Mr WOOD: There was, once again, the member for Fong Lim from Central Queensland, who would not even know what an AFL football looked like. Because he is so tall they borrowed him as a ruckman, and that is about his only use in an AFL game.
The minister for Sport obviously tried his best. He complained a little while ago that the free kick I paid against him was unfair, but that is probably typical of small men who are well past it when they are playing football; they are always whingeing about umpire’s decisions. After all, I was a Masters umpire so I did know what I was doing.
It was a great game. Alice Springs had some advantages because it was a miserably cold, drizzly, rainy day suitable for people who come from Victoria or south of Tennant Creek, and they obviously had some advantages over the Darwin people who are used to playing in hot, steamy weather. But, it was a great game because Alice Springs won by about four or five goals in the end, although Darwin got very close to winning.
I mentioned to Paul Cattermole, who is the boss of Major Events, that the AFL match should be part of the Masters and, if they have a best and fairest, even if they had one for each team, they should get a Masters medal because it is a really good little break from all the other events of the week. It is good that Darwin and Alice Springs get together and play that game. I know we always talk about south of the Berrimah line, but I reckon nearly every player knew one another. If you go back in history, many of the players used to move from Alice to play in the northern competition during the Wet Season so people got to know one another over the years. The camaraderie between all players during that match was terrific.
I enjoyed it as well, and what was also great was all the other umpires were involved in the Under 17 match which was postponed because of the violence. At the beginning of the match, all players and umpires stood shoulder to shoulder with T-shirts and caps on saying we must stop the violence, which was great. At the end of the match the umpires received what they could not receive at the grand final previously, their medals. The team which won the premiership also received their medals and they got a great round of applause from everyone who was in attendance. I thought that was a great thing to do, to recognise the umpires - and there were a couple of very young umpires - for their contribution. It was great to see them come back from what was a fairly serious situation. It could have meant some of those umpires did not want to umpire ever again, so I congratulate the AFLNT for making sure that happened on the day.
From a local perspective, there are many rural people who go to Alice Springs. They all find the cheapest possible place to stay; it is not easy to find a cheap place in Alice Springs for that period of time. If Alice is to encourage more and more people to the Masters, the idea of upping the rents when Masters is on is not a good way to do it. Many people have to jam into the rooms to be able to afford to go there. I would love to encourage more people from the rural area, especially older people, to go to the Masters. It does not take long, you can drive down in a day-and-a-half safely, and it is a good way to encourage older people to participate in sport and stay healthy; that is one of the reasons I try to get involved.
I also do it to try to promote the idea that getting older is no excuse for not participating. I can tell you now that I cracked the whole one silver medal. There were three teams in the table tennis; I was in the mixed lollies. It was mixed all right, but we won a silver medal and I was very happy. I just enjoy getting together with lots of other people. A Danish team won our gold medal, and we all stood for the Danish national anthem.
We had members of the Humpty Doo Bowls Club there; Stan Smolski, Carolyn Smolski, Judy Thompson and Dave Gordon. Stan and Dave won a bronze medal.
Ian Jordan - people who know motorcycles and know anything about motor cars, sprint cars - you name it, he has been in it for years. He lives around the road from me. He was there looking after the motorcycles. It was great to see him there.
The netball team, the Noonamah Crocs; played its heart out. Unfortunately, rain came - and someone might explain to me one day why Alice Springs seems to be the only town in Australia that stops netball when it rains; in Tasmania they play in sleet, snow, hurricanes, you name it, but in Alice Springs they stop and have to play indoors at St Philip’s, right next to the netball team. That is okay, but a few people have asked me why.
In softball we had the Darwin Diamonds, which is nearly all rural people, and they had a terrific competition. Unfortunately, it rained and knocked them out as well. They were looking for a possibility of moving their bronze up to a silver but it rained and knocked them out. The positions at the time when the rain came meant they could not play for a higher medal, but they did very well. They are a great people, mad as you can believe but they enjoy themselves; they love going to Alice Springs, and I love it. Sometimes I am the one man cheering squad, but I try to get around to all these teams and cheer them on. In the case of the Noonamah Crocs, they had a croc which was marching up and down the sidelines at 10 o’clock at night, cheering them on to do the best they could.
I was involved with the cricket; I was playing for the Groote Eylandt Invitation XI. Being the only non-drinker in the team was a bit difficult at times. They played well for some of the time, and they did not play well for the rest of the time, and then the rain came, which did not really make any difference to our medal chances, because we were somewhere between third last and last. We had a great time, and it was great to meet the interstate teams as well.
Everyone enjoyed themselves. I had a great time; I will be going back again, hopefully, in two years time. I will be promoting the Masters as something as many people as possible, especially in my rural area, should try to attend. It is a great event, and we should try to promote the idea that just because you get older it does not mean you cannot be involved in sport. That is the wrong attitude. It is a great way to keep fit, meet new friends, and see Alice Springs. If you were in Alice Springs this year you saw summer, winter, autumn and spring all in the one week. Thank you, Alice Springs, for a wonderful Masters.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I concur with the member for Nelson. He is dead right about the Alice Springs Masters; it was a fantastic week. It was great to see all of the achievement, and it is great to see him getting around with his silver medal. I could not walk around this place with my two silver medals from lawn bowls; it would not seem right. But, in any case, congratulations to you, member for Nelson.
