2010-10-27
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students accompanied by Ms Leisa Beynon. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 33 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Petition No 33
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act commenced operation on 12 January 2005. As members will recall, the act forms part of a national framework for the development of a complementary state and territory police-administered Child Protection Offender Registration scheme. The scheme is administered by CrimTrac. I said when I introduced the legislation on 26 August 2004:
I stand by those comments.
The scheme of the act requires all reportable offenders to register and report their personal details to the Commissioner of Police for a period of time. This reporting period is determined by the class of offence committed by the offender. A person’s reporting period may increase depending on the number and/or combination of classes of offences committed by the person. Since the act commenced operation, around 209 reportable offenders have registered with and reported to police.
These proposed amendments are intended to strengthen the efficiency and operation of the act by enabling police to adequately monitor reportable offenders to reduce the likelihood the person will reoffend. Moreover, they will be crucial in facilitating an investigation or prosecution of a future offence.
In monitoring reportable offenders, it is self-evident police records need to be relevant, accurate and current. These amendments achieve that objective. The amendments may be broadly grouped into two categories. The first deals with the expansion of the types and contents of reports which are required to be given to the commissioner including, in some circumstances, how a report is to be made. The second category relates to the disclosure of a reportable offender’s personal details to another agency in limited circumstances.
Given the nature of the subject matter, a prcis of the proposed amendments was circulated to the legal profession. I thank those in the profession who provided submissions to the amendments. Your comments have been considered, and a number of changes have been made to the bill to accommodate your concerns.
I now briefly discuss the more controversial amendments. As the act currently stands, it requires all reportable offenders to report a variety of personal details to police. Examples include such things as the address where the reportable offender generally resides, details of any tattoos or other distinguishing marks, the nature of the person’s employment, and details of any motor vehicle owned or driven by them. Unfortunately, the act, which substantially conforms to model laws, does not require reportable offenders to report their telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, or Internet service provider information to police.
With the advent of the Internet and the expansion of social networking sites such as Facebook and other discussion forums, many young people can, unknowingly and unwittingly, be groomed by a sexual predator. As we all know, the person you are talking to on a discussion forum may not necessarily be the person you think you are talking to. For this reason, the provision of telecommunication information will enable police to more appropriately monitor reportable offenders. However, it must be stressed it will not circumvent the need for the issue of a warrant under a law prior to any active monitoring taking place.
Most Australian jurisdictions now require reportable offenders to include this information with their personal details and, in doing so, preserve consistency with the majority of Australian states.
Another significant anomaly is the act does not compel reportable offenders to report any significant changes to their personal appearance to police. It is my view this information is essential for law enforcement purposes. A number of submissions were received on this point and, whilst most agreed with the reasons for keeping police informed, many sought clarification on what constituted a significant change. Proposed section 19(1B) contains examples of what constitutes a significant change and includes such things as a change in hair colour from blonde to raven, or the complete shaving off of a person’s hair. Reportable offenders wanting clarification of the effects of the notification requirements should contact police.
As you would expect, some changes to personal details must be reported in person. Requiring personal attendance enables police to take a photograph of the reportable offender, noting where the change was to the person’s personal appearance. It would also permit police to take copies of relevant documentation for police records; for instance, a change of name or a report relating to overseas travel. The latter enables police to confirm the travel taken complies with the person’s report of intended overseas travel. In the event a reportable offender fails to notify police of a relevant change, this bill will permit the issue of a notice to the person to appear at a specified time and place and make the report or answer questions. A self-incrimination provision has been inserted to prevent any answers being used in evidence against the person, save for the offence for giving false or misleading information.
The next amendment which received a number of submissions concerned the reporting of intended Territory travel. As it presently stands, a reportable offender need not report any intended intra-Territory travel. This is a potential risk, as a reportable offender may travel to a remote Aboriginal community and have unsupervised contact with children. Not only would police be unaware the reportable offender was absent from their place of residence, the reportable offender might also be in breach of the act in having unsupervised contact with children. The failure to include Territory travel within the act is, therefore, to be rectified.
However, not all intra-Territory travel needs to be reported. The bill strikes a balance between a reportable offender’s freedom of movement and the obligation of keeping police informed of their whereabouts. As such, it will not be necessary for a reportable offender to report any Territory travel if the intended travel is less than 200 km from the reportable offender’s place of residence, or is less than 14 consecutive days in duration. Additionally, if a reportable offender frequently travels to the same place at regular intervals, the person may make a report under section 16(1)(i) of the act. This will avoid the necessity of having to report each intended travel to the commissioner. If, for whatever reason, the terms of the intended travel change, the reportable offender must notify police of the details of the intended travel.
The last proposed reporting amendment I want to briefly discuss relates to the requirement to report intended travel. On a number of occasions, some reportable offenders have neglected or failed to notify the commissioner of intended travel in accordance with section 20 of the act. When approached about failure to report, the person has submitted they were not required to notify the commissioner of the interstate travel because they were not travelling, they were taking up residence at another place. Under section 16, the act provides a person is not generally taken to reside at a particular place until the person had resided at the place for more than 14 days. It follows, in their opinion, since they had not resided at the other place for more than 14 days the requirement to notify the commissioner of the change had not arisen, even if the move necessitated some travel.
The construction of section 16 was not intended to override a person’s obligation to report intended travel. Accordingly, section 19 is to be amended to make it clear a reportable offender’s obligation to report intended travel is not abrogated merely because their travel plans result, or will result, in a change of residence.
A further requirement is if a reportable offender has travelled overseas, he or she must, on return, present their passport and visa documents for copying. This is seen as a particularly necessary amendment to enable monitoring and, if necessary, investigation of reporting offenders travelling to areas of the world with a reputation for child sex tourism.
I now turn to the second category of amendments which authorises the commissioner disclosing a reportable offender’s relevant personal details to a chief executive officer in certain circumstances. In its present form, a reportable offender’s personal details are not to be disclosed because of the likelihood of harm it could cause the person. In some circumstances, another agency may have competing duty of care considerations in carrying out its functions. On those occasions, the commissioner will be authorised to disclose relevant information about a reportable offender to the chief executive officer of the other agency. Such disclosure is made in the public’s interest and the agency must comply with the provisions of the Information Act in the use of the sensitive information.
Madam Speaker, this bill provides police with powers to effectively monitor reportable offenders to protect the lives and sexual safety of children. I am confident the bill will achieve its objectives. I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Northern Territory Act with the intention of updating names and numbers, repealing obsolete provisions, and streamlining processes in line with the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.
The act commenced in 2006 as a condition of the Northern Territory Police being declared an interception agency. It establishes the record keeping, reporting and oversight regime required in relation to warrants and certificates obtained under the Commonwealth act. This bill will make minor amendments to the act to correct references to sections in the Commonwealth act which no longer exist, and to correct anomalies.
Sections 6(a) and 6(b) will be removed from the act to simplify the requirement that copies of warrants or instruments revoking warrants must be provided to the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services by the Commissioner of Police. This is not going to create any concerns or complications in the process as the Commonwealth act does not require duplicate production to both the Commonwealth and local minister. It will also remove the need for reproducing the records to the minister.
Furthermore, copies of warrants and revocations will continue to be retained by the commissioner under section 4, whilst written reports about information obtained under warrants will be provided to the minister under sections 6(c) and 6(d).
The Ombudsman will retain the powers of inspecting those other records. This independent inspection and accountability will ensure the act is being complied with and copies are retained. If there are any issues in relation to the warrants or revocations, the minister will be notified through the reporting mechanisms under the act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I advise honourable members of this government’s ongoing commitment to fire safety in the Northern Territory. As many members would be aware, there has been a significant increase in developments under this government, such as the construction of many large office and apartment buildings, including significant industrial developments. Some of the complex, major building projects completed in the Northern Territory in recent times include: the Darwin Fuel Depot; the Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals upgrades; G3 at Nhulunbuy; the Darwin Bio Diesel Plant; Wickham Point LNG Plant; the Darwin Convention and Exhibition Centre; Evolution – 33 storeys high; 130 The Esplanade – 3x26 storeys, and the Pandanus apartments – 28 storeys, to name a few. Each of these projects was very involved and required considerable fire safety input prior to, during and after their construction.
Development applications are expected to continue into the foreseeable future, and Access Economics is forecasting a continued growth of around 3.6% for the Territory for at least the next five years. This is good news for the Northern Territory.
The Territory Fire and Rescue Service is the legislated agency under both the NT Building Act and the Fire and Emergency Act for compliance with all fire safety laws. The agency is statutorily obligated to ensure compliance with all fire safety requirements under the Building Code of Australia and other Territory legislation.
Fire safety in buildings is an important public issue, particularly in places of accommodation such as backpacker hostels and places of public entertainment. The Community Fire Safety Division is the section responsible for fire inspections and building fire safety compliance in the Territory; however, because of increased growth and development in the Territory, it is unable to continue to cope with the demand within its existing resources.
It is the government’s intention to enhance public safety by increasing the resources and expertise within the Community Fire Safety Division. An additional 10 staff will enable the Community Fire Safety Division to deal with fire engineering applications, fire safety reports and licensing, and compliance inspectors throughout the Northern Territory. Once of these positions will be permanently based in Alice Springs.
The increase in resources to the Community Fire Safety Division will be self-funded through an increase in the fees associated with false alarms and call-outs which result in the attendance of the fire service where there is no fire or other emergency.
Other revenue will be realised on a user-pay system with the introduction of fees for new building applications, approvals and inspections. The Community Fire Safety Division currently carries out these functions at no cost to certifiers, developers or owners. Charges for these services are found in most Australian jurisdictions and this change will see the Fire and Rescue Service fall into line with many other fire services.
I stress that these new fees will not apply to Class 1a residential buildings. A Class 1a residential building is a single residential dwelling, such as a detached house or attached townhouse which is separated by a fire-resistant wall. It does not include a multiple storey block of flats or units.
As a reporting authority under the Building Regulations, Fire and Rescue Services must provide a report to the building certifier for the certifier’s determination regarding the issue of a building approval for the proposed works. During and following construction, the Community Fire Safety Division inspects the building’s fire safety for compliance with the Building Code of Australia. If approved, the Community Fire Safety Division must provide a report to the building certifier who may, ultimately, issue a Certificate of Occupancy in respect to the building.
The proposed new fee structure closely follows the Queensland model which is based on a building’s floor area. I foreshadow Territory fees will be significantly less than those prescribed in Queensland as my government has not, and will not, impose barriers against developments in the Territory.
In addition, fees will no longer be determined by the minister by notice in the Gazette. All existing fees under this and another act will be prescribed in the regulations. This makes the fees more accessible to the industry. A fee for the preparation of a report for a building with a floor area of less than 700 m is likely to be in the vicinity of $340; the Queensland equivalent is $851.60. Where a building is to have a floor area of more than 1500 m, but less than 2000 m, the fee is to be approximately $820; the Queensland model provides a fee of $2054.90. Other fees for different floor areas will apply. An inspection fee of $220, which provides an inspection of two hours duration, is proposed.
In the event a fire safety design fails to meet the Building Code of Australia requirements, the Community Fire Safety Division may meet with the developer to find an alternative solution. The attendance at an alternative solution meeting is expected to cost around $340. Along similar lines, some fire service systems may not be approved during the initial inspection. If this is the case the developer must rectify the non-complying fire services and have the works re-inspected. A re-inspection fee of $260 for the first hour and $130 for each hour thereafter will be considered. It follows it is in the developer’s best interests to have the Community Fire Safety Division involved at an early stage in the design and planning of a building thus avoiding substantial cost modifications later on.
The introduction of these fees is for the purposes of enabling Fire and Rescue Services to fulfil its statutory duties. As discussed, the fees will self-fund the additional resources necessary to meet the demands imposed on the agency resulting from the Territory’s continued growth and development.
In addition to these fees, increasing the fee for attending false alarms or call-outs is proposed. The existing false alarm call-out fee is $345. The intention of increasing these fees is to recover the actual costs in attending false alarm activations and call-outs. Alarmingly, approximately 40%, or nearly 3000 of all call-outs attended by the fire service relate to false alarms. As a minimum, one fire truck and four firefighters respond to each false alarm. Presently, the Territory lags behind most other jurisdictions in the quantum and enforcement of these fees. I am advised, on average, the cost of responding to a false of alarm is approximately $700. I anticipate the new fee will be of a similar amount to recoup the lost costs.
I am hopeful that as a result of the increase in the fee many building owners will endeavour to maintain their fire alarm monitoring systems or upgrade their systems to contemporary standards. Doing so will not only avert unnecessary false fire alarm activations, it will also avoid the unwanted liability to pay for the attendance.
Turning to the liability for the payment of a false alarm, as the act currently stands it imposes the liability on the occupier of the land or the building. Where there is no occupier, the invoice is issued to the owner of the land or building. In many cases it is the building’s owner rather than the commercial tenant who assumes control of the building’s fire systems. It is proposed to amend the act to make the building owner responsible for the fee other than where an occupier has entered into a connection agreement with the director for the monitoring of a building’s fire systems. This will reduce the administrative costs associated with Fire and Rescue Services having to ascertain the identity of the occupier. Moreover, it accords with modern commercial agreements for buildings consisting of multiple tenants.
Establishing the identity of an occupier is also necessary for the purposes of serving a notice under section 25 of the act to require a person to eliminate or reduce a hazard on a property. It likewise applies for grant of a permit. Fire and Rescue Services do not have ready access to a register which discloses the name and postal addresses of specific occupiers. This has a considerable impact on the administration of the act, especially in rural areas where landholders may fail to install fire breaks around the perimeter of their property. This is a significant fire hazard, not only to their own property, also to that of their neighbours.
To overcome the imposition of having to locate the name and postal address of an occupier, it is proposed permitting the director to, for example, serve a notice on either the owner or the occupier. Insofar as installing a fire break is concerned, it may well be appropriate that notices be served on the owner in any event since the Residential Tenancies Act provides it is a term of an agreement that the owner must meet all health and safety requirements specified under an act. Since installing fire breaks is a safety requirement under the Fire and Emergency Act and Regulations, it may be the responsibility of the owner to ensure this safety requirement is met. I also flag similar amendments being made to regulations in the future.
The government will continue to maintain and enhance the safety of Territorians by providing specialist expertise within Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The allocation of the additional resources will allow Fire and Rescue Services to meet its current and foreseeable obligations.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 17 August 2010.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the opposition will be supporting the Mineral Titles (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 (Serial 121).
It is complementary legislation to the Minerals Titles Act which was debated earlier this year and passed. That legislation was a long time coming, not through the fault of any department or industry person; it was just the way it was. With any new legislation you want time to ensure it is drafted in such a way as to be clear, concise, transparent and, more importantly, workable. This will guide our exploration and extractive industries into the future. Given this was drafted 20 or 30 years ago, we have to ensure we get not only the legislation right but, more importantly, the regulations yet to be drafted to support the legislation. They are being worked on, and I thank the minister for the recent briefing on the legislation and other issues discussed with departmental staff. The regulations are important; both the government and the department will be discussing them closely with industry, and I encourage and support that.
There will be a requirement for some administrative changes when government implements this legislation; most notably to the computer system known as Titles Information System, or TIS, the prime computer software used by industry, and others. I will make a few comments on this which I hope the minister takes on board.
At the moment, TIS is set up to input information and retrieve information. Currently, when plotting for exploration, you put in for 500 blocks. That is going to change because it is now 250. I ask the minister if we can move towards a one-stop shop when it comes to titles management. Currently, the explorer or tenement manager uses the Titles Information System within the Mines department, then goes to the Lands department to use the Integrated Land Information System to discover who owns the properties, then goes to NRETAS to find potential heritage and archaeological site issues, and then they have to go to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority.
We need a computer system which will make it as much a one-stop shop as possible and when the application goes in it will show a sacred site. It will not tell you what it is; it will tell you there is an issue. The explorer knows to go to the Sacred Sites Authority and find out where the site is. Or, have a layer regarding heritage or archaeological sites. When the explorer puts the application in, they know straightaway there is a heritage site which needs to be identified and protected. That does not happen at the moment, and it would make it more efficient and effective for industry and government if it could be coordinated through the Titles division and the Mines department.
The other thing needed in the computer system software is a search for titles by the miner or explorer. Currently, this does not happen. The search is by titles, and if we put in a company name all their titles - I stand to be corrected – across the Territory would show up - where they are, what had been surrendered, what had been dropped off, and the time of the application. A change will make it easier for company personnel looking at this component.
In recent briefings the member for Katherine, as shadow minister, and I had, the government stressed - I support it and want to see it happen - when there is a transfer of mineral claim - and there are many across the Northern Territory by several companies in particular and the minister knows which ones they are – they have a big swag of titles for minerals claims - when they are transferred to either exploration licence or a mineral lease there is no disadvantage to that company, financial or other.
I have concerns regarding the implications of native title arising and creating issues for the miner - not that native title is a problem; however, it could slow things down and cost the company more money through no fault of its own because government wants to change the system. I stress that companies in that situation should not suffer any detriment or be disadvantaged in the work they do, or in the financial marketplace regarding their investment in the Territory and, of course, their shareholders.
The department has assured us there will be transitional arrangements and it will take some time to go from an old system which has been around for decades to a new system. Many mineral claims are historic, with many probably not being actively worked on; they could be changed without too much trouble. My concern is those that are actively worked on and those that form part of an active stable of an exploration company.
I highlight one point made by the member for Daly regarding the project at Batchelor. I cannot recall the context in which it was raised; however, I want to clarify it because it is important. It is linked to this legislation and to future potential exploration in that region. The project at Batchelor, which is owned by the HNC (Australia) Resources Pty Limited, or loosely called the Browns Project, in area 55, has been placed into permanent care and maintenance. The member for Daly advised the House it was not permanent; it was just in care and maintenance. I will read from the media release of 1 October from HNC (Australia) Resources Pty Ltd:
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: It is permanent. Permanent means permanent; no more. I find it disappointing for the future of this project, or lack of future. The minister for mines and I were present at the signing between the Chinese investment partners and the Australian company, and the government supported this project. They talked it up, as they should. Potentially, it is a fabulous project. The project has always had technical issues which will probably carry into the future; however, given the support the Northern Territory government gave this project, encouraging and attracting the Chinese investors into the Northern Territory, for the member for Daly to mislead parliament, and probably the people around the Batchelor region, is wrong. I tabled the document to set the record straight.
I know the Mines minister has a difficult job; he wants to promote and further the exploration mining industry of the Northern Territory. He knows more than anyone on that side of the House the benefits it will bring. However, it seems lately every step of the way he has been stymied, not allowed to push forward in regard to the future of the exploration and mining industry, which is wrong. I am sure the minister will clarify it in his reply.
Issues regarding potential amendments to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act needed clarification. We have some amendments for committee stage, so I ask if he could explain the background and why there was potentially an issue, although I understand it has been sorted out.
The other matter I would like clarified - and it was explained to us in the briefing - is in regard to the AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act and the changing of the corridors for the railway line from 800 m to 400 m to 100 m. How does that work in regard to explorers which want to come into that area or are already there?
Those are the points I wanted to raise at this time. Yes, we support the legislation; yes, we will have the committee stages. It is procedural. There are 27 pieces of legislation needing amendment so the word ‘mining’ is omitted and replaced with ‘minerals title’. There are a few other amendments, and there is no reason not to support them. Most of the amendments are administrative; however, I make the point regarding the Title Information System. I ask the minister to take that on board and explain why we cannot have a one-stop shop to help in the efficiency and effectiveness of administering titles in the Northern Territory, whether they are for mineral exploration or extractive exploration.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill to amend various legislation consequential on enactment of the Mineral Titles Act 2010. I have a number of questions to ask the minister and will keep them until the committee stage.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I note an amendment to this bill has now been circulated and it will be attended to in the committee stages, as far as I am aware, without any problem from our side of the House.
I do, however, make the observation we again find ourselves repairing a bill on foot which the government has brought into this House, or dealing with a bill which contained errors. I am uncertain of the mechanisms the government has in place to check and double check the bills they bring into this House. Upon reflection of some of the instruments we have been asked to consider over the last few days, I ask the government to turn its attention to how it manufactures and double checks this legislation.
I am not saying every error is avoidable. I am saying these errors are far too common. Consequently, I suggest the checks and balances the government has in place are insufficient to meet the needs of this House. It should not be up to the Leader of the Opposition’s office to telephone ministers’ offices and tell them there are problems with this bill and problems with that bill, only to discover they are correct.
If you think of the vast resources available to government and the somewhat limited resources available to the Leader of the Opposition, it is surprising how easily these things are picked up. It may be as simple as sitting someone in a room and telling them to go through this legislation with a fresh pair of eyes to ensure these things do not happen. It is becoming a track record of this government to come here with repairs to legislative items. Many of these repairs are made on the run and I am concerned the effect that will have in the future, particularly in the court system. I would hate to see a mistake we make in this House, a mistake made by the government, or for that matter by opposition, to have a resonating effect in a court which negatively affects a Territorian because we were not careful enough.
Madam Speaker, I urge the government to double check its systems and repair those systems where necessary so we do not continuously find ourselves fixing that which should not be broken.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution and for supporting the legislation. It is to amend other legislation which may be impacted by the changes and the introduction of the new mining act, the Mineral Titles Act.
It will impact on 27 pieces of legislation including: the AustralAsia Railway Special Provisions Act; the Geothermal Energy Act; the Mineral Royalties Act, and other legislation. The impact is generally very small; just changing reference to the new legislation or amending title types and ensuring the rights and obligations which currently apply are maintained. To enable continued advice from the new Mineral Titles Act, all relevant legislation must be amended to incorporate the changes reflected in the Mineral Titles Act.
I thank the member for Goyder for her comments about TIS. Yes, it is something we are looking at. We have to ensure different departments’ software talks to each other. The railway corridor will be amended. Originally, the railway corridor was 800 m wide; when construction took place it was 400 m wide. Now the railway is up and running the corridor is 100 m wide and the railway company maintains the right to acquire gravel from the 100 m corridor; that is very clear.
As discussed, member for Port Darwin, no errors were made in the legislation. The legislation is introduced into parliament, it sits before the House for a number of days to give the industry, and any other interested person, the opportunity to discuss it, study it, and come back to us with proposals. If there are any amendments to be made, we are happy to introduce committee stage amendments. In this case there was no error; comments were made later by a government department regarding the definition of the owner. We amended the legislation to clarify the definition of the owner.
Madam Speaker, we will be going to committee stage.
Motion agreed; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair …
Mr WOOD: Are we taking it all as a whole?
Madam CHAIR: No, we have taken clauses 1 to 8. Do you have questions about clause 9?
Mr WOOD: No, I have questions about clause 3, sorry. Can I ask the minister if he would allow those questions?
Madam CHAIR: If you would like to ask those questions you can.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, minister. In relation to clause 3(4) which is headed Consortium may mine extractive minerals on corridor general reserved land - it has a large number 16 written against it - it is a little hard to follow when you are going through. In relation to a railway company mining extractive minerals within that corridor, can they sell those extractive minerals to someone else?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is for the use of the railway only.
Mr WOOD: If a company was building a road nearby, could they seek permission from the railway to use that gravel?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, it is only used for railway purposes.
Mr WOOD: If they were the only extractive minerals suitable for road building in the area, is it possible for another company to apply for a mineral extractive mining lease over that material within the railway corridor?
Mr VATSKALIS: The act provides for use of the corridor for railway purposes. If the company was building something for the railway or associated with the railway, they would have discretion to allow the use of the extractive minerals.
Mr WOOD: I understand that; however, it is a pretty long railway corridor from the boundary of Alice Springs to Darwin. I thought there may be cases where that may be the only extractive material available, and it is locked up only for the railway. Considering the length of the corridor, it seems strange there is not some way around that if the material is required.
Mr VATSKALIS: Considering you have 100 m corridor, which is actually 50 m from the centre of the railway, it would be a very interesting proposal to mine so close to the railway line. I do not think the railway company would be very impressed, and I do not think a licence would be forthcoming.
Mr WOOD: Probably more like a pastoral property needing some materials.
Mr VATSKALIS: Of course, this again comes under the AustralAsia Railway act which is not the subject of this act. I am not the responsible minister to respond to that question. My understanding is it is only allowed for railway purposes.
Mr WOOD: Minister, that section says the Mining Management Act does not apply in relation to the consortium or activities conducted under the mineral authority. Please explain what that clause means? I do not see it in the explanatory notes.
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is they have the right to mine and the Mining Management Act does not apply. They have to comply with any conditions put to them by the minister.
Mr WOOD: This will be my last question, minister. In relation to new clause 3(9), the explanatory notes say:
Could you give us an explanation of that? If the schedule was revoked in 2000, why is it being repealed now?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is the repeal was by gazettal notice, while this one is repealing the act. It is catching up with what happened a few years ago.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Nelson. Minister, you were going to move your amendment to clause 9.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move the amendment to the Minerals Titles (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 that the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act be defeated and replaced at committee stage.
The proposed new amendment to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act relates to the definition of an owner of land. The amendment clarifies the holder of an exploration licence is not a landowner for the purpose of the act. Owners of land have certain rights in respect to sacred sites, including compensation. The amendment maintains the status quo. The status quo was the same as with the previous CLP government, so we are not changing anything; we maintain the status quo.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I seek clarification because I am not sure if I am in the right area. This precedes the section on mineral royalties in the amendment bill, or is it subsequent to? I thought clause 9 was page 11 which deals with the Land Acquisition Act, then it deals with mineral royalties. If it is still coming, I will wait.
Mr VATSKALIS: No, it amends the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act.
Ms PURICK: Yes, okay.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Ms PURICK: I am not sure it is the right area, but can I have some clarification on items to do with clauses 9(4)(a) and (b).
Madam CHAIR: If you have questions now, member for Goyder, that is fine because the next thing we will do is take the remainder of the bill.
Ms PURICK: Okay, thank you. Minister, in regard to clause 9(4)(b) where it mentions section 106(3), (4), and (5) of the Mineral Titles Act applies in relation to the recommendation as if a reference in those provisions to the minister were a reference to the tribunal, I am trying to understand, does the minister or the tribunal have the final say? I do not believe a minister can delegate to a tribunal. I am trying to get it clear in my mind. If a decision came from a tribunal, does the company or the person have the right of appeal to the minister, or is the minister the final say?
Mr VATSKALIS: What section are you referring to?
Ms PURICK: Page 11, up the top it says section 22(3), then there is a part (3) which talks about the Lands Acquisition Act, which is in the current act; then subclause (4) starts:
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is the minister has the final decision.
Ms PURICK: The minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Ms PURICK: Thank you.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 19 October 2010.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it seems the government does not even want to talk about this, which is …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was the opposition which wanted this debate adjourned and brought back this week …
Mr Tollner: That is not a point of order.
Dr BURNS: It is a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, there is no point of order.
Mr BOHLIN: I really do not know what was so offensive in that comment; it struck a nerve straightaway. I am sorry, I was a little aghast at that. I thought I was going to talk about something which is really serious; this is really absurd; what a bizarre reaction.
This is not the first report we have had since this government came to power. It is a well worded report - Growing them strong, together –however, it is not the first time this has been discussed in this House since the coming to power of the Labor government 10 years ago. One only has to go to the first page under the foreword and realise we have a serious problem. This report is not complimentary of the government. It highlights massive failings of the Northern Territory government to take true leadership in child protection. In the lower half of the page ‘Management of Complaints and Allegations’, halfway through the fourth paragraph says:
If it came to the attention of the board conducting this review, why did it not come to the attention of the minister? If it came to the attention of the minister, why did the minister not take action before the review commenced? It clearly outlines a systemic failure of the Labor government to take responsibility of its portfolio positions. This is extremely serious stuff; this is massive.
The report says whilst it was looking at it, there was a rapidly growing backlog of children deemed to be at risk awaiting commencement of an investigation into their circumstances. Surely someone in the government sector saw this occurring. The board did not take long to see there was a problem, raised it with the minister, then what happened? Does that mean the minister was complacent and sat on it? It can only be determined that is what happened. We cannot say the public service has not done its job.
We cannot say the public service did not advise the minister, through the various minders, that there was a problem - surely not. As a member of the Northern Territory Police Force I used to work with these people. Our public servants who work in this field are extremely frustrated by the blockades at the top of this House. Our public servants who work in this area truly want to make a change and are affected by the outcomes they see unfolding before their eyes. They are tearing their hair out.
The minister goes home at the end of parliamentary sittings. I do not see the minister losing sleep over this today. On Monday, 18 October, this government received a briefing. I would have expected today - 10 days later - the minister would be introducing change to the current legislation to make a difference. I presumed the minister, and the entire Cabinet of the Northern Territory government, would be so exhausted their eyes would be falling on the tables; they had not slept because this is an emergency. This is not a come Friday event; knock off and go to the pub. This is catastrophic. This is another massive volume on top of the Little Children Are Sacred report, on top of the Bath report. This is not a situation where you, as a government, go home and think you had a good day today. This is a situation where you do not go home; you come up with a solution.
If you think the report was the only indicator you had, you are kidding me. You are an absolutely failed government. We have had warning signs for ages. Let us go to 21 June 2007, the launch of the intervention; a result of the Little Children Are Sacred report. Let us lay out a time line, if nothing else, to say in June 2007 we were told there was a serious problem. We knew there was a serious problem because we already had a substantial, very damning report – the Little Children Are Sacred report. That report alone should have meant this government went into lockdown and fixed the problem - they should have worked so hard their fingers bled. No, it sat on the report and, on 21 June 2007, there was a media release - national emergency response to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory, from the former minister Hon Mal Brough:
Hang on, let us go back:
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, would you mind if I acknowledge these students, please?
Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Year 7, Palmerston High School, accompanied by Mr Kai Pedersen and Mrs Lati Alefaio. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker:
On 26 June 2007, a media release came from the federal parliament: ‘Government outlines Phase One of NT reform’.. Whilst I am talking about this, consider what is coming into play here. A plan is unfolding, which I will mention shortly, and is pretty simple. ‘Government outlines Phase One of NT reform’ dated 26 June 2007. The second paragraph says:
I will come back to that in a second. I was Officer-in-Charge of the police station at Kintore when it happened.
Further in the document:
When did all that urgency stop? The first of the small teams arrived in three communities, one of which was Kintore. People were jumping up and down saying: ‘Armageddon is coming; the army is coming; everyone is going to come over the hills; there will be tanks’. Not one single tank arrived; about four Army personnel is all - not a very big force, however, some people were touting this was an Army takeover. There were four experts in various fields. One was engineering; two were from local Indigenous forces – NORFORCE – for community relations, who were fantastic. The kids loved those guys in green. They were the best thing they had seen in a long time, and it was fantastic.
There was a flurry of action in those communities during the first phase of the intervention. Then came the unfortunate part where the federal Liberal government lost power and the Rudd government, followed by the Gillard government, took over. It was like someone had put on the handbrake in those communities. Someone had pulled the rug out from under the efforts the people on the ground were making – as if all the medical checks done had vanished into thin air. From post-June 2007, medical checks had been performed on all kids, and data is available to show what problems existed. Medical staff doing reports were extremely stressed by what they came across at times, however, they kept their dignity; they kept on with the job. They did it; they did something, unlike this government.
This government is sitting on its hands doing nothing. Has this government gone to sleep? Has it fallen asleep at the wheel? Has it forgotten what needs doing? This commenced in June 2007; we are now in October 2010 - over three years later. You have had three years warning - three years of sitting on your hands. The report says in the last three years things have deteriorated because of your lack of action and command; your inability to operate on the ground and make changes. You had the Australian public behind you - the Australian Army behind you. A landing force the size of Gallipoli was coming and you have done nothing.
Your actions have been so ineffective and wishy-washy you have not protected children. You have failed! This was released 10 days ago. A media release three years ago saw the announcement of a program to deliver within five days. We had a report 10 days ago, yet we do not see a single player on the ground. We do not know what this government is doing to protect children. It has not outlined what it is doing to fix the problem.
It is simple. Do not go home until you fix it! Get something happening. The media release on 26 June says the government outlines Phase One of NT reforms. What does that mean? Phase One sounds military-like, doesn’t it? That is because it was. Mal Brough - former military …
A member: Reserves.
Mr BOHLIN: Do not degrade the Reserves, they do a great job. Australian Defence Force members are very highly educated, they are taught how to plan, command and orchestrate things. That is why this government fails, it has no idea.
I will table a document shortly to help you guys out because you are not delivering what you need to. Now, 10 days after the report, we should be seeing from the Northern Territory - have we had daily briefings? Have we received a daily report of what is happening? I do not hear about it; you have not told the media, you have not told the public things are under control, you know what is going on and are protecting the children. Has a command centre been set up in response to this crisis? It should have the head of FACS, the minister, the education CEO or an advisor - there should be five or six people minimum, with 10 or so controlling it. The government has said it is getting people from interstate; that is great. What are you going to do with them? If you do not have a command system in place, what will you do with the resources? How are you going to manage this? You have nothing in place. Has a team been set up to review and allocate - allocate, my God! Deliver, do something! Allocate the outstanding children at risk. Maybe it has on the quiet; there should be a very tightknit control team to deliver it.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member for Drysdale be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Are all the outstanding reports being delivered? They are not just reports. Allocate the outstanding children at risk! These children are real and at risk. Someone had an urgent need to write a report because they honestly believed something bad was happening to this child. Do not mess around - it ain’t good. If it were good they would not report it. Because it is not a priority one - I do not know how we determine priority one, however let us imagine it indicates there is physical abuse occurring and someone has seen a result of that. People are saying: ‘There is something wrong here and I need to report it because I am concerned for this child’s welfare’.
Psychologists around the world will tell you certain behaviour by children indicates something is wrong. Those children are no less at risk than someone who has seen something. The difference is they are missing proof, however, there is every chance - let us hope less than a quarter - these children in this lower category are abused in some way. That is horrific.
The Chief Minister should be going to the federal government and the intervention task force commander to see what is going on - what is happening in the operational field? A FaHCSIA team is here, what is happening? This report is condemning. The Chief Minister should be asking the federal government if there has been a fresh command centre set up under the intervention to respond to this emergency. This does not say it happens in only one area. The federal intervention is a resource. Let us find out what one hand is doing with the other and see if they have set up a new task force. They should be packing spare bits in their pants because this report has canned them as well. It has canned the federal government together with the NT government.
Has the command of the intervention task force asked for a breakdown of children at risk in their area of operation? Has the command said the report suggests there are many problems? Which of those children are in their area of operation? We do not know because this government is not telling us what they are doing. It is saying: ‘Yes, we are getting people from interstate’. That is a good thing; however, they are not outlining their action plan - what they are doing. Ten days into this emergency and we have seen nothing.
The government has had a million opportunities to do something and has done nothing. We have a bill it does not want to know about, it is part of the recommendations. I have a document I will table shortly. It is from the Internet; the web address is www.achieve-goal-settings-success.com. It is about the SMEAC system - a military-based system which can be applied in every single business or operation, government or otherwise, in this world. There have been many wars and emergencies and all our counter disaster – we see a cyclone and set up a command centre. We have not heard of one being set up following this report, and there are probably more people at risk at the moment than from a blow of wind.
The SMEAC system is another acronym borrowed from our mighty military. They do a good job so we may as well learn something from them. SMEAC – S stands for situation, M for mission, E for execution, A for administration and logistics, and C for command and communications. I do not have time to read it all. Situation - we know the situation, and in a command centre we would talk about it. What is the situation? Kids are being hurt at home, or in other places, and we have done nothing about it. The mission is to fix the problem. These are basic terms; you can fill in the blanks. We have to fix the problem. Kids are being hurt and there are many reports which have not been acted on or properly reviewed. What are we going to do about it? That is the mission.
The execution is how. How are we going to do this? What are we doing? The first part would be setting up a command and control to determine what we have in resources and allocate them. This government has no idea of what is occurring in its own back yard. We have report after report and know it has no idea or command of the situation. That is execution; how to do it.
The administration – that is where we talk about the logistics. So, we need extra staff. We have talked about it; you have done some of it. You have probably jumped a few things and have lost command. What are we going to need? Where are we going to get them from? Are we going to engage better with FaHCSIA, the federal government or the intervention? That is a resource. That is part of the ability to deal with this and why it is here.
Command and communications – taking hold of it. This is what the Chief Minister does. He is the commander of the team and, at the moment, has sunk the ship. He has let it go to a pack of dogs, and we are fighting on the ground and nothing is happening. They have nothing - nothing at all. There is no command and no communication. Communication would be letting people know what is happening, what the government is doing. You have failed the people and do not want to talk about it. You do not want to explain what you are doing to fix the problem.
I will table this document for government use - it is easy. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the document called the SMEAC system.
Leave granted.
Mr BOHLIN: I know the system back-to-front. I have been trained in the Defence force and the police force. Why does this government not look to see how they can better administer their resources; we have had three years of warning there is a problem. Three years later the problem has become worse under the Labor government. They cannot blame any former government for this; it has become worse under this government.
We have two documents, the Little Children are Sacred report and the Growing them strong, together report which clearly state the Henderson government, and the Gillard/Rudd government, have failed Northern Territory children by failing to act decisively and with clear vision into the future - getting on with doing the job and reacting. Ten days after this report we do not see a command team or an announcement from the government. We have a command team set up; it is all under control - coordinate and control it. Everything is happening; we have people here and people here. We have reviewed one quarter of the outstanding documentation. Nothing! Nothing at all!
It is disappointing I have to speak on this matter. It is hurtful to think there are children - not reports - going unchecked, at risk of serious harm and this government has lost command of the ship. It has no idea how to get out of it, and people should remember when their children step out the door, or come home, there is no one protecting them - this government has failed.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will talk on this very serious matter of promoting the safety and wellbeing of the Northern Territory’s children. There has been comment that the government should have brought this matter back quickly. The opposition asked me to request the government delay continuation of debate last week because this was such a large document and it only had a short time to go through it. The government agreed. We need to keep things in perspective. The opposition asked for a delay in debate on this matter and I agreed because it is a big document - 712 pages and I have not been through it all.
Sometimes history records things in funny ways. It needs to be noted this inquiry occurred due to a number of people - not politicians - I had much to do with at the time discussions about it occurred. One of those persons is Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN, and another is Dr Bauert, vice-President of the AMA. At the time this report was being discussed the then minister, minister McCarthy, said she would have an inquiry into inputs in relation to child protection. I was asked if I supported an inquiry; I said I did. One of my failings is I can say something then realise, not being an expert, I might have been saying that without the technical background to give an intelligent response.
I was contacted by Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN, whom I have known for many years outside politics, and believe is one of the great lights in the Northern Territory when it comes to looking after children. Long before this became a headline, you would find Lesley Taylor promoting the welfare of children. Anything she said about this inquiry I would listen to. She told me this inquiry would not deal with the issues we needed to address - it had to be broader. I was in New South Wales looking at prisons at the time, and I contacted the minister advising the expert is saying the inquiry is not adequate for what is needed.
It is through people like Lesley Taylor and Dr Bauert that this inquiry commenced. It is because they knew the facts on the ground, had the expertise, had the passion, and were outside politics - not pushing a political wheelbarrow - and knew things were bad. You only have to read the foreword of this document to see things were bad.
I am not going to say government should have done better; plenty of speakers will tell you that. In the end, as with all democracies, the people of the Northern Territory will judge the government on its record. It will have to face up to the record of the past and, if it achieves change as the inquiry is attempting, it can say change occurred on its watch. However, it will have to live with the condemnation of this inquiry which pointed out the failings of the government. It is clear; we have an independent inquiry.
There was much talk about whether Dr Bath should be on the Board of Inquiry. I was probably not convinced. The opposition was also very vocal, saying Dr Bath was not an independent person because he had to report to the minister and was funded by a government department, etcetera. I met with Dr Bath when I returned from New South Wales and was convinced Dr Bath was a very genuine person and would be independent. He was the Children’s Commissioner; the Children’s Commissioner is independent. Although he was one of three people - and I should not forget Dr Rob Roseby and Professor Muriel Bamblett - he would have to be one of the key reasons this inquiry got off the ground. For anyone to say this man is not independent and could not have done the job, they are not looking at the report seriously.
My belief is Dr Bath is an extremely knowledgeable, intelligent, independent, and passionate person regarding the welfare of children. We have a jewel in the crown; we have a person in our community willing to say what he thinks. This is a serious document, not a document put together by amateurs. It has been put together by people who have knowledge in various ways - whether it is Aboriginal, Central Australia, or a broader knowledge. Commissioner Bath came from South Australia originally and has much background in this area.
I thank members of the inquiry for the hard work they have done. I thank Dr Bath for the hard work he has done, and for allowing me some insight into the man. I have met Dr Bath a number of times and believe the Northern Territory should regard him as a person of great integrity and we should listen to what he has to say. If we really want to show gratitude to the people who worked on this report, the best way is to ensure the recommendations are carried out. It is no use spending millions of dollars on the inquiry and not acting on it.
I agree to some extent with the member for Drysdale; the government has to show some urgency. I was in parliament when the intervention was announced because the Northern Territory government was too slow. The government has the same issue as the opposition; this is a large document and you have to go through it properly. We need to understand the report. It has guidelines scaled at one, two and three in relation to how quickly things should occur. Anything with number one should have things happening. When the minister sums up I hope he can bring us news about what is happening on the ground in relation to that.
Several issues need to be highlighted regarding where we are heading with child protection. Some of these are from Lesley Taylor, from NAPCAN, who said the main thing is early intervention. If we do not seriously intervene into stopping abuse occurring we will always have a child protection department and will be playing catch-up football. We will be trying to protect kids after the event. We need to intervene early and, would you believe, in the 147 recommendations only one mentions early intervention. Recommendation 119 says:
is characterised by a strong partnership engagement with the non-government sector in planning and implementation.
It is only one recommendation, but it is a big one which I believe is a core recommendation. If we do not recognise the symptoms and causes, and if we do not put money into those things then I agree with Lesley - we will just be a child protection unit; that is all we will be doing.
Chapter 6 opened my eyes. That is the area I have been concentrating on because if we are to tackle and overcome the issues, we have a good chance of well-adjusted children in our society and we can reduce the cost of child protection. The issues in Chapter 6 are so important. The first set of risk factors for child abuse and neglect have been categorised as economic factors - poverty, unemployment, overcrowded or unstable housing.
You do not need a recommendation from the inquiry to tell you that is one of the key problems in the Northern Territory. Without going into the SIHIP issue, the bottom line is if we do not do something about overcrowding in Aboriginal communities by building enough houses we have a permanent risk factor for child abuse. A concrete change needs to occur. Although it is very expensive and has caused much heartache politically, we must continue working our way through the issue.
Governments should not have to pick up the entire bill. I stated recently, the Indigenous Land Corporation spent $300m buying the Yulara Resort. I do not have a problem technically; that is what they are about. They are trying to develop industry for Aboriginal people, create employment and investment. So why did not someone say: ‘Why don’t we invest in a housing company and put $300m into housing?’ Solving overcrowding is not only the broader population’s problem. Aboriginal organisations with money available have a responsibility to look at investing in housing. With $300m we could probably produce 600 houses. That is not a bad number for the Northern Territory if we could put them here.
There is an investment; they get money back through rent. They create employment because they have to maintain the houses. Sometimes we put too much emphasis on saying it is the government’s fault. In some cases it is; when you read the inquiry much of it is the government’s fault. Sometimes we have to say: ‘How, as a community, can we help?’ In this case Aboriginal organisations – and they seem to have a great deal of money because they invest in shopping centres and all sorts of things – why do they not invest in housing? You could then see a direct consequence of their investment for the people they say they represent.
The second set of risk factors is social factors such as racism, discrimination and social isolation. There will always be many debates about racism and discrimination. Racism can occur on both sides of the fence. Social isolation and exclusion is not just about Aboriginal people. People, for whatever reason - often economic - are poor, live in a society where they have very little chance of moving up, their education is low, they feel they do not have much chance of getting a job and people are not interested in employing them, and they feel like outcasts. That is difficult to change.
That is where education, self-esteem – it reminds me of prisoners at the Darwin Prison who did a stockman’s course. You could see the self-esteem and pride which came from it; it was tangible. We need ways to bring people back into society and give them pride. Sometimes it is simply because they live in a community with rubbish all over it and there are not many jobs. It is all part of this mix which is not easy to change. We have to attempt to change these things.
The next set of risk factors is community factors as mentioned in the inquiry, relating to dangerous, disadvantaged or socially excluded communities, and communities which have lost many community members. These can be a spin-off of overcrowding. If people are living in overcrowded conditions they have health problems. If they have health problems they are down in the dumps - you are not being looked after. If the kids only see physical violence in the home that is all they know. According to ABS statistics, two-thirds of households with 0 to 14-year-old Aboriginal people need more rooms. Approximately one-third lived in houses with major structural problems, and one-third had facilities which were not working or unavailable. You not only have crowded houses, you have issues within the houses. Kids pick up infections and diseases because they live close together. These problems do not help. A loving environment is what you are after.
There are other risk factors such as parental factors, mental health, substance abuse, family and domestic violence, learning difficulties, parental anger, strong beliefs in corporal punishment, trans-generational trauma and its impact on parenting, and lower levels of empathy. Things coming from that are family violence, gambling, substance misuse, mental illness, disabilities, learning difficulties, early pregnancy, and unemployment – a range of issues we know about which shows the enormity of what we are dealing with. To change these things will require a large effort from government.
One issue to highlight in relation to parental factors is - Lesley Taylor said the same thing - we need universal parenting. We need to teach people …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan. We are now finding grandparents have to act as parents because people have no parenting skills. The key to early intervention is to ensure systems are in place for all children in the Northern Territory, and all parents - especially when they have their first child - to access programs which deal with parenting. Lack of parenting skills - reading through this document - is one of the key factors why kids are not loved. Parents do not know how to look after their kids, and when they have the second, third and fourth child they think that is the way it is done. A lifestyle continues which is not helping those kids.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, would you mind if I acknowledge these young people?
Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of year 5/6 Wulagi Primary School students accompanied by Mr James Reardon. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I have mentioned in parliament previously, the Northern Territory has a very high rates of babies born to women aged between 15 and 19 per. The figures show there were 52.2 babies per 1000 women - this is in 2008 - aged 15 to 19 compared to the national average of 17.3, and 75% of the 400 babies born to teenage women in the Northern Territory were born to Aboriginal women. We have young people navigating between adolescence and parenthood. What chance do those children have if we do not give them the skills to look after their babies? There is a program at Plumpton High School, Sydney where young women having babies can go back to school. If we could do that with some of our young women, especially in remote communities, they would have a chance to gain parenting skills as well as keep their education going. We need to target that area. Again, it is early intervention; we need to push for early intervention.
There are risk factors classed as child characteristics. Low birth weights, special needs, difficult temperament, behavioural problems - a range of issues need to be looked at early. If someone has problems parenting, how are they going to look at difficult temperaments or behavioural problems? Will they know how to handle kids? This document says sometimes the behaviour causes bigger problems because there is a strong belief in serious corporal punishment because the parent has no other way of controlling the child. They either use corporal punishment to the extreme, or go to the other extreme and say yes to everything the child wants. We need to work hard on getting parenting skills up and running throughout the community.
We also have family characteristics, poor relationships, large number of children, and single or early parenthoods. One reason these young mothers do not have good parenting skills is because their mothers did not have good parenting skills. They are also, perhaps, outcasts. We know, in some cases, mothers have had children with men who are not of the same skin group so there is the shame-job aspect as well. My wife has always been concerned about the number of young people having babies with males they should not be in contact with. You have cultural breakdowns, which is part of the problem we have. You then have mothers who are nearly outcast in their own community. We have to work through these issues and intervene.
We have ecological factors. It is a fancy word - they call it environmental toxins. We all know about violence and gambling. Gambling is mentioned a number of times. I do not know how you get around that: people playing cards all night, kids sitting outside waiting for mum, or hanging around the card game. They may know how to play cards when they grow up, but may not be well looked after.
In some cases we have unresolved grief. A statement in the report mentions one community had so many deaths all the people seemed to know about, day in-day out, was grief, because of the high mortality rate. What happy lifestyle do you get when you are raising kids in that environment?
Last, if the child has had previous experience of abuse or neglect. If physical abuse, sexual abuse, and mental abuse were part of a family’s lifestyle, there is a good chance children growing up in that lifestyle are going to have the same problems. That is where the early intervention has to come in.
It is interesting to note the highest rate of substantiations of child abuse and neglect are for infants younger than one year old - younger than one year old - a rate of 31.6 children compared to 16.4 for other age groups. Do we have to be interventionists when it comes to that? If the highest rate of substantiation relates to babies younger than one year we have some serious problems. That is the time you would be hoping the care and love were at their greatest. We do not appear to have that, which is a major concern.