I wish to respond to the outrageous comments made by the member for Arafura. In my time in parliament, both here and in the federal parliament, I have never heard such an outrageous statement as I heard just then. To come into this place and smear a person on rumour and innuendo is completely wrong. It is a breach of decorum; it is a breach of everything we stand for in this place. As politicians, irrespective of which side of parliament we are on, we know only too well that rumour and innuendo abound, and 99 times out of 100, that rumour and innuendo is found to be false.
The only things we can be certain of are findings made by police in our court systems. To come in here running a smear on a person who has not been dragged through the courts - in fact the breach of the DVO in the transcript I read, said something along the lines that it was in all likelihood an honest mistake, that there was nothing threatening or intimidating in the e-mails or text messages the gentleman had sent to the lady, and there had never been any suggestion of violence before the courts. The police prosecutor who stood up before the court also said that.
What I find so galling is that the member for Arafura labelled the member for Braitling and me bully boys in her parting comments because we were offended by the comments she made. She somehow believes we should not be offended, that we should sit and listen to the tripe which she is prepared to dribble out in this place.
The member for Arafura comes in here and says she has two friends who she will not name and will not outline the circumstances of the so-called offences which she is so offended by but is prepared to come in here and smear the name of a person - I do not know if he is of good character or not, but he has not been found by a court not to be of good character.
Meanwhile, every single day we walk into this Chamber we have to walk through that corridor into the opposition lobby, straight past a picture of what we are all led to believe is one of the biggest monsters ever to exist in the Northern Territory. I speak of Bob Collins, the former leader of the Labor Party, the former leader of this party in the Northern Territory, and a Senator in the federal parliament, who we all know was facing charges of paedophilia, and not just one charge. If we take newspapers to be the gospel truth, as the member for Arafura does, evidently there were people all over Australia lodging complaints with police about former Senator Bob Collins. Unfortunately, as members of the Labor Party know well, Bob Collins was not the only paedophile in the Labor Party. There were other proven paedophiles in the Labor Party who went to gaol for being paedophiles.
I have not researched this; however, I recall a person who was a member of the House of Representatives for the seat of Capricornia and also the Leader of the Labor Party in Queensland, Mr Keith Wright, who was gaoled for fiddling around with young girls. He was charged, convicted and gaoled.
There was also the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, a person called Bill D’Arcy, who was convicted, sentenced and gaoled - put away for rape, as I recall it. Up there with Bob Collins as the worst case of any person I have ever heard of in Australia was Milton Orkopoulos, a member of the Labor Party in New South Wales, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the time, who was convicted and gaoled for the most heinous crimes - crimes such as getting young boys addicted to heroin and having sex with them, treating them as sex slaves. These are not isolated incidents; they are incidents which run right across the Labor Party all over Australia. There are a range …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is offensive. He is alleging these are not isolated incidents, and that they are common to the Labor Party and run all over the Labor Party in Australia. That is highly offensive, and I ask he withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you withdraw that very broad statement you have made in relation to members of the Labor Party.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spoken of four members who are all members of the Labor Party who all share ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Long Lim, I am not referring to that. The point of order was in relation to the sweeping statement about the number of - you were …
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I said these …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw in accordance with the point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr TOLLER: I withdraw. Madam Speaker, there are four members of the Labor Party across Australia who are paedophiles, and it would be fair to say in all these cases there were members of the Labor Party who were trying to cover up for them. In the trial of Milton Orkopoulos, there were ministers from the Labor Party in the New South Wales government turning up to his trial giving character references. They were covering up for a paedophile. They were ministers in the Labor Party. The people I am talking about have been convicted and gone to gaol. It is not hard to see there is a trend emerging here.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Again, going to the standing order, it is offensive. To say there is a trend among Labor politicians is absolutely wrong. These are isolated incidents.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold that point of order. Again, member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw.
Member for Fong Lim, did I hear you say you withdraw?
Mr TOLLNER: I said I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, these are not isolated incidents; they happened in the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales. We are aware of other Labor ministers and members who have been gaoled around the country, not for sex and paedophilia offences, as these ones have. Look at Western Australia and we see Brian Burke and Mr Grills; and look at Victoria and see all those dreadful people there who were gaoled. This seems to be a party of paedophiles and criminals, where it is condoned and where they will cover up these things ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A point of order!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, member for Fong Lim. Stop the clock, please.
Ms LAWRIE: Again, standing order - highly offensive. He is alleging members of the Labor Party are paedophiles and criminals. That is patently wrong.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again, member for Fong Lim. Thank you. And you are on a warning should you choose to make that assertion again.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I withdraw. But is it not funny, when you start to lift the lid on some of these things, as did the member for Arafura running rumour and innuendo, making things up as she went along - but the minute someone comes in here and starts speaking the truth, all of a sudden people on the other side get a little offended because they do not like to hear the truth …
Ms Lawrie: You would not know the truth if it slapped you in the face.