There are some pretty good mums out there - some good families out there. We need to be working with those good families. There are many good Aboriginal mothers and fathers. When I say fathers, there are issues about men being left out of the discussion. We have to raise the belief men are as important as women when it comes to parenting. That is a major factor missing from this debate. The importance of men being seen as part of the process to change things is mentioned in Chapter 6.
In relation to the good side of what we are looking for, what we should be aiming at when talking about early intervention, page 176 of the report says:
That paragraph sums up what we should be doing. When it comes to the crunch, kids being abused says there are kids who are not loved, who do not get a hug and are not told they are important. We need to change that. We have technical recommendations on how to change the department, how we put in structures; however there are human factors which will be much harder to change.
I agree with Lesley that we need early intervention. We need to use people, especially Aboriginal people on the ground and train them because they know their community better than anyone else. We need to say to young people: you are important; you are an individual and are special; you are unique; you are loved; you are a valued person in our family and our community.
That is part of our problem; kids live in overcrowded houses and are rejected. They see continual violence; perhaps their parents drink too much or play cards too much. It is an enormous issue and we cannot say: government fix it! We can condemn the government for what it might not have done. Let us as a community, as a parliament, fix these things together. You cannot blame government; we are all part of this. The foreword of the report says: child protection is everyone’s business; that includes us.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Department of Lands and Planning officers from the divisions of Public Transport, Transport Safety, Road Network and the Transport Executive of the Transport Group. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement to this House in relation to the report and recommendations of the inquiry into the child protection system in the Northern Territory.
This public inquiry has been thorough, very detailed, analytical and evidence-based and centred on specific terms of reference which seek to answer the critical questions about what is working and what is not, and how government can best apply new resources to address the backlog issues, reduce the number of kids in need of state care, and better support Territory families with their most important duty – bringing up their kids in a safe, secure, and supportive environment.
The inquiry’s report and recommendations present us all - the Northern Territory community, parents, families, all levels of government and the non-government sector - with a new opportunity to refocus, improve, and strengthen the Northern Territory child protection system. The recommendations from the inquiry will guide the future direction of child protection in the Northern Territory, and enable us to reshape the system so every child and family in need will have access to support, and kids at risk are properly identified and cared for.
In October last year, in my role as then Minister for Child Protection, I announced a review of the notification system within Northern Territory Families and Children. It was clear to me, particularly after talking to Dr Paul Bauert, President of the AMA, we had reached a tipping point. I spoke to the Chief Minister about the need for a broad-ranging public inquiry into the Northern Territory’s child protection system. The Chief Minister unhesitatingly accepted that advice, and the Board of Inquiry was appointed by the Chief Minister on 9 December 2009.
In my view, the appointment of Dr Howard Bath to the Board of Inquiry was vital. His experience, depth of knowledge, conscientiousness, diligence, and commitment to the children of the Northern Territory made him the best man for the job. Since being appointed as the Children’s Commissioner in August 2008, Dr Bath has made the Northern Territory his home. The people of the Territory are blessed to have his input as the Children’s Commissioner, and as an integral part of the Board of Inquiry. Joining Dr Bath on the Board of Inquiry were Professor Muriel Bamblett AM and Dr Rob Roseby.
I assisted the Chief Minister in selecting Professor Bamblett. It was very important not only a woman was appointed to the board, but an Indigenous person with a strong understanding of family and child protection matters. Soon after I took on the role of Minister for Families and Children I visited Victoria to see the work of Professor Bamblett with the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency and was very impressed with the direction they were taking. I knew we could use many of their models when dealing with issues with children across the Northern Territory.
Professor Bamblett has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency since 1999. From 1998 to 2008, Professor Bamblett was the Chair of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, or SNAICC, the peak agency representing Indigenous child and family services nationally. Professor Bamblett brought to this inquiry a wealth of knowledge and understanding of child protection and youth, drawn from her extensive experience working with VACCA, as well as the Chair of SNAICC. This range of experience was important in helping to ensure the board was informed of recent reviews and inquiries into the child protection system in other states, as well as child protection issues and developments locally, nationally, and internationally.
We also know there are serious concerns across the country. We know the minister for Women, and the minister for FaHCSIA, have been working on a national approach to the care and protection of children.
Dr Rob Roseby, similarly, brought a wealth of experience to the inquiry. Dr Roseby is a Deputy Director of Adolescent Medicine at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne and former head of paediatrics at Alice Springs Hospital. He is a very passionate advocate for Indigenous health and wellbeing, especially for children and young people, and came highly recommended by the AMA.
The Board of Inquiry has undertaken an exhaustive examination of the many and complex issues surrounding child protection in the Territory, as well as canvassing best practice solutions. The inquiry follows and builds on the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, which culminated in the Little Children are Sacred report. More than 75% of the children coming to the attention of the child protection system are from Indigenous families, and many of these families live in remote and regional settings.
A most important theme of the Little Children are Sacred report was Aboriginal men and women must be supported and assisted to take responsibility, participate in planning the future of their communities, and improve child, family and community wellbeing. This is a very central theme of the report. If we are to have enduring solutions and minimise the need for state interventions, we have to address the issue of family and community participation in child protection. As the inquiry report says: this is everyone’s business, it is not just about NTFC or the machinery of government.
Another key message from the Little Children are Sacred report was there is no quick fix to the underlying disadvantaged and environmental conditions which contribute to families in distress, particularly Indigenous families. It is something our government has been acutely aware of in planning for the future and looking at the regions knowing we had to embark on a whole-of-government approach to the care of families across the Northern Territory, especially because we have been so acutely aware in this House of the serious decades of neglect across the regions in the care of families.
The key message is that a long-term sustained commitment and a strong partnership between the government and Indigenous people is essential to future success.
In 2009, our government took a big step forward in developing a new overarching policy direction to improve conditions for Territory families in our remote growth towns and smaller places through A Working Future. A Working Future is a vital part of our government’s long-term commitment to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage. A Working Future is about maximising opportunities for Indigenous Territorians to pursue happy, healthy and prosperous lives. At the heart of these reforms is the wellbeing now, and into the future, of our children and young people.
We are investing in A Working Future across the Northern Territory because we recognise the care of children is based around the conditions children are living in. Where we see neglect of children and children living in houses where there is overcrowding, malnourishment, children not attending school, their parents do not have jobs, as a government we have taken an incredibly bold and visionary step of reforming those areas of the Northern Territory on a broad scale. We saw that commitment in financial terms, when the Treasurer announced in the budget this year close to $1bn towards the 20 towns in A Working Future.
It is only the beginning; it will not solve all the problems. We recognise we need to have a visionary plan for these regions to grow so the next generations of Australians will have a better chance; these children will have a better chance at life, good opportunities in front of them and will feel safe.
To achieve this, the Henderson government is working with local people, the non-government sector, business, industry, land councils, local government and the Australian government to develop local implementation plans. These implementation plans identify local people’s long-term priorities and future aspirations across seven key building blocks: Early childhood; schooling; health; economic participation; healthy homes; safe communities; governance; and leadership. Our government sees it as not only the care of children but the growth of families across the Northern Territory. That is why it was important that the inquiry board looked at the connection, including the delivery of child protection services in regional and remote areas, as part of the development of A Working Future.
The second term of reference states specific approaches to address the needs of Territory children in the child protection system, including the delivery of child protection services in regional and remote areas as part of the development of A Working Future was integral to finding a way forward. We recognised, as a government, we had immediate, urgent issues which had to be addressed. We also recognised, as a government, we needed a solid, long-term vision for the families of the Northern Territory for generations to come. That was the strong connection of A Working Future.
As the minister responsible for A Working Future reforms, I recognised at the outset how vital it was the Board of Inquiry linked closely with people in my department who have responsibility for coordinating the A Working Future initiatives - the service delivery coordination unit within the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. There were three key issues which the Board of Inquiry discussed with the Service Delivery Coordination Unit in relation to A Working Future. Mathew Fagan works in the SDCU and was very much a part of that briefing. There has been incredible work done in that unit and we still have a long way to go. These issues were:
The Board of Inquiry identified that within the child protection system there has been a lack of direct, dedicated engagement with families in remote communities. The board looked to the hub-and-spoke service delivery model inherent in the A Working Future policy as a framework which could enable child protection services to be located in the bush on a permanent, dedicated basis - a decision not made previously.
On Stateline last Friday, Judy Hanson from Foster Carers NT welcomed this move towards community based child protection services stating:
In the ongoing development operation of the local implementation plans in our growth towns and their service regions, the Board of Inquiry was pleased one of the key building blocks within each one is early childhood. A key initiative arising from the inquiry is the establishment of child safety and wellbeing teams in each of our growth towns, as well as integrated child and family centres. The new network of integrated child and family centres in our growth towns will build on the good work of shire-run childcare centres and crches which already exist in a number of communities. In one growth town, between 40 and 60 children per day attend the local crche operated by the Central Desert Shire, which employs 13 local Warlpiri childcare workers. The Central Desert Shire also operates a location-supported playgroup as an additional and separate early childhood service which works closely with the crche.
The Board of Inquiry indicated the Henderson government’s birth to jobs/colleges plan for the 20 growth towns would be a positive development. These colleges will have a significant focus on early childhood development, encompassing children and families from birth.
The inquiry report notes a crucial issue for government to deal with is fragmented service delivery. The Service Delivery Coordination Unit has established good practice and systems to work across government agencies and federal and Territory governments. I will be working to ensure this experience is used productively to assist with the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations.
Our work in our Territory growth towns is heavily supported by the Commonwealth and the inquiry notes it is, and will have to continue as, an essential partner in delivering the child and family support systems required. I am pleased to note the Commonwealth government has responded quickly, announcing new investments including: expansion of the existing network of family and community workers, supporting around 100 additional community-based support workers by 2013-14; a new mobile child protection team with an additional 15 child protection workers; ongoing support for the development of community safety and alcohol management plans; and support for safe houses aiming to establish a safe house in each of our Territory growth towns.
Dr Howard Bath said on Stateline last Friday:
A key initiative and commitment arising from the inquiry is developing child safety and wellbeing teams and integrated child and family centres in each of our growth towns. These will be centrally important to supporting local families, ensuring early intervention and support for children in need, and appropriate recognition of cumulative harm and the need for any state intervention.
The inquiry also noted the need to consider the child protection needs of adolescents. A number of shires across the Territory are already heavily involved in the provision of youth programs as well as sport and rec programs. For instance, the Roper Gulf Shire has been awarded $1.8m in funding for training Indigenous youth in certified youth worker positions over three years for Ngukurr, Numbulwar and Borroloola. The MacDonnell Shire Council has been awarded $4.7m in funding to employ youth workers and Indigenous trainee workers over a period of three years in the Papunya and Hermannsburg growth towns, as well as Areyonga, Kintore, Haasts Bluff and Mount Liebig.
Embedded in the youth, sport and rec services provided by a number of shires in our growth towns is an understanding a child does not develop independently of the community in which they reside. As Minister for Local Government, I recognise the role our new shires have played in fostering community representation in local government, promoting Indigenous leadership, and providing the basis for Indigenous people to help build a better future for their children.
Development of local leadership is crucial. The other important contribution my portfolios of Indigenous Development and Regional Development will make to keeping children safe is through the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. The AIS played a significant role in the inquiry into the child protection system in the Northern Territory. In particular, AIS training officers and client service officers worked to upskill interpreters on complex child protection issues. This enabled AIS interpreters to better assist community members who met with the Board of Inquiry to understand the inquiry’s terms of reference and focus.
AIS training officers and client service officers also travelled with the Board of Inquiry to remote communities across the Northern Territory to support interpreters at community forums. The AIS now has offices in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Maningrida, Yuendumu and, most recently, the Wadeye office was opened by the member for Daly. Led by Colleen Rosas, the AIS will continue to work on upskilling interpreters on issues relating to the child protection system. It has been an enormous logistical effort to explain to Indigenous families across the Northern Territory the importance of this Board of Inquiry and explain the terms of reference in language people could understand.
As Minister for Indigenous Development, I close by mentioning the Aboriginal child placement principle. The Aboriginal child placement principle is one of the …
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the minister to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Daly. The Aboriginal child placement principle is one of the underlying principles of the Care and Protection of Children Act and is set out in sections 7 to 12 of the act. The Territory government supports the Aboriginal child placement principle. The purpose of the principle is to ensure recognition is given to an Aboriginal child’s right to be raised in their own culture and the importance of family, extended family, kinship networks, culture and community in raising Aboriginal children.
However, we must remember alongside the Aboriginal child placement principle is the principle of a child’s best interests. A child’s best interests is another of the underlying principles of the Care and Protection of Children Act. It stipulates, when a decision involving a child is made, the best interests of the child are of paramount concern. The Aboriginal child placement principle should not surpass the principle of a child’s best interests. Recognition should be given to an Aboriginal child’s right to be raised in their own culture and the importance of family, however, equally, we must consider a child’s best interests, including the need to protect the child from harm and exploitation, the child’s need for stable and nurturing relationships, and the child’s physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, developmental, and educational needs.
On page 359 of Growing them strong, together in the chapter on kinship care it says:
The Board of Inquiry noted the crucial importance of culturally competent service delivery. I look forward to the new peak body, and the new Aboriginal childcare agencies, making an important and enduring contribution to better family support and child protection outcomes.
Madam Speaker, the Henderson government’s response to this inquiry and its recommendations will build on the work this government has already done to boost the care and protection of children, and ensure we have the best possible system in place, involving everyone, for our most important, valued and precious gift - our children.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the authors of Growing them strong, together. I also thank the staff who spent many hours working on the report, doing the research - staff who work in family and children’s services, and particularly the many workers, volunteers, foster carers and people involved in what might be described as the industry of family and children’s services. It is a tough industry. Being someone who has been a foster carer and respite carer - albeit many years ago and in another jurisdiction - with my wife, I understand some of the difficulties and circumstances involved.
It seems to be yet another day we are talking about child protection in the Northern Territory. Seeing the Growing them strong, together report reflects for me on the Little Children are Sacred report. It raises many concerns; there is much worrying information in the report. I have spent much time reviewing the report in its entirety, particularly the executive summary and the 147 recommendations.
I found the situation identified in the report deeply concerning. I believe the situation is worse now than prior to the Little Children Are Sacred report.
Within a day of commencement of the $1bn-plus intervention we saw immediate assessments of children and ear, nose and throat checks. NORFORCE came in to maintain stability. There was a changing in land tenure. We saw the Themis Police Station allowing police to establish law and order in communities. We saw SIHIP announced, which was supposed to provide housing for people in an emergency situation. It was concerning then, and continues to be concerning. At the time there was much reaction to the way decisions were made and the lack of consultation. In an emergency situation you have to maintain stability and fix problems.
The report says at the end of June over 870 children were reported to be at risk and were awaiting formal investigation by NT Families and Children. That is horrifying, and I am surprised debate was adjourned last Tuesday. I am surprised no one has spoken of the 870 children not assessed; children reported to be at risk and waiting a formal investigation by NTFC. I am concerned that number has blown out to 1000. More concerning is no one is talking about the 870 to 1000 kids. We have had political responses.
The Chief Minister announced last week an extra $131m had been allocated. I do not know how $131m came about. It appears a psychologist was brought in to give a figure which would sound good in the media. What will $131m over five years do? How will it help foster carers? How will it help staff? I have worked my way through the 147 recommendations and some have merit; however, some are socialist, left, wishy-washy ideas from people with no conviction to say it like it is.
I watched Stateline last Friday night and thought: here we go; no one is getting to the point of what is happening. We all know it is a big issue, we all know there are not enough staff for the number of cases. The minister said he has sought staff from Ireland and Canada, and some are coming from New Zealand and Tasmania. It is simply not good enough. There are still unassessed children. I thought: what do we do? I have discussed it with my colleagues. What do we do; this is an emergency - normalising the abnormal was the phrase - we are complacent in the Territory. We see this as the way things are. Eight hundred and seventy children have been reported at risk and are awaiting formal investigation. That is the line in the report I cannot go past.
The idea of setting up an Indigenous advocacy agency is wishy-washy. We have foster parents who have been looking after young children for many years who still find it difficult to have a loving relationship with those children. We hear of situations where those foster care kids have visits with family and come back malnourished, dirty, unhygienic, and things have to start all over again. We are so worried in the Northern Territory, in this country, about foster carers providing a long-term loving relationship for children at risk. There was one adoption in the Northern Territory last year and only two adoptions in Australia. There were 500 adoptions of children from African nations – Somalia, etcetera. No one begrudges those families or the kids; however there are kids at risk in the Northern Territory who have not been given the opportunity for adoption into a family who will love, care and provide for them.
Everyone is so worried about the political sensitivities around the Stolen Generations no one will put their hand up and say we need to look after this kid, or that kid; we need to put them into a loving family. That has to happen. There has to be a movement towards long-term care, in an adoption sense, for children of the Northern Territory who are at risk. People must not be afraid to say that. This is a fair and reasonable subject to debate in the Northern Territory. I have people in my electorate who have been foster carers for years and years and cannot get any sense - and it is not an NTFC staffing problem - out of the system to enable them to give these children long-term loving care.
I was talking to a constituent yesterday - and I hope the department does not persecute this person because I am relating the case without identifying the person. He and his wife, who have two foster children - one with a severe disability - sought respite for one weekend. They have had several full-on years and wanted respite for a weekend. They were told by NTFC staff in Alice Springs there was no one to take these kids; they cannot go away for the weekend. They cannot have two days off for the family. Nothing can be done to help these people. That is a concern for one family. We need a free and open debate in this Chamber, and in Australia, about what we do for kids in care and need.
We had 870 at the end of June - now believed to be 1000 - awaiting a formal investigation by NT Families and Children. Part of the reason the caseload is so big is because we never close off cases - we never reach a point where someone can formally adopt a child. That is not the only reason; I am using it because it needs further investigation and we need frank and honest debate about it without fear of persecution from the lefties and the hairy armpits who will say: ‘You are starting a new Stolen Generation’. That is not what it is about; it is about giving care, love and protection. I am horrified 870 children have been reported at risk and have not been investigated. I do not see a sense of urgency from government in this regard.
It is time the federal government was called in to assess the level of need of these children and the situation they are in to ensure they are in an environment which supports their needs. Otherwise, move those children to an environment where they can be properly cared for.
My colleague, the member for Araluen, has already spoken in this debate, and I know she will be speaking at length on the serious predicament of these 870 children - presumed to be 1000 children.
It is time the Northern Territory government called for help from the federal government to assess these kids, to ensure they are living in an environment which protects their needs, are safe, are being fed and are not being abused. We have to do that. We have to assess all cases to ensure no one has slipped through the cracks. If we do not we are saying this is not an emergency.
At the start of the intervention the emergency was so important the federal government acted; however, the Territory government will not act. We need the federal government to search internationally, nationally, to identify workers to assist with flying squads to analyse and investigate the situation of those children identified as at risk, ascertain the level of risk, and put in place case management so these kids can be adequately protected.
The government said it will address all 147 recommendations of the report. While the government is playing political games, putting these recommendations in place, we need a parallel structure to assess all children reported at risk and waiting formal investigation. My colleagues on this side of the House will be talking more about this. The federal government should be setting up flying squads, assessing children at risk as a matter of emergency. This is an emergency; we have to immediately assess all these children.
I am not going to talk through the different recommendations of the report, I am sticking to one point – at the end of June 870 children had been identified at risk and were awaiting formal investigation. It is now thought up to 1000 children have been reported at risk and are awaiting formal investigation. These are the kids, this is the emergency; this is the situation we need to be fixing today because every day we delay those children are more at risk. It is nine days since the report was presented, and I have not heard anything happening to address the emergency for the children reported and not investigated.
Yesterday, I called on the government to tell us what is happening with these children. They did not do it in Question Time today. I have not heard them speak on that. My colleagues will be speaking on the need for the federal government to get involved; bring in flying squads, staff from overseas, assess these children and put in place case management plans to address the safety requirements of the children identified as being at risk. I encourage the Northern Territory government to get on board with the Country Liberals to support our approach to the federal government to have the assessments required to ensure these children are adequately protected.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will leave further comment for my colleagues, who I know recognise that it is an emergency that these children are protected.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I respond to the board of inquiry into child protection report, and child protection issues generally. The report has only been out for a short time and we have had a considered response, albeit not as detailed as we would like.
The Bath high risk audit report, which was leaked early this year, identified serious problems with the child protection system in the Northern Territory. The report identified a system under enormous stress and strain to the point of breaking, with the results being continual, if not increasing, abuse and neglect of children across the Northern Territory. When the government received the Bath report it sat on it, probably not knowing what to do with the alarming findings which had occurred under its watch over the last 10 years.
This Labor government was frozen, if not completely impotent, in dealing with the enormity of problems facing it in the child protection system. Rather than being proactive, this Labor government played possum; it did nothing with the dozens, if not hundreds, of children who are continuing to suffer. They are neglected and, at worst, are being abused emotionally, psychologically, and physically.
It was only when the report was leaked in February this year this Labor government was forced to acknowledge the high-level problem, if not crisis - the member for Braitling said that; it is a crisis. We have an emergency on our hands in our child protection system. For ministers, and members of government, to now stand before this parliament and pretend to be horrified and appalled at the situation in child protection is plain wrong. At worst, it is fraudulent and they should be condemned for it. They talk dribble and pretend to care, whilst outside this building hundreds of children are not being fed properly, if at all, are not being clothed, are not going to school, and hundreds are being used as play things by adults across the Territory. That has been staring this government in the face for over four years, if not longer. Yet, it hides behind successive inquiries and reports, continues to do nothing and the problem becomes worse.
The report leaked earlier this year showed how bad things were in child protection; however, the government tried to cover them up, if not ignore them. Let me give one example of this government’s incompetence and lack of action. The Coronial findings into the Melville case recommended legislation be changed as a priority so a similar situation would never happen again. The government said: ‘Let us wait until the current report is finished then we will deal with legislative changes’. Guess what? The findings of the current report say, in response to the Melville coronial inquest, that legislation needs changing. What the hell is going on? The government knew it had to change the legislation; it waited; it deferred it. Another report says it needs to change the legislation. Will it change the legislation? The Coronial inquest recommended changing the legislation. Let us get on with it; change the legislation to protect our children in the Territory.
The Bath report leaked in February recommended serious and major changes. The government did nothing and said: ‘Oh well, let us wait until this report …’. Guess what? The report just went by. Come on, minister, how many times do you have to be told the system is broken and needs to be fixed as a matter of priority? The legislation needs to be overhauled and the department needs to be better resourced to deal with the problems we have in the Northern Territory.
The minister is reactive, not proactive. The government waits until a young girl dies in squalor in the back yard before it acts. It waits for a child to be abused and starved before it acts. Why are you not out there, minister, on the front foot looking at ways to improve the system, improve the lives of children in the Territory before the broken system smacks you in the face?
Listening to the various speakers on the government side it appears they are trying to rewrite history in relation to improving our child protection in the Northern Territory. I can see little evidence of action in improving the system. Twelve months ago, if not longer, the government knew the system was broken yet the minister, and the government, did nothing. The annual report of the Children’s Commissioner late last year stated there was a backlog in cases of children to be assessed. It was acknowledged in an annual report. They knew about it months and months ago, and nothing has happened in regard to that backlog of children, and they now seem shocked we have upwards of 800 children yet to be assessed. That is an appalling situation. My colleague, the member for Braitling, has stated the number of children waiting for care and treatment, and waiting to be assessed.
Minister, why is it on Wednesday, 20 October 2010, the Northern Territory Law Society said the Northern Territory should be investigated over alleged breaches of the Care and Protection of Children Act? The Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission told the child protection inquiry the government routinely moves children to foster homes interstate without court permission. It said this means children become legally invisible because neither the Family department nor the courts can ensure children’s foster carers are being supervised.
The Law Society President said cases where the law had been broken must be investigated. This is the eminent body of the legal profession saying the government, and its department, must be investigated. They are breaking the law. They are moving dozens, if not hundreds, of children interstate into care, and no one knows where they are, what they are doing, who are they living with, how long they will be there or what is happening. What happens to the reports regarding the foster care of these children? The Law Society President went on to say:
How can legal organisations put submissions in on such a serious matter and the government not attend to it? This has gone out, but seems to have died. What is the government doing? Who are they trying to keep quiet regarding the number of children not being assessed and cared for, and the number of children taken into homes interstate? No one seems to know what they are doing.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will continue to talk on this report at a later time. For now, I find the statements by ministers and members opposite to be self-serving, inappropriate and downright fraudulent. They know the problem and are not addressing it. We continue to see children in remote and urban areas suffer as a consequence of their complete incompetence and neglect.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not think anyone doubts for a second that the government cares about children. I believe everyone in this House cares deeply about children, particularly those who are parents.
The government has been paralysed when it comes to the care and protection of children, hence another very disturbing report only three years after the Little Children Are Sacred report, which saw the Northern Territory intervention. It brought great shame upon the Northern Territory. Three years down the track we have another disturbing report highlighting serious flaws in our child protection system.
The Growing them strong, together report says the system is overwhelmed with notifications, has a dangerously degraded capacity to respond to children reported as at risk, has a focus on risk not need, has problems in compliance with legislation and policy, has chronic workforce and workplace issues in all service areas, has a conflict with key stakeholders - foster carers, NGOs and other government services - and struggles to adequately provide for children in out-of-home care.
That is not a glowing assessment three years after the Little Children Are Sacred report. The government has not learnt from that report. Individually, we all care about children; as a government you are unable to provide care of an adequate standard to our most vulnerable of Territory citizens, our children. The recommendations are one thing; the findings are the most damning. A quick read through the report highlights those, as does a quick read through the Little Children are Sacred report - some too abhorrent to repeat in parliament.
I pay tribute to the former member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney. Jodeen was passionate about child protection; so much so she forced the government’s hand on this inquiry. She did a wonderful job in a dreadful circumstance, on a dreadful topic. One can only conclude where we would be if we did not have that passion and conviction from the former member for Araluen; where would these children be today? Would we be speaking on this report in parliament? Sadly, I fear we would not, and the most vulnerable of Territory citizens would still be at alarming risk, and those charged with the care and protection of those children would not be held to account as they are now.
The Territory opposition made a submission to the inquiry which I will read from because it is very telling. It states our position and highlights some of the genesis of this report, and where the Territory opposition stands on this. I quote from the Territory opposition’s submission to the inquiry into the child protection system:
As highlighted by the member for Goyder.
The member for Arnhem.
Particularly the former member for Araluen.
It is unfortunate; however, it is the fact.
This is not a personal slight on the minister or her ability to care for and protect children; the government failed, and the department failed, under the stewardship of the minister, in the care and protection of these children.
I will highlight some of these.
A report from the Ombudsman will be tabled in parliament before the end of the year.
It is unfortunate, sad, but true.
That is where we are today. If it was not for the work of the former member for Araluen, the Territory opposition, the public and the media, where would these children be today?
The investigation backlog from January to June 2010 has been highlighted in Question Time, and also by the member for Braitling. We have 870 child protection notifications awaiting investigation from 1 July 2010. I believe that figure is now close to 1000, and we are at the end of October - a backlog of 1000 children who, without putting too fine a point on it, could be living in danger tonight.
This is pressing; this is an emergency. It is unfortunate the government has to be dragged kicking and screaming to help our most vulnerable and innocent of Territory citizens. Collectively you are paralysed. Individually you are concerned; it is clear - anyone in this parliament would be. As a government you do not seem to get it or fix it. Three years down the track we have another damning report on the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory.
Back to our submission:
Substantial and systemic problems with the central intake process.
We see that highlighted today - 870 backlog cases. I will repeat that: failure to meet response time lines including writing off low priority case backlogs. What is low priority? I know there is a category for it and the department breaks it down. Nevertheless, a child at any form of risk must be a priority. I cannot get my head around high, medium or low priority. Any child at risk must be a priority.
A lack of responsiveness to notifications of harm which has led to notifiers making multiple notifications in the hope that such action will prompt an investigation.
Substantial inadequacies in IT that have made the reporting, assessment and tracking of child abuse and neglect cases inconsistent.
These are some of the basic, technical issues putting our Territory kids at risk.
That is worth pointing out.
The member for Arafura.
It is important to acknowledge the rising rate of notifications is not just because of recent changes brought about by mandatory reporting requirements. It has always been a requirement in the Northern Territory, at least since the 1980s, to report mandatory child abuse. There was an upwards trend towards the end of 2001 and the election of the Labor government.
It is important to highlight what the Country Liberals would do. There are 29 Category 1 recommendations.
A member: Thirty-four.
Mr CONLAN: Thirty-four Category 1 notifications must be implemented within six months. We are in October; the report is already two weeks old. That gives us until March. Sadly, I do not know if the government is capable of doing it; I wish it was. More power to you. Please, work hard to implement these recommendations. They must be implemented. Despite the conjecture about the substance of some of them, you must implement them. We are talking about our most vulnerable citizens.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an additional 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Of the 147 recommendations, 34 recommendations are pressing. They must be rolled out within six months.
There is much to say on this, and I would like to do justice to the former member for Araluen and deliver a speech with such conviction and passion as she did. I could not do that; however I sat next to her for three years and know how committed she is to this topic. I want parliament to know - I will be ensuring the member for Araluen knows - we will be doing our best to continue the great work she did for nine years in this House. I will quote the last paragraphs of the Country Liberals’ submission to this inquiry:
The six month time frame for 34 Category 1 items:
The Country Liberals - and I am sure I can speak on behalf of the citizens of the Northern Territory - will be holding the government to account. In return, the Territory opposition will act responsibly - this is a promise; we do not want to play politics – and, in the interests of Territorians, support the implementation of the 147 recommendations, particularly the 34 Category 1 recommendations which must be rolled out by March 2011. This is for better outcomes for children, foster carers, child protection, social and health workers, and the system as a whole. We will also look at the body of work undertaken in previous reviews; there has been a stack of reviews in the last 10 years. We will look at that body of work, and work undertaken in other jurisdictions across the country to guide our principles, policies and resourcing of child protection in the Northern Territory.
Both sides of parliament would agree on the volume of work put into child protection by the former member for Araluen, and I recommend a read of this submission. It is a terrific body of work.
A member: Table it.
Mr CONLAN: That is a good idea. I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mr CONLAN: It is worth a read. It is a little pointed in areas; there is no doubt about it. If you can grow a thick skin and not take it too personally there is much to be gained from reading it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is not about politics; it is not about scoring points; it is not about deifying the former member for Araluen. That is not what she was about, and not what we are about. It is about caring for our most vulnerable and innocent Territorians, the children.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Growing them strong, together report and acknowledge the member for Greatorex. It is probably the first time I have heard you make a speech that came to the point and made sense. Rather than the bile when you become angry with us on this side, it was fantastic to listen to your passion and commitment. When it comes to our kids, regardless of them being black or white, whether they live in the bush, in Darwin or Alice Springs, we all have that commitment.
I speak for members on this side and join with you in acknowledging the commitment of the former member for Araluen. I spoke in the valedictory debate acknowledging her commitment to child protection. I also have to acknowledge the commitment and passion of successive ministers on this side. It is not an easy job; it is a harrowing portfolio. I spent over 10 years prior to coming into politics working at the coalface of Aboriginal health in remote Aboriginal communities trying to get successive CLP government ministers to look at the issue.
It is not about politics, and I am not saying bringing up the past is going to change the future; it is not. We have a collective responsibility to implement these recommendations to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our children in the Northern Territory is addressed in the best interests of those children.
I was listening to the member for Braitling’s response, particularly in relation to the fear amongst non-Aboriginal people regarding the adoption of Aboriginal children, that there is a perception in the Northern Territory, because of the Stolen Generations, that non-Aboriginal people are scorned at or reluctant to go down that path. I have never heard those views. I know a number of non-Aboriginal people who have adopted Tiwi children and provided safe havens for children from the Tiwi Islands.
Nevertheless, Dr Bath, Professor Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby have written an important report - Growing them strong, together. As with reports in the past, it does not purport to introduce or reveal any insights which are new, but reminds us of the difficult social settings and landscapes within which the child protection system has to operate, and provides invaluable guidance and advice to government and communities to address the ongoing problems.
While Dr Bath, Professor Bamblett and Dr Roseby have directly addressed the structural and process issues which impact on the rescue of kids who have come to notice because of family dysfunction and failure, they have urged us to look well beyond that in the medium term and take a primarily healthcare approach to child protection. In other words, they have urged us to make families the functional and healthy nurturing environments in which children will thrive.
The big media story of the last few weeks has been confirmation in the report the system has been in crisis. This is, of course, an entirely legitimate and appropriate focus, however, the report has also been significant for its endorsement of the Aboriginal child placement principle when implemented in the context of a properly managed and resourced child protection system. There is recognition by the report authors that the Commonwealth intervention in the Northern Territory has indirectly worsened, not ameliorated, Aboriginal family welfare in the targeted remote communities. That recognition does not equate to the failure to accept and acknowledge the critical importance of Commonwealth-funded infrastructure and injections of human, and other, resources into health and policing. However, those things are not accurately described as forming part of the intervention. They never were.
My own views about the intervention have, over a few years now, been deliberately misrepresented by certain people with their own agendas to push. The Aboriginal child welfare crisis in the Northern Territory referred to in the Little Children are Sacred report, the same one we inherited in 2001, was adopted as the rationale for the intervention.
I want to say a few words about the importance of this new report, refreshing, debunking and spin pedalled by successive federal ministers, Brough and Macklin alike. Before the sudden and dramatic Commonwealth intervention announcement on 22 June 2007, the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, was already seeking substantially increased Commonwealth resources to tackle Aboriginal disadvantage across the range of issues and indicators addressed in the Little Children are Sacred report.
Regarding child sex abuse in particular, the Northern Territory Joint Child Abuse Task Force – detectives and investigators of proven ability working in collaboration with Northern Territory Families and Children – had already been in operation for at least a year before the 22 June 2007 announcement. The Little Children are Sacred report did not purport to quantify the extent of Aboriginal child abuse in the Territory, nor provide new or supplementary statistics or data in relation to that problem. The approach adopted by Pat Anderson and Rex Wild QC was to treat as a given the uncontentious proposition that Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory was widespread and under-reported and, from that starting point, inquire into what measures could be taken to address relevant underlying issues, in particular, child neglect.
Anecdotal information - much of it of a kind investigators could expect to illicit in any disadvantaged community throughout Australia - set out in the report was seized on by the former federal government, and Mal Brough and others, as evidence of a total moral and social breakdown in every single Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. Little or no attention was paid to the measured language used by Anderson and Wild when they deliberately repeated their foreword from the interim report.
Fast forward to late November 2009: a report by the Victorian Ombudsman about failings in the child protection system in that state received extensive media attention. The problems being experienced in Victoria were similar to problems in other state jurisdictions that have been the subject of equivalent media coverage over the last decade, and to a significant degree, were similar to those experienced in the Territory.
In The Australian dated 20 October 2010 were stories critical of the Northern Territory government’s child protection problems. There was also an article by one of the paper’s Victorian political reporters, Milanda Rout, which was headed, ‘Kids in crisis slip through the cracks’. A casual reader skimming through the paper by reference to story headings who did not go on to read the article might have assumed it was another slam on the Northern Territory government, exhibiting the editorial political bias we have become used to with The Australian. However, it was about Victoria. The article started by conveying concerns from case workers about a chronic shortage of funding, a lack of staff to deal with case loads, and pressures from management to close cases of abused children to ‘get them off the books’. It referred to serious criticism of the Victorian Department of Human Services in various annual reviews and reports, and particularly the Ombudsman’s report of late 2009, and earlier in 2010, in which he reported abused children in the department’s care, and in foster care, had been raped and seriously assaulted and were working as prostitutes.
The article stated the Ombudsman found an under-resourced department had not been screening carers properly and failed to follow procedures. It reported a significant percentage of child protection cases were not being allocated to case workers, and the Victorian government had invested an extra $77.2m in the system and accepted the recommendations of the Ombudsman. However, last month the Deputy Ombudsman was expressing concerns about the ongoing failure by case workers to visit children who were the subjects of mandatory reports. A child protection worker was quoted as saying staffing levels in the department were so dismal some offices are only half occupied and the department cannot retain anyone because child protection workers get burnt out trying to manage the huge case loads.
In a further article by the same reporter published in The Australian on 25 October, unfavourable comparisons were made between the pay scales of child protection workers in Victoria on one hand, and New South Wales and Western Australia on the other. The spokesperson for the Victorian Community Services minister was quoted as saying a New Zealand recruitment campaign was ongoing - all sounds familiar. I do not mention these things to divert attention from the problems we have in the Territory - far from it - I want to make the point while the situation we face in the Territory is not unique, I have not heard any impassioned calls from the opposition for the Commonwealth to step in and take over responsibility for child protection in Victoria.
If anyone seriously wants to make that pitch in relation to the Territory, then consistency demands they make it about contemporary Victoria too and, for that matter, most of the other jurisdictions in Australia at some stage over the last couple of decades.
The Little Children are Sacred report recommendations outlined urgent, but mostly medium- to long-term government measures be undertaken by the Northern Territory government and funded by the Commonwealth government. It is now a matter of public record that both Pat Anderson and Rex Wild regard the intervention measures announced as having little or no correlation to the problems addressed and solutions proposed in their report.
In October 2007, I delivered a speech at the Sydney University Charles Perkins Oration. A number of disembodied quotes from the speech were reported in the national media, and various critics, including former prime ministers, were quick to voice their disapproval. For various reasons, if I was preparing the same speech today the language would be considerably more restrained, and I would take greater care to explain I have never regarded those many Commonwealth initiatives already being discussed or negotiated with the Northern Territory government prior to 22 June 2007 as being part of the intervention.
Those initiatives included: increased funding and resources for police; salaried employment for rangers and government workers formerly on CDEP wages; a housing construction and refurbishment initiative, which was reinvented as SIHIP under the new federal Labor government; money badly needed for additional school teachers; and the renewable Commonwealth funding for night patrols and remote community safe houses.
Likewise, I did not and do not include any non-coercive measures directly related to health, education or child welfare. None of those measures are what we call in the English language ‘an intervention’. However, the substance of my Charles Perkins Oration speech would be essentially the same if I delivered it now.
Contrary to certain media reports published in the months that followed, I have never resiled from my criticism of the intervention, or the Northern Territory Emergency Response, as it was subsequently rebadged. That criticism, nevertheless, needs to be placed in a context which distinguishes it from a one dimensional, exclusively rights-based attack made by some commentators.
For the sake of protecting children I have always been prepared to accept the legitimacy of tough, even coercive measures, which are clearly and appropriately adapted to directly achieving that object. The Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act, which I developed and was passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in 2005, is an example of such a measure. Another is the proactive truancy plan that I, as former Education minister introduced; I am glad our present Education minister is going forward with this in Indigenous education.
My first comments on the public record about the intervention were made in an ABC interview. I said to the extent the new measures were needed to stop alcohol abuse in the communities, I welcomed them. However, alcohol restrictions out bush are, on balance, more lenient than those previously applied, with fines instead of prison sentences for offences for which the vast majority of defendants are charged. The strengthening of the already extensive police powers under the Liquor Act to include powers of random search without warrant was enacted, not under the Commonwealth intervention legislation, but by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and this Northern Territory government. I recommend a re-reading – it was interesting reading the member for Johnston’s, as Attorney-General, second reading speech for Act No 14 of 2007. This legislation was deliberately framed so the strengthened powers would cover not just remote Aboriginal communities, but some of our main Territory towns - town areas or town camps - and also included Territory Housing complexes, public parks and public streets.
The former Commonwealth minister’s inability to stay - and I say former; I am not saying the present minister - tough on grog was evident in his July 2007 media statement when he supported wet canteens. He was oblivious to the social decay and domestic violence incubated by licensed clubs in my electorate at Nguiu and Gunbalanya over decades. Fortunately, the great majority of remote Territory communities closed their experiments with club licenses by the early 1980s, and opted for full restricted areas, or restricted areas with limited permits. To appreciate the ineffectiveness of the intervention approach to alcohol abuse it has to be understood the rivers of grog referred to in the Little Children Are Sacred report are in the main Territory towns and that is where they continue to grow.
The comparatively small creeks and streams which reach small remote Aboriginal communities could be substantially reduced by a government buy-out of targeted problem liquor licences and the imposition of a universal permit system in the town. The Commonwealth government could work with the Northern Territory government to achieve this. I was listening to the Chief Minister during Question Time talking about cumulative harm with children. The rivers of grog and the alcohol abuse which happen around many of our little kids, and their exposure to alcohol are areas where we have to work quite seriously with the Commonwealth government. The Commonwealth government, with all the powers it has and in conjunction with the Territory government, can make a difference, particularly in looking at some of these licences.
Alcohol is directly relevant to child protection …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77 to allow my colleague to continue her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, and I thank the Chief Minister. I see alcohol as being directly relevant to child protection. If parents are alcohol and substance abusers and do not work - an outcome assured by the scrapping and Clayton’s revival of CDEP - their children will probably be at risk. Regarding income quarantining, I know the Commonwealth government has introduced the universal measure – it has been interesting visiting communities and talking to people on aged pensions who rather than opting out, which was a choice, want to stay on income management. Income management is something our government has always supported, and I have never been critical of the application of income management and how, as a coercive measure, it could provide improvements, particularly for young children.
I have always been complimentary of the Cape York fault-based approach, which is far superior to what we have. What Noel Pearson has managed to put in place with the federal and Queensland governments is something we could work towards. Maybe we could have that model implemented in the Northern Territory. Not that I am a great advocate of Noel Pearson, I do not want people to get that impression …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am probably not his most liked person either, member for Fong Lim. We have a mutual admiration club, Noel and I, and that is a good thing.
There is not one member in this House who would not find child sexual abuse, child neglect, and abuse of children of any kind to be abhorrent. The member for Greatorex said as a parent – you do not have to be a parent, anyone would find neglect or abuse of the most innocent and vulnerable in our society particularly abhorrent.
It is difficult to explain to someone who has not experienced the responsibility of being a minister, and how frightening - people often think it is just about politics. It affects anyone who has had responsibility for child protection in the Northern Territory – the fear of having damaged and at risk kids come into your care, and being in charge of a system designed to take action in relation to children in the community who need protection. The burden is all the greater when you, as a minister, are a parent yourself. There is not one minister in this government who has not given 120%. I have seen ministers on this side of the House - starting with the member for Nightcliff opening the lid on this and what confronted us as a new government. As Cabinet members, the members for Nightcliff, Karama, Arnhem and I discussed and worked through these issues. Anyone who says ministers on this side of the House did not care does not understand the problems in relation to child protection and welfare and the Northern Territory situation.
It has been great to see the report recognise the challenges the Northern Territory faces. When you look at the systems, the problems with recruitment and retention of staff, the operational issues, and put them in the context of other states and territories, nowhere else do child protection workers, police, or health practitioners face the complexities or challenges of our staff.
I commend the inquiry members, Dr Bath, Professor Bamblett and Dr Roseby. I also commend our communities, their organisations, and everyone who gave evidence on this important issue. I pay tribute to all child protection workers and health professionals who work with our children every single day to make a difference to their lives and are on the receiving end of untold trauma and dysfunction. These workers are the ones we expect to fix this problem.
I commend our government because whilst people say we had 10 years; from 2002-03 we saw an increase in notifications. Much of that was being more informed and giving communities - particularly women - the member for Greatorex is right, mandatory reporting has always been part of the landscape in the Northern Territory, but what had not been there, particularly in our remote Indigenous communities, was the protection for women to talk about this and report it. The government made more resources available to enable this to happen, and we saw an increase in reporting from the bush. That increased workloads because people saw the challenges and complexities of dealing with not only dysfunctional communities but, for the first time, dysfunctional families the system had not dealt with before. There are now resources which for a long time had been absent in those communities.
The biggest move forward was the Closing the Gap, a bold move for this government. I commend the government; it takes courage and conviction.
Madam Deputy Speaker, lifting the lid on an issue will evoke much blame and chest thumping; however, as the member for Arnhem said, we need to remember the kids. We need to put blame to one side and work together to grow them strong together, to ensure we can give all our kids an opportunity to grow and be part of our collective futures.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, without doubt the most important issue anyone charged with administrating a home, a community, a town, a city, or the wider Territory, is the protection of our most vulnerable people, our children. One thing the member for Nelson said today I agree with is: child protection is not just about a government responsibility; it is a whole-of-community responsibility. However, the government holds a fair slice of that responsibility.
The people charged with investigating this issue deserve our highest praise. Thank you for your work, the effort, and for what must have been at times a truly difficult issue to investigate. I do not put any faith in the government actioning its recommendations, as they failed to action the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report, unless we bring them crying and screaming into the sorry, real world their action, or inaction, created for so many vulnerable children.
From the outset, I must comment on how we are debating this report. Perhaps it continues with a culture of cover-up. This side of the House wanted debate stretched over a few weeks if possible, rather than have it debated on the floor. However, the member for Nelson, the one member the government will listen to because it does not have a choice, has seen common sense in giving us more time to go through this intricate and detailed report. If the government was serious, they would have offered that straight up - not be forced, offered it straight up.
The Chief Minister said he was not interested in the politics of child protection. I agree. However, he then went on to criticise the child protection rally held on the steps of Parliament House calling it a stunt. How cruel is he? I challenge the Chief Minister to stand in front of any one of the many people who attended that rally - the mother of Deborah Melville, other carers and volunteers - and tell them the rally was a stunt. The many carers, both paid and voluntary, were there because they care about protecting children. These people come into my office from time to time with their issues, their frustrations, and their absolute disgust, sometimes, in how they are treated as carers. These people do not grow on trees; we should be doing all we can as a community, as a government, to support our carers.
The problem with this government is its ongoing denial of anything which is wrong. Ten years and it is still not their fault, complaining there are no resources to tackle the problem, and at the same time building water parks and wave pools. The classic bread and circuses, smoke and mirrors - it is not about money. The interest shown from the other side of the House in this debate - the government of the Northern Territory - is shameful. They are showing as much interest in this debate as they have shown in child protection - that is cruel and absolutely honest.
Ms Lawrie: Not true. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the NT is gaining the horrible reputation of Australia’s Soweto, or perhaps Bangladesh.
While we are talking about the interest this government is taking in child protection, what blew me away about the recommendations was, as a member of our community, I assumed they were part of the current process and this was how a government worked. I was shocked to read some of the recommendations were things the average person would expect to be happening now.
How well crafted was government’s response, coming out with $131m before any cost analysis had been done, accepting all the recommendations to provide an impression they were serious, were listening, and acknowledged there was a problem. How is this possible unless they had an idea this was happening. The reality is they failed to act.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr CHANDLER: Why were the recommendations of the Bath report not actioned?
Ms Lawrie: They have been.
Mr CHANDLER: All of them? Every single one?
Ms Lawrie: Absolutely been worked through.
Mr CHANDLER: That is not correct - we would not be in this situation today. I have brought up in debate many times the amount of resources going into reviews and further reports and recommendations that lead us nowhere.
Let us look at the process to date. Childcare was failing under the Clare Martin Labor government. An inquiry was commissioned, and a report with recommendations provided. What did government do? Government sat on it. I guarantee you no resources were provided other than the strategy being worked on to ensure the horrid findings could be managed at the political level rather than a strategy to address the issue, which would perhaps require putting up your hand and asking for federal help. That is not shameful. No, let us sit on a report until it becomes too hot and after it is released find someone else to blame, like the government does today. Everything wrong today is the fault of the previous CLP government. Somewhere in all that the Chief Minister crucified Clare Martin, I suspect because he thought he could do a better job. Hello, here we are a few years down the track and we are in hell.
I am ashamed to be a member of this House, a member of a parliament, where government continues to fail yet is propped up through an agreement. How long before it is recognised how bad this bunch of managers is? I am also ashamed we, as a team of politicians, have not had the influence in the media to hold this government out to dry because it deserves it.
We, our children, our community deserve so much more. I do not know how they can go home at night, or accept their pay cheques, when they know children are being sexually and mentally abused. Children who have been fiddled with - this should not be allowed to happen. We have bipartisan support for statehood; how embarrassing to hang our affairs out for all to see. We cannot manage yet we want statehood. A contingent is likely to visit Canberra shortly to lobby the federal parliament’s support for our bid for statehood. While I continue to support the bid for statehood, because there is a bigger picture in regard to our legislation and the ability to manage our own affairs, how embarrassing is it when we continue to air our laundry in public?
I was reading a report recently on The Australian website by retired Children’s Court magistrate, Sue Gordon, who has called for the Northern Territory government to be stripped of its statutory child protection responsibilities. When these things go to air it is interesting to read some of the comments. I will not read them out today, but it does not look favourable for the Northern Territory government. It is embarrassing, and I am ashamed to be part of it because, as a dad, I know how important it is to protect our children and our community.
I appreciate this is not just a government responsibility; however, it is a fair slice. I do not know what we, as a community, have to do to teach people to look after and protect children. That is the only thing I agree with you on, this is not only your fault; it is the fault of a community.
It worries me and history tells me this government conducts reviews when a problem occurs, there are reports and recommendations, and 12 months, two years, three years later we are going through the same cycle. Why? How can we let things become so bad? What was the intervention about? Why was a government external to the Northern Territory required to take over and fix the rot? There is nothing wrong with asking for help. If Clare Martin, as Chief Minister, on receiving the Little Children are Sacred report thought we could not handle it alone, we needed help and support and put her hand up and asked for more resources to fix the problem, I do not believe anyone would have criticised her.
Mr Henderson: That is what the Little Children are Sacred report said: ‘This is beyond the ability of the Northern Territory’.
Ms Lawrie: Beyond the resources.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: I do not know how they can go home at night knowing what is going on.
Ms Lawrie: Do you really believe what you are reading?
Mr CHANDLER: I believe we will need help from far and wide.
Ms Lawrie: Do you really believe what you are reading?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, cease interjecting!
Mr CHANDLER: I am aware a request has been made for additional staff. How can we elevate it to a level where it is taken more seriously? I appreciate every jurisdiction has its share of child protection issues; the Chief Minister mentioned that. There are Ombudsman’s reports and investigations far and wide about child protection; it is not unique to the Territory. However, our remoteness and high population of Indigenous people are unique.
A week after the Victorian bushfires I had the opportunity, with the Coroner’s permission, to view some of the area. On every corner of every back road were road blocks manned by Victorian police officers with the assistance of a New South Wales, Queensland or West Australian police officer. Police had been called in from far and wide to assist during the emergency. We can argue there are police shortages all across the country, however, in that instance police were brought in from everywhere.
I appreciate the government has requested help, yet my understanding is there has not been a big take-up. A tsunami occurred in Indonesia and before too long there was help from all over the world to manage that disaster. Surely, when it comes to our children we can put up our hand and say: we need help to get through the backlog. We cannot rest until we know every child who is at risk is being offered support. The Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister are human beings; they will do all they can to get this right. It frustrates me that we see reports and recommendations, seemingly ignored from the other side, getting us into these positions. How can we demand action from other jurisdictions to assist?
I often speak to my dad about many things. I sometimes cry when I realise the level of the problems we face. How do you fix things that are small by population jurisdiction, large in size but small in population, and relatively small in budget compared to the size of the land? Every day in this job you come across more and more areas of concern. I do not blame government for everything. Government does some very good things; I have said that time and time again, however, we could do things so much better. It should be demanded we do a better job. How, with child protection, can we teach people to care for their children? How do you make someone want to care for a child? There is a special bond between mother and child. I have often thought it was God’s strategy to ensure a bond making us so reliant on outside help when we are first born. A child would not last more than a few hours without the care of its mother or someone to care for it. That does not last a few days or a few weeks; it lasts for years. I sometimes think it is a strategy to ensure a bond between mother and child.
How do we manage parents who do not care for their children? We have tragic circumstances where parents are lost through an accident and children are left on their own, where family or friends, or government, needs to step in. What about the family not providing adequate support for children? How do we teach people to care for their children? It is not an easy thing to do. It is not something you will find in a report, and is not something the government is able to do. You can penalise parents by holding back payments until they provide care for a child; however, there is something human about caring for someone.
I do not think there is a person in this room, Labor, Country Liberals or Independent, who does not love their children and would do anything to care for their needs. However, in the wider community there are issues. We have to recognise this is an emergency and has to be managed that way. Will we need help from outside? We will, and we need to put our hand up and demand it.
I am ashamed of the situation we find ourselves in. I was so ashamed after reading the Deborah Melville case - reading her last words. She did not deserve to die like that. Where was her support? Were her human rights being protected? As a society we failed her; as parents, as families, as carers, we failed her, and as a government we failed her in the worst possible way.
Chief Minister, no more excuses, no more reviews, no more reports. It is time to take action or you will be held to account.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate, an obviously critical debate for our parliament and community. I will start by revisiting history to put aside the myth there has been review after review, nothing has been done, everything has been ignored, and the government does not care. There is nothing further from the truth.
I stand by this report and accept the recommendations. The need is very significant in the Northern Territory. It is very significant because we have had the courage, as a government, to lift the lid on so much of the dysfunction in the Northern Territory which has existed for so long. The history shows, when we came to government in 2001, the budget for child protection was a paltry $7m. There were departmental resources in Darwin and Alice Springs and, essentially, no field staff in remote communities. The average reporting rate and intake rates of the department were one-sixth of what they are today. You could say things are six times worse now because you have six times more reporting. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since coming to government we have acknowledged our responsibility to provide child protection services across the Northern Territory - not just in Darwin and Alice Springs, and close your eyes and hope everything in remote communities is okay.
One of the first decisions we made as a government - even though the budget was $116m worse than the budget papers provided to parliament eight weeks prior – was all agencies had to take significant funding cuts. One area that achieved a significant funding increase was Families and Children within Health. The Caring for Children reform package injected an additional $53m over five years between 2003 and 2008. The Closing the Gap report into alleged child sexual abuse across the Northern Territory led to very significant additional expenditure by government of $286m over five years, $62m of which was dedicated to children and family services.
The member for Brennan spoke about the Little Children are Sacred report asking why we did not approach the Commonwealth. If the member had bothered to read the Little Children are Sacred report, as opposed to a speech written for him by someone else, he would see …
Mr Chandler: I wrote the speech.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Drysdale! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Port Darwin was writing questions for him in Question Time today.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: He would have seen in the Little Children …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting, please.
Mr HENDERSON: Empty vessels, Madam Deputy Speaker. He would have seen one of the key findings of the Little Children are Sacred report was the Commonwealth government had to accept its responsibility to the Northern Territory and commit massive and significant additional financial resources to the Northern Territory. It was an explicit recommendation which ran through the entire report - the Commonwealth government at long last had to take up its responsibility to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory and recognise a jurisdiction with a population of 200 000, with the scale of disadvantage in the Northern Territory, did not have the financial capacity to turn things around.
I have said at every turn the intervention, and the emergency response, was a final acknowledgement by the Commonwealth of Australia that it could no longer turn its back on the extraordinary disadvantage in the Northern Territory, and this nation had to accept a level of responsibility.
I point out, in regard to the political chest beating on the other side, the Howard government had been there for nearly 10 years and after its defeat it was exposed by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, the reason it committed to the intervention was political. Alexander Downer, in an interview, lifted the lid on this. The Commonwealth government’s political priority was all about lifting the Prime Minister’s standing; showing the Prime Minister could act decisively when he was being clobbered in the opinion polls.
Regardless of the political motivation of the Commonwealth government and Prime Minister of the day, the good thing is whoever is in government in Canberra can never turn their back on disadvantage in the Northern Territory until the disadvantage is turned around. That is the good thing to come out of the intervention and emergency response. We have much more transparency and accountability in funding to the Territory for Indigenous affairs, and that is all wrapped up in Commonwealth/state agreements.
To say nothing was occurring and the Commonwealth had to intervene as a result of the government’s failure to act on the Little Children Are Sacred report totally belies the recommendations in the report, and totally belies the history exposed by Alexander Downer as to the motivation of the Commonwealth government of the day. The great thing is the Commonwealth, regardless of who is in government, can never turn its back on the Northern Territory.
The vast majority of recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report are being implemented and funding has been committed.
This report was not about child sex abuse. It was about the workings of the child protection system. Different report, different issues. Unfortunately, the constituency is the same. I agree with the member for Brennan: the motivation for everyone in this House to see children at risk no longer at risk, and all children in the Territory being loved, cared for, safe and growing strongly as children is genuine. We take this report very seriously. I say to this House, the government is acting with a sense of real urgency in accepting the recommendations and allocating a budget to fund implementation of the recommendations so agencies know they have budget cover to implement the recommendations and act immediately to get additional frontline resources to the Northern Territory.
The member for Brennan did not talk about the fact we have been recruiting overseas as well as calling for assistance nationally. In my response in Question Time today I advised over 20 additional officers are on their way from Canada and the UK, having been offered positions at the P1 and P2 levels. We have our police contributing nine officers to the front line, and an additional 42 positions are funded in the budget immediately, on top of the 76 additional positions in the budget last year. Tasmania and New Zealand are immediately committing resources to the Northern Territory to address the backlog. That is an immediate and significant response.
My colleague, the minister for Families, said in response to a question today - I do not have the notes here - there are no Category 1 children in danger cases which have not commenced investigation. In Category 2, there were 10 outstanding at risk, all are now allocated, community visits are planned and will take place by the end of this week. The remainder, Category 3, require urgent work.
In response to the comments of the member for Brennan, as of today there are no Category 1 cases not being investigated; the remaining Category 2 cases will be investigated by the end of this week, and we are working through the Category 3 at risk cases as quickly as we can.
Regarding funding, I attest there has been a significant and urgent response from the government to the report. There have been questions asked about the figure of $130m for funding when we only received the report the day before. Agencies across government made submissions to the inquiry, and we had a process working in government in full knowledge a majority of issues would be picked up by the inquiry which required budget cover to implement recommendations immediately. We had worked to determine a budget allocation to allow agencies to know they had cover to implement the recommendations, particularly the urgent Category 1 and Category 2 recommendations.
I also point out to honourable members this is not just about funding through the families and children budget. This issue reflects across agency budgets – health, education, police, corrections, infrastructure - across the Northern Territory government budget to improve infrastructure and social and societal conditions in remote parts of the Northern Territory.
I point out over the 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years a total additional funding to remote communities of $1.5bn into infrastructure, services and programs, particularly in and around schools, has been provided to the Territory government’s Closing the Gap funding, the SIHIP Northern Territory contribution, the national partnership agreement regarding the Northern Territory Emergency Response, remote Indigenous housing, Indigenous health, low SES schools, Indigenous early childhood development and the Nation Building and Jobs Plan for remote schools.
To say this is just a job for NTFC and question the budget allocations indicates people have not read the detail of the report which acknowledges it is a much broader issue in rebuilding, from the ground up, communities and families and their ability to care for their children.
We have five Indigenous child and family centres operating at Maningrida, Yuendumu, Ngukurr, Gunbalanya, and Palmerston; Families as First Teachers programs fully operational in 16 of the 20 growth towns; mobile preschool hubs located in Lasseters, Tanami, Barkly, Katherine, Top End Group Schools and Tennant Creek; proposed sites for remote early childhood workforce pilots in Gunbalanya, Ngukurr and Maningrida; and strategies for community-based childcare services currently being employed.
This government has acted urgently, has allocated funding, and is putting in place the structures to implement the recommendations in the report to provide transparency. My colleague, the minister for Families, announced the Chair for the steering committee today. Other members of that steering committee will be announced over the next few days, and we will provide regular reports to parliament. This government has acknowledged the report, moved quickly and is working with the Commonwealth government.
I would like to point out the difference between the government’s response and the policy put forward by the opposition last Monday. The policy shows the Country Liberals do not understand how notifications are assessed and referred for appropriate action, including investigation. It released a policy which aims to boost the role of the Children’s Commissioner, introduce whistleblowers protection and accountability measures around public reporting, and a paltry $9m to enhance, improve and increase child protection across the Northern Territory. $9m would not touch the sides of the bucket of need. The response was totally off the mark.
There was no mention of boosting and supporting the workforce, providing a greater focus on family support services, or building and engaging the non-government organisation workforce. Nor was there mention of ensuring we work with our Indigenous communities to re-empower them. At the end of the day, the government does not raise children in families; it is a family responsibility. The best place for a child to grow and be nurtured, sustained and loved is within the family, not government. We have to work from the ground up to turn around the tide of problems we have in the Northern Territory.
The government wants quicker response times. We want more time in investigations and better outcomes for children. That is what we will achieve through implementing the recommendations of this report. I have demonstrated today in wrapping up this report how we have tackled quickly the most urgent of the recommendations - the backlog. There are no Category 1 children at risk where an investigation has not commenced; of the 10 Category 2, all investigations will have commenced by the end of this week; we have funded and offered positions to over 20 child protection workers from Canada and the UK to the Territory; Tasmania and New Zealand are sending people to the Territory, and funding for an additional 42 frontline workers is available immediately.
I urge members in contributing to this and ongoing debate around this issue, spare a thought for the people who work in this agency and on the front line. They have been maligned, and opportunities have been taken, quite appropriately in some circumstances and disingenuously in others, to highlight the tragedies around some of these cases. We have people working on the front line - a very traumatic place - dealing with these issues who deserve our support because without them we would have nobody.
Madam Speaker, in my closing comments I also pay tribute to our foster carers in the Northern Territory - they do an enormous job. I was very disappointed to read they have not been treated as well as they could be …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, I remind you that General Business Day begins at 5.30 pm.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be very quick. Thank you, member for Brennan. I put on the record my thanks, appreciation and support for our foster carers. To bring a foster child into your own family environment - goodness knows, we all have issues in our family environments, and to bring in a child whose history you do not know is an extraordinarily loving and caring thing to do. We need to better support our foster carers in the wonderful work they do.
In conclusion, there will be a further update to the House as we implement the recommendations. Things will not improve until we start rebuilding that human capacity and capability from the ground up and empowering parents to take responsibility for their children, and, where they do not take responsibility for their children, support for them to do so. In the event they will not take responsibility for their children, there needs to be a set of consequences.
Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. In conclusion, I thank Dr Bath, Professor Bamblett and Dr Roseby for their report. It has been an extraordinary journey for them providing this report to government. I commit, as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, to work as hard as I can to implement the recommendations in this report.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that a peppercorn rental agreement be negotiated for Northern Territory government facilities on Aboriginal Land where a lease is required for such facilities.
Debate on this subject will also include local government facilities, as I believe the concept of government facility should include local government. I should make it clear, I am not speaking as the Chair of the CTC; I am speaking as the independent member for Nelson.
It has come to my attention negotiations are occurring between the government and the Executive Director of Township Leasing which will require the government to pay a lease for all its facilities at Nguiu, Bathurst Island. In the EDTL 2008-09 report, it says:
My understanding is the Executive Director of Township Leasing is asking for a lease payment based on improved capital value, which naturally would be large, considering the millions of dollars spent on these assets built to benefit people on Nguiu. To make it clear, we are talking about schools, hospitals, aged care, childcare, women’s shelters, pumping facilities, even sewage ponds, all built primarily for the health, protection and education of the community.
I understand the EDTL has wanted to use improved capital value as the basis for lease payments; however, the NT government did not support this and has been negotiating leases based on unimproved capital value. Whilst this may be less than ICV, it would still be a considerable amount of money. If this idea was to cover all government assets on Aboriginal land across the Territory, which are considerable according to estimates I have been given, this could amount to tens of millions of dollars. Whether that would be a one-off payment or an ongoing annual payment is not clear. The EDTL appears to be looking at extra payments when it says in its report the office will continue to look for ways it can provide a value-added approach to the management and operation of long-term leases.
The real essence of this motion is to ask: why should government facilities, primarily built for the people who live at or near a community where they are located, have to pay any more than a peppercorn rent for the lease? These facilities are expensive facilities to build and require ongoing maintenance. They also create employment; many local people are employed and paid by the government. It seems some astute people see an opportunity to make money out of the government or, should I say, the taxpayer. These same people seem oblivious to the fact the hospitals and schools are publicly-funded facilities to help improve the life of residents. By charging millions in rent, it means that amount of money will be taken away from other facilities, not only in these communities, also in other parts of the Territory. It could mean reduced services in communities.
Some may argue on a purely legal basis saying the land is Aboriginal, therefore anything on it should have a lease and the lease should be paid for as in other parts of Australia. They may argue if the government needed to provide public facilities in a town where there was no Crown land it would have to be purchased from the owner. That may be the case; however, it would be the exception rather than the rule.
There are, by far, more government facilities on Crown land than on rented or leased land. Also, in most new land subdivisions, land is set aside for government facilities by the developer as part of the planning approval requirements, at no cost. It is also more than likely many of the facilities provided in our remote communities would not be provided in other rural areas of Australia as their populations would be too small. People would need to travel to major centres to attend school, or visit their local hospital or clinic.
I visited Amanbidji last year, a small community south of Timber Creek. There is a modern clinic, an airstrip, a women’s centre, a powerhouse, sewage ponds, and a school. The population is approximately 70. How many of those facilities would you see in a town of 70 people in other parts of Australia? Those facilities were built regardless of cost for the benefit of this small community. Governments - and I include local governments - and church groups have spent millions of dollars to provide facilities to help people in our remote communities, and it seems to charge a lease for these facilities shows money is more important than the benefit these facilities bring to the community.
In response to a question about leasing at a recent Council of Territory Cooperation public hearing, Bob Beadman, the Coordinator-General, said in response to a question:
He goes on to say:
I have no problem with the EDTL asking for a lease payment for commercial facilities or private houses; that is normal. However, if charging lease payments, either UCV or ICV, on government facilities is a way the EDTL or land council see as making money on behalf of some TOs, we are going down the path of money for a few and fewer services, and higher costs for the rest – the rest meaning Aboriginal people who live in these communities.
I have seen an evaluation for the sewage ponds at Nguiu, presumably valued so a lease payment can be determined. I strongly believe there should only be a peppercorn rental on those ponds. If the government is forced to pay a lease, it will be in a community which does not pay for water or sewerage. The taxpayer will subsidise those who do not pay charges for water or sewerage. The taxpayer would also have paid for the reticulation infrastructure, and will now pay for a lease on that infrastructure.
We should provide services to remote communities. I do not believe taxpayers mind spending millions of dollars on improving the lives of people living in these areas. They mind if the response from some is: ‘Thanks, and here is the bill’. If that is the case the government should carefully consider where it builds any new facilities, or consider the other option for those who follow the letter of the law - hand the facilities over to the land councils or the EDTL. If there is no lease the buildings belong to the land trust or the administrator of the trust. Will they pay for the power, maintenance, wages and administration costs? Will they manage the facility, and who will pay for any new facilities?
There is an important issue at stake and if governments - that is taxpayers - are to fork out millions of dollars to help people and are slugged more, it needs to say peppercorn rental, yes, UCV or ICV, no. If not, step back and ask the land councils or EDTL to take them over. That is unlikely to happen, but it highlights the nonsense behind the lease proposals. The peppercorn rental recognises two things: that the land on which the lease has been granted is Aboriginal land, and the facilities provided by the government are to help Aboriginal people, not to help make a profit.
I wonder whether the average Tiwi person or those on the communities know about this scheme proposed by the EDTL. Has anyone asked the average person if their aged-care facility should pay a lease to the TOs? I bet they have not. What benefit to Tiwis who are not TOs receive? Communities have to make money and create jobs. This is not the way to go.
The member for Port Darwin, at a recent CTC public meeting, raised an alternative to leasing. This is what he said as part of a question to Bob Beadman:
It is an interesting option. However, is it realistic considering the large number of facilities in communities? Would water lines, sewerage lines and power lines be the subject of a purchase and lease back to Indigenous essential services? The amount of capital required to buy all government assets on Aboriginal land in the NT would be enormous. There are other issues to this leasing debate, especially in relation to barge landings, airstrips and public roads.
Recently there was a blockade of the barge landing at Galiwinku. The barge landing is owned and controlled by the traditional owners and was built for the benefit of the community so supplies could be delivered to the community. My understanding is payments are now being requested by the land council for the use of this boat ramp. I also understand at least one barge company has been asked by the Northern Land Council to pay a charge based on the value of the cargo.
Do people on these communities know the Northern Land Council, on behalf of traditional owners, intends to charge 75 for every $100 of gross freight income received in respect of all freight which enters the land from the barge landing via a particular barge company? That is freight for the people on these communities. This will apply to Minjilang, Warruwi, Maningrida, Ramingining, Milingimbi, Galiwinku and Gapuwiyak and, to add to that, there will be a past use payment of $5000 - money for nothing. This would mean the cost of food, fuel, building supplies and everything brought in by barge will increase The traditional owners might have a gain, but the community loses.
It raises another question: why are barge landings not leased to shire councils at a peppercorn rental? Will lease payments be required for airstrips? Are the consequences increased fares and increased freight charges? Airstrips should have a peppercorn rental and the lease should be in the name of the shire council. These should be public facilities managed by the shire. After all, is this not the way growth towns should operate? I understand councils would charge for the use of these facilities, but if the funds were used to maintain those facilities everyone benefits. Who maintains the barge landings and airstrips now?
I strongly believe council facilities should also pay a peppercorn rental. When we asked this question of the land council at Nguiu it was opposed saying they needed to pay a proper lease payment. Whilst I understand that from a commercial aspect, the reality was for the council to recover the cost of the lease payment it needed to charge people in the community more in rent or rates, or reduce services - robbing Peter to pay Paul. It seems a very narrow view of what a local council does in those communities.
Roads are also an interesting issue. Roads on Aboriginal land are private roads unless gazetted as public roads. Aboriginal lands normally require a permit. To travel on a road on Aboriginal land you require a permit. For a long time I have had trouble obtaining clear policy from the government about the fact some shire councils are claiming funds for these roads under the Federal Assistance Grants Program. If the road is private it should not receive any funding under this program. To declare roads as public roads, especially roads to the new growth towns, the government will have to lease these roads from the traditional owners. These roads will then be transferred into the shire’s assets list, and money for maintenance of these roads will be claimed from the Federal Assistance Grants. If there are lease payments for these roads, there will be less money for maintenance and the community will be worse off because the lease payments will reduce the money for the roads.
Traditional owners are entitled to charge for the use of their land; however, if the land is private, theoretically, the government does not have to do anything. Traditional owners would have to maintain their own roads and all other facilities because there is no lease and all assets belong to the land trust.
The government should not cave in to the EDTL or the land councils on this issue. We need debate which clearly sets out government policy on this very important matter. As a taxpayer, I do not want to see a minority of people making money out of facilities built for the benefit of the whole community. I also do not want to see the majority of Aboriginal people, and other Australians, having reduced services because millions of dollars are paid for leases. I have no objection to traditional owners earning money from commercial activities on their land. However, what I see is something different. I believe many people will see the idea of paying large lease payments for taxpayer-funded facilities built to help Aboriginals, not to exploit them or disadvantage them, is not closing the gap but widening it.
I bring this forward as a matter for debate. I understand people may not necessarily agree with me but we have come to a point where the issue of leasing is current. The whole issue of leasing is a matter for public debate and the reason I have brought forward this statement today.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move – That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Criminal Code Amendment (Penalties for Certain Assaults) Bill 2010 (Serial 133) previously in the name of Ms Carney:
(a) be restored to the Notice Paper in my name; and
The reason I raise this issue is I have had an opportunity to contemplate the intention of the bill left sitting on the Notice Paper, or in peril of being removed from the Notice Paper, as its sponsoring member has retired from this House. Naturally, and without labouring the point, I am sure we all wish her well.
The purpose of this bill is to address the structures which currently surround the operation of section 188 of the Northern Territory Criminal Code; specifically in the area of penalties. Currently, if a matter is heard in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, when it comes to determining guilt the same rules apply as in the Supreme Court. However, there is a limitation on the capacity for the lower courts to offer a penalty. In fact, that is captured in our Criminal Code. Section 189A(1) provides:
This has led to a practice which not only applies to police officers, it also applies to offences known colloquially as aggravated assault. This is the family of assaults more serious than common assaults by virtue of some circumstance of aggravation. The vehicle has always conveniently been used by lawyers so, when they have a client who is pleading guilty, they consent to having the matter heard in the lower court. The effect is it immediately ensures their client cannot receive a penalty of greater than two years imprisonment. It was the former member for Araluen’s contention, and it remains my contention, the capacity should be broader, and that is captured in this bill.
Speaking more generally, and as the new shadow Attorney-General, I place on the record my concern about the sentencing practices we see in our court system. The recent sentencing of that dreadful young fellow who took it upon himself to stab a man in Alawa - 10 times if memory serves me - whilst he was putting down his four-month-old baby to deal with the home break-in, is a sentence which raised my eyebrows to say the least. It goes to the very heart of what is occurring in the Northern Territory’s judicial system at the moment. Whilst I appreciate the young fellow concerned was still a juvenile, what is being expunged slowly and by stealth by this government from the lexicon of judicial language in the Northern Territory is the word ‘punishment’.
The process I see evolving in Northern Territory courts - and we have seen the credit court, the Alcohol Courts, and now the SMART Court announced – is a product of the therapeutic jurisprudence school of thinking. This presents Territorians with the big lie, because the government has, until now, been saying how tough it is on crime. It has been describing how aggressive it will be on criminals and the quintessential example of ‘say one thing, do another’ can be found in the Alcohol Courts. The principle of the Alcohol Court, which we were told would be tough on crime, was a person who would otherwise go to gaol would, if they came before an Alcohol Court, be offered some response other than gaol to deal with their alcohol issue. This means if you are going to gaol you appeal to the Alcohol Court, which then finds some therapeutic response for your alcohol problem.
The major concern I have, and I hope to be speaking to the new Chief Magistrate in the near future about it, is her background is specifically focused on the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence I am referring to. I understand what therapeutic jurisprudence attempts to do, however, where it pulls up short from the public’s expectation is it does not penalise. In fact, it says it seeks not to penalise. The paperwork I have read in relation to this philosophy of jurisprudence says it seeks to avoid penalty on the hope a therapeutic outcome might be produced. There is a strong public expectation a person who comes before the court is not there for therapeutic reasons, rather to receive punishment in the case …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification. The shadow Attorney-General is going to the debate of the bill. Government is not opposing the motion to restore it to the Notice Paper. I would have thought the debate on the bill would be when it appears on the GBD at, I believe, item 3. I seek clarification on that. I thought we would be debating the motion, which is to bring it back on. There is no issue about bringing it back on.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. Member for Port Darwin, the motion you have is not about the bill, but about restoring it to the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: As a matter of order, Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling. I am not surprised to discover the Attorney-General does not want to talk about what is happening in the court system.
Ms Lawrie: Happy to.
Dr Burns: We will talk about it at the appropriate time.
Ms Lawrie: Happy to talk about it. Do we talk about it twice?
Mr ELFERINK: Speak to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, did you wish to speak?
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point of this motion is to restore to the Notice Paper, in the name of Mr Elferink, the bill first introduced by Ms Carney. We all appreciate Ms Carney has retired due to ill health, we all wish her well. I hear she is recovering rapidly, which is great news. We, on both sides of the House, are very fond of the former member for Araluen.
We believe in the opportunities presented on General Business Day for members of the opposition, and Independents, to produce motions or bills to pursue their views. This is why government has no problem with the new shadow Attorney-General restoring to the Notice Paper a bill the Country Liberals had signed up to and supported, because Ms Carney introduced it in the first place.
Debate around therapeutic jurisprudence could be held when we go to debate of the Notice Paper. He has already said several things which are completely wrong and misinterpretations of reality; however, we will have that debate when we are debating the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Nothing to add, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Northern Territory government establish an independent and adequately resourced Small Business Ombudsman to provide a voice for small business from within government.
What I am proposing is not a place for people to make complaints about a business or a product which does not live up to the expectation of the customer, nor is it for complaints about sloppy service in a caf.
What I am proposing is about small business first and foremost, and its success and performance across a range of business issues. It should be considered as an institution to enhance a competitive and fair operating environment for small business in the Northern Territory. Small business owners in the Northern Territory often feel alienated from government, with many believing the policy decisions of regulators, agencies and departments are made with little regard to the impact they will have on the operations of small business. From my engagement with small business I am advised there is no, or at best minimal, consultation with the private sector about the impact and consequences of impending legislation. Nor is there any effective conduit to advise business of its responsibilities and obligations arising from legislation passed in this Chamber. It is not good enough to say ignorance of the law is no excuse for transgressions.
It is the responsibility of government to properly advise the private sector of laws passed and their impact on business. Moreover, the business sector should be effectively consulted in the construction of new laws so government has the benefit of sound advice regarding the ramifications of their legislative proposals, rather than relying on directions from the bureaucracy, as is the case under this government.
While there is a Business and Employment department within government, there is no small business policy division to provide advice and assistance to small business. There is no unit within the business department with the main objective of promoting and furthering small business and ensuring a fair marketplace. I will quote the department’s website to highlight the neglect of small business by this government. The top of the page says:
There is no mention specifically of small business development and promotion. The department’s website goes on:
provide information technology services to support government business
identify, assess and support business and industry development opportunities
stimulate business innovation, research and knowledge development
There are other dot points on the webpage, but no reference specifically to small business.
When I went further into the website - there is a great deal of good information there - still no reference to the promotion of small business. In the Northern Territory there are approximately 8000 small businesses with fewer than 25 staff, including sole traders and consultants. That is a large number of businesses with many employees and a reasonable chunk of payroll tax being paid to the Northern Territory government.
While there is, at Commonwealth level, the ACCC to regulate competition, the NT Department of Business and Employment, the ACCC, or the office of Consumer Affairs within the Department of Justice, are not in a position to act lawfully as an independent champion of small business. The Consumer Affairs division within NT Justice cannot, and does not, deal with business to business matters. It manages consumer complaints and scams. The Business department is constrained by government policy, regardless of the consequences on small business in the Northern Territory.
More often than not, the biggest enemy of small business is big business. Under federal and NT legislation there is no provision to assist small business under siege in the general, and I quote:
Yes, there are franchising and trade practice laws on creeping acquisitions. However, this is very complicated and not understood, or easily accessible, by the general run-of-the-mill small business. The opposition sees it as an imperative that an independent small business champion through the office of an ombudsman/ advocate/commissioner be established, and this person act as a point of contact for small business and relate concerns to decision-makers as part of the parliamentary process, including ministers and government departments.
A small business ombudsman could communicate the need of small business to the government and comment on government policy without being constrained by political interest. A small business ombudsman would enhance a competitive and fair operating environment for small business in the Northern Territory. Similar offices exist in Victoria, South Australia, and recently an office has been established in Western Australia. The Victorian office was established in 2003 and is called the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. I quote the commissioner’s comments from the 2009-10 annual report:
Given Western Australia and South Australia have an office, I wonder which other states have shown interest and hope the Northern Territory is on this list of visitors to the Victorian office.
Where does a small business go when it has a complaint against another small business? I do not mean a vexatious complaint, rather a serious issue such as collusion or commercial bullying. Where does a small business go when it has an issue against a much larger business or company? For example, a large mining company writing into its contract that a small business would be liable for lost production if it fails to deliver the replacement part on time regardless of legitimate reasons for doing so. The deal might be legal but considered onerous and anti-small business.
I should make it clear this office is not a substitute for an industry group or ACCC or ASIC. Rather, it is intended to be the champion of small business, and an office which assists government agencies to ensure the environment their actions and legislation impact on is not detrimental to small business.
The office, as with other small business ombudsman offices, could assist with small business disputes. The office could assist with improving small business conduct, which could be done in association with industry groups and government agencies, and possibly employee associations. The office could assist with owner/drivers of heavy vehicles if they have a dispute with a major contractor, as often occurs interstate. Where does the owner/driver - a small business person - go if such a dispute exists? It is important small business operators know who to turn to for free, independent and impartial advice in relation to their rights.
The office could assist with franchising disputes. This is something to keep a watching brief on as Northern Territory commercial complexes develop and expand, for example, the proposed complex at Coolalinga; a shopping centre proposed in Nhulunbuy; and the expansion of the Casuarina shopping complex. There are many franchising businesses in those complexes. There could be a strong connection with the retail tenancy legislation as exists in other states. The office could provide a preliminary phone inquiry assistance service. Of course there would be a strong working relationship with ACCC and ASIC, as both these agencies deal with business disputes and mediation.
Legislation would be required to establish the office as is the case with interstate small business commissioners or ombudsmen. The office would have a small staff, with selection of staff critical to ensure the success of the office and its objectives. The focus would be on business, with legal background and knowledge.
In presenting this motion I have consulted with business and industry groups and small business people, receiving a positive response. I will continue to talk with them, refining this proposal for an office of small business ombudsman or commissioner. I will take a proposal to the Law Society for their comments and provide details of the benefits to small business and the Northern Territory economy as a whole.
In conclusion, I stress this will not be a complaints agency; rather an independent and adequately resourced small business ombudsman or commissioner to provide a voice for small business from within government with a key objective to enhance a competitive and fair operating environment for small business in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I ask members opposite and the Independents to support this motion as it will bring solid benefits to business and the economy of the Territory as a whole.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward this proposal. It is somewhat strange it has not come from the shadow Business spokesperson, the Leader of the Opposition; anyway, we will work with that. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition …
Mr Mills: Do not stress over that.
Mr KNIGHT: Leader of the Opposition, you are the shadow; I presume something to do with business would come from you. Anyway, I will deal with the Deputy Leader.
It is an interesting proposal calling for a small business ombudsman to play an advocacy role for the small business community. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke extensively about contractual arrangements business to business. This is an innovative idea, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. You did not give much credit to the people who came up with the idea - the federal Liberal Coalition, which announced this proposal in July this year. You failed to acknowledge it was Tony Abbott and Bruce Billson who came up with the idea of a small business ombudsman. They also spoke extensively about wanting to protect small business from contractual arrangements business to business, especially business to big business, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke of - unfair contractual protections. This is all noted in the Liberal Party’s policy announcement in July this year. I believe you have been plagiarising some of their policy position - it is curious. Their policy position went on to talk about finding money from within.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in her conclusion, spoke of setting up an office with a small discrete group of people to staff it. I anticipated that, and have had my office put some figures together. The federal opposition – the people who came up with this idea you have plagiarised – said such an office …
Ms Purick: Why has the Victorian model been around since 2002, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: This is exactly what Tony Abbott came up with less than three months ago, and you did not attribute his idea to what you have come up with today. You talked about other models in other states; you did not talk about Tony Abbott.
Let us move to the costs of this office. The federal opposition says it would cost about $2m to establish such an office. We have done some estimates. The position would be similar to our Ombudsman, an ECO2, with support staff and project officers at AO7/AO5 level, and someone at AO4 level to manage the front desk. All those costs - travel and office expenses - amount to around $2m. We have an idea for an office - $2m in our hand to support local business. Our idea is not to add to the ever present bureaucracy in the small business community. In Australia, SMEs make up 99% of all businesses in our community. When we talk about the department of Business, it really is the department of small to medium business. That is the primary work of the department.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went through the DBE website explaining what it does. She failed to realise - or talk to people - the field staff who engage with business every single day - and they do a fabulous job. I have never run into a business …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the minister to table his notes so we can get through this quickly.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, are they personal notes or a public document?
Mr KNIGHT: They are highlighted pieces from Tony Abbott’s media releases.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no requirement. That is fine, please continue.
Mr KNIGHT: The department of Business has a primary job; it speaks to business. I have not heard a business which has had support or engagement from the department say a bad word about the work they do.
The upskilling program, the business support programs and getting started in business programs are hailed by people. People, who have been in business for five, 10 years, attend business upskilling programs, and although they have been in business have never had the opportunity to have someone look at their organisation and see what they need to do to improve it. This is at a time when we have a slowdown in some sectors of the economy, where it is time to look at your business plan and your cash flows. We are at a time where the economy is going to surge ahead, and business needs to look at a business plan and cash flow to see how they can improve those.
There is a plethora of support for business. The Territory is a very small place. We have a range of support organisations for business. It seems a waste of money to spend $2m to have a policeman going around if you have a problem.
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I am out there; I knock on doors, people raise issues with me.
Ms Purick: You must have your boy ears on!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Look at the organisations! Most of the SMEs are part of these organisations. You are attempting to duplicate the work of the NT Chamber of Commerce; the Palmerston Regional Business Association; the Manufacturers Council; the International Business Council; AIDN, the Australian Defence Industry Group; the Motor Traders Association; the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association; the Seafood Council; the Housing Industry Association; the Property Council; Engineers Australia; the Real Estate Institute; the Trucking Association; the Australian Hotels Association; the Resources Council; Civil Contractors; AANT; and the project managers, the Australian Institute of Management; the Chartered Processing Accountants just to name a few. They are all organisations which represent the interests of their members, and those organisations directly engage with government. If there is an issue, they come to us.
Coupled with that, on a regular basis some 1400 businesses across the Territory are surveyed by the Sensis Business Index. The main problem business has is the attraction and retention of staff. What does Sensis have confidence in? It has confidence in this government. It consistently says the NT has the highest rate of confidence in the nation. The reasons include having forward orders, contracts in place, work has been consistent and the Northern Territory government is the most supportive of small business management training programs - management training programs run by the government. Also, the Northern Territory government has a better awareness of business, and is attempting to help small business.
This is what business is saying. They are not saying: we need a policeman; we need a $2m ombudsman to solve our problems. They have their peak bodies, their representative groups, and have ministers knocking on their doors. They have a business index survey where they can express their views. They are not saying they have problems. It is a great result, and $2m is wasted. This year we spent $363 000 on our Territory growth program with a great result. It has been a huge help for business to engage with us. Would you spend $2m on a policeman, or on expanding growth programs? I would spend it on the growth program, which is what business wants. Business wants the upskills programs. That is where they want help. They want help getting more staff in the skilled migration visa area, and the Trade Support Scheme. They do not want it to be another office taking their money.
This is a crazy idea which does not seem to be supported by business. If you had $2m to spend, you would not spend it on a policeman …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Goyder, if you had $2m you would …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member directs his comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a crazy assumption that business would invest money into something which did not produce results. There are other programs which will produce efficiencies; we have a range. We have pumped money into the small business sector because that is what it needs. Ultimately, it needs work.
Throughout the global financial crisis this government, and the federal Labor government, pumped money into small to medium businesses to keep them going. They are appreciative of that. They understand the cash register ticking over has helped them through the biggest financial crisis the world has seen. This year, all those tradesmen received support from the $1.8bn infrastructure spend: $995m in capital works; $437m in power and water infrastructure; and $198m in repairs and maintenance. A significant amount of money is going into hospitals, public schools, Indigenous housing - a range of areas. It is a great result, and this government realises cash flow for small business is important. Since 2004, to assist small to medium businesses supplying goods and services to the Northern Territory government, we have committed to pay on time or pay penalty interest to the supplier for any delay. We know they need a quick turnaround. This government has 30 days to pay.
A range of services is already available to small business. The Ombudsman’s office can be utilised for complaints from the business community, the Department of Justice’s Business Affairs Office also deals with complaints from business. The Department of Business and Employment’s Procurement Liaison helps up to 40 businesses each quarter improve their prospect of winning tenders. It is not about being the most expensive business policeman in the nation; it is about helping business work through issues. Much of the time it is about procurement, so we have a Procurement Liaison Unit to work with business to improve understanding of why decisions are made, why tenders did not work, and to improve tendering ability. We meet with associations and give presentations at industry forums to increase awareness of the procurement process.
This is a plagiarised policy from the federal Liberal party. It is a little rude that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not credit Tony Abbott and Senator Billson for this policy. She cut and pasted it, and we have costed it at $2m. My understanding is the federal Liberal Party’s proposal is to be found from within. Which programs would DBE have to slash to pay for the most expensive policeman in the nation? It would have to slash the support programs. It would have to slash financial support for many peak bodies in the business community: the Australian Hotels Association; the Chamber of Commerce; the Manufacturers Council. A range of organisations this government supports would face financial cuts because the DBE budget would need to fund employment of half a dozen staff to do a policing role which would not achieve the required outcome.
We do not support this proposition. It is not required in the Northern Territory. We have had muted calls from one industry sector for a similar position, however, we believe we can work through the issues with it. It is very expensive, it is not required and we do not support it. We have a great department doing all the right things which, quarter on quarter on quarter, has the Sensis Business Index saying the Northern Territory Labor government is the most supported. Having greater confidence in this government than any other jurisdiction in the nation is testament we are doing things the right way.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not support this motion.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was a wholly unconvincing defence against a good idea presented for the consideration of members for a member to enter the argument in such a low-level way by attempting to assert because it was on a Tony Abbott media release it has been lifted from there. You have made a fatal mistake underestimating your opposition. This is a good idea adopted by other jurisdictions - Labor jurisdictions as well - as early as 2003, and most recently by a Western Australian Liberal government. It crosses boundaries and is testament to the power of a good idea. For a spokesman from government to be so ill-prepared, condescending and ignorant when it comes to dismissing this, with snide criticism and sarcasm, is not befitting a government, or a government response to an idea which has been established and accepted as having merit in other jurisdictions. The worst part is the member representing the government clearly does not understand what is being described here.
Too busy trying to find some smart arse comment that is going – excuse me if that offends members – a low level, sarcastic, smart response which does not give any indication of even a grasp of what small business requires, illustrated most starkly by lifting up all the different representative bodies within small business and industry across the Northern Territory and saying we already have these things so we do not need that. It is not a very convincing argument; in fact, it betrays the failure to attend to the basic idea being described by the deputy leader.
For the advice of the member, you need to understand what words mean. An ombudsman - I am quoting from the Australian Oxford Dictionary - is: ‘an official appointed by a government to investigate complaints by individuals against public authorities’. Essentially, you have taken a position which indicates you have no knowledge that small business is challenged by a changing environment, particularly in the Northern Territory. You have betrayed the fact you have no connection to the challenges faced by our small business sector in a time of significant change in the Northern Territory. By trotting out these other bodies which should be there to represent the specific interests of those industry groups and confusing the argument by suggesting they play this role, indicates you have not understood what was presented by the Deputy Leader.
First up is the power of a good idea. Look at the idea, understand the idea, and then refute it or challenge it on the basis of understanding what it is. You did not do that. It was a very low-level, quite embarrassing response.
How is it the Deputy Leader - this is the opening argument: ‘I would have thought’, he said with hand on heart, ‘that the Leader would have been doing this, not the Deputy Leader. That is great cause for concern’. Do not underestimate your opposition. This is an opposition working hard to develop ideas in response to the needs of our community. This idea has been put into play by the Deputy Leader, and I commend her for it. We are open for business ...
Mr Knight: She stole it. She googled it.
Mr MILLS: That is quite an offensive assertion to make. I have already covered ...
Mr Knight: She did. Put ‘small business ombudsman’ in Google and you get the Liberal Party’s policy from months ago.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Honourable member, do not disgrace yourself further by going down that path. I have already covered that. If you want to go back to that you are showing yourself to be extremely foolish. It is the power of a good idea already put in play in Victoria, a Labor state, in 2003, and in other states - if I need to go back over that again. Calm down. It is a very silly thing to do.
You are recognising the idea you scoffed is something you think, in your misjudgement, industry does not want. Clearly, you have not asked the right question. In all the groups you listed as some defence to a weak argument, many of the groups you described have asked for something like this in the Northern Territory. They have asked for it, which indicates we have a member of government representing the interests of small business, who has no idea what the sector wants, does not understand their need, and is so shallow he will attempt to refute a proposition which has national merit - recognition in Labor and Liberal states as having merit and support for small business. In your shallow interest to score some kind of debating point, you betrayed a lack of interest or understanding of the small business sector. You displayed yourself in such a shameful way.
You trot out figures and say small business has such confidence. They have confidence in spite of you, minister. They have confidence because much is happening in the region. You seem to think all the good stuff happening in the resources boom is somehow connected to something you have done. You are delusional. China has had a significant effect on the Australian economy, principally the resource rich states. You are delusional if you think the confidence exhibited by small business in the Northern Territory is somehow connected to actions you have taken. You are dead wrong! One way or another it has occurred despite you. You are in a position to govern, and that is what you are attempting to do. However, to knock something out of play with such weak arguments is an embarrassment.
You then used another argument: ‘Oh yes, we have done some costing’. The member who sits in front of you did some costing during the 2008 election - it was called ‘Delia’s dodgy calculator’ - of how much it would cost to build Glyde Point. I would not trust a costing …
Mr Knight: The federal opposition said it would cost $2m. Tony Abbott said it was going to cost $2m.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly!
Mr MILLS: I would not trust a costing from the government …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51: I cannot hear the Leader of the Opposition speak because of the outbursts from the member for Daly.
Mr Knight: It is not worth listening to.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you …
Mr Mills: Leave the Chamber then. Leave the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, I ask you to cease interjecting, please. Leader of the Opposition, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We say you have attempted to refute this idea in a very embarrassing way with a couple of quite weak arguments. You said: ‘It is going to cost $2m because we have costed it’. I would not trust, ever, a costing from the government when it is apparently considering an idea it has taken a position against. We saw that in the 2008 election. We have seen it with many issues constantly trotted out in this House. People have given up believing you. You are saying it is going to cost $2m. Well, good on the member for Braitling for saying: ‘Show us the paperwork you are reading from’.
I would like to see the detailed costings if you are going to have any creditability in a discussion such as this - an important discussion which other states have taken on board and accepted, Labor states included. You better put these costings out if you want to retrieve some credibility. However, if your costings, which should not be considered, are based on the idea it will cost $2m because you worked out a big number on the run to help with the weak argument, then you say it will not produce anything - it costs $2m, now established as a fact because he has run some calculations, then he says, as a fact, it does not produce anything.
Let us look at the Chief Minister’s Palmerston office. How much does that cost? You would have run a few figures over that. What about the Katherine office? How much does that cost? Alice Springs, how much does that cost? We have the costs; you should be able to do a few calculations. Let me say it cost $50m - I will make up a figure. No, I am not that silly - it costs a certain amount of money. Let us run through those three offices again. We have worked out there is a cost. What does it produce? What is produced in the Palmerston office?
We have three electorate offices to represent and advance the interests of residents. However, when we send people across to that office what do they get? What they get is spin and gloss. It is a promotional office for the Chief Minister because he does not hold a seat in Palmerston. Taxpayers foot the bill. It is disgraceful. How dare you say this will cost $2m and will not produce anything. You have an office in Palmerston, another one in Katherine - hang on, that is held by the Country Liberals so you put a station there, at taxpayers expense, to promote the Chief Minister, and you dare run an argument to say an ombudsman for small business – it is something small business wants and needs and are calling for - you knock it out of play with such a ridiculous and offensive argument as that.
What has been produced in the Alice Springs office in recent times?
Mr Conlan: Where is the Tennant Creek office?
Mr MILLS: No, we do not need one. We do not need one in Nhulunbuy. We need one in those …
A member: We need some in the suburbs.
Mr MILLS: That is another argument you have attempted to run.
If some of the slogans run from the other side are to be believed, there is a belief in the Territory of a can-do spirit. There is but it has been in decline. It has been smothered by layer upon layer of bureaucracy and the failure to provide strategic plans, direction, and courage at the government level. Small business carries the cost and weight of that. Where does the can-do spirit reside in the Territory? Principally, in small business. All the way from the markets and those people who work with their small businesses, cottage industries, up to small and medium-sized businesses. That is where it essentially resides, and if we are to understand, ask them, minister.
Do yourself a favour - you do not have to report to the Chamber - on the quiet, look at this proposition and ask business whether they need something like this. This idea has come from business. You are still a young fellow with a few miles to run; have another look at this and ask the question. Do not fall into the trap others have of asking a question and not waiting for the answer. Ask the question and listen to what they say, because the small- and medium-sized businesses in the Territory are under increasing challenge; it is a changing landscape.
We all know the Territory is growing. We know larger operations are moving to the Territory and placing challenges on small operators. They need somewhere they can go to know matters which may arise can be properly, professionally and skillfully managed. I come from a small business background; my family has been involved - farming was a small business in my family. My mother has run small businesses most of her life. It is a consuming challenge citizens take upon themselves. Costs and risks are high. The rewards can be tremendous, but it is taxing. Often it is David against Goliath. The Goliath could be the bureaucracy or the threat of a multinational moving in down the street.
There are those who are running small operations – I had have them come to my office - where new legislation has been implemented. I spoke to the member for Casuarina about a matter where new legislation, to do with labelling of chemicals, was being administered by bureaucracy to the letter of the law. It made sense to the bureaucrat, but no sense, and in fact was offensive, to the interest of small business in the Territory. He needed someone to bat for him against the intrusion of the bureaucracy. It could be federal legislation, Territory legislation, or it could be the effect of higher level competition coming in from multinationals.