Mr TOLLNER: … because the truth hurts. People in the Labor Party go to gaol, and I have just named a whole …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired. Resume your seat! Your time has expired!
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight in adjournment I talk of two of my schools. One is not actually my school but it is on the edge, and that is the Gray Primary School. The other is the Driver Primary School. They are both participating in fantastic exercises where they have begun gardens within their schools. Some people might think it is just a garden, but the size of the Driver Primary School farm is massive.
It is a testament purely to the community around it, the community of Driver and the people who go to the Driver Primary School. It has been built with some money, but really through the love and dedication of many working bees. Since that time, many children have been involved in continuing to make the garden grow.
I hear great stories now of the Gray Primary School and its attempts to do likewise. I think it is important because this is about teaching our kids life skills. This is not academic, these are life skills - skills these children can take back into their homes and put into practice.
There was a time in our world when we all needed to know how to grow our own fruit and vegetables, nurture the chickens so we had eggs, nurture a lamb so it would eventually produce more lambs, produce wool and meat. Unfortunately nowadays, in the last 100 years, we as a society have gone so far from that principle of self-reliance. We have arrived at this time where everything has to come out of a plastic wrapper from the shop. That is why this is a life lesson for all our children who go to school.
I urge any school which is not already considering a similar program - be it a Stephanie Alexander program like the one at Driver or not - to start one of these programs because our children today, including the parents, may at some stage, need the skills to grow their own fruit and vegetables; produce their own poultry and livestock.
It is not inconceivable, if we were to fall into another recession or we were to go into another GFC, that we may not be as lucky as we have been in the last GFC. I am not saying it is going to happen, but the reality is we do not have any more money to put into stimulus packages. Much of that money was ill spent and could have been better targeted; which has always been our claim on this side. We do not have the reserves; we do not have the capacity to stretch much more. Our kids may find themselves needing to learn how to grow to be able to survive at home.
When I was at Kintore as the officer in charge of the police station, we had a reasonable shortage of diverse fruit and vegetables way out in the scrub, some 500 km by road. So, every month or so, we went into town and bought our goods. We could get them shipped out every fortnight, but we decided we would grow our own. We set a small garden, and it was really small, it was probably the size of a queen-size bed, and we produced so much in the way of zucchinis, squash and bok choy we actually grew sick of eating some of the vegetables from our own little garden patch.
It concerns me there is this continued trend to cram our new sub-developments with smaller and smaller lots, with ever increasing house sizes on them so there is no land around for people to grow their own vegetables and experience the joy the kids at the Driver Primary School and Gray Primary School will experience of being able to go to that tomato bush and pick off a juicy red, ripe tomato, or to pick your own bananas, paw paw, snake beans, bok choy, or sweet corn.
It is a skill which should be learnt. It should occur in our schools but also, in a community sense, it should be available for the entire community to experience. I know in England there are community farm lots, so the family has a community farm lot down the road and they buy one when someone moves on from that lot so they can experience the same rewards, because they are so congested at times they do not have space at home.
Let us not make those mistakes made in other countries and let us limit how small we go, because when we continually jam in smaller and smaller lots, all we do is reduce the flexibility of our community. I am not saying every block of land needs to be a 1200 m, because I know that can be somewhat wasteful at times, but the standard block of land should not be 600 m or smaller; it should not be accepted that is the standard block of land. We should be able to have some diversity.
Unfortunately, I do not have time at home, because of our commitments with work, to produce my own fruit and vegetables at the moment, but I do have a lime tree, a five star fruit tree, a guava tree, and some other ornamental plants. It is the skills I learnt as a kid growing up on the blocks that, if we need to, we can pass on to others. If we need to, we could use it to supplement our own diets because one day it may be too expensive for your family to buy everything from the corner store.
We talk about our Indigenous communities and our mainstream communities and the need to ensure they have a good diet. Well, let us grow our own. I have proven beyond a doubt, and so have organisations like Centrefarm, that through the Ti Tree region it is not being in a desert which will prevent you from growing, it is the lack of will or pure laziness which will prevent you from growing your own produce.
We should not be so reliant on a shop; we should be encouraging and supporting schools to teach - as Jamie Oliver has done in England, and Stephanie Alexander does here in Australia - our kids how to grow the produce and how to cook and produce fantastic nutritional meals in the kitchen so they will have a healthier and longer life without the added burden of mass-produced food. Or, if there is a financial crisis we cannot control anymore, they will have the capacity as a family to do something and cut a few budgetary costs every week.
So, well done to Driver Primary School and Gray Primary School for their efforts. I know we have done our bit with the working bees, and will continue to do so. Good on those staff members involved, because it has been enthusiastically run by all. Keep at it, kids, and enjoy those lovely, juicy fruits and vegetables.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016