Minister, do not underestimate the power of a good idea. Do not knock it out of play with such a cynical and flippant response. Do not underestimate your opposition, which is listening and responding. Do not be confused that the Deputy Leader brought this into play; I commend her for it. It is a demonstration the opposition is open for business and is entertaining all manner of ideas. A word of warning, do not understate your opposition. Do not be deluded into thinking a strong argument is to say: I have done some costings; it is $2m and does not produce anything, when you have the Chief Minister’s promotional offices at Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs. I would not go anywhere near that if I were you.
The voice of small business has called for this. You clearly have not understood what was described by the Deputy Leader. I commend her for bringing this forward. She does so with the endorsement of small- to medium-sized business in the Territory. If we want to protect the can-do spirit in the Northern Territory, the place to start is small business. Strengthen them, protect them and help them grow because they are the employers, the ones who will take us to places we are dreaming and speaking of. I commend her and urge honourable members to give this motion full support.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a great idea, a small business Ombudsman. One reason is because of an article in today’s Northern Territory News:
I wonder why. I can only imagine one of the reasons was because they did not have an advocate; they did not have a service which could provide mediation, or a dispute resolution service. Maybe there was no sense of fair trade in the industry they were involved in. Maybe they did not have anywhere to go to complain about the issues they were facing, such as their commercial tenancy.
A small business ombudsman could save many new businesses in the Northern Territory from going bust within the first two years of operation. It is quite timely the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has brought to our attention this important service existing in other states in the country. So, $2m, in my opinion, is a bargain - value for money. If we can save even 5% of the 30% of new Territory businesses going bust, that is value for money.
There will always be complaints. Where do small business operators go now if they need to complain? I am a small business operator and do not know of any avenue I have to complain. We have been working in a vacuum for the last 10 years. I heard the Minister for Business and Employment talk about associations, councils and organisations I could belong to which will assist me to go about my business on a daily basis. I heard about the millions of dollars available for small business - gee whiz, I missed out on something. I have been in a vacuum, perhaps because I live in Alice Springs. Perhaps because I live in the Northern Territory these things are not available to me. My experience of being a small business operator is you work really hard, you are lucky to find the information you do, lucky to connect with the resources you do, and any assistance which comes your way, particularly when it comes to problems you are experiencing, is a bonus.
There are 8000 small businesses in the Northern Territory. That is a great deal of employers and employees. Small business is the backbone of the Northern Territory. Small business carries many families; it provides food, clothing and shelter for many people in the Northern Territory. When we talk about small business, we are talking about a huge section of the Northern Territory. To spend $2m to support these small businesses, enable them to survive the first two years of their operation if they have problems around advocacy, disputes and fair trade practices, tenancy and employment strategies - anything to assist new business survive the first two years has to be value for money.
We then look at the small businesses operating for longer than two years, for example, my business. I have had problems in the past and no avenue to resolve them. Had I had a small business ombudsman I would have managed much better, I can assure you.
You talk about the infrastructure available, the resources and money available for small businesses. I have not been able to access any. A small business ombudsman is something I could use at times of difficulty in my business. When you are desperate you access whatever information and resources are available to help you. A small business ombudsman would be somewhere to go with a problem. When things are travelling well, you do not need great resources which may or may not be relevant to your situation. However, funding is always a drawcard.
The minister described a most supportive government. He has been applauded for his excellence in business acumen. To uphold your reputation, minister, this could be another feather in your cap and could have helped the 30% of new businesses in the Territory that went bust. You could have saved those businesses. Would it not have been wonderful to say in parliament: ‘With my new small business ombudsman I have saved new businesses of the Northern Territory! I have promoted and helped them’. No, this is a bad idea because it is not original.
I did not hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say it was an original idea. I did not hear her say she had not taken information from interstate. This is a woman of great integrity and accusing her of plagiarism was rather rude. This is a fabulous idea. As a small business operator who has had no assistance from this government in the 10 years I have been operating my business, it is a fabulous idea. I applaud it. I am mystified as to why this government would not support it.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Deputy Leader in this fantastic motion. An opportunity for a small business ombudsman would be a fantastic outcome for the Northern Territory. It would be a clear indication the Northern Territory government is supportive of business.
I was not surprised to hear the minister for Business and his colleagues interjecting and condemning such a move. We hear it frequently - this government is a socialist, mendicant government. It will do nothing for business in the Northern Territory. If this was a motion about an ombudsman for a welfare sanctuary, a socialist alliance or something, it would be all for it. The reason it cannot accept this is because it is about business; it is about the heart. This government likes to put expense on business, not assist small business. This government wants to send clear signals to business it is not supportive of business.
The purpose of this motion is to allow an ombudsman to run a clear ruler over decisions made by this government to ensure it will produce the best outcomes for businesses in the Northern Territory. It will be conducive to providing a supportive business environment in the Northern Territory.
I reflect on a speech I made yesterday regarding the National Broadband Network. In that speech I made reference to an article in the government technology magazine which referred to the NBN costing a developer $3500 per property on a greenfield development site, which would ultimately be passed to the consumer. An ombudsman of small business would be able to say to people, such as the NBN or the Northern Territory government, this is an expense to a small business. That is an example of where additional business costs occur. We need an advocacy group.
The minister mentioned industry stakeholder groups in the Northern Territory. He went through the Chamber of Commerce; the Manufacturers Association; the Defence Industry Group; the Motor Traders Association; the cattlemen’s body; the seafood body; the Property Council; the Real Estate Institute; the Australian Hotels Association - the list went on. I thought it ironic he mentioned the Australian Hotels Association. In Alice Springs at the moment, the leftist socialists are trying to bring in a 3.5% mid-strength alcohol limit between 11.30 am and 2 pm. We do not support this. The AHA has heard the concerns of Alice Springs residents, and of the people who own and manage the clubs and restaurants. They have spoken to the AHA. The AHA is now trying to lobby government. Government does not listen because it is a bunch of socialist mendicants who want nothing to do with the interests of small business or the community.
The benefit of a small business ombudsman would be the AHA could go straight to the ombudsman and advocate in the best interests of small business - let alone the interests of the people of the Alice Springs community. No, we will not have that. The socialist mendicants of Labor who do not support business, or small business, will not stand up for the real people. There are ombudsmen and spokespersons for everything socialist, however, when you get to the heart of the economy and what drives job growth in the Northern Territory, the government will not listen.
This body could assist growth towns; it could speak up for people who want to develop shopping complexes in the growth towns or start a new business. We cannot have it; we have to have the socialists who support Labor; the unions - the right of entry people. They are happy to give a voice to those people - small business, no. Labor does not support small business.
I commend the Deputy Leader for this positive motion which supports the economy of the Northern Territory. It supports jobs growth in the Northern Territory. It will support people getting off welfare and into jobs. Is it any wonder these socialists do not support small business or a small business ombudsman? They should be condemned for forgetting the heart and soul of growing the economy in the Northern Territory.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their support. They can see clearly and listen well to industry and business. The minister for Business is not listening; he obviously has his little boy ears on and cannot hear what industry and business are saying. I have spoken to industry groups and small business people in the Territory. Obviously, you do not understand the role of an ombudsman or a small business commissioner and have not spoken to your Labor mates in Victoria or South Australia. You must not talk to Victoria, because it is seen as the leader in this kind of service to small business.
You also do not accept or acknowledge - which I find astounding given you are the Business minister - we are in a time of significant change in the economy. We are facing some major projects coming into Darwin. We are facing substantial shopping complexes being developed across the top part of the Territory, let alone elsewhere. Those shopping centres create issues between businesses. Yes, you rattled off a list of business groups, and I know exactly the list you are talking about - the list of the Northern Territory Business Council. Minister, I know more about the Business Council than you ever will given I was involved with it for 16 years. I have spoken to those business groups, and they tell me clearly what they think about you as Business minister. You say you have done your costings at $2m. My colleague from Alice Springs says that would be a bargain. You say it would $2m; I would like to know how you substantiated that, and why it is such an issue.
Let me go to the 2009-10 Annual Report of the Department of Chief Minister. I can tell you where you can get some money for such an office. Look at the grants handed out to community groups. Let me see: recipient - Unions NT, Trades and Labour Council, $30 000 for the May Day concert; Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, $2000. We have $80 000 for a festival; $29 000 for the same festival. If you stop giving money to your union mates, who do nothing to promote business, you would have money to fund an office of a small business ombudsman, which will bring benefits to the Northern Territory business community.
This has been a very dismal performance.
Mr Knight: Say thank you to Tony Abbott for the policy you copied.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: Yes, ask them. Ask them, minister, and they will say yes, I have spoken to them.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, if you could address your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms PURICK: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly recommend the minister for Business talks to the industry groups and discovers I have spoken to them. It is disappointing this government does not understand what this is about.
To refresh the minister’s understanding, or get him to understand, the Consumer Affairs division within Justice cannot, and does not, deal with business to business matters. It manages consumer complaints and scams - rightly so, that is their job. The Business department is constrained by government policy, regardless of consequences on small business. This office is not about regulation, it is about assisting small business in an independent, impartial and fair way - assist them to stay in business and not go broke within two years. Some businesses cease trading within two years because of practices from a larger business to a smaller business. Perhaps it is from franchising arrangements which they have not been able to address because the franchiser is in a much bigger and stronger position.
Minister, I suggest you read what I have said in Hansard. If I can summarise your understanding: your rubber has not hit the road at all.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly call on the Northern Territory government to address the issue of alcohol demand through rehabilitation and education of habitual drinkers and not through a system that penalises the wider community as a consequence of their policy actions.
During Question Time today the Minister for Alcohol Policy stated the Henderson government is targeting the problem drinker and not the wider community. It is interesting reading the government’s policy, and listening to the statement in the House yesterday. I would like to go through the CLP policy to make some comparisons. I note the ministerial statement says the CLP is not committed to tackling crime in the Northern Territory. The CLP has a clear policy on habitual drunks; it is quite clear when you read it. We plan to place people into meaningful rehabilitation, first, in a voluntary capacity and, for those who do not volunteer, a mandatory situation would follow.
Looking at some of the alcohol issues occurring on our streets at the moment, people are punching police officers, punching police horses - all sorts of things. Government statistics say 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. Many of these people are recidivist offenders, continually spending time in gaol as a result of alcohol abuse. Other statistics the government provided show 60% of all assaults are alcohol-related, and 60% of all domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related.
The statement says the Country Liberals are not interested in tackling crime in the Northern Territory and have no way to stop the flow. If you take away the problem drinkers - and in Darwin there are approximately 300 - and give them some meaningful rehabilitation, you will reduce the demand for alcohol because these people, if in voluntary treatment, will not be drinking at all, or not as much. If they are in mandatory sentencing, they will be drinking zero and receiving treatment to assist them break the cycle of addiction.
I will talk to some of the key points in the Country Liberals’ Defeating the Drunks policy. Anyone picked up for public drunkenness three times in six months may be declared an habitual drunk. That is the first one. Number two says an habitual drunk may be issued with a control order to keep them off the streets and require them to undergo alcohol rehabilitation treatment. In the first instance, this is voluntary. That is great. I believe there are people who would love assistance to break their addiction and the lifestyle that goes with being addicted to alcohol or other drugs. When the government states we do not have any enforcement in our policy, I point out to those opposite point number three, which clearly says breaching a control order will trigger an automatic prison sentence. That means going to a prison farm where we will provide education services, health services, counselling, and all the things necessary to assist someone to break their addiction. As mentioned, it can be in a voluntary capacity, however, if not, it would trigger an automatic prison sentence.
I go to the government’s brochure Enough is Enough. When you compare key points, such as the government saying we do not have enforcement, I wonder. This brochure says:
It appears you are banned again, and again, and again, and again. You can continue to be banned. It does not say there is any consequence if you continue to offend. You are banned for one month, two months, three months, one year or two years. Does it continue to the point where people are banned for years and years and years?
These people are facing serious addiction issues and taking them off tap will not necessarily stop them drinking. The minister says turning them off and stopping it will stop people buying and drinking alcohol. I wonder where the minister is getting her information because in the real world, on the street, you find people addicted to alcohol, or some other addictive drug, will get hold of drugs. Alcohol is a legal drug available through our community. Irrespective of the time or the shop, people will find a way to get it. There are people who will do whatever it takes to get their drug of choice.
The government has no consequences for those who say no to rehabilitation. You place them on a banned register and keep banning them for longer periods; you tell them to have extensive rehabilitation. I do not see an end point here with a consequence. Put them into a mandatory process! Our policy is people can be ordered into mandatory treatment. When you are ordered to do something you do not have a choice, so mandatory should be mandatory, not optional.
Our primary concern is it is easy for others to buy grog for banned drinkers. What happens when you ban people? What happens when you have a large group of people, all friends, and all problem drinkers? You put someone on a banned register, they go to a hotel or bottle shop to buy alcohol and are refused - they walk away. The secondary offenders, if they are apprehended and the police can prove it, will be banned as well and charged under the Liquor Act.
What happens to people who still want alcohol? What if they refuse the mandatory rehabilitation? What happens at the end of that path? Are they out of sight, out of mind? Is the government taking the cheap option of a gloss over - we are making tough new laws - or are they just shifting the problem? If you put people on the banned list and they wander off into the bush to sit with friends, they may not come to notice. They might stay quiet for some time. You shift the problem off the street and hide it somewhere else. These people are still consuming alcohol.
I am sure the police, who are busy doing all sorts of things, will not be chasing people into secret areas of the bush where they drink. I suspect these people, far from dealing with their addiction or receiving meaningful rehabilitation and education to give them a hand, will continue to drink even though they are on a banned register. I have an issue with the black market which may evolve around this ban. People prepared to get others to buy grog for them will quite happily continue the spiral into poor health and even to violence.
The government’s plans for grog reforms and Labor’s practice of alcohol prohibition ahead of mandatory rehabilitation for drunks - wonder whether it is going to work. This is going to penalise the wider community. We all have to pay, in some way, for the government’s refusal to tackle the problem of problem drinkers. Not a large number of people are apprehended all the time. There are people well on their way to becoming habitual drunks who we should be targeting, especially through education on where their drinking habits are taking them.
The government cannot have it both ways: it has mandatory rehabilitation or it does not. It should not be optional as stated in the brochure. This brochure is going out to the public for comment. When you say a person can be ordered into mandatory sentence - there is a major difference between the government’s policy and our policy.
I am cautious about whether a banned drinker’s register will stop habitual drinking. The minister said yesterday this will stop people buying and drinking alcohol. I wonder if the minister believes that. To stop these people from drinking you need to offer real support to break the alcohol addiction. I do not see many mandatory rehabilitation programs.
The number of people in protective custody and sobering-up shelters in the last financial year was 50 000 - an extraordinary number. The government has introduced policies over the last 10 years saying it will do this and that - will assist these people; however, numbers are increasing.
The primary reason these people enter rehabilitation on a voluntarily basis is to address their lifestyle and drug abuse issues. We would hope many people choose to do so. There are programs in New South Wales, and I believe people from the Northern Territory have chosen to travel to New South Wales to participate. They are in fenced areas, no alcohol, with good counselling and rehabilitation services. Some people have stayed for a considerable time to break their alcohol addiction. I do not see in the statement or brochure from the government where we can offer something similar.
This appears to suggest brief interventions and working with GPs over an extended period of time. I am informed people in that area have issues with the amount of time required for brief interventions. We need a number of facilities in the Territory to house the 300 or so street people to provide them with assistance rather than send them to the bush where they continue to drink.
The government wants to build a new gaol. Government figures say 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. If we can take some of the habitual drunks who commit violent crimes or domestic violence - and I am talking about serious violence - these people get drunk, go through sobering-up shelters then start drinking the following day, almost being set up to fail. We have a revolving door syndrome. There is no prison farm to send people to dry out. I know from personal experience many people will not go voluntarily. They choose not to, and I wonder if they will be the same people who receive extended bans and extensive rehabilitation.
A core group of people in all our major centres will resist any form of rehabilitation. It is not within them. If we can identify them - and that will not be hard - go through the police records and see how many have been in more than three times in a week. The government says first three times in three months - ours is three times in six months. These people will not be very hard to identify because many are there three times in a week. We will quickly be able to identify people who are overloading our system and forming part of the 55 000 incidents of police taking people into custody. We heard yesterday 52% of police time is spent on alcohol-related issues. If we reduce that, police can deal with other community matters.
When people commit serious crimes they have to be put away for a length of time. I understand our gaols are full - no room. The Don Dale Centre in Darwin is full - no room. Courts are told early in the morning how many places are available in our correctional institutions. Some days it might be only one or two places. I have been told some people are released slightly ahead of time to free up a place in gaol so magistrates have an option to incarcerate one or two.
If we can avoid sending drunks to gaol and assist them with rehabilitation, for instance a farm in Katherine, we will reduce the prison population which brings us to the question of a new gaol. That is great; where is the money? The original quote was $300m. It now seems to be between $300m and $500m. I do not know the real figure. The government says one thing; people in the community say another.
If we reduce pressure on the prison system we may not need a new gaol. The members for Nelson and Barkly, and other government members, say the gaol is old and outdated. In comparison to correctional facilities around the country, it is quite new. It has only been there for about 35 years. It may have some design problems, but where do we get $300m to $500m to build a new one. We are failing to reduce the number of prisoners sent to gaol, which is an issue for government. If government can fix the problem by taking on some of the opposition ideas we may not need a new gaol.
The government tells us crime is down; I hear all the figures. I have several pages from the Northern Territory Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics Issue 31 March quarter 2010. Looking at Katherine - my colleague, the member for Katherine, has been subjected to alcohol-fuelled violence in Katherine. Looking at offences against the person, in the March quarter 2008 we had 125 assaults and a few other offences. The total for March 2008 was 135. I will go through the quarters until we get to the current one: 122, 120, 156, 199, 179, 211, 206, and 172. When we look at the comparison for Katherine between the March 2008 quarter to the March 2010 quarter, it has gone from 135 to 172. Property offences show a slight reduction.
Let us go to Tennant Creek. What is happening in Tennant Creek? From March 2008 to March 2010, the number has increased by one, but very similar numbers all the way through. Break-ins are up, total property offences are up. I often wonder where the government gets figures from. When you look at the government’s statistics you see increases. We can all drag things out but when one hears government claiming this and that and then looks at their stats, they are increasing.
The government is taking the inexpensive option by allowing courts to order mandatory treatment and alcohol counselling, as opposed to the CLP’s clear indication it will breach people if they do not complete the control orders imposed upon them by a tribunal set up under the County Liberals.
I will go back to the banning. This says the first ban is three months. They are administrative bans. It says:
We are not fixing the problem; we are moving it out of sight. Perhaps that is what the government wants - out of sight, out of mind. It is an inexpensive option. Providing meaningful rehabilitation to people addicted to alcohol is costly. However, the cost to the community is crime, assault, health costs, policing costs, and the education small kids do not receive? I know of many cases where kids look after their siblings rather than attend school. These are the people we need to provide assistance to so they can work through their issues and, if they choose to, kick their addiction. If they do not and continue to be drunk in our community, we need mandatory rehabilitation and mandatory education.
I would like to reiterate our enforcement policy: we will declare people are habitual drunks, and we will give counselling and mandatory rehabilitation if necessary.
The government brochure says there will be education. The banned drinker register and the ID system will target the good people in our community again; they will have to carry ID cards. You will not be able to take only cash. What happens when the power goes out, which happens regularly in the northern suburbs? I do not know what it is like in Alice Springs, I have not checked lately. People will not be able to purchase alcohol during a power outage. What about the tourist buses; people may want to stop as they are heading out of town. These are only little things; however, when put together they become a large problem.
Let us go back to community awareness and education. We have $500 000 a year for ongoing community education awareness to promote safe and responsible drinking and change the culture of drinking in the Territory. I will go back to one of my favourite subjects, school-based police. We used to have a fantastic …
Ms Lawrie: You were really good, weren’t you? You were so popular.
Mr STYLES: We had some good drug awareness programs. They were life skills programs where young people were exposed to things that empower them to say no.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my colleagues and members opposite. I will not take too much time. Much of this was said yesterday during the debate on the ministerial statement.
The government brochure does not mention what it will do with people who do not want to be rehabilitated. Will we leave them lying around the streets? Yesterday, a bunch of people were sitting around drinking, having a great time. The distance was 50 m from the front door of this House. What are we to do? How are you going to tackle those people?
We have laws and we should be using them. The problem is police are overloaded. We have more police per capita than anywhere else in Australia yet police officers are flat out. What does that indicate?
Madam Deputy Speaker, we need the government to put a criminal offence at the end of the line so people are aware if they do not go into voluntary rehabilitation there is a consequence. The general public is sick and tired of no consequences for things which happen in our community. I do not know if the government is listening, or talking to the people we are talking to. They might like to talk to real people with real issues. The CLP does not mind if government uses its policy points. We welcome that because it would create a better outcome for all Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion, which should come as no surprise to members opposite. We had this debate yesterday, and I look forward to debate continuing. Ultimately, the proof is always in the pudding. A radical reform system will attract much comment, which we are hearing from the opposition. It tends to be one out with its comment.
Everyone else in the stakeholder group embraces the reforms, and it is not unusual the opposition is out on a limb and fairly friendless. The debate will continue: the toing and froing between the respective political parties in this Chamber will continue. The proof will be in the pudding and implementation kicks in on 1 July 2011. We will then see whether this is stopping the habitual drunks the CLP referred to; the people we say are chronically reliant on alcohol. I have no doubt all issues raised in this debate will be raised ad nauseum through that period. That is democracy; it is good; it is healthy.
We are resolute in continuing with the reforms and basing our reforms on an evidence base, which we have done. We have looked at the evaluations of alcohol management plans, at how the ID systems work in different areas of the Territory, particularly Alice Springs and Katherine, but also Groote and Nhulunbuy, and understand those issues of secondary supply which the opposition continues to raise then turns a deaf ear to the answers. All of those issues will continue to be debated.
You can say: ‘You need to talk to real people to understand the real issues’. The reality is there would not a member of this parliament who does not spend most of their working life talking to the people of the Territory. That is what we are employed to do. We are meant to engage with people across the Territory, listen to the issues, learn about the aspirations of people and what they want, and understand what we need to do to tackle an issue head on, which is what these reforms are all about.
The example the opposition likes to use of people sitting in a local park drunk - and there is a park near Parliament House - are the people who need intervention to stop their reliance on grog and to turn their lives around, whether that is through picking up the ambulatory treatment we are talking about, or other types of treatment we are working on with the health sector. That could be existing treatment services or new services. It will be different for different people.
Some people will continue to go south. Some people will say: ‘I am going to get out of this environment altogether. I have the means, the support of my family, and I will go somewhere else for treatment’. It is all about putting in place a range of choices in treatment options to suit individuals, their circumstances, and their dependency. That is why we have been working so closely with the health sector to create therapeutic and health interventions to ensure we are not continuing to chase our tail - to give every chance of success with the health interventions. It is not such an easy thing to get someone off the grog and keep them off, or if they go back to ensure they are managing their use of the grog.
We have had suggestions and work from researchers around that and are picking up all those aspects, and it will be different. Some people will, like the member for Port Darwin, choose to become teetotallers for the rest of their lives because that suits them. Some people will choose to manage a consumption of alcohol if their therapeutic intervention gets them to that point. It will be different for people depending on their living circumstances - whether you are in an urban environment, a remote environment, a very remote environment or a regional environment, different packed together options and circumstances.
The notion we are taking the cheap way out - that we will push people into the bush where you will not see them and ignore the problem - is a heinous suggestion by the opposition. It is completely contrary to our direction in this reform package. I can understand why it would think that because it has been its practice forever and a day, and it often projects onto our side of the Chamber its own thoughts about how to tackle things. I would like to emphasise that it is absolutely wrong.
We are attempting to capture into an intervention people who have been living in the long grass or following the grog through the pathways of the Territory, a bold and strong intervention which will improve them and their lives. We say it is the individual’s responsibility as to how they behave with grog. It is their responsibility not the broader community, and there will be interventions on them rather than the broader community.
One thing in the entire reform package which affects everyone is the ID system - a less than 15 second swipe of your ID. People in Katherine and Alice Springs have been living with this for a long time. It is going to be a Territory-wide ID system. Yes, we are bold and we know it is not popular to have an ID system; however, what has been missing is the strong interventions which come with an ID system. People do not like ID systems because the rest of the system has not been packed with it - the bans from purchasing and consuming alcohol, the tribunal to deal with the mandatory treatment orders and the enhanced powers of the court.
That part of the reform to support the ID system has been missing. This is why we are confident about taking on the issue of creating an enforcement tool to ban people - turning the problem drinker off the tap. How do you create a tribunal to sort out mandatory treatment orders, because there will be different treatment orders depending on clinical assessments and the individual’s needs and circumstances.
The stark difference between the opposition and the government is its view - I listened carefully to the member for Sanderson saying you will send habitual drunks straight to gaol, back to …
Members: No, we are not.
Ms LAWRIE: I listened to him, and I will get the Hansard rush and repeat it. ‘We will get the habitual drunks and send them straight to gaol’ is what he said. The stark difference between the government and the opposition in this debate is government will not be criminalising drunkenness. That is archaic, and the Territory removed those laws decades ago. We say the community does not want to continue seeing harm; we are not going to continue putting up with antisocial behaviour. We are not going to continue to see the grog-fuelled crime rates, and will have bold and strong interventions. There is a very stark difference between the government and opposition views.
Maybe the member for Sanderson went a little too far with what he said in debate today. Maybe he was not quite sticking to the script when he said: ‘We will take the habitual drunks and we will send them straight to gaol’, then said: ‘The gaol will be like a work camp’. Work camps do not exist. He clearly missed the debate about the new era in Corrections. He clearly missed the investment the government is making in the Barkly to establish a work camp. He missed the entire debate around a new era in Corrections and the work we are doing in Katherine. He talked about not needing a new gaol; what is wrong with the existing one. I do not know if he has had a good look at Berrimah gaol - had a brief from Correctional Services in the way the gaol does not provide education and rehabilitation in a meaningful way to reduce recidivist behaviour. Let us not burst the bubble of ignorant bliss in which the member for Sanderson exists.
This government will continue with genuine reforms which go to the heart of the problem - the chronic reliance on alcohol across sections of our community. Not the majority, the majority is fine. The majority is going about its day, going to the pub, going to the bottle shop, going to a barbecue with mates, and doing the right thing. The minority with a chronic dependence on alcohol require intervention and this is what this reform will achieve.
Something showing up in the evidence, if you want an evidence-based approach, is it is not only a chronic dependence on alcohol; it is the associated high-risk binge-drinking behaviour. Some people are chronic drinkers but, for periods of time, will go to dry areas and not drink. An example is the flow of people in and out of Alice Springs. They go to a community, live in the community and are not on the grog. They go into town and there is this massive consumption of alcohol over a period of time. It is called binge-drinking by researchers and experts. They binge-drink then return to a community and be dry for quite some time. It is a unique situation in the remoter areas of Queensland, South Australia, Western Australian and the Northern Territory.
Using that evidence base, you look at a workable health intervention. That is why the experts in this field have advised the ambulatory aspect of the health intervention we have attached to the bans will work, based on the way people can come off a chronic grog binge into a dry scenario. They also say look at the support in the home environment, which is why we are so focused on the opportunities for the growth towns. We need alcohol and other drug service providers spread out beyond regional centres where they exist now. If someone is coming into town they have controls around them. When they go back, they are receiving ongoing support.
It is not the cheap option; it is a complex, health interventionist model put together with experts. All the experts - AMSANT, Amity, FORWAARD, the Northern Territory Council of Social Services and the AMA are fully supportive. I am not going to go through - although I have the quotes with me - the strong support they have for these reforms.
On the other side of the coin is the liquor industry. I have had several good meetings with the Liquor Association and taken them through the reforms. They are interested. Use the point of sale examples existing in Alice Springs and Katherine. They have taken the time to find out details, such as if there is a power blackout, it is okay and they can continue to trade; there are no penalties, etcetera. Tourists and locals can make their purchase. They have taken the time to find out - not just spurious thought bubbles from the member for Sanderson.
The Australian Hotels Association recognises the importance of the reforms, and will continue working with the government on them. The Liquor Association has signed up, Coles and Woolies, and large retailers within the Liquor Association have signed up, and local small traders within the Liquor Association support it. It is good to have discussions with them. They are curious about secondary supply issues and we have talked them through the secondary supply action we will be taking. We talked about accessing wine clubs and purchasing online. We are working in a reality scenario with the people on the front line, people who know sale of grog really well because it is their day-to-day business.
On the other side of the coin are the health experts who deal with the alcohol and other drugs rehabilitative environment. We have also engaged the legal fraternity on criminal offences which are alcohol-fuelled, and how best to tackle those. That is the SMART Court and the expanded powers, and joining the grog court and the credit court.
This has not been a theoretical let-us-draw-on-a-whiteboard exercise; it has been a significant body of work engaging with people across all sectors. Not surprisingly, they have supported the reforms. Not surprisingly, the CLP stands on its own condemning them, not understanding them, misrepresenting them and making up mistruths about them. I had to explain on radio this morning what was said earlier on radio was wrong, and why it was wrong.
The proof will be in the pudding. It is tough. They are tough new measures. It is a tough love regime - tough interventions. No one has tried it before. Everyone who understands this field recognises it is tough. Nowhere in Australia, or the world, has a government proposed anything this tough.
This issue is too important not to tackle in such a comprehensive way. It is having such a significant effect across our community, from individuals, their families, to our broader community. No one can say what the success rate will be; it has not been done before. We have seen dramatic crime reductions in Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy. We have seen significant serious assault reductions in Alice Springs. We are giving it a shot.
Because we have different models in different parts of the Territory, we have seen people following the grog. This is why we have a reform which is consistent across the Territory. It is bad enough someone making a decision about where they will live based on whether they can access grog, it is even worse to dislocate their family, which is the neglect we have been debating for days, quite appropriately, post the Growing them strong, together report.
I have no doubt the CLP will continue misleading the community about the details of this reform. I put you on notice - you will be proven to have misled - be careful how far you go because we will come at you every time you tell a porky pie. The more times you tell a porky pie it will become the boy who cried wolf - people will stop believing you. You are on the verge of not being believed at all on this. Continue to spin out in the strange way, bearing in mind the broad support we have from the industry associations, the health organisations and the legal associations. We have taken the time to go into the detail of our proposal. Keep spinning and you will lose the shards of credibility you may have left.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the debate. I look forward to the continuing misrepresentation from the CLP because every time it does it, it destroys the slim shards of credibility it has left.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we have heard the standard tactic to be employed by the Attorney-General - the holder and keeper of all truths in the Northern Territory. If we disagree with the Attorney-General on any issue she publicly calls us liars. That is the philosophy and approach of this government. By no means enter into a debate, enter into mudslinging and name-calling and saying anyone who disagrees with the comrades opposite is automatically a liar.
I say to my Fabian friends on the other side of the House, we will continue to call out the shortcomings of these policies, for all the reasons we have continued to call out the shortcomings of policies.
The great unmissed truth peddled is this is in some way the toughest thing ever done in the world. Nonsense! I point honourable members to what was done in the 1920s in the United States. That was tough. It also put into place organised crime which exists to this day.
They say: ‘We have banning orders’, which will be inflicted upon every individual who seeks to purchase liquor in our community because you have to stump up your ID. This is part of the great social plan we hear from members opposite. They say in the next breath: ‘We are going to do something about the black market we know it will create’. What will that be? It will simply be a law. That law will prevent the black market this will create. How many members of this House have worked in remote communities and seen the effort put into dealing with illicit grog being run into remote communities and the law? How much damage has been caused to families because a cask of wine which could have been purchased in Alice Springs for $10 or $15 has been on-sold in a remote community for $50 to $100 from the boot of a car?
Creating banning orders will create a black market for the people on it. These people are drug addicts. They are alcoholics. They will not give a rat’s backside about it being against the law. They will seek out their drug of passion by any means. I can see it now, in Alice Springs someone walks into the bottle shop, shows their licence, buys a cask of wine - what is a cask of wine worth nowadays?
Mrs Lambley: We do not sell them in Alice Springs.
Mr ELFERINK: Say $20 - they will walk to the river, 150 feet away, and sell it for $50. It will produce a result the government says it is trying not to produce. It says: ‘We are going to police it’. There will be a tidal wave of illicit grog sales. How are you going to police this? Are you going to have a copper sitting on every sand dune in the Todd River hiding with his binoculars, saying: ‘Oh, here comes one now. Lady in the boat approaching someone else, yeah, yeah, got them. No worries, they are under arrest’. You have one out of how many? While you are typing that up at the station, how many other casks are being sold?
The government is still enamoured with the concept you can manage society from this room - you can manage alcoholism and drug addiction from this room. It is nonsense.
Let us talk about Schedule 1, 2 and 3 drugs. How successful are we in applying the laws of this room? We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year policing illegal drugs in our community. Have we stopped them? Are fewer ecstasy tablets being sold in the nightclub strip of Darwin or Alice Springs tonight as a result? Probably a handful more. The government says: ‘We take their property away. We have legislation, and we prevent those big drug bosses from accumulating wealth. We acquired $2m last year off the illicit drug crime bosses’. That is a minor tax.
In this House we are still enamoured with the concept, particularly our friends opposite, that we can control what people want to do. Get between a heroin addict and his needle and see what happens. Get between an alcoholic and his pub - he will find away around you. He will tunnel under you, climb over the top of you and, if necessary, go through you. This is why I do not subscribe to what the government is doing. Members opposite are genuine in their efforts. What they want to do is noble. I used the word ‘beautiful’ in intent. Unfortunately, it is fundamentally wrong.
The purpose of our policy is to sidestep the problems this government will face in the implementation of the system. The Attorney-General said they are looking at the therapeutic response. The word ‘therapeutic’ is finally dropped into the lexicon of their vocabulary. That therapeutic response is based on a new philosophy of justice in our community. It is called therapeutic jurisprudence; I referred to it earlier tonight. Part of that process is what they introduced earlier with the concept of Alcohol Courts, which were sold as being tough on crime. I cannot lay my hands on the media release but they said Alcohol Courts would be tough on crime. The Alcohol Courts take people who would be going to gaol and provide them an opportunity to engage in something which keeps them out of gaol.
Similarly, the non-legislatively established credit courts, which were probably more effective in the therapeutic approach the government seeks to pursue, had the effect of keeping people out of gaol. If that is the approach the government wants to take, say it. Do not put out a media release saying you are being tough on crime with alcohol courts when you are taking a therapeutic approach.
Finally, the SMART Courts will be based on the same philosophical construct. You end up saying to people: ‘All right, you are not going to gaol because therapeutic jurisprudence means we do not want to hurt or upset you. We do not want to cause you grief or personal stress. We want you to come into the warmth of our embrace and have the court system be a non-negative experience for you’. That is the fundamental concept; I am oversimplifying it. I know much good work has gone into therapeutic jurisprudence; however, in a nutshell you do not want the court system, police officers, or gaol system to have a negative impact on people.
That is what the government is proposing. The problem I have is people will come before the SMART Courts, be charged with criminal offences, be subject to the banning orders the government is proposing, and will have breached those banning orders. What is the ultimate sanction? The Alcohol Court proposes a threat that if you breach your agreement with the court to do certain things your sentence will be resurrected and you will go to gaol. The whole process still presumes the existence of a penalty at the end. We are offsetting the penalty by one or two steps to bring about a therapeutic result. Therefore, we are engaged in rehabilitation. That is the argument the government is running.
I do not believe long-grassers will take a banning order seriously. That is true, also, for the model we are proposing. We are going to cut out the middle man. In our model, once you come to notice three times in six months - we are a little more generous than the government on this issue - for being picked up for being intoxicated in public, you will end up in front of a tribunal with an administrative role but a quasi-judicial quality, whereas the government will simply say: ‘The coppers will issue you a banning notice’. I am not fussing too much about the structures. The banning notice means, as an habitual drunk, you are still at liberty. Guess what, you will ignore your banning notice and be at the pub, or someone will buy grog for you. You will be picked up. Sooner or later, for breaching those orders that person will go to gaol. What happens then concerns me because I have heard nothing to suggest rehabilitation operates within the prison system. The system the government proposes as rehabilitation is something you do as a result of therapeutic jurisprudence to avoid going to gaol.
Addicts and alcoholics will not be keen to follow banning orders. They will ignore them. What happens is you end up in something like a gaol. Is it concrete walls? No, it will probably be a cyclone mesh fence - perhaps two. Will it be lock-up? Yes, but it will not be a high-security facility. It will be incarceration and a mandatory three months for breaching an habitual drunks order given by the system we propose. That is when the treatment is applied because that is when they are in custody. That is when they are straight, clean, and sober – not because they do not want to be; it is the way it is. They are controlled. We are saying to the community: ‘You must produce your driver’s licence, your passport photograph, or your bank account details, or whatever, when you are buying grog’. We are saying: ‘You are not responsible for the actions of a handful’.
The 35 000 people arrested last year is 14% of the Northern Territory population. I do not believe we arrested 14% of the population last year. I do not believe two people in this Chamber were arrested for being intoxicated. I believe it is about 300 or 400 people. The Chief Minister says only 250 people are frequent flyers; they keep coming through the system again and again and again. How do I know this? I used to lock them up. Some could have had their mail sent to the police station with their frequency of visitation. You give them their letters as they leave custody.
Under our system the therapeutic processes are inflicted, enforced or, in some way, compulsorily brought to people’s attention. It is done in a controlled environment. The government’s system cannot achieve that unless it introduces similar programs into the gaol system after these people enter the system, because that is where they are going to go. That is where the vast majority of people will end up under the government system; they just go through a few more steps to get there. If government intends to pursue this program it must have something available in the prison system.
I am curious about this passion for building this new edifice prison which will be the most modern prison doing modern things. We do not require that much concrete to hold people who are largely traffic offenders, or people who are not that bad, especially when not on the grog.
If we had the 250 to 350 frequent flyers in custody they would be very easy to manage. There may be one or two miscreants who could go in with the gaol population - maximum if they want to play up. Most of them will be fairly compliant. You are not going to need edifices around them. They could be housed in a much more simple system and programs could be brought to bear.
Government, do not inflict yourself on the whole of the community for the sake of being seen to be tough on this. I believe members opposite are genuine. I cannot imagine how often alcohol issues have been debated in this House; we have done it twice in two days. I do not believe your system will work. I heard the Attorney-General’s comments about speaking to FORWAARD and other organisations. Yes, there is no shortage of professionals who think this is a good idea. It is much better than what is happening at the moment, and probably better than anything the CLP did in office. At that time, there were only 11 000 apprehensions in the year 1999-2000 for protective custody in the Northern Territory. Last year there were 35 000 - a threefold increase.
The government has presided over a massive increase in these apprehensions, and we see more drunks in our parks than before. I have seen them in the newspaper today. They are washing up on the doorsteps of this House. Make those people who drink and cause problems in our communities responsible.
Madam Speaker, my comments tonight have been almost exclusively targeted at long-grassers. What would happen if we freed up the police resources involved in arresting 35 000 and put a small proportion into Mitchell Street? You could deal with the other issues Mitchell Street, and some of our other nightspots, produce. Thirty-five thousand arrests take a great deal of effort. The system will take many long-grassers out of circulation, but it will take longer because there are more stages between the orders and ultimate incarceration. Also, if a person breaches an order and ends up in court for sentencing, does the government guarantee a minimum period of incarceration as a result of breaching the order, or will people who breach orders be released so they can get back on the grog again at the rising of the court?
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I support this very important motion today.
Mr Knight: You are not reading from a speech, are you, Adam?
Mr GILES: I am not reading from a speech, member for Daly. Standing Order 51 - the member for Daly is interrupting.
This is a very important motion. The Northern Territory government addresses the issue of alcohol demand through rehabilitation and education of habitual drinkers, not through a system which penalises the wider community as a consequence of its policy actions. This is timely. This motion is put before us a day after debating alcohol in this Chamber, and on the back of reforms proposed in Alice Springs.
I am not talking about the Enough is Enough campaign. I am talking about the proposal by the government, supported by some in the Alice Springs community, who want to see all alcohol sold in Alice Springs between 11.30 am and 2 pm be of mid-strength only. That is not supported by the people of Alice Springs, small business or me. The proposal is a restriction on the good people who do the right thing in our town, and has nothing to do with the people doing the wrong thing in Alice Springs.
The member for Port Darwin gave a great speech about protective custody orders and people picked up by night patrol. People with chronic alcohol problems in our town are a small number and are repeat offenders. It is causing great concern. We have the People’s Alcohol Action Group, and John Boffa from Congress, pushing for further reform without any measures on the demand for alcohol. That is why this motion is very important; it talks about penalising the wider community, and does nothing about mechanisms to deal with substance abuse problems, or measures for people who are chronic abusers of alcohol.
It is very important I get the message through. I, and the community of Alice Springs, do not support the 3.5% limit. I request the Minister for Alcohol Policy not to go down that path. I implore the Licensing Commissioner to listen to the people of Alice Springs. I understand a public campaign is starting in Alice Springs next week to lobby government not to go ahead with this proposal.
I would like government to take on demand issues to limit people wanting to drink all this alcohol. If the 3.5% restriction is successful, people who go into these animal bars day in, day out will purchase 20 mid-strength beers not 10 VBs. They will be buying XXXX Gold and Carlton Midstrength until the cows come home, become bloated, more unfit because they are drinking more grog, spending more of their welfare dollars on alcohol, which is detrimental to them and their families, and penalising the wider community.
We debated the Enough is Enough campaign yesterday, and I spoke in favour of the campaign and what government is doing. However, I cannot support this, and ask the government to delay until we can see the results of the Enough is Enough campaign. There are several measures, including the identification system which has been in Alice Springs for a period of time, which will be rolled out across the Northern Territory.
My colleague is passing me the important points about the Enough is Enough campaign. There will be the banned drinker register and the need for people to utilise ID systems. It is tough; people do not like it. It would be easy for us to take a popular approach and not support it. I have given my support to the government addressing this problem. It will impinge on all people in the Northern Territory. If this limit of 3.5% alcohol in Alice Springs is so good, roll it out across the Northern Territory under your Enough is Enough campaign? See how popular it is in Darwin or the northern suburbs when you cannot have a glass of Riesling with your lunch. That is what they want in Alice Springs. You cannot leave the worksite on a Friday, possibly working on a SIHIP house, go to the Gillen Club and have a beer after work. You have to have mid-strength. Alcohol is a problem in the Territory, but for those of us who do the right thing it is a poor measure to introduce and I request government not do it.
I have offered to work with government to support the Enough is Enough campaign. I hope it is not just a plan. I hope it is not all talk like everything else this government does. If it is serious, I will offer assistance. I ask you not to introduce the 3.5% alcohol restriction.
The member for Sanderson has brought this important motion before this House. It is important we do not penalise people who do the right thing in the Northern Territory. It is important to work with people who do the wrong thing, and those with substance abuse problems, address their concerns and have in place punitive approaches to penalise people who go against the system.
We have to remember we are here for all Territorians and not run some socialist red regime looking at one category of people. We have people in the Territory who work and pay taxes, and allow us to work in this House, unlike the socialists who want to help people in unfortunate circumstances by penalising people who are doing the right thing. We need a different way of looking at it. You have to have the right balance, and this government does not have that.
Madam Speaker, the member for Sanderson is doing a fantastic job representing the people of the Territory. I commend him for his approach. I will not talk further. I am sure members on the other side of the Chamber want to talk on this important motion. I commend the motion to the House, and I thank the member for Sanderson for bringing it on.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. Much has been said on this issue. The minister said the CLP wants to send everyone straight to prison. That is incorrect. I covered the three aspects of the CLP policy, and mentioned that point two says it is voluntary to comply with those orders. If you fail to comply with the order, it then becomes mandatory and you will be off to a prison farm. The minister believes I used the word ‘work camp’. I did not. She did that to talk about the work camp at Tennant Creek, which is different to what we envisaged in Katherine, being mainly rehabilitation and education.
I agree with the minister: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We will watch this new policy unfold with great interest.
Motion negatived.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly calls on the Northern Territory government to be honest, accountable and transparent in their plans to introduce a scheme for registration of recreational water craft in all Northern Territory waters.
I will go straight to the point; the Chief Minister has an opportunity to respond to the public of the Northern Territory in relation to the government’s plan for a boat registration scheme. It promotes a policy of negotiation over litigation yet we see, in relation to the predicament government is in, it has pulled on the Northern Land Council instead of negotiating with it, taken it to the High Court and, lo and behold, lost. The government wanted to be seen as tough so it put advertisements in papers saying it would ensure the fishing rights of all people in the Northern Territory would be protected. I recall seeing those large ads. However, it did not negotiate; it chose to go to the High Court. This time the government rolled the dice and lost. The High Court gives you no room to move. The people you bullied into going to the High Court came out the winners, which has placed government in a difficult position to negotiate.
If negotiation had continued we may not be in the position we are today. However, the government lost and has to attempt negotiation. It does not have any cards left to play, and is at the mercy of the Tiwi Council, the Northern Land Council, and the Anindilyakwa Land Council.
We have looked at the intertidal zone. It used to be common law for people to enter those waters until requested to leave - they could fish there. However, as a result of a side issue from the Blue Mud Bay decision, the court found in land held under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, you could not go into the body of water at high tide which is over the line between the high water mark and the low water mark. We have a problem; common law access is lost. Members of AFANT, other fisher-people, people from interstate and tourists all have an issue. The government has nowhere to go; it has burnt its bridges. It is common knowledge in the community that the Northern Land Council, before it will negotiate with the government on access to this fishing ground, is insisting a boat registration system be introduced. Either that or the waters be closed.
The predicament government finds itself in is it would be political suicide to say: ‘You have to have permits’. It has previously stated that no one will need a permit, it will negotiate. The Chief Minister has said in answer to questions during Question Time government will be negotiating; all will be well. The government will not commit political suicide by telling Territorians we will further erode their lifestyle, and the reason for boat registration is the government has failed to negotiate with the land councils. We are trying to attract people. Government continues to say: ‘Come and enjoy our great lifestyle’. However, they are closing all aspects of the Territory lifestyle people enjoy.
It is an opportunity for the Chief Minister to tell Territorians how much this will cost. If negotiation is occurring, how much will it cost Territory taxpayers for access to these waters without permits? Given the government does not have any aces up its sleeve - it has played its cards - and is at the mercy of the land councils, I suspect this will cost Territory taxpayers a considerable amount. The Chief Minister might let us know what arrangements have been made. People are concerned. I have had numerous text messages and e-mails, as have my colleagues, in relation to this.
A member: A great, big, new boat tax.
Mr STYLES: Yes, great, big, new boat tax. Boat users want infrastructure. They are concerned the fees will be siphoned off for private interests. This issue has been managed badly from day one. The government is now passing this cost to the ordinary men and women of the Territory, particularly the Top End, who will pay for this mismanagement. I ask all members to support this motion.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, on 3 July 2008, the High Court handed down its decision in the Blue Mud Bay case. The High Court decision recognised the Fisheries Act is valid in all waters over Aboriginal land, and approval is required to enter and remain on those waters over Aboriginal land. Since that time, our government has entered into close negotiations with land councils and fisheries stakeholders to reach a practical, negotiated outcome. This government is committed to reaching an outcome which provides for the enduring and certain access to all waters without permits or permit fees for anglers. We are continuing to negotiate in good faith with land councils, AFANT and the Seafood Council. I thank the stakeholders for their ongoing commitment to negotiate a win/win situation.
No decision has been made by the government to implement a boat identification scheme for the Northern Territory - no registration and boat identification scheme. The boat identification scheme has been raised by land councils throughout the negotiating process, and is a key element of the Northern Land Council’s response to the government’s settlement proposal.
As the Territory’s boating population grows, the government is also committed to ensuring that those who use our waterways do so safely. Should any decision be made to introduce a boat identification scheme in preference to permits, we will consider suggestions from AFANT and other stakeholders regarding the design of the scheme. We have committed to negotiate in good faith, and will continue to consider issues which arise in the good faith negotiations.
Under the CLP, anglers will require permits to fish in Territory waters. Come the next election, a vote for the CLP will be a vote for fishing permits. The CLP has indicated - and the outcome will be - permits will be required. It is a very clear choice for anglers. The CLP promises to have fishing permits. The CLP will not negotiate. It has already brought proposed legislation around Blue Mud Bay before the House without any consultation.
In contrast, this government is committed to ensure our waterways remain open to recreational anglers. That is why this government is negotiating in good faith for a win/win outcome for anglers, commercial operators and Indigenous stakeholders. The Northern Territory government remains confident a practical negotiated outcome will be reached with all stakeholders.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Sanderson for bringing on this motion. I am disappointed to see the minister, yet again, reading a speech concocted by some faceless person from the 5th floor. Clearly, in this case, as in so many others, the minister is not across his brief. He came out with some good news - government has not made a decision. Had the minister ruled out boat registration it would have been much better news for this Chamber, and certainly for the fishos and boaters of the Territory.
The minister insists on verballing the Country Liberals, suggesting a Country Liberals government would introduce fishing permits. That is a message the minister would like to promulgate hoping the view gains currency across the Territory, especially amongst fishers and boaters in the Top End. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Part of the federal Liberal policy was outlined to AFANT in the 2007 election campaign, when the then federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, visited the Northern Territory and addressed concerns about possible consequences of the Blue Mud Bay case and the requirement people may have if the court handed down the decision it did. He explained to AFANT a re-elected Coalition government would legislate the issue away, and he had strong legal advice that was possible. I would have thought a Territory Labor government, in cahoots with the federal Labor government and so supportive of it, would be talking to the federal Attorney-General, saying: ‘Look, Mr Attorney-General, maybe you can consider legislating this problem away’. End of problem - no permit system, no need to have bulk registrations, no need to slug Territorians with new taxes and registrations. No, this government is not that creative. It will not take on the land councils even though it spent several million dollars worth of taxpayer’s money fighting the decision. It sees itself as a great supporter of the land councils; it will not do that.
Instead it reverts to the old Labor way, create a new tax. In this case, a brand new boat tax in the form of registration. I would like to go further with this debate, but time is pressing and other people want to speak. I support the member for Sanderson. I am disappointed at this government’s lack of creativity and desire to fix this problem. It takes the easy path; slug Territory boaters and fishermen and not come up with an alternative.
Madam Speaker, I will save my comments on the anti-development policies of the Northern Land Council for future debate.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, this debate will continue, especially in the community. As this mess unfolds community concern will be expressed through this side of the House, and the media. This is not over; more will come, and perhaps more motions on this very important issue affecting so many Territorians.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, I am introducing this bill as the first step to delivering the much needed reform advocated by the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. The opposition has a strong record of campaigning for reform of the Northern Territory’s child protection system. The opposition has been ahead of government at every turn in recognising the Northern Territory’s child protection system was in crisis, needed major reform, and has put forward policy and legislative changes to improve protection for children.
Work of the opposition, particularly my predecessor, led to the commissioning of the report. We are pleased the government established the inquiry with an independent committee and sincerely thank the work of the committee. I only wish its commissioning had not occurred as the inquiry itself identified:
We can dwell on the past, on the 10 years of child protection failures under the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory, and the government’s failure to actively seek ways to protect children rather than weakly respond to horrendous stories of abuse and neglect. Today is not that day.
Today, I present very important legislative amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act, to strengthen the role and power of the Children’s Commissioner so he/she can more rigorously and comprehensively protect Northern Territory children. I have no doubt the government supports the intent of this legislation. This bill ensures the immediate implementation of recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report; a recommendation the government has accepted.
Today, I give the government a second chance; a second chance too many vulnerable Northern Territory children have never had. Today, I ask the government to do more than support the intent of the bill. I ask it to support the bill and make the first changes to the Northern Territory’s child protection system a bipartisan effort. Today, those opposite can show the leadership required of all in this Chamber to better protect our children, help build a child protection system with strong checks and balances, and enhanced oversight and monitoring, and stronger powers of investigation for the legislative child protection watchdog.
Yesterday, the Chief Minister said any legislative amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act would be introduced as one package. There is no logical reason for that position. You have before you very sound and thorough legislation implementing an important recommendation of the inquiry. You will have read in the inquiry report the current act provides the Children’s Commissioner with very limited means to ensure the wellbeing of protected children. You will have noted the other limitations placed on the position - serious limitations which put children at risk. How many more children are you prepared to put at risk? How many more children are you prepared to let slip through the cracks? Why wait when you can act now? The best public relations approach for your government is to back the opposition’s legislation and strengthen the Children’s Commissioner’s power. Thousands of Northern Territory children will thank you for such a bold and decisive move, one not borne of politics but of protecting our children.
Turning to the specifics: recommendation 136 demands the government:
specific powers for the Children’s Commissioner to obtain documents, examine persons, or carry out any type of investigations as part of his/or her monitoring functions
a broader role in monitoring the implementation of Northern Territory government decisions arising from any inquiries in relation to the child protection system or the wellbeing of children under the Inquiries Act.
Amendments introduced by this bill will achieve this reform and borrow strongly from the bill introduced in February by my predecessor, the former member for Araluen. That bill expanded the commissioner’s functions, allowing him to initiate own motion investigations, receive and investigate matters of concern by the Child Deaths Review Committee, and investigate complaints about failings by the department or police when responding to a complaint about child abuse. The government’s excuse for not supporting the amendments at the time was it did not want to pre-empt the findings of the inquiry.
Well, the results are in: 147 recommendations were made by the Board of Inquiry to improve child protection in the Territory; 34 classified as urgent and to be implemented immediately, or within six months. The government has committed to support the implementation of all 34 recommendations within the six month time frame. The first thing it does is announce plans to form yet another committee - a committee still in the formation stage which will not be operational until after the government has released its response to each of the 147 recommendations. Goodness knows when that will be. In the meantime, there will be no independent body to monitor government decisions relating to the implementation of the recommendations.
This bill is about delivering real powers of investigation and real independence to the Children’s Commissioner now. Right now, not in six months time, or before the end of the year as requested by the government, before any more children can fall through the cracks and the much-needed change is lost in the smoke and mirrors engineered by the government’s spin doctors.
I will now talk to the clauses of the bill. Under existing legislation, the Children’s Commissioner can only investigate complaints relating to the care of protected children - children in the care of the CEO - or the implementation of recommendations arising from the protection of Aboriginal children from the sexual abuse report. The commissioner does not have the ability to initiate own motion investigations into matters he may come across through his functions of monitoring the administration of the act, or the implementation of decisions arising from the Little Children are Sacred report.
Clause 3 amends section 13 of the act and redefines the term ‘investigation’ to incorporate an expansion of the commissioner’s functions. The new definition expands the definition of ‘investigation’ to allow the commissioner to initiate own motion investigations into any matter relating to the wellbeing of a child, whether or not the child is a protected child, and to investigate a matter referred to him by the Child Deaths Review Committee. Both these powers build on his current ability to investigate a complaint made by a member of the public about the wellbeing of a child at risk.
To enable these expanded powers of investigation and the other amendments proposed by this bill, section 258 has been amended by clause 4 to clarify the object of this part is to ensure the wellbeing of all children, and to monitor the implementation of government decisions relating to inquiries under the Inquiries Act, and reports and judicial recommendations which relate to the wellbeing of children.
Clause 5 amends section 260 to expand the commissioner’s functions. The commissioner’s functions will be expanded to allow the commissioner to investigate complaints about the handling of allegations by the police force or the department, whether or not the original complaint referred to a protected child; to initiate own motion investigations on a matter relating to the wellbeing of a Territory child, whether or not that child is a protected child; to investigate a matter referred to the commissioner by the Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee; to monitor the implementation of government decisions relating to the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report and provide the minister with a quarterly report on progress of recommendations which much be tabled within six sitting days of receipt; and to monitor the implementation of government decisions relating to inquiries conducted under the Inquiries Act relating to the wellbeing of children and reports and judicial recommendations the commissioner considers relevant to the wellbeing of children.
This last function was specifically requested by the commissioner in his submission to the Growing them strong, together report. We have made one slight change to this recommendation by giving the commissioner the scope to consider all reports and judicial recommendations relating to the wellbeing of children, rather than only protected children. This will ensure government can be held accountable for decisions relating to recommendations, such as those made in the Coronial Inquest into the death of Georgia Rae Tilmouth, which demonstrated the need for major reform in the policy and practices within the maternity unit of the Royal Darwin Hospital - recommendations not specifically for protected children, but which impact on the wellbeing of all children born in the Territory.
Clause 6 amends section 262 to increase the independence of the commissioner by removing any restrictions on the commissioner’s independence imposed by another Territory act. The wording of the current section makes the role of the commissioner subordinate to the department’s CEO. To quote the Ombudsman in her submission to the Board of Inquiry, the wording of section 262:
How can the commissioner be truly independent to comment and provide honest and constructive criticism of government, and the agencies responsible for the care and protection of children, if he is subordinate to the head of the Department of Health and Families? This amendment, and the amendment to section 271, are critical to improving the autonomy of the commissioner.
Clauses 7 and 8 amend sections 263 and 264, and will allow a person who has made a report under the mandatory reporting provisions of the act - section 26 - to make a complaint to the commissioner if they believe the response to their report of child abuse by the department or the police has been inadequate.
This amendment will achieve two important functions. One, it will drive improvement in the way reports of child abuse and neglect are handled by the police and the department. This is an important step towards reducing the number of children falling through the cracks in the early stages of abuse and neglect. It will also encourage the department and the police to refer matters of abuse and neglect which may not meet the investigation threshold to appropriate support services to improve the wellbeing of that child. By doing so, it will address the cause of cumulative harm which, if addressed early in the cycle of abuse, may prevent the need for that child to be taken away from its family and put into the care of the CEO.
Two, it will give members of the public, workers within children services, education, and the health system the much needed reassurance of an independent complaints process when the normal reporting channels fail to address the problem or are simply ignored by the system.
Clause 11 amends section 271. Under the current act, the commissioner can only compel a person to give evidence or documentation in relation to the investigation of a complaint. There is no ability for the commissioner to compel information, or witnesses, in the performance of his other functions of monitoring administration of the act or government decisions relating to reports. This amendment proposes to expand this power to apply to the performance of any of the commissioner’s functions. This will give the commissioner much needed powers to better perform his functions and hold government to account.
The second amendment is to increase the penalty from 20 penalty units to 100 penalty units for persons failing to comply with a request of the commissioner to give evidence under oath, or failing to verify a written statement by an oath. It will remain at the commissioner’s discretion as to whether a person will be sworn or be required to verify a written statement. The maximum penalty for refusing to do so will be increased from 20 penalty units to 100 penalty units to bring it in line with similar offences in other Territory acts.
Clause 13 amends section 278, which will require the commissioner to report, at six-monthly intervals on the implementation of government decisions relating to the 147 recommendations contained in the Growing them strong, together report. This report is to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within six sitting days of receipt. Within three months from the three year anniversary of the release of the Growing them strong, together report, the commissioner must provide the minister with a report on which of the recommendations have been implemented, the extent of implementation, and the effectiveness of all recommendations contained in the report.
The excuse the government wants to introduce all legislative changes as a complete package is just that, an excuse; an excuse to avoid delivering real improvement to the role of the Children’s Commissioner; an excuse not to commit to any real action on the report’s recommendations; an excuse for the Chief Minister’s desperate desire for anything to make the government look like it is governing rather than acting as a bureaucracy’s PR agent.
The Chief Minister has committed to introducing a legislative package to implement the legislative reforms recommended by the report. Yesterday, during Question Time, the Chief Minister stated:
The opposition welcomes the commitment to implement the legislative reforms recommended by the report; however, I am staggered by the Chief Minister’s hypocrisy in introducing today the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, Serial 133. Yesterday, he stated:
Today, he introduces legislation addressing recommendation 25 of the report, to improve offender management strategies and implement a community-based child protection scheme - efficiencies directly addressed by the provisions of the Chief Minister’s bill through the requirement to report travel within the Territory and the sharing of information relating to reportable offenders with the CEO of an agency which has responsibility for children.
The Country Liberals originally introduced legislation to improve information sharing. The government had an opportunity to strengthen the role of the Children’s Commissioner in August and chose not to pre-empt the board’s recommendations. It dismisses this bill out of hand saying it wanted to bring legislative changes in as a package.
Labor’s rejection of our bill is like a child throwing a hissy fit when not getting their way. This is not kindergarten, Chief Minister; this is a major issue of public importance and your leadership in supporting our bill will pay dividends across the Territory for generations to come. We should not be surprised by the government’s response to this bill. We should not be surprised the Chief Minister, the leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory, says one thing yet does another.
This is modus operandi for the Labor Party. At a time when the Territory seeks strong decisive leadership and speedy reform of child protection, the Chief Minister plays politics. If there is one issue in the Territory where politics should never be played, it is child protection; it is protecting our children from abuse and neglect. The government has set a precedent. The government has been aware of many of the provisions of this bill since February, and now it has confirmation it aligns with the recommendations of the inquiry, has an opportunity again in this bill.
Madam Speaker, following the introduction of today’s bill, the Chief Minister can no longer hide behind the line that legislative change must be implemented as a complete package.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 18 August 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the government indicates it does not support the bill. The bill proposes to amend the Information Act in relation to fees payable by specified applicants and in specified circumstances, including for freedom of information applications by members of the Legislative Assembly. No fees apply for applications amounting to less than $3000. Section 156 of the act provides a public sector organisation may charge an application or processing fee. It also provides the Information Commissioner may charge a fee in respect of the making of a complaint. Section 156(6) provides a fee may be waived or reduced if the public sector organisation, or the commissioner, considers it appropriate after having regard to both the circumstances of the application or the complaints, including financial considerations and the object of the act. This provides a broad discretion in determining a waiver or reduction of fees by the public sector organisation or the commissioner.
The bill proposes to insert a new subsection following section 156(6), namely section 156(6A), which would set out a specified application and circumstances in which a fee payable may be waived or reduced.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, it is now 9 pm. Pursuant to standing orders we are adjourning the House. If you prefer, you may continue for 10 minutes.
Ms LAWRIE: I am quite happy to continue my remarks at the next General Business Day.
Madam SPEAKER: The matter before us is adjourned until the next General Business Day.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: The Assembly is now adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the Assembly of my recent successful trip to the Middle East and Europe. The purpose of the trip was to visit key tourism, trade and media partners in the UK and Germany, the two biggest visitor markets to the Northern Territory with 55 600 visitors and 38 400 visitors respectively in the 2009-10 financial year.
I also took the opportunity to meet with key aviation partners, Etihad Airlines and Emirates in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The meeting with Etihad Airlines CEO, James Hogan, and his senior colleagues in Abu Dhabi was a great opportunity to put forward the Northern Territory’s credentials as a destination for future Etihad flights. It was also a chance to discuss their recent partnership announcement with Virgin Blue and how we can continue to undertake innovative joint campaigns into markets like Manchester and other parts of Europe. In 2009-10, 38 600 passengers flew Etihad from the UK and Germany to Australia. So capitalising on domestic flights and promoting the connections is vital for inbound tourism to the Territory.
In Dubai I met with senior officials from the Emirates Group which provided an opportunity to build on our existing relationship and offer an update on the latest happenings in the Northern Territory.
In London I attended Tourism Australia’s Leaders forum. A large number of major travel wholesalers attended and I was able to hear firsthand the challenges facing Australia as a destination. I also took the opportunity to be fully briefed by Tourism Australia and our team in London on the quickly developing plans for Corroboree, the major travel industry show for the UK and Continental Europe to be held in Darwin for the first time in June next year. This is shaping up to be a huge event for the Northern Territory and it was important I was able to spend that time in the pre-planning stage to ensure we are getting the people we need to attend that major conference, an incredible opportunity for the Northern Territory to be showcased internationally.
The September visit to London also coincided with the major youth campaign coordinated by Tourism NT London with media partner KissFM, and trade partner, Flight Centre. It was a terrific opportunity to spend time with the radio broadcasters at KissFM, which largely targets the youth audience in the UK. They have some terrific campaigns enticing listeners in London to come to Darwin in particular, but also across the Northern Territory. Stephanie, a young winner of a KissFM competition, came here from London to spend some time around Kakadu and in Darwin as well as heading down to the Centre. Stephanie was spending some time in work experience at Crocosaurus Cove, and she was having a terrific time there. We were able to take some photos of Stephanie and what she was doing over to KissFM.
The campaign leveraging off the success of Phase 1 in January has provided huge exposure of experiences in the Northern Territory to the London and greater London audiences. I was pleased to meet the key people involved in the campaign, which is supplemented by a digital campaign with Yahoo, to discuss its previous successes and projected outcomes. I commend our staff across Europe who are doing a wonderful job in promoting the Northern Territory.
In Germany, I had the wonderful opportunity to promote the Northern Territory through an interview on TV Berlin, a popular local TV station with a technical reach of 3.29 million people, or 175 000 average viewers daily. We know Germany is our second highest market, so it was important to target directly to Germans, and to thank them for coming to the Northern Territory and encourage them to keep coming.
Importantly, I also took the opportunity to follow up with key staff from one of our major travel wholesalers, DERTOUR, while in Frankfurt. It was important to follow up with them after their visit to the Northern Territory earlier this year in March/April, where 80 travel agents came from Germany to Darwin and I hosted a dinner for them at the Ski Club. Then they travelled throughout the Northern Territory, obviously going in different directions; there were 80 of them so they covered the whole of the Northern Territory between them. It was a fantastic opportunity to be able to connect with them again in Frankfurt.
Madam Speaker, the trip has highlighted the importance of the long-term relationships Tourism NT and Northern Territory industry partners have developed with our two biggest markets; we need to keep working actively with those markets to ensure they deliver for the long term.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of members an issue currently facing my constituents on the Sturt Plateau. The Sturt Plateau is south-west of Katherine and comprises around 14 pastoral properties. The residents of the area lead busy and isolated lives, even by 2010 standards.
The children in the area who are not sent to boarding school are reliant on Katherine School of the Air or correspondence. The district fought hard for a mail service to be started in the late 1990s, which has serviced the area once a week out of Katherine by a private courier company. With less than 1% of the Australian population receiving only one delivery per week, and most regional and remote areas, even in Queensland, receiving two services a week, you can see that my constituents on the Sturt Plateau are not extravagant in wanting a weekly mail service.
Since the 1990s, the Sturt Plateau district has made significant growth and, in turn, has made a significant contribution to the local economy. The formation of the Sturt Plateau Group in the district has helped define the families in the region who have common geography, aims, and issues. This is enhanced by a common, reliable mail service to the community.
Costs have now become the main factor in Australia Post claiming to be unable to find a service provider in the area. The mail run is now being split up which will see the people of the Sturt Plateau lose security, efficiency, and continuity with their service which, until now, has run very well. The families in the district now consider there is a real danger the service will be disbanded altogether if a new service provider, under the new regime, cannot be found.
With the recognition that rural and regional Australia underpins broader Australia, and the new emphasis the new federal Labor government has given to the bush, this is a timely reminder this small but positive service to this regional area is integral to the wellbeing of a community.
I was checking the Australia Post website and I came across a very concerning media release from Australia Post which mentioned it had recently achieved a $103m profit despite, as the media release says, ‘challenging conditions’.
I extend my support to my constituents on the Sturt Plateau in their current plight in this isolated, remote area. It is to that end I have taken the step of writing to Australia Post and the federal Minister for Regional Australia, the Honourable Simon Crean, to ask for their support to maintain the mail service currently delivered to the Sturt Plateau. Given the recent announcement on 15 October 2010 by Australia Post, saying it has achieved a $103m profit, it is most important some of this profit is maintained in the regions and remote areas, such as the Sturt Plateau, so people in remote and regional areas can continue to receive this important service.
I also encourage other members of this House, other bush members who would also be affected by this decision of Australia Post to cut costs, to write to Australia Post and the federal government, to rally around our remote regional Territorians and ensure this service is maintained at the current level.
Turning to other parts of my electorate, with so many festivals having happened this year it only seems fair to highlight to the members of the House some of the many successful festivals in my own electorate of Stuart. Festivals are a fantastic way of bringing small communities together and emphasising the great art, culture and sport that is characteristic of each community. Festivals also give communities a sense of pride and celebration, while offering an economic incentive. Many of the communities in my electorate have fantastic festivals which take a great deal of work from volunteers to make happen.
Earlier in the year, Mataranka, Pine Creek and Barunga held very successful art and culture festivals. This year, the Barunga Festival celebrated 25 years, making it the longest running and one of the most significant celebrations of Aboriginal culture, art, music and sport in the Top End and Australia.
In August, Wugularr held the incredibly popular Walking with Spirits festival at beautiful Beswick Falls. The festival, hosted by Djilpin Arts and Creative Director, Tom E Lewis, was a sellout. This festival combines ancient and modern performance, and a highlight was the popular Djilpin Dancers, who have an excellent reputation for supporting festivals throughout the region. I offer my congratulations to all those involved in making this a premiere event.
The Timber Creek Festival was also held in August this year, and Sue Kimpton, the Shire Services Manager at Timber Creek, worked hard to ensure another successful event which brought the community together was delivered.
In the Katherine Region, the Wakakirri Outback Festival was held, and again, I hear it was a huge success. This festival incorporates a film making and arts program designed for students living in remote and regional Australia. I understand Barunga, Wugularr, Mataranka, Jilkminggan and MacFarlane schools all took part in workshops which culminated in the screening of films developed at the workshops. There was also a barbecue and entertainment by the Wugularr School Band. As the local member for many of the communities involved I offer big congratulations to everyone who organised it.
Also in August, the Freedom Festival celebrated the famous 1966 Wave Hill walk-off. The festival is held to commemorate the fight for Indigenous land rights and is another significant festival, historically, in the Northern Territory. Sports, arts and a battle of the bands were some of the highlights on offer at the three-day festival held at Kalkarindji.
I congratulate the organisers of the Barthulha Webs, a cross-cultural gathering for artists in the Katherine region. The Barthulha Webs camp was conceived by Jayne Nankivell and Adrienne Kneebone, two artists from Katherine who work extensively throughout the region. Barthulha means strong, and the weekend artists’ camp works towards strengthening connections by sharing and learning with women from around the Katherine region who often work in isolation. The camp is held at Springvale Homestead in Katherine and Barthulha Webs grew from 60 participants in 2009 to 85 this year, with the opportunity to employ three Indigenous trainees, Karen Ashley, Stephanie Roberts and Wendy Daylight. Indigenous artists Rita Cameron, Lucy Cameron and Dorcas Thompson from Wugularr and the other communities joined other top-class art instructors to deliver workshops on paper-making with natural grasses, traditional weaving, traditional coil weaving, string rolling, postcard printing, paper prints, silk dyeing and making bush toys.
This is a fantastic initiative of organisers, Jayne and Adrienne, and looks set to grow in the future. My congratulations to all involved in making this the most significant and successful weekend.
On a recent visit to Timber Creek, I visited the Timber Creek School and I was very impressed with Principal, Jenny Sherrington, and the dedicated staff at the school providing learning opportunities and school lunches to support students. The new library, staffroom, office and classrooms, all thanks to the BER, are fantastic and really complement the school. Also the school has been part of the accelerated literacy program and has two extra teachers who have had an extremely positive effect on student outcomes.
After lunch, I spent some time in the senior class with teacher, Jo Sherrin. Jo’s class has been learning about civics and I was invited by the President of the School Representative Council, Jessica Motlap, to talk to the class. It was great to take part in a civics question and answer session with the senior class. The students had a wide range of questions such as, how do you become a confident speaker, which football team do I support, and should the finals go into extra time?
The classroom was wonderfully decorated and clearly a great deal of work has been done. I would like to thank the students for inviting me to speak, in particular Jessica Motlap, Madeline McCulloch, Hayden Hector, Joshua Jones, Niceshia Jones, Stevena Jones, Denita Retchford, Rebecca Smiler, Mark Tipiloura, Brianna McGillvray, Laurence Holt and Jazlyn Little. I would also like to extend an invitation to them to visit Parliament House in Darwin, perhaps next year.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the call. I understand there are far more important people in this Chamber than me, and it is very humbling to get the call from you.
I wish to say a couple of things in relation to the Department of Defence. We had a statement from the Chief Minister last week about our support for the troops overseas and it goes without saying that every member of this parliament, and probably every parliament in Australia, expresses the same sentiment, we do support our troops.
Darwin has enjoyed a particularly special relationship with Defence. It stems back a very long time into our history. The relationship between Darwin and the Australian Defence community has been particularly strong for a very long time; and so may it continue. But I am concerned. I have real concerns about sentiments which I am hearing in the community in relation to some decisions Defence has made in the last few months or so, which I am concerned will spill over and fracture that wonderful relationship we have enjoyed with the Defence community for such a long time.
What I am talking about is the de-civilianisation of the RAAF Base in Darwin. We see it occurring with the demolition and removal of the suburb of Eaton. Not many people are aware that Eaton is the suburb with the RAAF Base houses. Someone, somewhere in Defence, the top brass, has made a decision that those houses should be removed or demolished. This comes at a particularly delicate time in the Northern Territory; I speak of the acute housing and accommodation crisis we are experiencing now. The wanton destruction of almost 400 houses, quite rightly, irks Territorians immensely.
I am glad to see there are other people in this place who share my concerns. To remove a suburb - I am told it will be gone somewhere around 2014-15, not a big time frame at all - and remove perfectly liveable houses which Defence say no longer meet their standards. I have no doubt they do not meet their standards because they have exceptionally high standards, and so they should have. People who work in Defence are defending our country and should be given first class treatment, but that is not to say those houses are not suitable for other people in the community.
I have looked at all of those houses; I know there are some which would require some work to bring them up to a suitable level, but the vast majority of the houses in the suburb of Eaton are of a comparable standard, if not better, than the houses most people in Darwin live in.
Mr Wood: Better than mine.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear the member for Nelson saying they are better than his. They are certainly better than mine. I am living in an old house constructed pre-cyclone, and it does not have any of the wonderful things these houses in the suburb of Eaton have.
So from a Darwin perspective, quite rightly, Darwinites and Territorians are feeling somewhat perturbed that in the middle of the worst housing crisis in Territory history we will see those houses removed. Not only that, but we have seen the closure of the childcare centre on the RAAF Base - the only Defence base childcare centre in the Darwin area. That facility was only opened in 2006. It was a facility I fought for funding for when I was the federal member. I had it constructed and opened it on 14 July 2006. It is a fantastic childcare facility and to see it closed - and the likelihood of it ever opening again is very slight - and that premises sitting vacant is an incredible shame.
Of course the de-civilianisation of the RAAF Base will have impacts on the RAAF Base Golf Club. I know there are many people in the Darwin community who enjoy getting out to the RAAF Base for a game of golf; it has become a fixture in the lives of many golfers in Darwin. It has a large civilian membership, a membership which will be asked to leave in the next few years. Those memberships will not be renewed.
The plans for the RAAF Base at this stage are still secret. We know nothing of them. I have heard rumours those houses will be knocked down, and the RAAF Golf Club will be removed to put in hangars for the new jets. Anyone who looks at a map of Darwin will see the RAAF Base has an incredibly large block of land smack bang in the middle of Darwin. Why these areas could not be excised from Defence land and given to the community while allowing Defence people to continue to utilise the houses is beyond me. I know there are a number of Defence people within the community who are living off-base in places like Lyons, the three towers in town, houses in Palmerston and the like, who would much prefer to live on-base. They would much prefer to be very close to the place where they work, but they are not being offered those Defence houses.
The de-civilianisation of the RAAF Base will have major impacts on local amenities such as the Winnellie Shopping Centre, the Ludmilla Primary School, and a range of other businesses in the area. It has already impacted on a number of civilian families whose children were going to the RAAF Base childcare centre. They have had to find other places to have their children looked after; some have been lucky and found places, but many of them have had to quit their jobs to look after their children. That is one of the realities of being a parent these days when there is a critical shortage of childcare places.
What is going on is a terrible shame, and I can only voice my concerns at some of the top brass within Defence who seem to think it is quite appropriate to shut down a whole suburb, the suburb of Eaton, in a time when Darwin is experiencing a critical accommodation crisis. I know there is a range of options which would be available. Territorians would be happy to rent those houses from Defence if they were made available. We do not necessarily have to have the land excised from Defence although, to all intents and purposes, it is excised now. The fact is anyone can drive out there; anyone can drive to the golf course. I believe the best option would be to excise that Defence land.
People are very flexible as to how that land could be used. To see the wanton waste of taxpayer assets being flushed down the toilet at a time when Defence is facing major budget cuts is wrong, and the Darwin community sees it as wrong. I pray it does not fracture the wonderful relationship we enjoy with the Defence community in Darwin.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, the East Point Aeromodellers Club is a great local community club. If members do not know where the club is, as you enter East Point and go past Lake Alexander, the front gates are on your right. If members do not know what aeromodellers are, they are passionate and enthusiastic flyers, highly skilled, who fly models of planes or helicopters. I have some examples here. They have some fantastic planes at the local club, quite amazing models. They range in size and shape and there is one which looked like a Frisbee. Unfortunately, I do not have a photo of it. There was a model helicopter with a jet engine …
Members interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: The member for Nelson has a photo of the Frisbee. The modellers love their planes or helicopters, and they are either builders or flyers. Some love to spend months in their workshops putting together a plane; much love goes into many of these planes, and beautiful craftsmanship. They go to East Point to see if they can fly, but their love is in the building of the plane or the helicopter.
Others will spend as little time as possible in the workshop and as much time as possible at East Point flying their often beautiful machines. The Frisbee I mentioned earlier was not beautiful, it was ugly, but presented a challenge, which some flyers love, to get it in the air and keep it there.
It was the club’s 40th anniversary this year and, as part of its celebrations it had an open day. It threw open the front gates and invited the community in to see what the club is all about. Over the last 40 years, the club has roamed; it has been operating around Darwin since the early 1950s in various locations, flying from Darwin Airport in the 1960s, from Darwin High School in the later part of the 1960s, from East Point gun turrets before formally becoming the East Point Aeromodellers Club in 1970, and flying close to the present site at East Point before moving in 1990 to the seaward side of East Point on the location of the old golf course.
The East Point Aeromodellers Club currently has around 80 full-time members, and I understand there are about 200 past and present members in Darwin. Members fly planes and helicopters at the club throughout the week, and the club has an open, fun flying day on Sundays from 9 am to 6.30 pm. I encourage anyone who has a passion for flying or models to get to East Point to check it out. I can vouch it is definitely worth the trip.
On the regular Sunday open day they do not loan you a plane, you have to bring your own and the safety officer will inspect it to ensure it is shipshape, or airtight, and teach you how to fly it safely. Once they are happy with it, they will invite you to attend regularly and fly on your own. Three or four times a year they have a come along and try open day where you can have a go at flying one of their machines. If it was my plane, my heart would be in my mouth, but if you want to have a try, the next one will be on Australia Day.
The club’s 40th was a huge event, with more than 400 people attending and people of all ages checking out the planes and the helicopters on show. There were a couple of hundred models to check out and there were also some amazing flying exhibitions. I was talking about some of the tricks earlier with the member for Nelson; they had a plane sit up on its tail and hover off the ground and there was an amazing mass synchronised display of 12 aircraft flying and landing at the same time.
There were also a few spectacular crashes; a few planes missed the landing strip, which can happen. It is difficult, as you can imagine, having control of the plane from the ground and having to picture the plane and the wind conditions it is dealing with dislocated from where you are. It is difficult, and aeromodellers are highly skilled, but they will still occasionally crash a plane. That is why they have suggested to Darwin City Council an alternate route for a proposed new footpath through East Point. They are happy to have the footpath but would like it in a slightly safer position for people walking along it. East Point is a beautiful spot and the aeromodellers are very happy to share it.
On the day, the Berrimah Scouts were manning the gates and collected over $300 in gold coin donations towards future scout activities. It is great to see a community event supporting other great community organisations; it is always good to see community partnerships. The club managed to raise $1800 from the sale of food and drinks. It was definitely a warm morning, I certainly put a few dollars over their bar for soft drinks.
The club recently held the NT Flying Titles, which saw people from all over the Territory attend, with eight flyers from Alice Springs, four from Katherine, and other competitors from other Darwin clubs; it was a genuine Territory-wide event. The Champion of Champions was Mr David Goodes from Alice Springs, who is also a supporter of the East Point Aeromodellers Club.
The Aeromodellers Club has set itself some future goals. It wants to be a proactive member of the community and will be going to local schools to promote the club and get new young members interested and involved in what is a fun and safe hobby. It will tie that in with more open days and family flying days. I am sure students will love a visit to their school from the aeromodellers with those big, amazing planes; model fighter jets; old Sopwith Camels; and the helicopters. I am sure if they rock up to a school with a few of those planes the students will go nuts and they will definitely be invited back.
The Australia Day event I mentioned is an open day event organised by the Australia Day Council of Australia. There will, of course, be some great tricks done by the experts, but people will also be welcome to fly some of the members’ planes there on the day. There will also be a good old Aussie barbecue and drinks, as well as lots of giveaways.
The current committee did a great job in organising the club’s 40th; it was a great event, one to be remembered. All committee members are volunteers; the people who contributed to the day are: event program organiser and Central Flight Line Director, Ross Finocchiaro; PA address, John Adams; catering a meet and greet for the invited guests, Greg Turnbull; advertising and photography, Adrian Leach; safety officers, Alex Sheppard and Tim Makepeace; Main Flight Line Director, Mark Smith; the Scout organisation; raffle tickets and coordination, Shane Walker; flight line assistant, Neil Rix; and community coordination, Tony Durian.
There were many other people who put in on the day. These are never easy days to organise; a great deal of hard work goes on behind the scenes before the day starts, and during the day there is the cooking, cleaning and running of all the things that happen. Many of the club members, their wives and their kids helped out; many people did many hard yards. Clubs live and die on the blood, sweat and tears of their volunteers.
I say thank you to everyone involved, it was a great day, and all the best for the club.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about Weddell. I am a little surprised the government has not made a statement on Weddell, considering the euphoria around it a couple of weeks ago.
It is something which needs to be commented on. I have been involved in planning in various committees and forums in Darwin but this was one of the best organised and most useful planning forums I have been to. Regardless of whether it was Weddell or somewhere else, many of the basics behind what was being put forward could be used for any other city or township the government might be thinking of developing.
To give you an idea of all the things which were discussed: airstrips, sandflies, dams, levies, light rail, heavy rail, ferries, Noonamah, industry, corner stores, conservation, schools, lakes, 50 000 people, 100 000 people, solar, gas, recycled water, rural connections, should it be developed or should it not be developed.
There was a great deal of community involvement at the beginning of the forum, and at the end of the forum and the end of each day. The community also had an opportunity through the competitions in the schools, and there was the ability for people to make comments on the Lands and Planning website - 70 to 80 comments were received.
The good thing about this forum was the people behind it knew their bit; they knew how to do these sorts of things. It was run by a gentleman called Stephen Bowers from Novus Urban Pty Ltd in Brisbane, and Wendy Morris from Ecologically Sustainable Design Pty Ltd, who is originally from New Zealand. They got together with a group of design team leaders and put out a range of possible designs for Weddell. The design scenarios were: a prosperous city with innovative jobs and business driving growth; an INPEX-led industrial development focus; a water city focusing on the Elizabeth River with an inland lake; a diverse, cost-effective and affordable city with affordable housing with diverse choice; and a sustainable, green city maximising environmental sustainability, which also optimises urban sustainability.
The team leaders were: Paul Murrain, an urban designer from London; Peter Richards, from Deicke Richards Architects, Brisbane; Clive Alcock from Annand Alcock Pty Ltd, Sydney; Jim Higgs from TTM Consulting Pty Ltd, Melbourne, who happens to be Jim Higgs the spin bowler who played for Australia and Victoria; I had a great time chatting to him about everything but planning - things like cricket. Then there was Evan Jones, from Multiplex Living in Perth; Malcolm Mackay, of Mackay Urban Design in Perth; Chris Humphries, Department of Lands and Planning, Darwin - Chris Humphries has been around a long time and is a well respected planner because he has a great deal of local knowledge. There was also Chip Kaufman of Ecologically Sustainable Design Pty Ltd from Melbourne; Chip originally comes from the United States.
They were just the leaders; there were also design team members: Department of Lands and Planning planners, engineers and project managers; other people from government agencies; local government members, there was a number from Litchfield Council; community interest groups like The Environment Centre; community members; non-government organisations; specialist technical advisors; business and industry representatives; and local design professionals. Chris Makepeace was there; he was involved in some of the work dealing with the Elizabeth River and took an interest in the whole project.
The groups were not only looking at the design scenarios; they were also looking at the input which had come in from the public and the schools before the forum was under way.
This is only the start. On the first day they had community involvement; on the second day they started to put in some basic scenarios where people sat down with pen and paper. I was in a group which had to design a city which was outside the sandfly area and would accommodate 50 000 people. Other people looked at ways of having a bigger city which would be in the sandfly area, and had to find ways to control the sandflies.
There were people who said: ‘Well, let us dam the Elizabeth River, or can we put in levies to raise the water slightly, or can we put dams on some of the smaller tributaries on either side of the Elizabeth River?’ There were other scenarios of putting a lake on some of the wetlands. Some of the designs had to ensure they did not interfere with the wet areas; they were the sustainable city designs. There were other options of putting dams on some of the freshwater creeks, using those as part of a recreational facility and having a city around those lakes to make them attractive.
There is talk about the MKT airstrip which was one of the first things raised on the first day when the community was there. A number of members of the MKT Flying Club turned up wearing shirts with MKT prominently displayed on the back of them to remind the planners they were there; it appears that was one group which had not been taken into account. The shirts highlighted that they were there which meant people designing around that area had to take them into account because they already use that area. It then looked like having an airstrip in Weddell would provide an ideal place to develop industry; if you had a light aircraft airstrip near the city you could develop industry around it. There was much discussion about that.
There were many discussions about how you would connect this city with the other cities other than driving; in other words, we were looking at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a fair way to Darwin, about 45 km. They looked at heavy rail, light rail, express buses and ferries. The first one knocked off was ferries because the cost is much higher than the other forms of transport. Until you have really large populations, like Sydney, you are not going to have the numbers of people required make travel by ferry economical.
Heavy rail was looked at using the present line; it appears the people who use the line for freight are not really happy with the idea of suburban passenger trains using the same line. So you would either have to build a parallel line or build a light rail line through Virginia and Freds Pass and going into town on the Stuart Highway.
There were many scenarios. I do not have time to go through the details, but I am told the website will have all those completed plans; they said six weeks and it is about three weeks since this forum occurred. I encourage people to check the website and look at the different scenarios. Some people may like them; some people may think they are ridiculous.
There is much talk about densification of Darwin as a priority before we develop Weddell. You can increase the density of Darwin and the northern suburbs if that is what people want, but there is still a desire for people to have a single home on a reasonable block. We are running out of that sort of land in the Darwin area and in Palmerston; that is one reason Weddell will eventually come on because we will not have that type of land which there is still a demand for, especially for families.
How will we develop? I do not know. There is much more to be done. There is also supposed to be a design competition for the CBD. There is also the option of starting with Noonamah, which is a part of Weddell; that may be a private development but it may get the whole scenario going.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it was an excellent forum and I thank everyone involved. I hope this does not sit on a shelf and disappear; we have to keep moving with this issue.
I would like to thank the member for Fong Lim for his discussion on the RAAF Base houses. It is nearly a crime that we pull down houses when we have such a shortage of houses. Surely, the Department of Defence also has a conscience. I have been told it wants to use the land for warehouses, but with the amount of land there for the airport, we can find another place for warehouses. In this case, people should come first.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to echo the comments of the member for Fong Lim, ably supported by the member for Nelson, about the RAAF houses.
I have a personal interest in this issue because my block shares a common boundary with the RAAF houses block; I put it clearly on the public record that there is a personal interest.
I find it astonishing beyond words that the existing suburb of Eaton is going to be bulldozed, and those sections which are not bulldozed, dragged away. I have heard several comments from Defence in relation to this matter, and not one of them comes close to satisfying the reality of what is occurring there.
You have an existing suburb. Anyone driving onto the RAAF Base through the suburb of Eaton could be forgiven for thinking the suburb of Eaton is outside the RAAF Base; you can access it by foot, by walking through the open gates on Bagot Road. If you drive in past the Winnellie shops you drive into the suburb of Eaton, but you pass through no check point; there is no security check and any person can access and egress the area of Eaton behind my house at any time they choose, including three o’clock in the morning.
One of the comments I heard from the military establishment is the land is required for strategic purposes. I find that arrant nonsense. The massive hoards of enemies of Australia have restrained themselves from sweeping down through the Indonesian Archipelago to invade the Top End of Australia because the suburb of Eaton remains in RAAF hands. Nonsense! The military establishment is simply being bloody-minded. It is the only thing I can put it down to.
If you calculate the average house in that area to be worth $600 000, and look at recent sales in The Narrows, that would be a surprising understatement of value. The overall value of Eaton to the RAAF, if it were to be sold in situ as it is, unimproved, would be in the order of $250m, I believe. That is an extraordinary amount of money.
This is a community with a housing crisis, and the fact the government sits on its hands and listens to any excuse from the military and its Labor mates down south tells me it is not interested in our housing crisis. Those blocks could be released in fairly quick succession without affecting the house prices of the area. I am astonished that this government is not fighting for it. I would praise this government if it at least made the effort. I have been told by shopkeepers at the Winnellie shops who approached the Chief Minister a few months ago that he indicated to them he considered it a waste. Now, all of a sudden he finds himself trapped and does not want to pursue it. I really would welcome his effort to pursue it. I would welcome this whole House, as one voice, saying the suburb of Eaton needs to be turned over to Northern Territory freehold.
There are these excuses about houses with asbestos in them, and houses with other problems. Two words to deal with that issue - caveat emptor - it is that simple. Many people buy houses which are in worse condition than the ones in Eaton, but they do them up; they become, in some way, their superannuation policies into the future.
I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Solomon in her campaign, and I commend her on her thrust to have these blocks turned over to Northern Territory freehold. I congratulate the member for Fong Lim for pursuing the matter, as well.
I also wish to discuss the matter of itinerancy in my electorate; it continues to be a problem. Whilst the government puts out media release after media release on how it is going to deal with the issue and introduce their new nine-point plans and 17-point plans, and plans with overhead, under-hang, and goodness knows what else, when I come to Parliament House and walk through Bennett Park - which is literally a stone’s throw from the front doors of this House - and find the drunks are amassed there and unpoliced, it demonstrates there is a void between the government’s statements and reality which is of a cosmic scale.
This government has lost control of itinerancy throughout the Northern Territory. The Territory statistics for apprehensions for protective custody in 1999-2000 was about 11 000.
Last year, 35 000 people were arrested in the Northern Territory for being drunk. The government says: ‘Well, we have a plan for this, and we have the Enough is Enough campaign’. I am wondering how many long-grassers are sitting in the long grass watching their plasma screen TVs being impressed by the Enough is Enough campaign; or is it the case they have already sold their plasma screen televisions many years ago so they can buy booze?
The government’s policy on the control of liquor in our community is going to be inflicted upon the whole community because the government continues to call these people victims. They are not victims when they choose to drink. They are not victims when they swear and scream in our parks. They are not victims when they urinate in our parks. They are not victims when they defecate on our doorsteps. And they are not victims when they are throwing up all over the place because they have a skin full of grog.
It is time to make those people responsible. For that reason I have been communicating with my electorate, and there is a resounding response from that electorate. From the shops in the Smith Street area all the way to Bicentennial Park, even down to the Waterfront, I receive complaints about drunks. The government will say: ‘Oh, we are going to fix it’.
It has had 10 years and has failed to fix this issue. I will continue to pressure it to do the right thing, and I will continue to pressure it to adopt the Country Liberals policy of mandatory rehabilitation in institutions for habitual drunks - not some warm and fluffy idea before they get done for breaching an order - actually putting them into institutions when they are declared to be habitual drunks and getting them off the streets, out of our parks, playgrounds, schools, and out of our community’s face.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the month of October has seen a very visible presence for Breast Cancer Awareness Month in Nhulunbuy with the Fields of Women. Linda Alexander, Mary-Clare O’Dell, Rhoda Jayne Dixon and Janine Bevis, with a few other helping hands, created a Field of Women in Nhulunbuy Town Square to support Breast Cancer Network Australia. The Nhulunbuy Field of Women was the only one registered in the Territory and involved more than a hundred little, pink women, each about 30 cm high and spread across the grassed area in front of the Endeavour Medical Centre.
I spent one really pleasant morning there the week before these sittings; I thank Linda and Rhoda for their company and Mary-Clare for the excellent coffee. Throughout October, these wonderful women have been selling badges and they have been selling raffle tickets for items generously donated by local businesses. For a small donation you could purchase a tribute tag, which allowed people to write a message dedicated to someone close to them who had been affected by breast cancer and attach it to one of the little, pink ladies. They also sold home-grown Panama Passionfruit seedlings, anything to make money for breast cancer. Last time I checked with them, they had raised more than $2000 and are still going, with the raffle being drawn at this Saturday’s monthly art and craft market at the town hall; I am very honoured to have been asked to draw that raffle.
All funds raised will go to Breast Cancer Network Australia, which provides information, treatment, care and support for those diagnosed with breast cancer, and their families. Special thanks to Linda Alexander for organising this event. I also congratulate her on her recent completion of a Graduate Certificate in Breast Cancer Nursing. She is a very special person and provides a very special service in our community.
Following a conversation I had a while ago with a constituent whose wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer, I was prompted to make my first visit to the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre; I thank the Health minister’s office for organising this for me and thanks to Giam, the Practice Manager, for showing me through. It is a very impressive facility, which now gives Territorians access to oncology treatment without having to travel interstate.
People from remote areas still have to travel away from home but Barbara James House in Stuart Park, opened in June this year, provides beautifully appointed, very comfortable and very affordable accommodation at the PATS, Patient Assistance Travel Scheme, rate of $35 per night for people from rural and remote areas. This government funded the facility, which is run by the YWCA, and if members of this House have not visited these new facilities then I recommend they do, especially those representing constituents from outside Darwin.
I would like to talk about the Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club and their recent participation in the NT Surf Lifesaving Titles. Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club had 67 people, of whom 49 were competitors, attend this year’s NT titles held in Darwin at Casuarina beach. The competition also attracts the Broome club from Western Australia.
The Gove juniors pushed themselves to the limit through event after event to beat the receding tide, making their club extremely proud and taking out the Junior Championship. Gove juniors dominated the age championship awards as follows: Under 8 female, Sophia Russell; Under 8 male, Noah Conobie; Under 9 female, Tayla Dowzard; Under 9 male, Macallaster Barnett; Under 11 female, Sinead Salisbury; Under 12 male, Clifford Timms; Under 13 female, Meagan Morris; Under 14 male, Jessie Chamberlain.
In the seniors’ field, the Under 17 female award was taken out by Maddi Reid.
Overall, Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club came an admirable second with a total points score of 557, behind Darwin Surf Club with a winning point score of 640; but, of course, they did have the home ground, or home beach, advantage.
Gabbi McGrath won the prestigious Junior award - the Tony Tilley Memorial trophy, for her enthusiastic participation at the NT Titles. She shows great potential for next year’s competition.
A special mention must go to the adult contingent of the team including Jackie McGrath, Angela Morris, Cathy Forbes, Alan Cross and Denise Marrable for all the organising, training and sheer hard work behind the scenes to make it all happen.
I have no doubt that members of Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club will be putting their hands up and training hard to represent the Northern Territory in the Interstate Surf Lifesaving Championships to be held in Sydney on 23 and 24 January 2011. I wish them well in the lead-up to that. I hope the water is not too cold down south.
The club, after a very busy season including Nippers and volunteer patrols every Sunday throughout the dry season, is drawing to its end of year Volunteer Night on 13 November. There will be many worthy nominations because the club is entirely driven by dedicated and tireless volunteers who provide a fantastic service for our community and a great service for its junior and senior members.
I also pay tribute to the Gove Variety Club and their recent involvement in the annual Variety Bash. For the first time ever, the Variety Bash travelled across the Top End and into Nhulunbuy on 19 August - a logistically challenging trip, but a very successful one. In terms of logistics, picture a tray-back truck ferrying the Bash vehicles across the Goyder River, dodging crocodiles. The Queens, the name the Gove Variety Club girls go by, were once again high achieving fundraisers in the Variety’s Gold Heart category, raising over $34 000 - the highest funds raised in the Northern Territory, and it is not the first time the Gove girls have done that.
In total, the Variety trip to Nhulunbuy, which included 28 Bash cars, raised more than $340 000, which was 30% up on last year’s Bash. Who said there was a GFC? The Variety Bash visited schools, including Nhulunbuy High School, to hand over much appreciated electronic smart boards which Variety NT contributed $18 000 towards. Variety also provided a laptop worth over $2000 to a visually impaired student.
The long day handing out ‘how to votes’ at the polling booth at Nhulunbuy Primary School on Saturday, 21 August received a very welcome interruption with the arrival of all the Bash cars and their teams - some of them in fabulous costumes, my favourite was the camel car complete with Arabs - which drew large numbers of locals onto the primary school oval.
Many Nhulunbuy businesses and organisations supported this year’s Bash, including Rio Tinto Alcan Gove, Sodexo, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, Corporate Protection Australia and the Walkabout Lodge, to name a few. I congratulate Variety for the great work they do for underprivileged and needy children; in particular, Gove Variety, for such an amazing event.
Congratulations to the members of Gove Variety for their great and generous work: Glenys Cummings, Coral Dennerley, Angie Moyle, Liz Pickett, Kelly Thomson, supported by Peter Mallard, Peter Cornell and Chris Putland. Bad luck, Putty, you never did make the trip into Gove.
The annual Rotary Beach Volleyball event was held on Sunday, 19 September, attracting 46 teams. For the second year in a row the team from the homeland of Dhalinbuy took out line honours; the way that team played and set up shots was poetry in motion. For the most part teams get together for a great social day out, without too much attention to practising. However, the folk at Dhalinbuy are diehard volleyballers; cleared they had practised in the lead-up to the event and they certainly deserved to win.
While Rotary takes on the lion’s share of the organising, they are reliant on community groups which take on a job for the day and earn funds for their efforts. This year 15 community groups came on board including Nhulunbuy Speedway, Yirrkala Football Club, Nhulunbuy Over 3s, Nhulunbuy BMX, Gove Junior Football Association - that is soccer - Gove Rugby 7s, Gove Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club, Gove Peninsula Tennis Club, Gove Netball Association - seniors and juniors, Gove Touch Football, 8EAR Gove FM, Gove St John Ambulance, Nhulunbuy High School formal committee, and Gove 8-Ball Association.
These clubs shared in a total of $16 500 for their efforts. I have not received advice as to the final fundraising figure Rotary made, but whatever that figure is I know it will go toward very worthy causes in our community. Rotary in Nhulunbuy is very well-known for its generosity and hard work. It was a fantastic day for a fantastic cause. Well done Barry Scott, Steve Castelli, Marian Richter, Lyn Whitford, and other Rotary members.
I finish by talking briefly about the recent success of a group of young dancers who are part of the Arafura Dance Association which travelled to Cairns to compete in the City of Cairns Festival of Highland Competition held a couple of weeks ago. Arafura Dance walked away with more than eight trophies and medals - an impressive achievement given it was the first competition it had been to beyond one held in Nhulunbuy earlier in the year.
Congratulations to Stephanie Martinez, Eliza Jovicic, Maddison Santarossa, Megan Donovan, Emily Tankard, Alicia Wong, Kiarra Lenane, and Sarah Waters. Your hard work and dedication obviously paid off, girls.
I had the privilege of attending a wonderful recital by these extremely talented young girls in the week prior to their travel to Cairns; I have to say their costumes were incredible. Marie Martinez and Sharlene Cardilini were among those who managed and arranged those all-important things like booking flights and accommodation. The trip was all self-funded by participants, costing more than $2000 per family. Special acknowledgement and congratulations must go to Sharlene Cardilini who is Arafura Dance’s specialist instructor in highland dancing. Her enthusiasm is matched by her support of and dedication to these young dancers. Well done, Sharlene, you are amazing!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, yesterday I spoke in this House about the National Broadband Network and touched on an issue of contracting by the Department of Business and Employment in relation to IT contracts. I said I would give notice today and refer that matter to the Public Accounts Committee.
I will be writing to the Public Accounts Committee to ask it to forensically investigate the mismanagement and maladministration, by the minister and the department, of the IT contracts in regard to when the old contracts expired and the new contracts commenced. The department showed poor management by operating for the Northern Territory government for four months without IT contacts; so much so that we saw the expenditure of more than $4m minimum wasted on additional expenses through IT services.
It is estimated that instead of local call costs being 4 for Northern Territory government employees, they were paying 22 per local call. Instead of paying the minimum contracted rate for satellite phones, they were paying the maximum rate. Same for mobile phones - they were paying full tote odds. I will write to the Public Accounts Committee this evening asking it to forensically investigate the mismanagement by the minister for Business on the execution of new contracts for IT.
On another matter, in our rural and remote locations and communities in the Northern Territory it is important to have the provision of health services, particularly doctors and nurses. I am concerned to have heard that residences occupied by healthcare professionals, namely doctors and nurses, are being taken over by shires from the Northern Territory Health department in some kind of transition to shire councils. I have been made aware of this occurring in Umbakumba, and I have been informed the doctor at Borroloola has been ordered to vacate his premises within two weeks. I am also of the understanding this will occur in another 16 houses across Northern Territory remote locations.
It is important for the Chief Minister to come forward and provide certainty to those remote communities that they will not lose their doctors and nurses. It is also important the Chief Minister stands and reassures those doctors and nurses they will have somewhere to live in the next few weeks. It is important for the Local Government minister to step forward to reassure the Health department that the shire councils will not be taking these houses from the Health department, and that communities will not be losing the services of healthcare professionals, which they are worried about.
We know the provision of healthcare services in rural and remote locations was an important component in improving the services in light of the Little Children Are Sacred report, designed to protect children and improve healthcare services in remote locations. I call on the Chief Minister to provide some certainty to those communities, Umbakumba and Borroloola in the first instance, but also the other 16 communities which have been earmarked to have their houses taken from them as part of a shire transition.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students accompanied by Ms Leisa Beynon. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
RESPONSE TO PETITION
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 33 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Petition No 33
- Centre for High Risk Behaviour People in Alice Springs
Date presented: 7 June 2010
Presented by: Ms Anderson
Referred to: Minister for Health
Date response due: 27 October 2010
Date response received: 26 October 2010
Date response presented: 27 October 2010
Response:
Thank you for your letter of 8 June 2010 attaching petition No 33 objecting to the planned Secure Care Facility at Cotterill Road, Alice Springs.
I have listened to the concerns of local residents in the Bees Creek and Cotterill Road areas, and have taken the decision not to locate the Secure Care facilities in these areas.
CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDER REPORTING AND REGISTRATION) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 133)
(Serial 133)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act commenced operation on 12 January 2005. As members will recall, the act forms part of a national framework for the development of a complementary state and territory police-administered Child Protection Offender Registration scheme. The scheme is administered by CrimTrac. I said when I introduced the legislation on 26 August 2004:
- Obliging a sex offender to keep police informed of his or her personal information and movements for a period after their release into the community will assist in the investigation and prosecution of sex offences committed by recidivist offenders. It will also provide a deterrent against reoffending, assist in the monitoring of high risk offenders, provide a level of community protection, and assist police in the enforcement of a prohibition order where granted.
As members would be aware, child sex offences have a devastating impact on the innocent child abuse victim, their families and, ultimately, on the community in general.
I stand by those comments.
The scheme of the act requires all reportable offenders to register and report their personal details to the Commissioner of Police for a period of time. This reporting period is determined by the class of offence committed by the offender. A person’s reporting period may increase depending on the number and/or combination of classes of offences committed by the person. Since the act commenced operation, around 209 reportable offenders have registered with and reported to police.
These proposed amendments are intended to strengthen the efficiency and operation of the act by enabling police to adequately monitor reportable offenders to reduce the likelihood the person will reoffend. Moreover, they will be crucial in facilitating an investigation or prosecution of a future offence.
In monitoring reportable offenders, it is self-evident police records need to be relevant, accurate and current. These amendments achieve that objective. The amendments may be broadly grouped into two categories. The first deals with the expansion of the types and contents of reports which are required to be given to the commissioner including, in some circumstances, how a report is to be made. The second category relates to the disclosure of a reportable offender’s personal details to another agency in limited circumstances.
Given the nature of the subject matter, a prcis of the proposed amendments was circulated to the legal profession. I thank those in the profession who provided submissions to the amendments. Your comments have been considered, and a number of changes have been made to the bill to accommodate your concerns.
I now briefly discuss the more controversial amendments. As the act currently stands, it requires all reportable offenders to report a variety of personal details to police. Examples include such things as the address where the reportable offender generally resides, details of any tattoos or other distinguishing marks, the nature of the person’s employment, and details of any motor vehicle owned or driven by them. Unfortunately, the act, which substantially conforms to model laws, does not require reportable offenders to report their telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, or Internet service provider information to police.
With the advent of the Internet and the expansion of social networking sites such as Facebook and other discussion forums, many young people can, unknowingly and unwittingly, be groomed by a sexual predator. As we all know, the person you are talking to on a discussion forum may not necessarily be the person you think you are talking to. For this reason, the provision of telecommunication information will enable police to more appropriately monitor reportable offenders. However, it must be stressed it will not circumvent the need for the issue of a warrant under a law prior to any active monitoring taking place.
Most Australian jurisdictions now require reportable offenders to include this information with their personal details and, in doing so, preserve consistency with the majority of Australian states.
Another significant anomaly is the act does not compel reportable offenders to report any significant changes to their personal appearance to police. It is my view this information is essential for law enforcement purposes. A number of submissions were received on this point and, whilst most agreed with the reasons for keeping police informed, many sought clarification on what constituted a significant change. Proposed section 19(1B) contains examples of what constitutes a significant change and includes such things as a change in hair colour from blonde to raven, or the complete shaving off of a person’s hair. Reportable offenders wanting clarification of the effects of the notification requirements should contact police.
As you would expect, some changes to personal details must be reported in person. Requiring personal attendance enables police to take a photograph of the reportable offender, noting where the change was to the person’s personal appearance. It would also permit police to take copies of relevant documentation for police records; for instance, a change of name or a report relating to overseas travel. The latter enables police to confirm the travel taken complies with the person’s report of intended overseas travel. In the event a reportable offender fails to notify police of a relevant change, this bill will permit the issue of a notice to the person to appear at a specified time and place and make the report or answer questions. A self-incrimination provision has been inserted to prevent any answers being used in evidence against the person, save for the offence for giving false or misleading information.
The next amendment which received a number of submissions concerned the reporting of intended Territory travel. As it presently stands, a reportable offender need not report any intended intra-Territory travel. This is a potential risk, as a reportable offender may travel to a remote Aboriginal community and have unsupervised contact with children. Not only would police be unaware the reportable offender was absent from their place of residence, the reportable offender might also be in breach of the act in having unsupervised contact with children. The failure to include Territory travel within the act is, therefore, to be rectified.
However, not all intra-Territory travel needs to be reported. The bill strikes a balance between a reportable offender’s freedom of movement and the obligation of keeping police informed of their whereabouts. As such, it will not be necessary for a reportable offender to report any Territory travel if the intended travel is less than 200 km from the reportable offender’s place of residence, or is less than 14 consecutive days in duration. Additionally, if a reportable offender frequently travels to the same place at regular intervals, the person may make a report under section 16(1)(i) of the act. This will avoid the necessity of having to report each intended travel to the commissioner. If, for whatever reason, the terms of the intended travel change, the reportable offender must notify police of the details of the intended travel.
The last proposed reporting amendment I want to briefly discuss relates to the requirement to report intended travel. On a number of occasions, some reportable offenders have neglected or failed to notify the commissioner of intended travel in accordance with section 20 of the act. When approached about failure to report, the person has submitted they were not required to notify the commissioner of the interstate travel because they were not travelling, they were taking up residence at another place. Under section 16, the act provides a person is not generally taken to reside at a particular place until the person had resided at the place for more than 14 days. It follows, in their opinion, since they had not resided at the other place for more than 14 days the requirement to notify the commissioner of the change had not arisen, even if the move necessitated some travel.
The construction of section 16 was not intended to override a person’s obligation to report intended travel. Accordingly, section 19 is to be amended to make it clear a reportable offender’s obligation to report intended travel is not abrogated merely because their travel plans result, or will result, in a change of residence.
A further requirement is if a reportable offender has travelled overseas, he or she must, on return, present their passport and visa documents for copying. This is seen as a particularly necessary amendment to enable monitoring and, if necessary, investigation of reporting offenders travelling to areas of the world with a reputation for child sex tourism.
I now turn to the second category of amendments which authorises the commissioner disclosing a reportable offender’s relevant personal details to a chief executive officer in certain circumstances. In its present form, a reportable offender’s personal details are not to be disclosed because of the likelihood of harm it could cause the person. In some circumstances, another agency may have competing duty of care considerations in carrying out its functions. On those occasions, the commissioner will be authorised to disclose relevant information about a reportable offender to the chief executive officer of the other agency. Such disclosure is made in the public’s interest and the agency must comply with the provisions of the Information Act in the use of the sensitive information.
Madam Speaker, this bill provides police with powers to effectively monitor reportable offenders to protect the lives and sexual safety of children. I am confident the bill will achieve its objectives. I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) NORTHERN TERRITORY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 131)
(Serial 131)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Northern Territory Act with the intention of updating names and numbers, repealing obsolete provisions, and streamlining processes in line with the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.
The act commenced in 2006 as a condition of the Northern Territory Police being declared an interception agency. It establishes the record keeping, reporting and oversight regime required in relation to warrants and certificates obtained under the Commonwealth act. This bill will make minor amendments to the act to correct references to sections in the Commonwealth act which no longer exist, and to correct anomalies.
Sections 6(a) and 6(b) will be removed from the act to simplify the requirement that copies of warrants or instruments revoking warrants must be provided to the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services by the Commissioner of Police. This is not going to create any concerns or complications in the process as the Commonwealth act does not require duplicate production to both the Commonwealth and local minister. It will also remove the need for reproducing the records to the minister.
Furthermore, copies of warrants and revocations will continue to be retained by the commissioner under section 4, whilst written reports about information obtained under warrants will be provided to the minister under sections 6(c) and 6(d).
The Ombudsman will retain the powers of inspecting those other records. This independent inspection and accountability will ensure the act is being complied with and copies are retained. If there are any issues in relation to the warrants or revocations, the minister will be notified through the reporting mechanisms under the act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
(Serial 129)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I advise honourable members of this government’s ongoing commitment to fire safety in the Northern Territory. As many members would be aware, there has been a significant increase in developments under this government, such as the construction of many large office and apartment buildings, including significant industrial developments. Some of the complex, major building projects completed in the Northern Territory in recent times include: the Darwin Fuel Depot; the Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals upgrades; G3 at Nhulunbuy; the Darwin Bio Diesel Plant; Wickham Point LNG Plant; the Darwin Convention and Exhibition Centre; Evolution – 33 storeys high; 130 The Esplanade – 3x26 storeys, and the Pandanus apartments – 28 storeys, to name a few. Each of these projects was very involved and required considerable fire safety input prior to, during and after their construction.
Development applications are expected to continue into the foreseeable future, and Access Economics is forecasting a continued growth of around 3.6% for the Territory for at least the next five years. This is good news for the Northern Territory.
The Territory Fire and Rescue Service is the legislated agency under both the NT Building Act and the Fire and Emergency Act for compliance with all fire safety laws. The agency is statutorily obligated to ensure compliance with all fire safety requirements under the Building Code of Australia and other Territory legislation.
Fire safety in buildings is an important public issue, particularly in places of accommodation such as backpacker hostels and places of public entertainment. The Community Fire Safety Division is the section responsible for fire inspections and building fire safety compliance in the Territory; however, because of increased growth and development in the Territory, it is unable to continue to cope with the demand within its existing resources.
It is the government’s intention to enhance public safety by increasing the resources and expertise within the Community Fire Safety Division. An additional 10 staff will enable the Community Fire Safety Division to deal with fire engineering applications, fire safety reports and licensing, and compliance inspectors throughout the Northern Territory. Once of these positions will be permanently based in Alice Springs.
The increase in resources to the Community Fire Safety Division will be self-funded through an increase in the fees associated with false alarms and call-outs which result in the attendance of the fire service where there is no fire or other emergency.
Other revenue will be realised on a user-pay system with the introduction of fees for new building applications, approvals and inspections. The Community Fire Safety Division currently carries out these functions at no cost to certifiers, developers or owners. Charges for these services are found in most Australian jurisdictions and this change will see the Fire and Rescue Service fall into line with many other fire services.
I stress that these new fees will not apply to Class 1a residential buildings. A Class 1a residential building is a single residential dwelling, such as a detached house or attached townhouse which is separated by a fire-resistant wall. It does not include a multiple storey block of flats or units.
As a reporting authority under the Building Regulations, Fire and Rescue Services must provide a report to the building certifier for the certifier’s determination regarding the issue of a building approval for the proposed works. During and following construction, the Community Fire Safety Division inspects the building’s fire safety for compliance with the Building Code of Australia. If approved, the Community Fire Safety Division must provide a report to the building certifier who may, ultimately, issue a Certificate of Occupancy in respect to the building.
The proposed new fee structure closely follows the Queensland model which is based on a building’s floor area. I foreshadow Territory fees will be significantly less than those prescribed in Queensland as my government has not, and will not, impose barriers against developments in the Territory.
In addition, fees will no longer be determined by the minister by notice in the Gazette. All existing fees under this and another act will be prescribed in the regulations. This makes the fees more accessible to the industry. A fee for the preparation of a report for a building with a floor area of less than 700 m is likely to be in the vicinity of $340; the Queensland equivalent is $851.60. Where a building is to have a floor area of more than 1500 m, but less than 2000 m, the fee is to be approximately $820; the Queensland model provides a fee of $2054.90. Other fees for different floor areas will apply. An inspection fee of $220, which provides an inspection of two hours duration, is proposed.
In the event a fire safety design fails to meet the Building Code of Australia requirements, the Community Fire Safety Division may meet with the developer to find an alternative solution. The attendance at an alternative solution meeting is expected to cost around $340. Along similar lines, some fire service systems may not be approved during the initial inspection. If this is the case the developer must rectify the non-complying fire services and have the works re-inspected. A re-inspection fee of $260 for the first hour and $130 for each hour thereafter will be considered. It follows it is in the developer’s best interests to have the Community Fire Safety Division involved at an early stage in the design and planning of a building thus avoiding substantial cost modifications later on.
The introduction of these fees is for the purposes of enabling Fire and Rescue Services to fulfil its statutory duties. As discussed, the fees will self-fund the additional resources necessary to meet the demands imposed on the agency resulting from the Territory’s continued growth and development.
In addition to these fees, increasing the fee for attending false alarms or call-outs is proposed. The existing false alarm call-out fee is $345. The intention of increasing these fees is to recover the actual costs in attending false alarm activations and call-outs. Alarmingly, approximately 40%, or nearly 3000 of all call-outs attended by the fire service relate to false alarms. As a minimum, one fire truck and four firefighters respond to each false alarm. Presently, the Territory lags behind most other jurisdictions in the quantum and enforcement of these fees. I am advised, on average, the cost of responding to a false of alarm is approximately $700. I anticipate the new fee will be of a similar amount to recoup the lost costs.
I am hopeful that as a result of the increase in the fee many building owners will endeavour to maintain their fire alarm monitoring systems or upgrade their systems to contemporary standards. Doing so will not only avert unnecessary false fire alarm activations, it will also avoid the unwanted liability to pay for the attendance.
Turning to the liability for the payment of a false alarm, as the act currently stands it imposes the liability on the occupier of the land or the building. Where there is no occupier, the invoice is issued to the owner of the land or building. In many cases it is the building’s owner rather than the commercial tenant who assumes control of the building’s fire systems. It is proposed to amend the act to make the building owner responsible for the fee other than where an occupier has entered into a connection agreement with the director for the monitoring of a building’s fire systems. This will reduce the administrative costs associated with Fire and Rescue Services having to ascertain the identity of the occupier. Moreover, it accords with modern commercial agreements for buildings consisting of multiple tenants.
Establishing the identity of an occupier is also necessary for the purposes of serving a notice under section 25 of the act to require a person to eliminate or reduce a hazard on a property. It likewise applies for grant of a permit. Fire and Rescue Services do not have ready access to a register which discloses the name and postal addresses of specific occupiers. This has a considerable impact on the administration of the act, especially in rural areas where landholders may fail to install fire breaks around the perimeter of their property. This is a significant fire hazard, not only to their own property, also to that of their neighbours.
To overcome the imposition of having to locate the name and postal address of an occupier, it is proposed permitting the director to, for example, serve a notice on either the owner or the occupier. Insofar as installing a fire break is concerned, it may well be appropriate that notices be served on the owner in any event since the Residential Tenancies Act provides it is a term of an agreement that the owner must meet all health and safety requirements specified under an act. Since installing fire breaks is a safety requirement under the Fire and Emergency Act and Regulations, it may be the responsibility of the owner to ensure this safety requirement is met. I also flag similar amendments being made to regulations in the future.
The government will continue to maintain and enhance the safety of Territorians by providing specialist expertise within Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The allocation of the additional resources will allow Fire and Rescue Services to meet its current and foreseeable obligations.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MINERAL TITLES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 121)
(Serial 121)
Continued from 17 August 2010.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the opposition will be supporting the Mineral Titles (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 (Serial 121).
It is complementary legislation to the Minerals Titles Act which was debated earlier this year and passed. That legislation was a long time coming, not through the fault of any department or industry person; it was just the way it was. With any new legislation you want time to ensure it is drafted in such a way as to be clear, concise, transparent and, more importantly, workable. This will guide our exploration and extractive industries into the future. Given this was drafted 20 or 30 years ago, we have to ensure we get not only the legislation right but, more importantly, the regulations yet to be drafted to support the legislation. They are being worked on, and I thank the minister for the recent briefing on the legislation and other issues discussed with departmental staff. The regulations are important; both the government and the department will be discussing them closely with industry, and I encourage and support that.
There will be a requirement for some administrative changes when government implements this legislation; most notably to the computer system known as Titles Information System, or TIS, the prime computer software used by industry, and others. I will make a few comments on this which I hope the minister takes on board.
At the moment, TIS is set up to input information and retrieve information. Currently, when plotting for exploration, you put in for 500 blocks. That is going to change because it is now 250. I ask the minister if we can move towards a one-stop shop when it comes to titles management. Currently, the explorer or tenement manager uses the Titles Information System within the Mines department, then goes to the Lands department to use the Integrated Land Information System to discover who owns the properties, then goes to NRETAS to find potential heritage and archaeological site issues, and then they have to go to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority.
We need a computer system which will make it as much a one-stop shop as possible and when the application goes in it will show a sacred site. It will not tell you what it is; it will tell you there is an issue. The explorer knows to go to the Sacred Sites Authority and find out where the site is. Or, have a layer regarding heritage or archaeological sites. When the explorer puts the application in, they know straightaway there is a heritage site which needs to be identified and protected. That does not happen at the moment, and it would make it more efficient and effective for industry and government if it could be coordinated through the Titles division and the Mines department.
The other thing needed in the computer system software is a search for titles by the miner or explorer. Currently, this does not happen. The search is by titles, and if we put in a company name all their titles - I stand to be corrected – across the Territory would show up - where they are, what had been surrendered, what had been dropped off, and the time of the application. A change will make it easier for company personnel looking at this component.
In recent briefings the member for Katherine, as shadow minister, and I had, the government stressed - I support it and want to see it happen - when there is a transfer of mineral claim - and there are many across the Northern Territory by several companies in particular and the minister knows which ones they are – they have a big swag of titles for minerals claims - when they are transferred to either exploration licence or a mineral lease there is no disadvantage to that company, financial or other.
I have concerns regarding the implications of native title arising and creating issues for the miner - not that native title is a problem; however, it could slow things down and cost the company more money through no fault of its own because government wants to change the system. I stress that companies in that situation should not suffer any detriment or be disadvantaged in the work they do, or in the financial marketplace regarding their investment in the Territory and, of course, their shareholders.
The department has assured us there will be transitional arrangements and it will take some time to go from an old system which has been around for decades to a new system. Many mineral claims are historic, with many probably not being actively worked on; they could be changed without too much trouble. My concern is those that are actively worked on and those that form part of an active stable of an exploration company.
I highlight one point made by the member for Daly regarding the project at Batchelor. I cannot recall the context in which it was raised; however, I want to clarify it because it is important. It is linked to this legislation and to future potential exploration in that region. The project at Batchelor, which is owned by the HNC (Australia) Resources Pty Limited, or loosely called the Browns Project, in area 55, has been placed into permanent care and maintenance. The member for Daly advised the House it was not permanent; it was just in care and maintenance. I will read from the media release of 1 October from HNC (Australia) Resources Pty Ltd:
- Browns Oxide Project to be Placed into Care and Maintenance
The Browns Oxide Joint Venture partners (Compass Resources Limited and Hunan Nonferrous Metals Corporation) have announced that the Browns Oxide mine and processing plant located at Batchelor is to be put into permanent care and maintenance.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: It is permanent. Permanent means permanent; no more. I find it disappointing for the future of this project, or lack of future. The minister for mines and I were present at the signing between the Chinese investment partners and the Australian company, and the government supported this project. They talked it up, as they should. Potentially, it is a fabulous project. The project has always had technical issues which will probably carry into the future; however, given the support the Northern Territory government gave this project, encouraging and attracting the Chinese investors into the Northern Territory, for the member for Daly to mislead parliament, and probably the people around the Batchelor region, is wrong. I tabled the document to set the record straight.
I know the Mines minister has a difficult job; he wants to promote and further the exploration mining industry of the Northern Territory. He knows more than anyone on that side of the House the benefits it will bring. However, it seems lately every step of the way he has been stymied, not allowed to push forward in regard to the future of the exploration and mining industry, which is wrong. I am sure the minister will clarify it in his reply.
Issues regarding potential amendments to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act needed clarification. We have some amendments for committee stage, so I ask if he could explain the background and why there was potentially an issue, although I understand it has been sorted out.
The other matter I would like clarified - and it was explained to us in the briefing - is in regard to the AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act and the changing of the corridors for the railway line from 800 m to 400 m to 100 m. How does that work in regard to explorers which want to come into that area or are already there?
Those are the points I wanted to raise at this time. Yes, we support the legislation; yes, we will have the committee stages. It is procedural. There are 27 pieces of legislation needing amendment so the word ‘mining’ is omitted and replaced with ‘minerals title’. There are a few other amendments, and there is no reason not to support them. Most of the amendments are administrative; however, I make the point regarding the Title Information System. I ask the minister to take that on board and explain why we cannot have a one-stop shop to help in the efficiency and effectiveness of administering titles in the Northern Territory, whether they are for mineral exploration or extractive exploration.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill to amend various legislation consequential on enactment of the Mineral Titles Act 2010. I have a number of questions to ask the minister and will keep them until the committee stage.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I note an amendment to this bill has now been circulated and it will be attended to in the committee stages, as far as I am aware, without any problem from our side of the House.
I do, however, make the observation we again find ourselves repairing a bill on foot which the government has brought into this House, or dealing with a bill which contained errors. I am uncertain of the mechanisms the government has in place to check and double check the bills they bring into this House. Upon reflection of some of the instruments we have been asked to consider over the last few days, I ask the government to turn its attention to how it manufactures and double checks this legislation.
I am not saying every error is avoidable. I am saying these errors are far too common. Consequently, I suggest the checks and balances the government has in place are insufficient to meet the needs of this House. It should not be up to the Leader of the Opposition’s office to telephone ministers’ offices and tell them there are problems with this bill and problems with that bill, only to discover they are correct.
If you think of the vast resources available to government and the somewhat limited resources available to the Leader of the Opposition, it is surprising how easily these things are picked up. It may be as simple as sitting someone in a room and telling them to go through this legislation with a fresh pair of eyes to ensure these things do not happen. It is becoming a track record of this government to come here with repairs to legislative items. Many of these repairs are made on the run and I am concerned the effect that will have in the future, particularly in the court system. I would hate to see a mistake we make in this House, a mistake made by the government, or for that matter by opposition, to have a resonating effect in a court which negatively affects a Territorian because we were not careful enough.
Madam Speaker, I urge the government to double check its systems and repair those systems where necessary so we do not continuously find ourselves fixing that which should not be broken.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution and for supporting the legislation. It is to amend other legislation which may be impacted by the changes and the introduction of the new mining act, the Mineral Titles Act.
It will impact on 27 pieces of legislation including: the AustralAsia Railway Special Provisions Act; the Geothermal Energy Act; the Mineral Royalties Act, and other legislation. The impact is generally very small; just changing reference to the new legislation or amending title types and ensuring the rights and obligations which currently apply are maintained. To enable continued advice from the new Mineral Titles Act, all relevant legislation must be amended to incorporate the changes reflected in the Mineral Titles Act.
I thank the member for Goyder for her comments about TIS. Yes, it is something we are looking at. We have to ensure different departments’ software talks to each other. The railway corridor will be amended. Originally, the railway corridor was 800 m wide; when construction took place it was 400 m wide. Now the railway is up and running the corridor is 100 m wide and the railway company maintains the right to acquire gravel from the 100 m corridor; that is very clear.
As discussed, member for Port Darwin, no errors were made in the legislation. The legislation is introduced into parliament, it sits before the House for a number of days to give the industry, and any other interested person, the opportunity to discuss it, study it, and come back to us with proposals. If there are any amendments to be made, we are happy to introduce committee stage amendments. In this case there was no error; comments were made later by a government department regarding the definition of the owner. We amended the legislation to clarify the definition of the owner.
Madam Speaker, we will be going to committee stage.
Motion agreed; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair …
Mr WOOD: Are we taking it all as a whole?
Madam CHAIR: No, we have taken clauses 1 to 8. Do you have questions about clause 9?
Mr WOOD: No, I have questions about clause 3, sorry. Can I ask the minister if he would allow those questions?
Madam CHAIR: If you would like to ask those questions you can.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, minister. In relation to clause 3(4) which is headed Consortium may mine extractive minerals on corridor general reserved land - it has a large number 16 written against it - it is a little hard to follow when you are going through. In relation to a railway company mining extractive minerals within that corridor, can they sell those extractive minerals to someone else?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is for the use of the railway only.
Mr WOOD: If a company was building a road nearby, could they seek permission from the railway to use that gravel?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, it is only used for railway purposes.
Mr WOOD: If they were the only extractive minerals suitable for road building in the area, is it possible for another company to apply for a mineral extractive mining lease over that material within the railway corridor?
Mr VATSKALIS: The act provides for use of the corridor for railway purposes. If the company was building something for the railway or associated with the railway, they would have discretion to allow the use of the extractive minerals.
Mr WOOD: I understand that; however, it is a pretty long railway corridor from the boundary of Alice Springs to Darwin. I thought there may be cases where that may be the only extractive material available, and it is locked up only for the railway. Considering the length of the corridor, it seems strange there is not some way around that if the material is required.
Mr VATSKALIS: Considering you have 100 m corridor, which is actually 50 m from the centre of the railway, it would be a very interesting proposal to mine so close to the railway line. I do not think the railway company would be very impressed, and I do not think a licence would be forthcoming.
Mr WOOD: Probably more like a pastoral property needing some materials.
Mr VATSKALIS: Of course, this again comes under the AustralAsia Railway act which is not the subject of this act. I am not the responsible minister to respond to that question. My understanding is it is only allowed for railway purposes.
Mr WOOD: Minister, that section says the Mining Management Act does not apply in relation to the consortium or activities conducted under the mineral authority. Please explain what that clause means? I do not see it in the explanatory notes.
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is they have the right to mine and the Mining Management Act does not apply. They have to comply with any conditions put to them by the minister.
Mr WOOD: This will be my last question, minister. In relation to new clause 3(9), the explanatory notes say:
- … represents the opportunity to repeal from this legislation the schedule of historic reservations from occupation under the Mining Act. This schedule was revoked in 2000.
Could you give us an explanation of that? If the schedule was revoked in 2000, why is it being repealed now?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is the repeal was by gazettal notice, while this one is repealing the act. It is catching up with what happened a few years ago.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Nelson. Minister, you were going to move your amendment to clause 9.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move the amendment to the Minerals Titles (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 that the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act be defeated and replaced at committee stage.
The proposed new amendment to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act relates to the definition of an owner of land. The amendment clarifies the holder of an exploration licence is not a landowner for the purpose of the act. Owners of land have certain rights in respect to sacred sites, including compensation. The amendment maintains the status quo. The status quo was the same as with the previous CLP government, so we are not changing anything; we maintain the status quo.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I seek clarification because I am not sure if I am in the right area. This precedes the section on mineral royalties in the amendment bill, or is it subsequent to? I thought clause 9 was page 11 which deals with the Land Acquisition Act, then it deals with mineral royalties. If it is still coming, I will wait.
Mr VATSKALIS: No, it amends the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act.
Ms PURICK: Yes, okay.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Ms PURICK: I am not sure it is the right area, but can I have some clarification on items to do with clauses 9(4)(a) and (b).
Madam CHAIR: If you have questions now, member for Goyder, that is fine because the next thing we will do is take the remainder of the bill.
Ms PURICK: Okay, thank you. Minister, in regard to clause 9(4)(b) where it mentions section 106(3), (4), and (5) of the Mineral Titles Act applies in relation to the recommendation as if a reference in those provisions to the minister were a reference to the tribunal, I am trying to understand, does the minister or the tribunal have the final say? I do not believe a minister can delegate to a tribunal. I am trying to get it clear in my mind. If a decision came from a tribunal, does the company or the person have the right of appeal to the minister, or is the minister the final say?
Mr VATSKALIS: What section are you referring to?
Ms PURICK: Page 11, up the top it says section 22(3), then there is a part (3) which talks about the Lands Acquisition Act, which is in the current act; then subclause (4) starts:
- If the tribunal makes a recommendation under section 5(1)(c) …
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is the minister has the final decision.
Ms PURICK: The minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Ms PURICK: Thank you.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Growing Them Strong, Together - Report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System
Note Paper - Growing Them Strong, Together - Report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System
Continued from 19 October 2010.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it seems the government does not even want to talk about this, which is …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was the opposition which wanted this debate adjourned and brought back this week …
Mr Tollner: That is not a point of order.
Dr BURNS: It is a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, there is no point of order.
Mr BOHLIN: I really do not know what was so offensive in that comment; it struck a nerve straightaway. I am sorry, I was a little aghast at that. I thought I was going to talk about something which is really serious; this is really absurd; what a bizarre reaction.
This is not the first report we have had since this government came to power. It is a well worded report - Growing them strong, together –however, it is not the first time this has been discussed in this House since the coming to power of the Labor government 10 years ago. One only has to go to the first page under the foreword and realise we have a serious problem. This report is not complimentary of the government. It highlights massive failings of the Northern Territory government to take true leadership in child protection. In the lower half of the page ‘Management of Complaints and Allegations’, halfway through the fourth paragraph says:
- … the Board became concerned when some operational data came to its attention that indicated there was a rapidly growing backlog of children deemed to be at risk who were awaiting the commencement of an investigation into their circumstances.
If it came to the attention of the board conducting this review, why did it not come to the attention of the minister? If it came to the attention of the minister, why did the minister not take action before the review commenced? It clearly outlines a systemic failure of the Labor government to take responsibility of its portfolio positions. This is extremely serious stuff; this is massive.
The report says whilst it was looking at it, there was a rapidly growing backlog of children deemed to be at risk awaiting commencement of an investigation into their circumstances. Surely someone in the government sector saw this occurring. The board did not take long to see there was a problem, raised it with the minister, then what happened? Does that mean the minister was complacent and sat on it? It can only be determined that is what happened. We cannot say the public service has not done its job.
We cannot say the public service did not advise the minister, through the various minders, that there was a problem - surely not. As a member of the Northern Territory Police Force I used to work with these people. Our public servants who work in this field are extremely frustrated by the blockades at the top of this House. Our public servants who work in this area truly want to make a change and are affected by the outcomes they see unfolding before their eyes. They are tearing their hair out.
The minister goes home at the end of parliamentary sittings. I do not see the minister losing sleep over this today. On Monday, 18 October, this government received a briefing. I would have expected today - 10 days later - the minister would be introducing change to the current legislation to make a difference. I presumed the minister, and the entire Cabinet of the Northern Territory government, would be so exhausted their eyes would be falling on the tables; they had not slept because this is an emergency. This is not a come Friday event; knock off and go to the pub. This is catastrophic. This is another massive volume on top of the Little Children Are Sacred report, on top of the Bath report. This is not a situation where you, as a government, go home and think you had a good day today. This is a situation where you do not go home; you come up with a solution.
If you think the report was the only indicator you had, you are kidding me. You are an absolutely failed government. We have had warning signs for ages. Let us go to 21 June 2007, the launch of the intervention; a result of the Little Children Are Sacred report. Let us lay out a time line, if nothing else, to say in June 2007 we were told there was a serious problem. We knew there was a serious problem because we already had a substantial, very damning report – the Little Children Are Sacred report. That report alone should have meant this government went into lockdown and fixed the problem - they should have worked so hard their fingers bled. No, it sat on the report and, on 21 June 2007, there was a media release - national emergency response to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory, from the former minister Hon Mal Brough:
In response to the national emergency confronting the welfare of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory, the Australian government today announced immediate, broad ranging measures to stabilise and protect communities in the crisis area.
The immediate nature of the Australian government’s response reflects the very first recommendation of the Little Children …
Hang on, let us go back:
- … the very first recommendation of the Little Children Are Sacred report into the protection of Aboriginal children from child abuse in the Northern Territory, which said:
- That Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory be designated as an issue of urgent national significance by both the Australian and [Lo and behold] Northern Territory governments …’
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, would you mind if I acknowledge these students, please?
Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Year 7, Palmerston High School, accompanied by Mr Kai Pedersen and Mrs Lati Alefaio. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker:
- All action at the national level is designed to ensure the protection of Aboriginal children from harm.
The emergency measures to protect children being announced today are a first step that will provide immediate mitigation and stabilising impacts in communities that will be prescribed by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
On 26 June 2007, a media release came from the federal parliament: ‘Government outlines Phase One of NT reform’.. Whilst I am talking about this, consider what is coming into play here. A plan is unfolding, which I will mention shortly, and is pretty simple. ‘Government outlines Phase One of NT reform’ dated 26 June 2007. The second paragraph says:
- Small survey teams will commence community engagement and area surveys in a number of communities across the southern half of the NT.
I will come back to that in a second. I was Officer-in-Charge of the police station at Kintore when it happened.
Further in the document:
- This initial phase is critical and the fact that we have been able to mobilise action in such a short space of time demonstrates not only our commitment, but also the cooperation being received from communities, the NT government and the states that have already pledged police.
When did all that urgency stop? The first of the small teams arrived in three communities, one of which was Kintore. People were jumping up and down saying: ‘Armageddon is coming; the army is coming; everyone is going to come over the hills; there will be tanks’. Not one single tank arrived; about four Army personnel is all - not a very big force, however, some people were touting this was an Army takeover. There were four experts in various fields. One was engineering; two were from local Indigenous forces – NORFORCE – for community relations, who were fantastic. The kids loved those guys in green. They were the best thing they had seen in a long time, and it was fantastic.
There was a flurry of action in those communities during the first phase of the intervention. Then came the unfortunate part where the federal Liberal government lost power and the Rudd government, followed by the Gillard government, took over. It was like someone had put on the handbrake in those communities. Someone had pulled the rug out from under the efforts the people on the ground were making – as if all the medical checks done had vanished into thin air. From post-June 2007, medical checks had been performed on all kids, and data is available to show what problems existed. Medical staff doing reports were extremely stressed by what they came across at times, however, they kept their dignity; they kept on with the job. They did it; they did something, unlike this government.
This government is sitting on its hands doing nothing. Has this government gone to sleep? Has it fallen asleep at the wheel? Has it forgotten what needs doing? This commenced in June 2007; we are now in October 2010 - over three years later. You have had three years warning - three years of sitting on your hands. The report says in the last three years things have deteriorated because of your lack of action and command; your inability to operate on the ground and make changes. You had the Australian public behind you - the Australian Army behind you. A landing force the size of Gallipoli was coming and you have done nothing.
Your actions have been so ineffective and wishy-washy you have not protected children. You have failed! This was released 10 days ago. A media release three years ago saw the announcement of a program to deliver within five days. We had a report 10 days ago, yet we do not see a single player on the ground. We do not know what this government is doing to protect children. It has not outlined what it is doing to fix the problem.
It is simple. Do not go home until you fix it! Get something happening. The media release on 26 June says the government outlines Phase One of NT reforms. What does that mean? Phase One sounds military-like, doesn’t it? That is because it was. Mal Brough - former military …
A member: Reserves.
Mr BOHLIN: Do not degrade the Reserves, they do a great job. Australian Defence Force members are very highly educated, they are taught how to plan, command and orchestrate things. That is why this government fails, it has no idea.
I will table a document shortly to help you guys out because you are not delivering what you need to. Now, 10 days after the report, we should be seeing from the Northern Territory - have we had daily briefings? Have we received a daily report of what is happening? I do not hear about it; you have not told the media, you have not told the public things are under control, you know what is going on and are protecting the children. Has a command centre been set up in response to this crisis? It should have the head of FACS, the minister, the education CEO or an advisor - there should be five or six people minimum, with 10 or so controlling it. The government has said it is getting people from interstate; that is great. What are you going to do with them? If you do not have a command system in place, what will you do with the resources? How are you going to manage this? You have nothing in place. Has a team been set up to review and allocate - allocate, my God! Deliver, do something! Allocate the outstanding children at risk. Maybe it has on the quiet; there should be a very tightknit control team to deliver it.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member for Drysdale be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Are all the outstanding reports being delivered? They are not just reports. Allocate the outstanding children at risk! These children are real and at risk. Someone had an urgent need to write a report because they honestly believed something bad was happening to this child. Do not mess around - it ain’t good. If it were good they would not report it. Because it is not a priority one - I do not know how we determine priority one, however let us imagine it indicates there is physical abuse occurring and someone has seen a result of that. People are saying: ‘There is something wrong here and I need to report it because I am concerned for this child’s welfare’.
Psychologists around the world will tell you certain behaviour by children indicates something is wrong. Those children are no less at risk than someone who has seen something. The difference is they are missing proof, however, there is every chance - let us hope less than a quarter - these children in this lower category are abused in some way. That is horrific.
The Chief Minister should be going to the federal government and the intervention task force commander to see what is going on - what is happening in the operational field? A FaHCSIA team is here, what is happening? This report is condemning. The Chief Minister should be asking the federal government if there has been a fresh command centre set up under the intervention to respond to this emergency. This does not say it happens in only one area. The federal intervention is a resource. Let us find out what one hand is doing with the other and see if they have set up a new task force. They should be packing spare bits in their pants because this report has canned them as well. It has canned the federal government together with the NT government.
Has the command of the intervention task force asked for a breakdown of children at risk in their area of operation? Has the command said the report suggests there are many problems? Which of those children are in their area of operation? We do not know because this government is not telling us what they are doing. It is saying: ‘Yes, we are getting people from interstate’. That is a good thing; however, they are not outlining their action plan - what they are doing. Ten days into this emergency and we have seen nothing.
The government has had a million opportunities to do something and has done nothing. We have a bill it does not want to know about, it is part of the recommendations. I have a document I will table shortly. It is from the Internet; the web address is www.achieve-goal-settings-success.com. It is about the SMEAC system - a military-based system which can be applied in every single business or operation, government or otherwise, in this world. There have been many wars and emergencies and all our counter disaster – we see a cyclone and set up a command centre. We have not heard of one being set up following this report, and there are probably more people at risk at the moment than from a blow of wind.
The SMEAC system is another acronym borrowed from our mighty military. They do a good job so we may as well learn something from them. SMEAC – S stands for situation, M for mission, E for execution, A for administration and logistics, and C for command and communications. I do not have time to read it all. Situation - we know the situation, and in a command centre we would talk about it. What is the situation? Kids are being hurt at home, or in other places, and we have done nothing about it. The mission is to fix the problem. These are basic terms; you can fill in the blanks. We have to fix the problem. Kids are being hurt and there are many reports which have not been acted on or properly reviewed. What are we going to do about it? That is the mission.
The execution is how. How are we going to do this? What are we doing? The first part would be setting up a command and control to determine what we have in resources and allocate them. This government has no idea of what is occurring in its own back yard. We have report after report and know it has no idea or command of the situation. That is execution; how to do it.
The administration – that is where we talk about the logistics. So, we need extra staff. We have talked about it; you have done some of it. You have probably jumped a few things and have lost command. What are we going to need? Where are we going to get them from? Are we going to engage better with FaHCSIA, the federal government or the intervention? That is a resource. That is part of the ability to deal with this and why it is here.
Command and communications – taking hold of it. This is what the Chief Minister does. He is the commander of the team and, at the moment, has sunk the ship. He has let it go to a pack of dogs, and we are fighting on the ground and nothing is happening. They have nothing - nothing at all. There is no command and no communication. Communication would be letting people know what is happening, what the government is doing. You have failed the people and do not want to talk about it. You do not want to explain what you are doing to fix the problem.
I will table this document for government use - it is easy. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the document called the SMEAC system.
Leave granted.
Mr BOHLIN: I know the system back-to-front. I have been trained in the Defence force and the police force. Why does this government not look to see how they can better administer their resources; we have had three years of warning there is a problem. Three years later the problem has become worse under the Labor government. They cannot blame any former government for this; it has become worse under this government.
We have two documents, the Little Children are Sacred report and the Growing them strong, together report which clearly state the Henderson government, and the Gillard/Rudd government, have failed Northern Territory children by failing to act decisively and with clear vision into the future - getting on with doing the job and reacting. Ten days after this report we do not see a command team or an announcement from the government. We have a command team set up; it is all under control - coordinate and control it. Everything is happening; we have people here and people here. We have reviewed one quarter of the outstanding documentation. Nothing! Nothing at all!
It is disappointing I have to speak on this matter. It is hurtful to think there are children - not reports - going unchecked, at risk of serious harm and this government has lost command of the ship. It has no idea how to get out of it, and people should remember when their children step out the door, or come home, there is no one protecting them - this government has failed.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will talk on this very serious matter of promoting the safety and wellbeing of the Northern Territory’s children. There has been comment that the government should have brought this matter back quickly. The opposition asked me to request the government delay continuation of debate last week because this was such a large document and it only had a short time to go through it. The government agreed. We need to keep things in perspective. The opposition asked for a delay in debate on this matter and I agreed because it is a big document - 712 pages and I have not been through it all.
Sometimes history records things in funny ways. It needs to be noted this inquiry occurred due to a number of people - not politicians - I had much to do with at the time discussions about it occurred. One of those persons is Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN, and another is Dr Bauert, vice-President of the AMA. At the time this report was being discussed the then minister, minister McCarthy, said she would have an inquiry into inputs in relation to child protection. I was asked if I supported an inquiry; I said I did. One of my failings is I can say something then realise, not being an expert, I might have been saying that without the technical background to give an intelligent response.
I was contacted by Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN, whom I have known for many years outside politics, and believe is one of the great lights in the Northern Territory when it comes to looking after children. Long before this became a headline, you would find Lesley Taylor promoting the welfare of children. Anything she said about this inquiry I would listen to. She told me this inquiry would not deal with the issues we needed to address - it had to be broader. I was in New South Wales looking at prisons at the time, and I contacted the minister advising the expert is saying the inquiry is not adequate for what is needed.
It is through people like Lesley Taylor and Dr Bauert that this inquiry commenced. It is because they knew the facts on the ground, had the expertise, had the passion, and were outside politics - not pushing a political wheelbarrow - and knew things were bad. You only have to read the foreword of this document to see things were bad.
I am not going to say government should have done better; plenty of speakers will tell you that. In the end, as with all democracies, the people of the Northern Territory will judge the government on its record. It will have to face up to the record of the past and, if it achieves change as the inquiry is attempting, it can say change occurred on its watch. However, it will have to live with the condemnation of this inquiry which pointed out the failings of the government. It is clear; we have an independent inquiry.
There was much talk about whether Dr Bath should be on the Board of Inquiry. I was probably not convinced. The opposition was also very vocal, saying Dr Bath was not an independent person because he had to report to the minister and was funded by a government department, etcetera. I met with Dr Bath when I returned from New South Wales and was convinced Dr Bath was a very genuine person and would be independent. He was the Children’s Commissioner; the Children’s Commissioner is independent. Although he was one of three people - and I should not forget Dr Rob Roseby and Professor Muriel Bamblett - he would have to be one of the key reasons this inquiry got off the ground. For anyone to say this man is not independent and could not have done the job, they are not looking at the report seriously.
My belief is Dr Bath is an extremely knowledgeable, intelligent, independent, and passionate person regarding the welfare of children. We have a jewel in the crown; we have a person in our community willing to say what he thinks. This is a serious document, not a document put together by amateurs. It has been put together by people who have knowledge in various ways - whether it is Aboriginal, Central Australia, or a broader knowledge. Commissioner Bath came from South Australia originally and has much background in this area.
I thank members of the inquiry for the hard work they have done. I thank Dr Bath for the hard work he has done, and for allowing me some insight into the man. I have met Dr Bath a number of times and believe the Northern Territory should regard him as a person of great integrity and we should listen to what he has to say. If we really want to show gratitude to the people who worked on this report, the best way is to ensure the recommendations are carried out. It is no use spending millions of dollars on the inquiry and not acting on it.
I agree to some extent with the member for Drysdale; the government has to show some urgency. I was in parliament when the intervention was announced because the Northern Territory government was too slow. The government has the same issue as the opposition; this is a large document and you have to go through it properly. We need to understand the report. It has guidelines scaled at one, two and three in relation to how quickly things should occur. Anything with number one should have things happening. When the minister sums up I hope he can bring us news about what is happening on the ground in relation to that.
Several issues need to be highlighted regarding where we are heading with child protection. Some of these are from Lesley Taylor, from NAPCAN, who said the main thing is early intervention. If we do not seriously intervene into stopping abuse occurring we will always have a child protection department and will be playing catch-up football. We will be trying to protect kids after the event. We need to intervene early and, would you believe, in the 147 recommendations only one mentions early intervention. Recommendation 119 says:
- That Northern Territory Families and Children develops a comprehensive workforce strategy based on clearly stated values and principles that;
is characterised by a strong partnership engagement with the non-government sector in planning and implementation.
It is only one recommendation, but it is a big one which I believe is a core recommendation. If we do not recognise the symptoms and causes, and if we do not put money into those things then I agree with Lesley - we will just be a child protection unit; that is all we will be doing.
Chapter 6 opened my eyes. That is the area I have been concentrating on because if we are to tackle and overcome the issues, we have a good chance of well-adjusted children in our society and we can reduce the cost of child protection. The issues in Chapter 6 are so important. The first set of risk factors for child abuse and neglect have been categorised as economic factors - poverty, unemployment, overcrowded or unstable housing.
You do not need a recommendation from the inquiry to tell you that is one of the key problems in the Northern Territory. Without going into the SIHIP issue, the bottom line is if we do not do something about overcrowding in Aboriginal communities by building enough houses we have a permanent risk factor for child abuse. A concrete change needs to occur. Although it is very expensive and has caused much heartache politically, we must continue working our way through the issue.
Governments should not have to pick up the entire bill. I stated recently, the Indigenous Land Corporation spent $300m buying the Yulara Resort. I do not have a problem technically; that is what they are about. They are trying to develop industry for Aboriginal people, create employment and investment. So why did not someone say: ‘Why don’t we invest in a housing company and put $300m into housing?’ Solving overcrowding is not only the broader population’s problem. Aboriginal organisations with money available have a responsibility to look at investing in housing. With $300m we could probably produce 600 houses. That is not a bad number for the Northern Territory if we could put them here.
There is an investment; they get money back through rent. They create employment because they have to maintain the houses. Sometimes we put too much emphasis on saying it is the government’s fault. In some cases it is; when you read the inquiry much of it is the government’s fault. Sometimes we have to say: ‘How, as a community, can we help?’ In this case Aboriginal organisations – and they seem to have a great deal of money because they invest in shopping centres and all sorts of things – why do they not invest in housing? You could then see a direct consequence of their investment for the people they say they represent.
The second set of risk factors is social factors such as racism, discrimination and social isolation. There will always be many debates about racism and discrimination. Racism can occur on both sides of the fence. Social isolation and exclusion is not just about Aboriginal people. People, for whatever reason - often economic - are poor, live in a society where they have very little chance of moving up, their education is low, they feel they do not have much chance of getting a job and people are not interested in employing them, and they feel like outcasts. That is difficult to change.
That is where education, self-esteem – it reminds me of prisoners at the Darwin Prison who did a stockman’s course. You could see the self-esteem and pride which came from it; it was tangible. We need ways to bring people back into society and give them pride. Sometimes it is simply because they live in a community with rubbish all over it and there are not many jobs. It is all part of this mix which is not easy to change. We have to attempt to change these things.
The next set of risk factors is community factors as mentioned in the inquiry, relating to dangerous, disadvantaged or socially excluded communities, and communities which have lost many community members. These can be a spin-off of overcrowding. If people are living in overcrowded conditions they have health problems. If they have health problems they are down in the dumps - you are not being looked after. If the kids only see physical violence in the home that is all they know. According to ABS statistics, two-thirds of households with 0 to 14-year-old Aboriginal people need more rooms. Approximately one-third lived in houses with major structural problems, and one-third had facilities which were not working or unavailable. You not only have crowded houses, you have issues within the houses. Kids pick up infections and diseases because they live close together. These problems do not help. A loving environment is what you are after.
There are other risk factors such as parental factors, mental health, substance abuse, family and domestic violence, learning difficulties, parental anger, strong beliefs in corporal punishment, trans-generational trauma and its impact on parenting, and lower levels of empathy. Things coming from that are family violence, gambling, substance misuse, mental illness, disabilities, learning difficulties, early pregnancy, and unemployment – a range of issues we know about which shows the enormity of what we are dealing with. To change these things will require a large effort from government.
One issue to highlight in relation to parental factors is - Lesley Taylor said the same thing - we need universal parenting. We need to teach people …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan. We are now finding grandparents have to act as parents because people have no parenting skills. The key to early intervention is to ensure systems are in place for all children in the Northern Territory, and all parents - especially when they have their first child - to access programs which deal with parenting. Lack of parenting skills - reading through this document - is one of the key factors why kids are not loved. Parents do not know how to look after their kids, and when they have the second, third and fourth child they think that is the way it is done. A lifestyle continues which is not helping those kids.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, would you mind if I acknowledge these young people?
Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of year 5/6 Wulagi Primary School students accompanied by Mr James Reardon. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr WOOD: I have mentioned in parliament previously, the Northern Territory has a very high rates of babies born to women aged between 15 and 19 per. The figures show there were 52.2 babies per 1000 women - this is in 2008 - aged 15 to 19 compared to the national average of 17.3, and 75% of the 400 babies born to teenage women in the Northern Territory were born to Aboriginal women. We have young people navigating between adolescence and parenthood. What chance do those children have if we do not give them the skills to look after their babies? There is a program at Plumpton High School, Sydney where young women having babies can go back to school. If we could do that with some of our young women, especially in remote communities, they would have a chance to gain parenting skills as well as keep their education going. We need to target that area. Again, it is early intervention; we need to push for early intervention.
There are risk factors classed as child characteristics. Low birth weights, special needs, difficult temperament, behavioural problems - a range of issues need to be looked at early. If someone has problems parenting, how are they going to look at difficult temperaments or behavioural problems? Will they know how to handle kids? This document says sometimes the behaviour causes bigger problems because there is a strong belief in serious corporal punishment because the parent has no other way of controlling the child. They either use corporal punishment to the extreme, or go to the other extreme and say yes to everything the child wants. We need to work hard on getting parenting skills up and running throughout the community.
We also have family characteristics, poor relationships, large number of children, and single or early parenthoods. One reason these young mothers do not have good parenting skills is because their mothers did not have good parenting skills. They are also, perhaps, outcasts. We know, in some cases, mothers have had children with men who are not of the same skin group so there is the shame-job aspect as well. My wife has always been concerned about the number of young people having babies with males they should not be in contact with. You have cultural breakdowns, which is part of the problem we have. You then have mothers who are nearly outcast in their own community. We have to work through these issues and intervene.
We have ecological factors. It is a fancy word - they call it environmental toxins. We all know about violence and gambling. Gambling is mentioned a number of times. I do not know how you get around that: people playing cards all night, kids sitting outside waiting for mum, or hanging around the card game. They may know how to play cards when they grow up, but may not be well looked after.
In some cases we have unresolved grief. A statement in the report mentions one community had so many deaths all the people seemed to know about, day in-day out, was grief, because of the high mortality rate. What happy lifestyle do you get when you are raising kids in that environment?
Last, if the child has had previous experience of abuse or neglect. If physical abuse, sexual abuse, and mental abuse were part of a family’s lifestyle, there is a good chance children growing up in that lifestyle are going to have the same problems. That is where the early intervention has to come in.
It is interesting to note the highest rate of substantiations of child abuse and neglect are for infants younger than one year old - younger than one year old - a rate of 31.6 children compared to 16.4 for other age groups. Do we have to be interventionists when it comes to that? If the highest rate of substantiation relates to babies younger than one year we have some serious problems. That is the time you would be hoping the care and love were at their greatest. We do not appear to have that, which is a major concern.
There are some pretty good mums out there - some good families out there. We need to be working with those good families. There are many good Aboriginal mothers and fathers. When I say fathers, there are issues about men being left out of the discussion. We have to raise the belief men are as important as women when it comes to parenting. That is a major factor missing from this debate. The importance of men being seen as part of the process to change things is mentioned in Chapter 6.
In relation to the good side of what we are looking for, what we should be aiming at when talking about early intervention, page 176 of the report says:
- Factors which protect against child maltreatment include: positive child characteristics and behaviours - for example, child warmth and affection, ‘easy’ temperament - strength in culture including strong connections and strong identity; positive family belief systems - for example, making meaning of adversity, positive outlook, transcendence and spirituality - flexible and connected family organisational patterns; clear family communication that is open to emotional sharing and which promotes collaborative problem-solving; positive marital (relationship) quality; and access to social and emotional resources such as supportive social networks and good housing.
That paragraph sums up what we should be doing. When it comes to the crunch, kids being abused says there are kids who are not loved, who do not get a hug and are not told they are important. We need to change that. We have technical recommendations on how to change the department, how we put in structures; however there are human factors which will be much harder to change.
I agree with Lesley that we need early intervention. We need to use people, especially Aboriginal people on the ground and train them because they know their community better than anyone else. We need to say to young people: you are important; you are an individual and are special; you are unique; you are loved; you are a valued person in our family and our community.
That is part of our problem; kids live in overcrowded houses and are rejected. They see continual violence; perhaps their parents drink too much or play cards too much. It is an enormous issue and we cannot say: government fix it! We can condemn the government for what it might not have done. Let us as a community, as a parliament, fix these things together. You cannot blame government; we are all part of this. The foreword of the report says: child protection is everyone’s business; that includes us.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Department of Lands and Planning officers from the divisions of Public Transport, Transport Safety, Road Network and the Transport Executive of the Transport Group. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Paper - Growing Them Strong, Together -
Report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System
Note Paper - Growing Them Strong, Together -
Report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement to this House in relation to the report and recommendations of the inquiry into the child protection system in the Northern Territory.
This public inquiry has been thorough, very detailed, analytical and evidence-based and centred on specific terms of reference which seek to answer the critical questions about what is working and what is not, and how government can best apply new resources to address the backlog issues, reduce the number of kids in need of state care, and better support Territory families with their most important duty – bringing up their kids in a safe, secure, and supportive environment.
The inquiry’s report and recommendations present us all - the Northern Territory community, parents, families, all levels of government and the non-government sector - with a new opportunity to refocus, improve, and strengthen the Northern Territory child protection system. The recommendations from the inquiry will guide the future direction of child protection in the Northern Territory, and enable us to reshape the system so every child and family in need will have access to support, and kids at risk are properly identified and cared for.
In October last year, in my role as then Minister for Child Protection, I announced a review of the notification system within Northern Territory Families and Children. It was clear to me, particularly after talking to Dr Paul Bauert, President of the AMA, we had reached a tipping point. I spoke to the Chief Minister about the need for a broad-ranging public inquiry into the Northern Territory’s child protection system. The Chief Minister unhesitatingly accepted that advice, and the Board of Inquiry was appointed by the Chief Minister on 9 December 2009.
In my view, the appointment of Dr Howard Bath to the Board of Inquiry was vital. His experience, depth of knowledge, conscientiousness, diligence, and commitment to the children of the Northern Territory made him the best man for the job. Since being appointed as the Children’s Commissioner in August 2008, Dr Bath has made the Northern Territory his home. The people of the Territory are blessed to have his input as the Children’s Commissioner, and as an integral part of the Board of Inquiry. Joining Dr Bath on the Board of Inquiry were Professor Muriel Bamblett AM and Dr Rob Roseby.
I assisted the Chief Minister in selecting Professor Bamblett. It was very important not only a woman was appointed to the board, but an Indigenous person with a strong understanding of family and child protection matters. Soon after I took on the role of Minister for Families and Children I visited Victoria to see the work of Professor Bamblett with the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency and was very impressed with the direction they were taking. I knew we could use many of their models when dealing with issues with children across the Northern Territory.
Professor Bamblett has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency since 1999. From 1998 to 2008, Professor Bamblett was the Chair of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, or SNAICC, the peak agency representing Indigenous child and family services nationally. Professor Bamblett brought to this inquiry a wealth of knowledge and understanding of child protection and youth, drawn from her extensive experience working with VACCA, as well as the Chair of SNAICC. This range of experience was important in helping to ensure the board was informed of recent reviews and inquiries into the child protection system in other states, as well as child protection issues and developments locally, nationally, and internationally.
We also know there are serious concerns across the country. We know the minister for Women, and the minister for FaHCSIA, have been working on a national approach to the care and protection of children.
Dr Rob Roseby, similarly, brought a wealth of experience to the inquiry. Dr Roseby is a Deputy Director of Adolescent Medicine at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne and former head of paediatrics at Alice Springs Hospital. He is a very passionate advocate for Indigenous health and wellbeing, especially for children and young people, and came highly recommended by the AMA.
The Board of Inquiry has undertaken an exhaustive examination of the many and complex issues surrounding child protection in the Territory, as well as canvassing best practice solutions. The inquiry follows and builds on the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, which culminated in the Little Children are Sacred report. More than 75% of the children coming to the attention of the child protection system are from Indigenous families, and many of these families live in remote and regional settings.
A most important theme of the Little Children are Sacred report was Aboriginal men and women must be supported and assisted to take responsibility, participate in planning the future of their communities, and improve child, family and community wellbeing. This is a very central theme of the report. If we are to have enduring solutions and minimise the need for state interventions, we have to address the issue of family and community participation in child protection. As the inquiry report says: this is everyone’s business, it is not just about NTFC or the machinery of government.
Another key message from the Little Children are Sacred report was there is no quick fix to the underlying disadvantaged and environmental conditions which contribute to families in distress, particularly Indigenous families. It is something our government has been acutely aware of in planning for the future and looking at the regions knowing we had to embark on a whole-of-government approach to the care of families across the Northern Territory, especially because we have been so acutely aware in this House of the serious decades of neglect across the regions in the care of families.
The key message is that a long-term sustained commitment and a strong partnership between the government and Indigenous people is essential to future success.
In 2009, our government took a big step forward in developing a new overarching policy direction to improve conditions for Territory families in our remote growth towns and smaller places through A Working Future. A Working Future is a vital part of our government’s long-term commitment to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage. A Working Future is about maximising opportunities for Indigenous Territorians to pursue happy, healthy and prosperous lives. At the heart of these reforms is the wellbeing now, and into the future, of our children and young people.
We are investing in A Working Future across the Northern Territory because we recognise the care of children is based around the conditions children are living in. Where we see neglect of children and children living in houses where there is overcrowding, malnourishment, children not attending school, their parents do not have jobs, as a government we have taken an incredibly bold and visionary step of reforming those areas of the Northern Territory on a broad scale. We saw that commitment in financial terms, when the Treasurer announced in the budget this year close to $1bn towards the 20 towns in A Working Future.
It is only the beginning; it will not solve all the problems. We recognise we need to have a visionary plan for these regions to grow so the next generations of Australians will have a better chance; these children will have a better chance at life, good opportunities in front of them and will feel safe.
To achieve this, the Henderson government is working with local people, the non-government sector, business, industry, land councils, local government and the Australian government to develop local implementation plans. These implementation plans identify local people’s long-term priorities and future aspirations across seven key building blocks: Early childhood; schooling; health; economic participation; healthy homes; safe communities; governance; and leadership. Our government sees it as not only the care of children but the growth of families across the Northern Territory. That is why it was important that the inquiry board looked at the connection, including the delivery of child protection services in regional and remote areas, as part of the development of A Working Future.
The second term of reference states specific approaches to address the needs of Territory children in the child protection system, including the delivery of child protection services in regional and remote areas as part of the development of A Working Future was integral to finding a way forward. We recognised, as a government, we had immediate, urgent issues which had to be addressed. We also recognised, as a government, we needed a solid, long-term vision for the families of the Northern Territory for generations to come. That was the strong connection of A Working Future.
As the minister responsible for A Working Future reforms, I recognised at the outset how vital it was the Board of Inquiry linked closely with people in my department who have responsibility for coordinating the A Working Future initiatives - the service delivery coordination unit within the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. There were three key issues which the Board of Inquiry discussed with the Service Delivery Coordination Unit in relation to A Working Future. Mathew Fagan works in the SDCU and was very much a part of that briefing. There has been incredible work done in that unit and we still have a long way to go. These issues were:
- (1) alignment of child protection service delivery systems to the hub-and-spoke model inherent in the A Working Future policy, including building local capacity to support families and children.
(2) the ongoing development and operation of local implementation plans in our growth towns and their service regions in relation to early childhood and child protection; and
(3) the provision of childcare and youth programs in our growth towns.
The Board of Inquiry identified that within the child protection system there has been a lack of direct, dedicated engagement with families in remote communities. The board looked to the hub-and-spoke service delivery model inherent in the A Working Future policy as a framework which could enable child protection services to be located in the bush on a permanent, dedicated basis - a decision not made previously.
On Stateline last Friday, Judy Hanson from Foster Carers NT welcomed this move towards community based child protection services stating:
- The other thing that’s going to be really good is having child protection people on the communities and having Aboriginal carers who are ready out there to take children at short notice. I think that’ll be really, really good and it will keep children on the communities while things are sorted out with their families and quite often something can then be sorted locally …
In the ongoing development operation of the local implementation plans in our growth towns and their service regions, the Board of Inquiry was pleased one of the key building blocks within each one is early childhood. A key initiative arising from the inquiry is the establishment of child safety and wellbeing teams in each of our growth towns, as well as integrated child and family centres. The new network of integrated child and family centres in our growth towns will build on the good work of shire-run childcare centres and crches which already exist in a number of communities. In one growth town, between 40 and 60 children per day attend the local crche operated by the Central Desert Shire, which employs 13 local Warlpiri childcare workers. The Central Desert Shire also operates a location-supported playgroup as an additional and separate early childhood service which works closely with the crche.
The Board of Inquiry indicated the Henderson government’s birth to jobs/colleges plan for the 20 growth towns would be a positive development. These colleges will have a significant focus on early childhood development, encompassing children and families from birth.
The inquiry report notes a crucial issue for government to deal with is fragmented service delivery. The Service Delivery Coordination Unit has established good practice and systems to work across government agencies and federal and Territory governments. I will be working to ensure this experience is used productively to assist with the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations.
Our work in our Territory growth towns is heavily supported by the Commonwealth and the inquiry notes it is, and will have to continue as, an essential partner in delivering the child and family support systems required. I am pleased to note the Commonwealth government has responded quickly, announcing new investments including: expansion of the existing network of family and community workers, supporting around 100 additional community-based support workers by 2013-14; a new mobile child protection team with an additional 15 child protection workers; ongoing support for the development of community safety and alcohol management plans; and support for safe houses aiming to establish a safe house in each of our Territory growth towns.
Dr Howard Bath said on Stateline last Friday:
… the response so far has been very, very promising in terms of their understanding of the situation and their commitment and I’m talking about both governments here - the Territory government and the federal government .
A key initiative and commitment arising from the inquiry is developing child safety and wellbeing teams and integrated child and family centres in each of our growth towns. These will be centrally important to supporting local families, ensuring early intervention and support for children in need, and appropriate recognition of cumulative harm and the need for any state intervention.
The inquiry also noted the need to consider the child protection needs of adolescents. A number of shires across the Territory are already heavily involved in the provision of youth programs as well as sport and rec programs. For instance, the Roper Gulf Shire has been awarded $1.8m in funding for training Indigenous youth in certified youth worker positions over three years for Ngukurr, Numbulwar and Borroloola. The MacDonnell Shire Council has been awarded $4.7m in funding to employ youth workers and Indigenous trainee workers over a period of three years in the Papunya and Hermannsburg growth towns, as well as Areyonga, Kintore, Haasts Bluff and Mount Liebig.
Embedded in the youth, sport and rec services provided by a number of shires in our growth towns is an understanding a child does not develop independently of the community in which they reside. As Minister for Local Government, I recognise the role our new shires have played in fostering community representation in local government, promoting Indigenous leadership, and providing the basis for Indigenous people to help build a better future for their children.
Development of local leadership is crucial. The other important contribution my portfolios of Indigenous Development and Regional Development will make to keeping children safe is through the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. The AIS played a significant role in the inquiry into the child protection system in the Northern Territory. In particular, AIS training officers and client service officers worked to upskill interpreters on complex child protection issues. This enabled AIS interpreters to better assist community members who met with the Board of Inquiry to understand the inquiry’s terms of reference and focus.
AIS training officers and client service officers also travelled with the Board of Inquiry to remote communities across the Northern Territory to support interpreters at community forums. The AIS now has offices in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Maningrida, Yuendumu and, most recently, the Wadeye office was opened by the member for Daly. Led by Colleen Rosas, the AIS will continue to work on upskilling interpreters on issues relating to the child protection system. It has been an enormous logistical effort to explain to Indigenous families across the Northern Territory the importance of this Board of Inquiry and explain the terms of reference in language people could understand.
As Minister for Indigenous Development, I close by mentioning the Aboriginal child placement principle. The Aboriginal child placement principle is one of the …
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the minister to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Daly. The Aboriginal child placement principle is one of the underlying principles of the Care and Protection of Children Act and is set out in sections 7 to 12 of the act. The Territory government supports the Aboriginal child placement principle. The purpose of the principle is to ensure recognition is given to an Aboriginal child’s right to be raised in their own culture and the importance of family, extended family, kinship networks, culture and community in raising Aboriginal children.
However, we must remember alongside the Aboriginal child placement principle is the principle of a child’s best interests. A child’s best interests is another of the underlying principles of the Care and Protection of Children Act. It stipulates, when a decision involving a child is made, the best interests of the child are of paramount concern. The Aboriginal child placement principle should not surpass the principle of a child’s best interests. Recognition should be given to an Aboriginal child’s right to be raised in their own culture and the importance of family, however, equally, we must consider a child’s best interests, including the need to protect the child from harm and exploitation, the child’s need for stable and nurturing relationships, and the child’s physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, developmental, and educational needs.
On page 359 of Growing them strong, together in the chapter on kinship care it says:
- To reconcile these positions, the Inquiry is of the view that NTFC should accept that there is currently a ‘standards gap’ but that it commits to addressing the disparities over a 10-year period with clear progress targets and strategies and regular reporting. For example, baseline data should be collected on all carers, including initial assessments, registration, re-registration, the provision of training, ongoing visitation of children, and should be reported on annually, with a specific focus on comparisons between different categories of care providers. NTFC should also set out minimum requirements for kinship carers which include the participation in assessments, registration and training, and acceptance of the care plan for the child, especially in relation to contact arrangements with parent/s and other particular needs of the child. The requirements should also include a commitment to ensuring that the child attends school regularly, is taken to the local health clinic on an agreed schedule, and that the carers comply with placement supervision and review processes.
- NTFC may also be able to utilise the skills and local knowledge of its Remote Aboriginal Child and Family Workers in developing practice around kinship care.
The Board of Inquiry noted the crucial importance of culturally competent service delivery. I look forward to the new peak body, and the new Aboriginal childcare agencies, making an important and enduring contribution to better family support and child protection outcomes.
Madam Speaker, the Henderson government’s response to this inquiry and its recommendations will build on the work this government has already done to boost the care and protection of children, and ensure we have the best possible system in place, involving everyone, for our most important, valued and precious gift - our children.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the authors of Growing them strong, together. I also thank the staff who spent many hours working on the report, doing the research - staff who work in family and children’s services, and particularly the many workers, volunteers, foster carers and people involved in what might be described as the industry of family and children’s services. It is a tough industry. Being someone who has been a foster carer and respite carer - albeit many years ago and in another jurisdiction - with my wife, I understand some of the difficulties and circumstances involved.
It seems to be yet another day we are talking about child protection in the Northern Territory. Seeing the Growing them strong, together report reflects for me on the Little Children are Sacred report. It raises many concerns; there is much worrying information in the report. I have spent much time reviewing the report in its entirety, particularly the executive summary and the 147 recommendations.
I found the situation identified in the report deeply concerning. I believe the situation is worse now than prior to the Little Children Are Sacred report.
Within a day of commencement of the $1bn-plus intervention we saw immediate assessments of children and ear, nose and throat checks. NORFORCE came in to maintain stability. There was a changing in land tenure. We saw the Themis Police Station allowing police to establish law and order in communities. We saw SIHIP announced, which was supposed to provide housing for people in an emergency situation. It was concerning then, and continues to be concerning. At the time there was much reaction to the way decisions were made and the lack of consultation. In an emergency situation you have to maintain stability and fix problems.
The report says at the end of June over 870 children were reported to be at risk and were awaiting formal investigation by NT Families and Children. That is horrifying, and I am surprised debate was adjourned last Tuesday. I am surprised no one has spoken of the 870 children not assessed; children reported to be at risk and waiting a formal investigation by NTFC. I am concerned that number has blown out to 1000. More concerning is no one is talking about the 870 to 1000 kids. We have had political responses.
The Chief Minister announced last week an extra $131m had been allocated. I do not know how $131m came about. It appears a psychologist was brought in to give a figure which would sound good in the media. What will $131m over five years do? How will it help foster carers? How will it help staff? I have worked my way through the 147 recommendations and some have merit; however, some are socialist, left, wishy-washy ideas from people with no conviction to say it like it is.
I watched Stateline last Friday night and thought: here we go; no one is getting to the point of what is happening. We all know it is a big issue, we all know there are not enough staff for the number of cases. The minister said he has sought staff from Ireland and Canada, and some are coming from New Zealand and Tasmania. It is simply not good enough. There are still unassessed children. I thought: what do we do? I have discussed it with my colleagues. What do we do; this is an emergency - normalising the abnormal was the phrase - we are complacent in the Territory. We see this as the way things are. Eight hundred and seventy children have been reported at risk and are awaiting formal investigation. That is the line in the report I cannot go past.
The idea of setting up an Indigenous advocacy agency is wishy-washy. We have foster parents who have been looking after young children for many years who still find it difficult to have a loving relationship with those children. We hear of situations where those foster care kids have visits with family and come back malnourished, dirty, unhygienic, and things have to start all over again. We are so worried in the Northern Territory, in this country, about foster carers providing a long-term loving relationship for children at risk. There was one adoption in the Northern Territory last year and only two adoptions in Australia. There were 500 adoptions of children from African nations – Somalia, etcetera. No one begrudges those families or the kids; however there are kids at risk in the Northern Territory who have not been given the opportunity for adoption into a family who will love, care and provide for them.
Everyone is so worried about the political sensitivities around the Stolen Generations no one will put their hand up and say we need to look after this kid, or that kid; we need to put them into a loving family. That has to happen. There has to be a movement towards long-term care, in an adoption sense, for children of the Northern Territory who are at risk. People must not be afraid to say that. This is a fair and reasonable subject to debate in the Northern Territory. I have people in my electorate who have been foster carers for years and years and cannot get any sense - and it is not an NTFC staffing problem - out of the system to enable them to give these children long-term loving care.
I was talking to a constituent yesterday - and I hope the department does not persecute this person because I am relating the case without identifying the person. He and his wife, who have two foster children - one with a severe disability - sought respite for one weekend. They have had several full-on years and wanted respite for a weekend. They were told by NTFC staff in Alice Springs there was no one to take these kids; they cannot go away for the weekend. They cannot have two days off for the family. Nothing can be done to help these people. That is a concern for one family. We need a free and open debate in this Chamber, and in Australia, about what we do for kids in care and need.
We had 870 at the end of June - now believed to be 1000 - awaiting a formal investigation by NT Families and Children. Part of the reason the caseload is so big is because we never close off cases - we never reach a point where someone can formally adopt a child. That is not the only reason; I am using it because it needs further investigation and we need frank and honest debate about it without fear of persecution from the lefties and the hairy armpits who will say: ‘You are starting a new Stolen Generation’. That is not what it is about; it is about giving care, love and protection. I am horrified 870 children have been reported at risk and have not been investigated. I do not see a sense of urgency from government in this regard.
It is time the federal government was called in to assess the level of need of these children and the situation they are in to ensure they are in an environment which supports their needs. Otherwise, move those children to an environment where they can be properly cared for.
My colleague, the member for Araluen, has already spoken in this debate, and I know she will be speaking at length on the serious predicament of these 870 children - presumed to be 1000 children.
It is time the Northern Territory government called for help from the federal government to assess these kids, to ensure they are living in an environment which protects their needs, are safe, are being fed and are not being abused. We have to do that. We have to assess all cases to ensure no one has slipped through the cracks. If we do not we are saying this is not an emergency.
At the start of the intervention the emergency was so important the federal government acted; however, the Territory government will not act. We need the federal government to search internationally, nationally, to identify workers to assist with flying squads to analyse and investigate the situation of those children identified as at risk, ascertain the level of risk, and put in place case management so these kids can be adequately protected.
The government said it will address all 147 recommendations of the report. While the government is playing political games, putting these recommendations in place, we need a parallel structure to assess all children reported at risk and waiting formal investigation. My colleagues on this side of the House will be talking more about this. The federal government should be setting up flying squads, assessing children at risk as a matter of emergency. This is an emergency; we have to immediately assess all these children.
I am not going to talk through the different recommendations of the report, I am sticking to one point – at the end of June 870 children had been identified at risk and were awaiting formal investigation. It is now thought up to 1000 children have been reported at risk and are awaiting formal investigation. These are the kids, this is the emergency; this is the situation we need to be fixing today because every day we delay those children are more at risk. It is nine days since the report was presented, and I have not heard anything happening to address the emergency for the children reported and not investigated.
Yesterday, I called on the government to tell us what is happening with these children. They did not do it in Question Time today. I have not heard them speak on that. My colleagues will be speaking on the need for the federal government to get involved; bring in flying squads, staff from overseas, assess these children and put in place case management plans to address the safety requirements of the children identified as being at risk. I encourage the Northern Territory government to get on board with the Country Liberals to support our approach to the federal government to have the assessments required to ensure these children are adequately protected.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will leave further comment for my colleagues, who I know recognise that it is an emergency that these children are protected.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I respond to the board of inquiry into child protection report, and child protection issues generally. The report has only been out for a short time and we have had a considered response, albeit not as detailed as we would like.
The Bath high risk audit report, which was leaked early this year, identified serious problems with the child protection system in the Northern Territory. The report identified a system under enormous stress and strain to the point of breaking, with the results being continual, if not increasing, abuse and neglect of children across the Northern Territory. When the government received the Bath report it sat on it, probably not knowing what to do with the alarming findings which had occurred under its watch over the last 10 years.
This Labor government was frozen, if not completely impotent, in dealing with the enormity of problems facing it in the child protection system. Rather than being proactive, this Labor government played possum; it did nothing with the dozens, if not hundreds, of children who are continuing to suffer. They are neglected and, at worst, are being abused emotionally, psychologically, and physically.
It was only when the report was leaked in February this year this Labor government was forced to acknowledge the high-level problem, if not crisis - the member for Braitling said that; it is a crisis. We have an emergency on our hands in our child protection system. For ministers, and members of government, to now stand before this parliament and pretend to be horrified and appalled at the situation in child protection is plain wrong. At worst, it is fraudulent and they should be condemned for it. They talk dribble and pretend to care, whilst outside this building hundreds of children are not being fed properly, if at all, are not being clothed, are not going to school, and hundreds are being used as play things by adults across the Territory. That has been staring this government in the face for over four years, if not longer. Yet, it hides behind successive inquiries and reports, continues to do nothing and the problem becomes worse.
The report leaked earlier this year showed how bad things were in child protection; however, the government tried to cover them up, if not ignore them. Let me give one example of this government’s incompetence and lack of action. The Coronial findings into the Melville case recommended legislation be changed as a priority so a similar situation would never happen again. The government said: ‘Let us wait until the current report is finished then we will deal with legislative changes’. Guess what? The findings of the current report say, in response to the Melville coronial inquest, that legislation needs changing. What the hell is going on? The government knew it had to change the legislation; it waited; it deferred it. Another report says it needs to change the legislation. Will it change the legislation? The Coronial inquest recommended changing the legislation. Let us get on with it; change the legislation to protect our children in the Territory.
The Bath report leaked in February recommended serious and major changes. The government did nothing and said: ‘Oh well, let us wait until this report …’. Guess what? The report just went by. Come on, minister, how many times do you have to be told the system is broken and needs to be fixed as a matter of priority? The legislation needs to be overhauled and the department needs to be better resourced to deal with the problems we have in the Northern Territory.
The minister is reactive, not proactive. The government waits until a young girl dies in squalor in the back yard before it acts. It waits for a child to be abused and starved before it acts. Why are you not out there, minister, on the front foot looking at ways to improve the system, improve the lives of children in the Territory before the broken system smacks you in the face?
Listening to the various speakers on the government side it appears they are trying to rewrite history in relation to improving our child protection in the Northern Territory. I can see little evidence of action in improving the system. Twelve months ago, if not longer, the government knew the system was broken yet the minister, and the government, did nothing. The annual report of the Children’s Commissioner late last year stated there was a backlog in cases of children to be assessed. It was acknowledged in an annual report. They knew about it months and months ago, and nothing has happened in regard to that backlog of children, and they now seem shocked we have upwards of 800 children yet to be assessed. That is an appalling situation. My colleague, the member for Braitling, has stated the number of children waiting for care and treatment, and waiting to be assessed.
Minister, why is it on Wednesday, 20 October 2010, the Northern Territory Law Society said the Northern Territory should be investigated over alleged breaches of the Care and Protection of Children Act? The Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission told the child protection inquiry the government routinely moves children to foster homes interstate without court permission. It said this means children become legally invisible because neither the Family department nor the courts can ensure children’s foster carers are being supervised.
The Law Society President said cases where the law had been broken must be investigated. This is the eminent body of the legal profession saying the government, and its department, must be investigated. They are breaking the law. They are moving dozens, if not hundreds, of children interstate into care, and no one knows where they are, what they are doing, who are they living with, how long they will be there or what is happening. What happens to the reports regarding the foster care of these children? The Law Society President went on to say:
- If any unlawful acts occurred then certainly it needs to be examined and determination made. Generally, of course, where that process has not happened and has not been scrutinised by the courts, it should have been. If the inquiry has identified circumstances where the department has breached orders of the court, of course that should be investigated and appropriate action taken.
How can legal organisations put submissions in on such a serious matter and the government not attend to it? This has gone out, but seems to have died. What is the government doing? Who are they trying to keep quiet regarding the number of children not being assessed and cared for, and the number of children taken into homes interstate? No one seems to know what they are doing.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will continue to talk on this report at a later time. For now, I find the statements by ministers and members opposite to be self-serving, inappropriate and downright fraudulent. They know the problem and are not addressing it. We continue to see children in remote and urban areas suffer as a consequence of their complete incompetence and neglect.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not think anyone doubts for a second that the government cares about children. I believe everyone in this House cares deeply about children, particularly those who are parents.
The government has been paralysed when it comes to the care and protection of children, hence another very disturbing report only three years after the Little Children Are Sacred report, which saw the Northern Territory intervention. It brought great shame upon the Northern Territory. Three years down the track we have another disturbing report highlighting serious flaws in our child protection system.
The Growing them strong, together report says the system is overwhelmed with notifications, has a dangerously degraded capacity to respond to children reported as at risk, has a focus on risk not need, has problems in compliance with legislation and policy, has chronic workforce and workplace issues in all service areas, has a conflict with key stakeholders - foster carers, NGOs and other government services - and struggles to adequately provide for children in out-of-home care.
That is not a glowing assessment three years after the Little Children Are Sacred report. The government has not learnt from that report. Individually, we all care about children; as a government you are unable to provide care of an adequate standard to our most vulnerable of Territory citizens, our children. The recommendations are one thing; the findings are the most damning. A quick read through the report highlights those, as does a quick read through the Little Children are Sacred report - some too abhorrent to repeat in parliament.
I pay tribute to the former member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney. Jodeen was passionate about child protection; so much so she forced the government’s hand on this inquiry. She did a wonderful job in a dreadful circumstance, on a dreadful topic. One can only conclude where we would be if we did not have that passion and conviction from the former member for Araluen; where would these children be today? Would we be speaking on this report in parliament? Sadly, I fear we would not, and the most vulnerable of Territory citizens would still be at alarming risk, and those charged with the care and protection of those children would not be held to account as they are now.
The Territory opposition made a submission to the inquiry which I will read from because it is very telling. It states our position and highlights some of the genesis of this report, and where the Territory opposition stands on this. I quote from the Territory opposition’s submission to the inquiry into the child protection system:
- Child protection is about caring for, and protecting from harm, the most vulnerable and innocent - our children … No child should suffer abuse, harm or neglect. Yet, sadly the desire for a society that protects our children’s innocence does not match reality.
- The Territory Opposition believes it is incumbent on each and every one of us to accept our basic human and moral responsibility to protect children. In the case of Governments, that moral responsibility is also underpinned with statutory obligations to protect children from any form of abuse, harm or neglect.
- The Northern Territory’s child protection system is in crisis. The child protection system is failing children at risk.
When a child dies in care and in the most horrific circumstances just a day after a visit by NTFC, there is very clearly something wrong with the system.
When a formal notification by the Director of Paediatrics at Royal Darwin Hospital is ignored, there is very clearly something wrong with the system.
When a motherless child is placed into care, without any formal assessment with a family member who has never cared for a baby before, there is very clearly something wrong with the system.
- The Territory Opposition wishes to address two aspects of the origins of this Inquiry. Both aspects indicate an absence of political and administrative responsibility by successive Territory Labor Governments to address systemic problems in the child protection system.
The Territory Opposition first called for an inquiry into the child protection system after media reports of the death of Deborah Melville in August 2007.
As highlighted by the member for Goyder.
- That call was renewed on 28 October 2009 following the release of the Coroner’s report into the death of Deborah Melville and the failure by the then Minister for Families and Children …
The member for Arnhem.
- … to respond to a series of questions regarding the response of NTFC to the case of a motherless child. In the latter case, the minister failed to address concerns that this child was placed in care with a family member who had no experience with children and who had not been screened and assessed by the department. The latter case indicates that recommendations in the 2007 High Risk Audit prepared by the Children’s Commissioner Howard Bath in respect of the scrutiny of kinship carers had not been implemented by the government.
- The minister’s initial response failed to acknowledge that the child protection system had in any way failed the motherless child. After sustained pressure by the opposition, …
Particularly the former member for Araluen.
- … the public and the media, the minister announced that the Children’s Commissioner would: ‘provide a report on recent issues’. Such a response was deemed inadequate in the face of damning evidence from social workers, doctors and child protection workers that other children had been put at risk by the system. While initially attacking those who chose to speak out, the minister finally succumbed to the relentless pressure and established the current inquiry.
- It must be accepted that this inquiry was only established because the minister and her government’s credibility had been seriously questioned.
It is unfortunate; however, it is the fact.
- The minister ignored clear evidence of a system in crisis for weeks. The minister initially ignored the concerns of staff within the system, including the Senior Paediatrician at Royal Darwin Hospital.
This is not a personal slight on the minister or her ability to care for and protect children; the government failed, and the department failed, under the stewardship of the minister, in the care and protection of these children.
- The government’s response in this instance is telling but not isolated.
- This inquiry originates in almost 10 years of successive Territory Labor governments ignoring key internal indicators of a system in crisis.
I will highlight some of these.
- Since 2001 the following reports into the Northern Territory’s child protection system have been produced:
- The Northern Territory Ombudsman has also commented on problems within the child protection system.
A report from the Ombudsman will be tabled in parliament before the end of the year.
- Not one of these reports has been fully implemented. Many important recommendations contained in these reports have not been implemented despite time, opportunity and demand for government to do so. This is a damning indictment on successive Territory Labor governments.
It is unfortunate, sad, but true.
- The Territory Opposition further notes that any review of child protection by the government has only been undertaken after substantial pressure was applied by the opposition, media, and public.
That is where we are today. If it was not for the work of the former member for Araluen, the Territory opposition, the public and the media, where would these children be today?
The investigation backlog from January to June 2010 has been highlighted in Question Time, and also by the member for Braitling. We have 870 child protection notifications awaiting investigation from 1 July 2010. I believe that figure is now close to 1000, and we are at the end of October - a backlog of 1000 children who, without putting too fine a point on it, could be living in danger tonight.
This is pressing; this is an emergency. It is unfortunate the government has to be dragged kicking and screaming to help our most vulnerable and innocent of Territory citizens. Collectively you are paralysed. Individually you are concerned; it is clear - anyone in this parliament would be. As a government you do not seem to get it or fix it. Three years down the track we have another damning report on the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory.
Back to our submission:
- Two recent reports into the centralised intake system for NTFC undertaken by Dr Howard Bath and Mr Jay Tolhurst have highlighted significant problems in processing and investigating reports of child abuse or neglect.
- These reports have noted critical failures in responding to reports of abuse and neglect including:
Substantial and systemic problems with the central intake process.
We see that highlighted today - 870 backlog cases. I will repeat that: failure to meet response time lines including writing off low priority case backlogs. What is low priority? I know there is a category for it and the department breaks it down. Nevertheless, a child at any form of risk must be a priority. I cannot get my head around high, medium or low priority. Any child at risk must be a priority.
A lack of responsiveness to notifications of harm which has led to notifiers making multiple notifications in the hope that such action will prompt an investigation.
Substantial inadequacies in IT that have made the reporting, assessment and tracking of child abuse and neglect cases inconsistent.
These are some of the basic, technical issues putting our Territory kids at risk.
- The government has suggested that these failures are largely the result of a system that has been unable to cope with the rising rate of notifications of abuse brought about by recent changes to mandatory reporting requirements.
- The Territory Opposition does not support the government’s view, nor has the government always held the same position
That is worth pointing out.
- Mandatory reporting of abuse has long been a requirement in the Territory, first introduced by a Country Liberal government in the 1980s. On 6 July 2005 in an estimates hearing, the then Minister for Families and Children …
The member for Arafura.
- … acknowledged that reporting of abuse and neglect had been trending upwards prior to 2001 and the election of a Labor government.
- The opposition has noted that since 2005-06 the proportion of investigated reports in the child protection area has decreased from 66.1% to 38.3% in 2008-09. Three thousand eight hundred and twenty notifications of abuse or neglect were ignored, closed off without action or passed off to other agencies. This is alarming. The recent Bath report provides more up to date data which shows that between 8 December 2008 and 31 October 2009, 1190 matters were not investigated within required time frames between and that,
- there was a current backlog of 370 matters waiting a formal outcome.
It is important to acknowledge the rising rate of notifications is not just because of recent changes brought about by mandatory reporting requirements. It has always been a requirement in the Northern Territory, at least since the 1980s, to report mandatory child abuse. There was an upwards trend towards the end of 2001 and the election of the Labor government.
It is important to highlight what the Country Liberals would do. There are 29 Category 1 recommendations.
A member: Thirty-four.
Mr CONLAN: Thirty-four Category 1 notifications must be implemented within six months. We are in October; the report is already two weeks old. That gives us until March. Sadly, I do not know if the government is capable of doing it; I wish it was. More power to you. Please, work hard to implement these recommendations. They must be implemented. Despite the conjecture about the substance of some of them, you must implement them. We are talking about our most vulnerable citizens.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an additional 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Of the 147 recommendations, 34 recommendations are pressing. They must be rolled out within six months.
There is much to say on this, and I would like to do justice to the former member for Araluen and deliver a speech with such conviction and passion as she did. I could not do that; however I sat next to her for three years and know how committed she is to this topic. I want parliament to know - I will be ensuring the member for Araluen knows - we will be doing our best to continue the great work she did for nine years in this House. I will quote the last paragraphs of the Country Liberals’ submission to this inquiry:
- Ultimately the measure of success of this review is children not falling through the cracks. The government must not resort to form and claim the report is the outcome.
The real outcome will be the timetable of implementation, …
The six month time frame for 34 Category 1 items:
- … the resources required to fix what is a broken system and fundamental improvements in the care and protection of children across the Northern Territory.
The Country Liberals - and I am sure I can speak on behalf of the citizens of the Northern Territory - will be holding the government to account. In return, the Territory opposition will act responsibly - this is a promise; we do not want to play politics – and, in the interests of Territorians, support the implementation of the 147 recommendations, particularly the 34 Category 1 recommendations which must be rolled out by March 2011. This is for better outcomes for children, foster carers, child protection, social and health workers, and the system as a whole. We will also look at the body of work undertaken in previous reviews; there has been a stack of reviews in the last 10 years. We will look at that body of work, and work undertaken in other jurisdictions across the country to guide our principles, policies and resourcing of child protection in the Northern Territory.
Both sides of parliament would agree on the volume of work put into child protection by the former member for Araluen, and I recommend a read of this submission. It is a terrific body of work.
A member: Table it.
Mr CONLAN: That is a good idea. I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mr CONLAN: It is worth a read. It is a little pointed in areas; there is no doubt about it. If you can grow a thick skin and not take it too personally there is much to be gained from reading it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is not about politics; it is not about scoring points; it is not about deifying the former member for Araluen. That is not what she was about, and not what we are about. It is about caring for our most vulnerable and innocent Territorians, the children.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Growing them strong, together report and acknowledge the member for Greatorex. It is probably the first time I have heard you make a speech that came to the point and made sense. Rather than the bile when you become angry with us on this side, it was fantastic to listen to your passion and commitment. When it comes to our kids, regardless of them being black or white, whether they live in the bush, in Darwin or Alice Springs, we all have that commitment.
I speak for members on this side and join with you in acknowledging the commitment of the former member for Araluen. I spoke in the valedictory debate acknowledging her commitment to child protection. I also have to acknowledge the commitment and passion of successive ministers on this side. It is not an easy job; it is a harrowing portfolio. I spent over 10 years prior to coming into politics working at the coalface of Aboriginal health in remote Aboriginal communities trying to get successive CLP government ministers to look at the issue.
It is not about politics, and I am not saying bringing up the past is going to change the future; it is not. We have a collective responsibility to implement these recommendations to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our children in the Northern Territory is addressed in the best interests of those children.
I was listening to the member for Braitling’s response, particularly in relation to the fear amongst non-Aboriginal people regarding the adoption of Aboriginal children, that there is a perception in the Northern Territory, because of the Stolen Generations, that non-Aboriginal people are scorned at or reluctant to go down that path. I have never heard those views. I know a number of non-Aboriginal people who have adopted Tiwi children and provided safe havens for children from the Tiwi Islands.
Nevertheless, Dr Bath, Professor Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby have written an important report - Growing them strong, together. As with reports in the past, it does not purport to introduce or reveal any insights which are new, but reminds us of the difficult social settings and landscapes within which the child protection system has to operate, and provides invaluable guidance and advice to government and communities to address the ongoing problems.
While Dr Bath, Professor Bamblett and Dr Roseby have directly addressed the structural and process issues which impact on the rescue of kids who have come to notice because of family dysfunction and failure, they have urged us to look well beyond that in the medium term and take a primarily healthcare approach to child protection. In other words, they have urged us to make families the functional and healthy nurturing environments in which children will thrive.
The big media story of the last few weeks has been confirmation in the report the system has been in crisis. This is, of course, an entirely legitimate and appropriate focus, however, the report has also been significant for its endorsement of the Aboriginal child placement principle when implemented in the context of a properly managed and resourced child protection system. There is recognition by the report authors that the Commonwealth intervention in the Northern Territory has indirectly worsened, not ameliorated, Aboriginal family welfare in the targeted remote communities. That recognition does not equate to the failure to accept and acknowledge the critical importance of Commonwealth-funded infrastructure and injections of human, and other, resources into health and policing. However, those things are not accurately described as forming part of the intervention. They never were.
My own views about the intervention have, over a few years now, been deliberately misrepresented by certain people with their own agendas to push. The Aboriginal child welfare crisis in the Northern Territory referred to in the Little Children are Sacred report, the same one we inherited in 2001, was adopted as the rationale for the intervention.
I want to say a few words about the importance of this new report, refreshing, debunking and spin pedalled by successive federal ministers, Brough and Macklin alike. Before the sudden and dramatic Commonwealth intervention announcement on 22 June 2007, the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, was already seeking substantially increased Commonwealth resources to tackle Aboriginal disadvantage across the range of issues and indicators addressed in the Little Children are Sacred report.
Regarding child sex abuse in particular, the Northern Territory Joint Child Abuse Task Force – detectives and investigators of proven ability working in collaboration with Northern Territory Families and Children – had already been in operation for at least a year before the 22 June 2007 announcement. The Little Children are Sacred report did not purport to quantify the extent of Aboriginal child abuse in the Territory, nor provide new or supplementary statistics or data in relation to that problem. The approach adopted by Pat Anderson and Rex Wild QC was to treat as a given the uncontentious proposition that Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory was widespread and under-reported and, from that starting point, inquire into what measures could be taken to address relevant underlying issues, in particular, child neglect.
Anecdotal information - much of it of a kind investigators could expect to illicit in any disadvantaged community throughout Australia - set out in the report was seized on by the former federal government, and Mal Brough and others, as evidence of a total moral and social breakdown in every single Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. Little or no attention was paid to the measured language used by Anderson and Wild when they deliberately repeated their foreword from the interim report.
Fast forward to late November 2009: a report by the Victorian Ombudsman about failings in the child protection system in that state received extensive media attention. The problems being experienced in Victoria were similar to problems in other state jurisdictions that have been the subject of equivalent media coverage over the last decade, and to a significant degree, were similar to those experienced in the Territory.
In The Australian dated 20 October 2010 were stories critical of the Northern Territory government’s child protection problems. There was also an article by one of the paper’s Victorian political reporters, Milanda Rout, which was headed, ‘Kids in crisis slip through the cracks’. A casual reader skimming through the paper by reference to story headings who did not go on to read the article might have assumed it was another slam on the Northern Territory government, exhibiting the editorial political bias we have become used to with The Australian. However, it was about Victoria. The article started by conveying concerns from case workers about a chronic shortage of funding, a lack of staff to deal with case loads, and pressures from management to close cases of abused children to ‘get them off the books’. It referred to serious criticism of the Victorian Department of Human Services in various annual reviews and reports, and particularly the Ombudsman’s report of late 2009, and earlier in 2010, in which he reported abused children in the department’s care, and in foster care, had been raped and seriously assaulted and were working as prostitutes.
The article stated the Ombudsman found an under-resourced department had not been screening carers properly and failed to follow procedures. It reported a significant percentage of child protection cases were not being allocated to case workers, and the Victorian government had invested an extra $77.2m in the system and accepted the recommendations of the Ombudsman. However, last month the Deputy Ombudsman was expressing concerns about the ongoing failure by case workers to visit children who were the subjects of mandatory reports. A child protection worker was quoted as saying staffing levels in the department were so dismal some offices are only half occupied and the department cannot retain anyone because child protection workers get burnt out trying to manage the huge case loads.
In a further article by the same reporter published in The Australian on 25 October, unfavourable comparisons were made between the pay scales of child protection workers in Victoria on one hand, and New South Wales and Western Australia on the other. The spokesperson for the Victorian Community Services minister was quoted as saying a New Zealand recruitment campaign was ongoing - all sounds familiar. I do not mention these things to divert attention from the problems we have in the Territory - far from it - I want to make the point while the situation we face in the Territory is not unique, I have not heard any impassioned calls from the opposition for the Commonwealth to step in and take over responsibility for child protection in Victoria.
If anyone seriously wants to make that pitch in relation to the Territory, then consistency demands they make it about contemporary Victoria too and, for that matter, most of the other jurisdictions in Australia at some stage over the last couple of decades.
The Little Children are Sacred report recommendations outlined urgent, but mostly medium- to long-term government measures be undertaken by the Northern Territory government and funded by the Commonwealth government. It is now a matter of public record that both Pat Anderson and Rex Wild regard the intervention measures announced as having little or no correlation to the problems addressed and solutions proposed in their report.
In October 2007, I delivered a speech at the Sydney University Charles Perkins Oration. A number of disembodied quotes from the speech were reported in the national media, and various critics, including former prime ministers, were quick to voice their disapproval. For various reasons, if I was preparing the same speech today the language would be considerably more restrained, and I would take greater care to explain I have never regarded those many Commonwealth initiatives already being discussed or negotiated with the Northern Territory government prior to 22 June 2007 as being part of the intervention.
Those initiatives included: increased funding and resources for police; salaried employment for rangers and government workers formerly on CDEP wages; a housing construction and refurbishment initiative, which was reinvented as SIHIP under the new federal Labor government; money badly needed for additional school teachers; and the renewable Commonwealth funding for night patrols and remote community safe houses.
Likewise, I did not and do not include any non-coercive measures directly related to health, education or child welfare. None of those measures are what we call in the English language ‘an intervention’. However, the substance of my Charles Perkins Oration speech would be essentially the same if I delivered it now.
Contrary to certain media reports published in the months that followed, I have never resiled from my criticism of the intervention, or the Northern Territory Emergency Response, as it was subsequently rebadged. That criticism, nevertheless, needs to be placed in a context which distinguishes it from a one dimensional, exclusively rights-based attack made by some commentators.
For the sake of protecting children I have always been prepared to accept the legitimacy of tough, even coercive measures, which are clearly and appropriately adapted to directly achieving that object. The Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act, which I developed and was passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in 2005, is an example of such a measure. Another is the proactive truancy plan that I, as former Education minister introduced; I am glad our present Education minister is going forward with this in Indigenous education.
My first comments on the public record about the intervention were made in an ABC interview. I said to the extent the new measures were needed to stop alcohol abuse in the communities, I welcomed them. However, alcohol restrictions out bush are, on balance, more lenient than those previously applied, with fines instead of prison sentences for offences for which the vast majority of defendants are charged. The strengthening of the already extensive police powers under the Liquor Act to include powers of random search without warrant was enacted, not under the Commonwealth intervention legislation, but by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and this Northern Territory government. I recommend a re-reading – it was interesting reading the member for Johnston’s, as Attorney-General, second reading speech for Act No 14 of 2007. This legislation was deliberately framed so the strengthened powers would cover not just remote Aboriginal communities, but some of our main Territory towns - town areas or town camps - and also included Territory Housing complexes, public parks and public streets.
The former Commonwealth minister’s inability to stay - and I say former; I am not saying the present minister - tough on grog was evident in his July 2007 media statement when he supported wet canteens. He was oblivious to the social decay and domestic violence incubated by licensed clubs in my electorate at Nguiu and Gunbalanya over decades. Fortunately, the great majority of remote Territory communities closed their experiments with club licenses by the early 1980s, and opted for full restricted areas, or restricted areas with limited permits. To appreciate the ineffectiveness of the intervention approach to alcohol abuse it has to be understood the rivers of grog referred to in the Little Children Are Sacred report are in the main Territory towns and that is where they continue to grow.
The comparatively small creeks and streams which reach small remote Aboriginal communities could be substantially reduced by a government buy-out of targeted problem liquor licences and the imposition of a universal permit system in the town. The Commonwealth government could work with the Northern Territory government to achieve this. I was listening to the Chief Minister during Question Time talking about cumulative harm with children. The rivers of grog and the alcohol abuse which happen around many of our little kids, and their exposure to alcohol are areas where we have to work quite seriously with the Commonwealth government. The Commonwealth government, with all the powers it has and in conjunction with the Territory government, can make a difference, particularly in looking at some of these licences.
Alcohol is directly relevant to child protection …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77 to allow my colleague to continue her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, and I thank the Chief Minister. I see alcohol as being directly relevant to child protection. If parents are alcohol and substance abusers and do not work - an outcome assured by the scrapping and Clayton’s revival of CDEP - their children will probably be at risk. Regarding income quarantining, I know the Commonwealth government has introduced the universal measure – it has been interesting visiting communities and talking to people on aged pensions who rather than opting out, which was a choice, want to stay on income management. Income management is something our government has always supported, and I have never been critical of the application of income management and how, as a coercive measure, it could provide improvements, particularly for young children.
I have always been complimentary of the Cape York fault-based approach, which is far superior to what we have. What Noel Pearson has managed to put in place with the federal and Queensland governments is something we could work towards. Maybe we could have that model implemented in the Northern Territory. Not that I am a great advocate of Noel Pearson, I do not want people to get that impression …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am probably not his most liked person either, member for Fong Lim. We have a mutual admiration club, Noel and I, and that is a good thing.
There is not one member in this House who would not find child sexual abuse, child neglect, and abuse of children of any kind to be abhorrent. The member for Greatorex said as a parent – you do not have to be a parent, anyone would find neglect or abuse of the most innocent and vulnerable in our society particularly abhorrent.
It is difficult to explain to someone who has not experienced the responsibility of being a minister, and how frightening - people often think it is just about politics. It affects anyone who has had responsibility for child protection in the Northern Territory – the fear of having damaged and at risk kids come into your care, and being in charge of a system designed to take action in relation to children in the community who need protection. The burden is all the greater when you, as a minister, are a parent yourself. There is not one minister in this government who has not given 120%. I have seen ministers on this side of the House - starting with the member for Nightcliff opening the lid on this and what confronted us as a new government. As Cabinet members, the members for Nightcliff, Karama, Arnhem and I discussed and worked through these issues. Anyone who says ministers on this side of the House did not care does not understand the problems in relation to child protection and welfare and the Northern Territory situation.
It has been great to see the report recognise the challenges the Northern Territory faces. When you look at the systems, the problems with recruitment and retention of staff, the operational issues, and put them in the context of other states and territories, nowhere else do child protection workers, police, or health practitioners face the complexities or challenges of our staff.
I commend the inquiry members, Dr Bath, Professor Bamblett and Dr Roseby. I also commend our communities, their organisations, and everyone who gave evidence on this important issue. I pay tribute to all child protection workers and health professionals who work with our children every single day to make a difference to their lives and are on the receiving end of untold trauma and dysfunction. These workers are the ones we expect to fix this problem.
I commend our government because whilst people say we had 10 years; from 2002-03 we saw an increase in notifications. Much of that was being more informed and giving communities - particularly women - the member for Greatorex is right, mandatory reporting has always been part of the landscape in the Northern Territory, but what had not been there, particularly in our remote Indigenous communities, was the protection for women to talk about this and report it. The government made more resources available to enable this to happen, and we saw an increase in reporting from the bush. That increased workloads because people saw the challenges and complexities of dealing with not only dysfunctional communities but, for the first time, dysfunctional families the system had not dealt with before. There are now resources which for a long time had been absent in those communities.
The biggest move forward was the Closing the Gap, a bold move for this government. I commend the government; it takes courage and conviction.
Madam Deputy Speaker, lifting the lid on an issue will evoke much blame and chest thumping; however, as the member for Arnhem said, we need to remember the kids. We need to put blame to one side and work together to grow them strong together, to ensure we can give all our kids an opportunity to grow and be part of our collective futures.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, without doubt the most important issue anyone charged with administrating a home, a community, a town, a city, or the wider Territory, is the protection of our most vulnerable people, our children. One thing the member for Nelson said today I agree with is: child protection is not just about a government responsibility; it is a whole-of-community responsibility. However, the government holds a fair slice of that responsibility.
The people charged with investigating this issue deserve our highest praise. Thank you for your work, the effort, and for what must have been at times a truly difficult issue to investigate. I do not put any faith in the government actioning its recommendations, as they failed to action the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report, unless we bring them crying and screaming into the sorry, real world their action, or inaction, created for so many vulnerable children.
From the outset, I must comment on how we are debating this report. Perhaps it continues with a culture of cover-up. This side of the House wanted debate stretched over a few weeks if possible, rather than have it debated on the floor. However, the member for Nelson, the one member the government will listen to because it does not have a choice, has seen common sense in giving us more time to go through this intricate and detailed report. If the government was serious, they would have offered that straight up - not be forced, offered it straight up.
The Chief Minister said he was not interested in the politics of child protection. I agree. However, he then went on to criticise the child protection rally held on the steps of Parliament House calling it a stunt. How cruel is he? I challenge the Chief Minister to stand in front of any one of the many people who attended that rally - the mother of Deborah Melville, other carers and volunteers - and tell them the rally was a stunt. The many carers, both paid and voluntary, were there because they care about protecting children. These people come into my office from time to time with their issues, their frustrations, and their absolute disgust, sometimes, in how they are treated as carers. These people do not grow on trees; we should be doing all we can as a community, as a government, to support our carers.
The problem with this government is its ongoing denial of anything which is wrong. Ten years and it is still not their fault, complaining there are no resources to tackle the problem, and at the same time building water parks and wave pools. The classic bread and circuses, smoke and mirrors - it is not about money. The interest shown from the other side of the House in this debate - the government of the Northern Territory - is shameful. They are showing as much interest in this debate as they have shown in child protection - that is cruel and absolutely honest.
Ms Lawrie: Not true. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the NT is gaining the horrible reputation of Australia’s Soweto, or perhaps Bangladesh.
While we are talking about the interest this government is taking in child protection, what blew me away about the recommendations was, as a member of our community, I assumed they were part of the current process and this was how a government worked. I was shocked to read some of the recommendations were things the average person would expect to be happening now.
How well crafted was government’s response, coming out with $131m before any cost analysis had been done, accepting all the recommendations to provide an impression they were serious, were listening, and acknowledged there was a problem. How is this possible unless they had an idea this was happening. The reality is they failed to act.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr CHANDLER: Why were the recommendations of the Bath report not actioned?
Ms Lawrie: They have been.
Mr CHANDLER: All of them? Every single one?
Ms Lawrie: Absolutely been worked through.
Mr CHANDLER: That is not correct - we would not be in this situation today. I have brought up in debate many times the amount of resources going into reviews and further reports and recommendations that lead us nowhere.
Let us look at the process to date. Childcare was failing under the Clare Martin Labor government. An inquiry was commissioned, and a report with recommendations provided. What did government do? Government sat on it. I guarantee you no resources were provided other than the strategy being worked on to ensure the horrid findings could be managed at the political level rather than a strategy to address the issue, which would perhaps require putting up your hand and asking for federal help. That is not shameful. No, let us sit on a report until it becomes too hot and after it is released find someone else to blame, like the government does today. Everything wrong today is the fault of the previous CLP government. Somewhere in all that the Chief Minister crucified Clare Martin, I suspect because he thought he could do a better job. Hello, here we are a few years down the track and we are in hell.
I am ashamed to be a member of this House, a member of a parliament, where government continues to fail yet is propped up through an agreement. How long before it is recognised how bad this bunch of managers is? I am also ashamed we, as a team of politicians, have not had the influence in the media to hold this government out to dry because it deserves it.
We, our children, our community deserve so much more. I do not know how they can go home at night, or accept their pay cheques, when they know children are being sexually and mentally abused. Children who have been fiddled with - this should not be allowed to happen. We have bipartisan support for statehood; how embarrassing to hang our affairs out for all to see. We cannot manage yet we want statehood. A contingent is likely to visit Canberra shortly to lobby the federal parliament’s support for our bid for statehood. While I continue to support the bid for statehood, because there is a bigger picture in regard to our legislation and the ability to manage our own affairs, how embarrassing is it when we continue to air our laundry in public?
I was reading a report recently on The Australian website by retired Children’s Court magistrate, Sue Gordon, who has called for the Northern Territory government to be stripped of its statutory child protection responsibilities. When these things go to air it is interesting to read some of the comments. I will not read them out today, but it does not look favourable for the Northern Territory government. It is embarrassing, and I am ashamed to be part of it because, as a dad, I know how important it is to protect our children and our community.
I appreciate this is not just a government responsibility; however, it is a fair slice. I do not know what we, as a community, have to do to teach people to look after and protect children. That is the only thing I agree with you on, this is not only your fault; it is the fault of a community.
It worries me and history tells me this government conducts reviews when a problem occurs, there are reports and recommendations, and 12 months, two years, three years later we are going through the same cycle. Why? How can we let things become so bad? What was the intervention about? Why was a government external to the Northern Territory required to take over and fix the rot? There is nothing wrong with asking for help. If Clare Martin, as Chief Minister, on receiving the Little Children are Sacred report thought we could not handle it alone, we needed help and support and put her hand up and asked for more resources to fix the problem, I do not believe anyone would have criticised her.
Mr Henderson: That is what the Little Children are Sacred report said: ‘This is beyond the ability of the Northern Territory’.
Ms Lawrie: Beyond the resources.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: I do not know how they can go home at night knowing what is going on.
Ms Lawrie: Do you really believe what you are reading?
Mr CHANDLER: I believe we will need help from far and wide.
Ms Lawrie: Do you really believe what you are reading?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, cease interjecting!
Mr CHANDLER: I am aware a request has been made for additional staff. How can we elevate it to a level where it is taken more seriously? I appreciate every jurisdiction has its share of child protection issues; the Chief Minister mentioned that. There are Ombudsman’s reports and investigations far and wide about child protection; it is not unique to the Territory. However, our remoteness and high population of Indigenous people are unique.
A week after the Victorian bushfires I had the opportunity, with the Coroner’s permission, to view some of the area. On every corner of every back road were road blocks manned by Victorian police officers with the assistance of a New South Wales, Queensland or West Australian police officer. Police had been called in from far and wide to assist during the emergency. We can argue there are police shortages all across the country, however, in that instance police were brought in from everywhere.
I appreciate the government has requested help, yet my understanding is there has not been a big take-up. A tsunami occurred in Indonesia and before too long there was help from all over the world to manage that disaster. Surely, when it comes to our children we can put up our hand and say: we need help to get through the backlog. We cannot rest until we know every child who is at risk is being offered support. The Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister are human beings; they will do all they can to get this right. It frustrates me that we see reports and recommendations, seemingly ignored from the other side, getting us into these positions. How can we demand action from other jurisdictions to assist?
I often speak to my dad about many things. I sometimes cry when I realise the level of the problems we face. How do you fix things that are small by population jurisdiction, large in size but small in population, and relatively small in budget compared to the size of the land? Every day in this job you come across more and more areas of concern. I do not blame government for everything. Government does some very good things; I have said that time and time again, however, we could do things so much better. It should be demanded we do a better job. How, with child protection, can we teach people to care for their children? How do you make someone want to care for a child? There is a special bond between mother and child. I have often thought it was God’s strategy to ensure a bond making us so reliant on outside help when we are first born. A child would not last more than a few hours without the care of its mother or someone to care for it. That does not last a few days or a few weeks; it lasts for years. I sometimes think it is a strategy to ensure a bond between mother and child.
How do we manage parents who do not care for their children? We have tragic circumstances where parents are lost through an accident and children are left on their own, where family or friends, or government, needs to step in. What about the family not providing adequate support for children? How do we teach people to care for their children? It is not an easy thing to do. It is not something you will find in a report, and is not something the government is able to do. You can penalise parents by holding back payments until they provide care for a child; however, there is something human about caring for someone.
I do not think there is a person in this room, Labor, Country Liberals or Independent, who does not love their children and would do anything to care for their needs. However, in the wider community there are issues. We have to recognise this is an emergency and has to be managed that way. Will we need help from outside? We will, and we need to put our hand up and demand it.
I am ashamed of the situation we find ourselves in. I was so ashamed after reading the Deborah Melville case - reading her last words. She did not deserve to die like that. Where was her support? Were her human rights being protected? As a society we failed her; as parents, as families, as carers, we failed her, and as a government we failed her in the worst possible way.
Chief Minister, no more excuses, no more reviews, no more reports. It is time to take action or you will be held to account.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate, an obviously critical debate for our parliament and community. I will start by revisiting history to put aside the myth there has been review after review, nothing has been done, everything has been ignored, and the government does not care. There is nothing further from the truth.
I stand by this report and accept the recommendations. The need is very significant in the Northern Territory. It is very significant because we have had the courage, as a government, to lift the lid on so much of the dysfunction in the Northern Territory which has existed for so long. The history shows, when we came to government in 2001, the budget for child protection was a paltry $7m. There were departmental resources in Darwin and Alice Springs and, essentially, no field staff in remote communities. The average reporting rate and intake rates of the department were one-sixth of what they are today. You could say things are six times worse now because you have six times more reporting. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since coming to government we have acknowledged our responsibility to provide child protection services across the Northern Territory - not just in Darwin and Alice Springs, and close your eyes and hope everything in remote communities is okay.
One of the first decisions we made as a government - even though the budget was $116m worse than the budget papers provided to parliament eight weeks prior – was all agencies had to take significant funding cuts. One area that achieved a significant funding increase was Families and Children within Health. The Caring for Children reform package injected an additional $53m over five years between 2003 and 2008. The Closing the Gap report into alleged child sexual abuse across the Northern Territory led to very significant additional expenditure by government of $286m over five years, $62m of which was dedicated to children and family services.
The member for Brennan spoke about the Little Children are Sacred report asking why we did not approach the Commonwealth. If the member had bothered to read the Little Children are Sacred report, as opposed to a speech written for him by someone else, he would see …
Mr Chandler: I wrote the speech.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Drysdale! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Port Darwin was writing questions for him in Question Time today.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: He would have seen in the Little Children …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting, please.
Mr HENDERSON: Empty vessels, Madam Deputy Speaker. He would have seen one of the key findings of the Little Children are Sacred report was the Commonwealth government had to accept its responsibility to the Northern Territory and commit massive and significant additional financial resources to the Northern Territory. It was an explicit recommendation which ran through the entire report - the Commonwealth government at long last had to take up its responsibility to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory and recognise a jurisdiction with a population of 200 000, with the scale of disadvantage in the Northern Territory, did not have the financial capacity to turn things around.
I have said at every turn the intervention, and the emergency response, was a final acknowledgement by the Commonwealth of Australia that it could no longer turn its back on the extraordinary disadvantage in the Northern Territory, and this nation had to accept a level of responsibility.
I point out, in regard to the political chest beating on the other side, the Howard government had been there for nearly 10 years and after its defeat it was exposed by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, the reason it committed to the intervention was political. Alexander Downer, in an interview, lifted the lid on this. The Commonwealth government’s political priority was all about lifting the Prime Minister’s standing; showing the Prime Minister could act decisively when he was being clobbered in the opinion polls.
Regardless of the political motivation of the Commonwealth government and Prime Minister of the day, the good thing is whoever is in government in Canberra can never turn their back on disadvantage in the Northern Territory until the disadvantage is turned around. That is the good thing to come out of the intervention and emergency response. We have much more transparency and accountability in funding to the Territory for Indigenous affairs, and that is all wrapped up in Commonwealth/state agreements.
To say nothing was occurring and the Commonwealth had to intervene as a result of the government’s failure to act on the Little Children Are Sacred report totally belies the recommendations in the report, and totally belies the history exposed by Alexander Downer as to the motivation of the Commonwealth government of the day. The great thing is the Commonwealth, regardless of who is in government, can never turn its back on the Northern Territory.
The vast majority of recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report are being implemented and funding has been committed.
This report was not about child sex abuse. It was about the workings of the child protection system. Different report, different issues. Unfortunately, the constituency is the same. I agree with the member for Brennan: the motivation for everyone in this House to see children at risk no longer at risk, and all children in the Territory being loved, cared for, safe and growing strongly as children is genuine. We take this report very seriously. I say to this House, the government is acting with a sense of real urgency in accepting the recommendations and allocating a budget to fund implementation of the recommendations so agencies know they have budget cover to implement the recommendations and act immediately to get additional frontline resources to the Northern Territory.
The member for Brennan did not talk about the fact we have been recruiting overseas as well as calling for assistance nationally. In my response in Question Time today I advised over 20 additional officers are on their way from Canada and the UK, having been offered positions at the P1 and P2 levels. We have our police contributing nine officers to the front line, and an additional 42 positions are funded in the budget immediately, on top of the 76 additional positions in the budget last year. Tasmania and New Zealand are immediately committing resources to the Northern Territory to address the backlog. That is an immediate and significant response.
My colleague, the minister for Families, said in response to a question today - I do not have the notes here - there are no Category 1 children in danger cases which have not commenced investigation. In Category 2, there were 10 outstanding at risk, all are now allocated, community visits are planned and will take place by the end of this week. The remainder, Category 3, require urgent work.
In response to the comments of the member for Brennan, as of today there are no Category 1 cases not being investigated; the remaining Category 2 cases will be investigated by the end of this week, and we are working through the Category 3 at risk cases as quickly as we can.
Regarding funding, I attest there has been a significant and urgent response from the government to the report. There have been questions asked about the figure of $130m for funding when we only received the report the day before. Agencies across government made submissions to the inquiry, and we had a process working in government in full knowledge a majority of issues would be picked up by the inquiry which required budget cover to implement recommendations immediately. We had worked to determine a budget allocation to allow agencies to know they had cover to implement the recommendations, particularly the urgent Category 1 and Category 2 recommendations.
I also point out to honourable members this is not just about funding through the families and children budget. This issue reflects across agency budgets – health, education, police, corrections, infrastructure - across the Northern Territory government budget to improve infrastructure and social and societal conditions in remote parts of the Northern Territory.
I point out over the 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years a total additional funding to remote communities of $1.5bn into infrastructure, services and programs, particularly in and around schools, has been provided to the Territory government’s Closing the Gap funding, the SIHIP Northern Territory contribution, the national partnership agreement regarding the Northern Territory Emergency Response, remote Indigenous housing, Indigenous health, low SES schools, Indigenous early childhood development and the Nation Building and Jobs Plan for remote schools.
To say this is just a job for NTFC and question the budget allocations indicates people have not read the detail of the report which acknowledges it is a much broader issue in rebuilding, from the ground up, communities and families and their ability to care for their children.
We have five Indigenous child and family centres operating at Maningrida, Yuendumu, Ngukurr, Gunbalanya, and Palmerston; Families as First Teachers programs fully operational in 16 of the 20 growth towns; mobile preschool hubs located in Lasseters, Tanami, Barkly, Katherine, Top End Group Schools and Tennant Creek; proposed sites for remote early childhood workforce pilots in Gunbalanya, Ngukurr and Maningrida; and strategies for community-based childcare services currently being employed.
This government has acted urgently, has allocated funding, and is putting in place the structures to implement the recommendations in the report to provide transparency. My colleague, the minister for Families, announced the Chair for the steering committee today. Other members of that steering committee will be announced over the next few days, and we will provide regular reports to parliament. This government has acknowledged the report, moved quickly and is working with the Commonwealth government.
I would like to point out the difference between the government’s response and the policy put forward by the opposition last Monday. The policy shows the Country Liberals do not understand how notifications are assessed and referred for appropriate action, including investigation. It released a policy which aims to boost the role of the Children’s Commissioner, introduce whistleblowers protection and accountability measures around public reporting, and a paltry $9m to enhance, improve and increase child protection across the Northern Territory. $9m would not touch the sides of the bucket of need. The response was totally off the mark.
There was no mention of boosting and supporting the workforce, providing a greater focus on family support services, or building and engaging the non-government organisation workforce. Nor was there mention of ensuring we work with our Indigenous communities to re-empower them. At the end of the day, the government does not raise children in families; it is a family responsibility. The best place for a child to grow and be nurtured, sustained and loved is within the family, not government. We have to work from the ground up to turn around the tide of problems we have in the Northern Territory.
The government wants quicker response times. We want more time in investigations and better outcomes for children. That is what we will achieve through implementing the recommendations of this report. I have demonstrated today in wrapping up this report how we have tackled quickly the most urgent of the recommendations - the backlog. There are no Category 1 children at risk where an investigation has not commenced; of the 10 Category 2, all investigations will have commenced by the end of this week; we have funded and offered positions to over 20 child protection workers from Canada and the UK to the Territory; Tasmania and New Zealand are sending people to the Territory, and funding for an additional 42 frontline workers is available immediately.
I urge members in contributing to this and ongoing debate around this issue, spare a thought for the people who work in this agency and on the front line. They have been maligned, and opportunities have been taken, quite appropriately in some circumstances and disingenuously in others, to highlight the tragedies around some of these cases. We have people working on the front line - a very traumatic place - dealing with these issues who deserve our support because without them we would have nobody.
Madam Speaker, in my closing comments I also pay tribute to our foster carers in the Northern Territory - they do an enormous job. I was very disappointed to read they have not been treated as well as they could be …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, I remind you that General Business Day begins at 5.30 pm.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be very quick. Thank you, member for Brennan. I put on the record my thanks, appreciation and support for our foster carers. To bring a foster child into your own family environment - goodness knows, we all have issues in our family environments, and to bring in a child whose history you do not know is an extraordinarily loving and caring thing to do. We need to better support our foster carers in the wonderful work they do.
In conclusion, there will be a further update to the House as we implement the recommendations. Things will not improve until we start rebuilding that human capacity and capability from the ground up and empowering parents to take responsibility for their children, and, where they do not take responsibility for their children, support for them to do so. In the event they will not take responsibility for their children, there needs to be a set of consequences.
Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. In conclusion, I thank Dr Bath, Professor Bamblett and Dr Roseby for their report. It has been an extraordinary journey for them providing this report to government. I commit, as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, to work as hard as I can to implement the recommendations in this report.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Peppercorn Rental Agreement for Government Facilities on Aboriginal Land
Peppercorn Rental Agreement for Government Facilities on Aboriginal Land
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that a peppercorn rental agreement be negotiated for Northern Territory government facilities on Aboriginal Land where a lease is required for such facilities.
Debate on this subject will also include local government facilities, as I believe the concept of government facility should include local government. I should make it clear, I am not speaking as the Chair of the CTC; I am speaking as the independent member for Nelson.
It has come to my attention negotiations are occurring between the government and the Executive Director of Township Leasing which will require the government to pay a lease for all its facilities at Nguiu, Bathurst Island. In the EDTL 2008-09 report, it says:
- During the year, this Office engaged the services of valuation professionals to provide advice as to improved, unimproved, and annual rental estimates of each commercial or government property in the township. These valuations were then used as the basis for negotiating the level of annual lease rental to be paid by each occupier.
Why do government agencies, housing authorities and non-government organisations (NGOs) need to pay commercial rent for subleases?
- Whole-of-township lease arrangements aim to approximate ordinary freehold title to the greatest extent possible. Paying appropriate rent to land owners is an essential element to approximating these tenure arrangements and ensuring the benefits of land tenure reform flow to the owners of the land. As a land user, it is essential that all organisations including government agencies, housing authorities and NGOs pay appropriate rent for the use of Aboriginal land. This is consistent with practice elsewhere in Australia where rent is paid for the use of land, premises, and/or property not owned by the organisation.
- The Northern Territory implementation plan under the NPA on Remote Service Delivery also agrees to the payment of land costs for government facilities on Aboriginal land, which is to be calculated by reference to normal commercial arrangements off Aboriginal land.
- Under a whole-of-township lease, rental returns from subleasing flow to traditional owners (minus operating costs of the EDTL).
My understanding is the Executive Director of Township Leasing is asking for a lease payment based on improved capital value, which naturally would be large, considering the millions of dollars spent on these assets built to benefit people on Nguiu. To make it clear, we are talking about schools, hospitals, aged care, childcare, women’s shelters, pumping facilities, even sewage ponds, all built primarily for the health, protection and education of the community.
I understand the EDTL has wanted to use improved capital value as the basis for lease payments; however, the NT government did not support this and has been negotiating leases based on unimproved capital value. Whilst this may be less than ICV, it would still be a considerable amount of money. If this idea was to cover all government assets on Aboriginal land across the Territory, which are considerable according to estimates I have been given, this could amount to tens of millions of dollars. Whether that would be a one-off payment or an ongoing annual payment is not clear. The EDTL appears to be looking at extra payments when it says in its report the office will continue to look for ways it can provide a value-added approach to the management and operation of long-term leases.
The real essence of this motion is to ask: why should government facilities, primarily built for the people who live at or near a community where they are located, have to pay any more than a peppercorn rent for the lease? These facilities are expensive facilities to build and require ongoing maintenance. They also create employment; many local people are employed and paid by the government. It seems some astute people see an opportunity to make money out of the government or, should I say, the taxpayer. These same people seem oblivious to the fact the hospitals and schools are publicly-funded facilities to help improve the life of residents. By charging millions in rent, it means that amount of money will be taken away from other facilities, not only in these communities, also in other parts of the Territory. It could mean reduced services in communities.
Some may argue on a purely legal basis saying the land is Aboriginal, therefore anything on it should have a lease and the lease should be paid for as in other parts of Australia. They may argue if the government needed to provide public facilities in a town where there was no Crown land it would have to be purchased from the owner. That may be the case; however, it would be the exception rather than the rule.
There are, by far, more government facilities on Crown land than on rented or leased land. Also, in most new land subdivisions, land is set aside for government facilities by the developer as part of the planning approval requirements, at no cost. It is also more than likely many of the facilities provided in our remote communities would not be provided in other rural areas of Australia as their populations would be too small. People would need to travel to major centres to attend school, or visit their local hospital or clinic.
I visited Amanbidji last year, a small community south of Timber Creek. There is a modern clinic, an airstrip, a women’s centre, a powerhouse, sewage ponds, and a school. The population is approximately 70. How many of those facilities would you see in a town of 70 people in other parts of Australia? Those facilities were built regardless of cost for the benefit of this small community. Governments - and I include local governments - and church groups have spent millions of dollars to provide facilities to help people in our remote communities, and it seems to charge a lease for these facilities shows money is more important than the benefit these facilities bring to the community.
In response to a question about leasing at a recent Council of Territory Cooperation public hearing, Bob Beadman, the Coordinator-General, said in response to a question:
- That begs a real ethical question as to whether or not it is a legitimate charge on the public purse to pay the few traditional owners of the land.
He goes on to say:
- … on whose land is mistakenly used for the development of a township 50 years ago when people where less aware, at the expense of the program for the wider good. They just leave it hanging. This issue arose in 1978, it is not new. I remember shortly after land titles under the Land Rights Act were handed down and all the land councils sought the lease payment for a sewerage pipeline to cross somebody’s traditional land, and the position I put then in terms of the administration of the Land Rights Act was absolutely not. It would be inconceivable that the taxpayer pay twice for the benefit of extending the sewerage treatment works for that community. Once for the right of the pipeline to cross the ground and another one to put in your pumping station, your pipes and so forth.
I have no problem with the EDTL asking for a lease payment for commercial facilities or private houses; that is normal. However, if charging lease payments, either UCV or ICV, on government facilities is a way the EDTL or land council see as making money on behalf of some TOs, we are going down the path of money for a few and fewer services, and higher costs for the rest – the rest meaning Aboriginal people who live in these communities.
I have seen an evaluation for the sewage ponds at Nguiu, presumably valued so a lease payment can be determined. I strongly believe there should only be a peppercorn rental on those ponds. If the government is forced to pay a lease, it will be in a community which does not pay for water or sewerage. The taxpayer will subsidise those who do not pay charges for water or sewerage. The taxpayer would also have paid for the reticulation infrastructure, and will now pay for a lease on that infrastructure.
We should provide services to remote communities. I do not believe taxpayers mind spending millions of dollars on improving the lives of people living in these areas. They mind if the response from some is: ‘Thanks, and here is the bill’. If that is the case the government should carefully consider where it builds any new facilities, or consider the other option for those who follow the letter of the law - hand the facilities over to the land councils or the EDTL. If there is no lease the buildings belong to the land trust or the administrator of the trust. Will they pay for the power, maintenance, wages and administration costs? Will they manage the facility, and who will pay for any new facilities?
There is an important issue at stake and if governments - that is taxpayers - are to fork out millions of dollars to help people and are slugged more, it needs to say peppercorn rental, yes, UCV or ICV, no. If not, step back and ask the land councils or EDTL to take them over. That is unlikely to happen, but it highlights the nonsense behind the lease proposals. The peppercorn rental recognises two things: that the land on which the lease has been granted is Aboriginal land, and the facilities provided by the government are to help Aboriginal people, not to help make a profit.
I wonder whether the average Tiwi person or those on the communities know about this scheme proposed by the EDTL. Has anyone asked the average person if their aged-care facility should pay a lease to the TOs? I bet they have not. What benefit to Tiwis who are not TOs receive? Communities have to make money and create jobs. This is not the way to go.
The member for Port Darwin, at a recent CTC public meeting, raised an alternative to leasing. This is what he said as part of a question to Bob Beadman:
- Just getting back quickly to the provision of government services, police stations, sewerage arrangements, healthcare centres and schools, you have just indicated those things should be sitting on some sort of leasable property. Have you turned your mind to the idea of offering them for sale to the land council or to the land trust and then leasing them back? That way you get around the problem we have that the public…Good argument that you have in terms of having to pay an extra lease for an asset you have just built.
If it was sold to the ABA through the land trust, I am not quite sure what the mechanism would be, and then leased back by the Northern Territory government on a leasing arrangement, then at least construction of the police station, for argument’s sake, would have been paid for by the owners and they would be making a long-term decent income and an ongoing income from properties that have been leased by the Northern Territory government.
It is an interesting option. However, is it realistic considering the large number of facilities in communities? Would water lines, sewerage lines and power lines be the subject of a purchase and lease back to Indigenous essential services? The amount of capital required to buy all government assets on Aboriginal land in the NT would be enormous. There are other issues to this leasing debate, especially in relation to barge landings, airstrips and public roads.
Recently there was a blockade of the barge landing at Galiwinku. The barge landing is owned and controlled by the traditional owners and was built for the benefit of the community so supplies could be delivered to the community. My understanding is payments are now being requested by the land council for the use of this boat ramp. I also understand at least one barge company has been asked by the Northern Land Council to pay a charge based on the value of the cargo.
Do people on these communities know the Northern Land Council, on behalf of traditional owners, intends to charge 75 for every $100 of gross freight income received in respect of all freight which enters the land from the barge landing via a particular barge company? That is freight for the people on these communities. This will apply to Minjilang, Warruwi, Maningrida, Ramingining, Milingimbi, Galiwinku and Gapuwiyak and, to add to that, there will be a past use payment of $5000 - money for nothing. This would mean the cost of food, fuel, building supplies and everything brought in by barge will increase The traditional owners might have a gain, but the community loses.
It raises another question: why are barge landings not leased to shire councils at a peppercorn rental? Will lease payments be required for airstrips? Are the consequences increased fares and increased freight charges? Airstrips should have a peppercorn rental and the lease should be in the name of the shire council. These should be public facilities managed by the shire. After all, is this not the way growth towns should operate? I understand councils would charge for the use of these facilities, but if the funds were used to maintain those facilities everyone benefits. Who maintains the barge landings and airstrips now?
I strongly believe council facilities should also pay a peppercorn rental. When we asked this question of the land council at Nguiu it was opposed saying they needed to pay a proper lease payment. Whilst I understand that from a commercial aspect, the reality was for the council to recover the cost of the lease payment it needed to charge people in the community more in rent or rates, or reduce services - robbing Peter to pay Paul. It seems a very narrow view of what a local council does in those communities.
Roads are also an interesting issue. Roads on Aboriginal land are private roads unless gazetted as public roads. Aboriginal lands normally require a permit. To travel on a road on Aboriginal land you require a permit. For a long time I have had trouble obtaining clear policy from the government about the fact some shire councils are claiming funds for these roads under the Federal Assistance Grants Program. If the road is private it should not receive any funding under this program. To declare roads as public roads, especially roads to the new growth towns, the government will have to lease these roads from the traditional owners. These roads will then be transferred into the shire’s assets list, and money for maintenance of these roads will be claimed from the Federal Assistance Grants. If there are lease payments for these roads, there will be less money for maintenance and the community will be worse off because the lease payments will reduce the money for the roads.
Traditional owners are entitled to charge for the use of their land; however, if the land is private, theoretically, the government does not have to do anything. Traditional owners would have to maintain their own roads and all other facilities because there is no lease and all assets belong to the land trust.
The government should not cave in to the EDTL or the land councils on this issue. We need debate which clearly sets out government policy on this very important matter. As a taxpayer, I do not want to see a minority of people making money out of facilities built for the benefit of the whole community. I also do not want to see the majority of Aboriginal people, and other Australians, having reduced services because millions of dollars are paid for leases. I have no objection to traditional owners earning money from commercial activities on their land. However, what I see is something different. I believe many people will see the idea of paying large lease payments for taxpayer-funded facilities built to help Aboriginals, not to exploit them or disadvantage them, is not closing the gap but widening it.
I bring this forward as a matter for debate. I understand people may not necessarily agree with me but we have come to a point where the issue of leasing is current. The whole issue of leasing is a matter for public debate and the reason I have brought forward this statement today.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Restore Item to Notice Paper –
Criminal Code Amendment (Penalties for Certain Assaults) Bill (Serial 133)
Restore Item to Notice Paper –
Criminal Code Amendment (Penalties for Certain Assaults) Bill (Serial 133)
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move – That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Criminal Code Amendment (Penalties for Certain Assaults) Bill 2010 (Serial 133) previously in the name of Ms Carney:
(a) be restored to the Notice Paper in my name; and
The reason I raise this issue is I have had an opportunity to contemplate the intention of the bill left sitting on the Notice Paper, or in peril of being removed from the Notice Paper, as its sponsoring member has retired from this House. Naturally, and without labouring the point, I am sure we all wish her well.
The purpose of this bill is to address the structures which currently surround the operation of section 188 of the Northern Territory Criminal Code; specifically in the area of penalties. Currently, if a matter is heard in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, when it comes to determining guilt the same rules apply as in the Supreme Court. However, there is a limitation on the capacity for the lower courts to offer a penalty. In fact, that is captured in our Criminal Code. Section 189A(1) provides:
- Any person who unlawfully assaults a police officer in the execution of the officer’s duty is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years or, upon being found guilty summarily, to imprisonment for 2 years.
This has led to a practice which not only applies to police officers, it also applies to offences known colloquially as aggravated assault. This is the family of assaults more serious than common assaults by virtue of some circumstance of aggravation. The vehicle has always conveniently been used by lawyers so, when they have a client who is pleading guilty, they consent to having the matter heard in the lower court. The effect is it immediately ensures their client cannot receive a penalty of greater than two years imprisonment. It was the former member for Araluen’s contention, and it remains my contention, the capacity should be broader, and that is captured in this bill.
Speaking more generally, and as the new shadow Attorney-General, I place on the record my concern about the sentencing practices we see in our court system. The recent sentencing of that dreadful young fellow who took it upon himself to stab a man in Alawa - 10 times if memory serves me - whilst he was putting down his four-month-old baby to deal with the home break-in, is a sentence which raised my eyebrows to say the least. It goes to the very heart of what is occurring in the Northern Territory’s judicial system at the moment. Whilst I appreciate the young fellow concerned was still a juvenile, what is being expunged slowly and by stealth by this government from the lexicon of judicial language in the Northern Territory is the word ‘punishment’.
The process I see evolving in Northern Territory courts - and we have seen the credit court, the Alcohol Courts, and now the SMART Court announced – is a product of the therapeutic jurisprudence school of thinking. This presents Territorians with the big lie, because the government has, until now, been saying how tough it is on crime. It has been describing how aggressive it will be on criminals and the quintessential example of ‘say one thing, do another’ can be found in the Alcohol Courts. The principle of the Alcohol Court, which we were told would be tough on crime, was a person who would otherwise go to gaol would, if they came before an Alcohol Court, be offered some response other than gaol to deal with their alcohol issue. This means if you are going to gaol you appeal to the Alcohol Court, which then finds some therapeutic response for your alcohol problem.
The major concern I have, and I hope to be speaking to the new Chief Magistrate in the near future about it, is her background is specifically focused on the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence I am referring to. I understand what therapeutic jurisprudence attempts to do, however, where it pulls up short from the public’s expectation is it does not penalise. In fact, it says it seeks not to penalise. The paperwork I have read in relation to this philosophy of jurisprudence says it seeks to avoid penalty on the hope a therapeutic outcome might be produced. There is a strong public expectation a person who comes before the court is not there for therapeutic reasons, rather to receive punishment in the case …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification. The shadow Attorney-General is going to the debate of the bill. Government is not opposing the motion to restore it to the Notice Paper. I would have thought the debate on the bill would be when it appears on the GBD at, I believe, item 3. I seek clarification on that. I thought we would be debating the motion, which is to bring it back on. There is no issue about bringing it back on.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. Member for Port Darwin, the motion you have is not about the bill, but about restoring it to the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: As a matter of order, Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling. I am not surprised to discover the Attorney-General does not want to talk about what is happening in the court system.
Ms Lawrie: Happy to.
Dr Burns: We will talk about it at the appropriate time.
Ms Lawrie: Happy to talk about it. Do we talk about it twice?
Mr ELFERINK: Speak to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, did you wish to speak?
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point of this motion is to restore to the Notice Paper, in the name of Mr Elferink, the bill first introduced by Ms Carney. We all appreciate Ms Carney has retired due to ill health, we all wish her well. I hear she is recovering rapidly, which is great news. We, on both sides of the House, are very fond of the former member for Araluen.
We believe in the opportunities presented on General Business Day for members of the opposition, and Independents, to produce motions or bills to pursue their views. This is why government has no problem with the new shadow Attorney-General restoring to the Notice Paper a bill the Country Liberals had signed up to and supported, because Ms Carney introduced it in the first place.
Debate around therapeutic jurisprudence could be held when we go to debate of the Notice Paper. He has already said several things which are completely wrong and misinterpretations of reality; however, we will have that debate when we are debating the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Nothing to add, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Establishment of Small Business Ombudsman
Establishment of Small Business Ombudsman
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Northern Territory government establish an independent and adequately resourced Small Business Ombudsman to provide a voice for small business from within government.
What I am proposing is not a place for people to make complaints about a business or a product which does not live up to the expectation of the customer, nor is it for complaints about sloppy service in a caf.
What I am proposing is about small business first and foremost, and its success and performance across a range of business issues. It should be considered as an institution to enhance a competitive and fair operating environment for small business in the Northern Territory. Small business owners in the Northern Territory often feel alienated from government, with many believing the policy decisions of regulators, agencies and departments are made with little regard to the impact they will have on the operations of small business. From my engagement with small business I am advised there is no, or at best minimal, consultation with the private sector about the impact and consequences of impending legislation. Nor is there any effective conduit to advise business of its responsibilities and obligations arising from legislation passed in this Chamber. It is not good enough to say ignorance of the law is no excuse for transgressions.
It is the responsibility of government to properly advise the private sector of laws passed and their impact on business. Moreover, the business sector should be effectively consulted in the construction of new laws so government has the benefit of sound advice regarding the ramifications of their legislative proposals, rather than relying on directions from the bureaucracy, as is the case under this government.
While there is a Business and Employment department within government, there is no small business policy division to provide advice and assistance to small business. There is no unit within the business department with the main objective of promoting and furthering small business and ensuring a fair marketplace. I will quote the department’s website to highlight the neglect of small business by this government. The top of the page says:
- About DBE
The Department of Business and Employment’s primary responsibilities are to deliver business and industry development services, defence support, employment and corporate shared services.
The department works with business to develop and broaden the Northern Territory economic base. This includes the provision of strategic programs and activities to support business and industry development. It is responsible for providing strategic labour market policy advice and forecasting to maximise employment opportunities for Territorians and meet industry needs.
There is no mention specifically of small business development and promotion. The department’s website goes on:
- The department provides corporate shared services to all Northern Territory Government (NTG) agencies and business divisions, including financial and human resource administration, procurement, information technology management and property management.
provide information technology services to support government business
identify, assess and support business and industry development opportunities
stimulate business innovation, research and knowledge development
There are other dot points on the webpage, but no reference specifically to small business.
When I went further into the website - there is a great deal of good information there - still no reference to the promotion of small business. In the Northern Territory there are approximately 8000 small businesses with fewer than 25 staff, including sole traders and consultants. That is a large number of businesses with many employees and a reasonable chunk of payroll tax being paid to the Northern Territory government.
While there is, at Commonwealth level, the ACCC to regulate competition, the NT Department of Business and Employment, the ACCC, or the office of Consumer Affairs within the Department of Justice, are not in a position to act lawfully as an independent champion of small business. The Consumer Affairs division within NT Justice cannot, and does not, deal with business to business matters. It manages consumer complaints and scams. The Business department is constrained by government policy, regardless of the consequences on small business in the Northern Territory.
More often than not, the biggest enemy of small business is big business. Under federal and NT legislation there is no provision to assist small business under siege in the general, and I quote:
- … unfair dealing sense from larger businesses.
Yes, there are franchising and trade practice laws on creeping acquisitions. However, this is very complicated and not understood, or easily accessible, by the general run-of-the-mill small business. The opposition sees it as an imperative that an independent small business champion through the office of an ombudsman/ advocate/commissioner be established, and this person act as a point of contact for small business and relate concerns to decision-makers as part of the parliamentary process, including ministers and government departments.
A small business ombudsman could communicate the need of small business to the government and comment on government policy without being constrained by political interest. A small business ombudsman would enhance a competitive and fair operating environment for small business in the Northern Territory. Similar offices exist in Victoria, South Australia, and recently an office has been established in Western Australia. The Victorian office was established in 2003 and is called the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. I quote the commissioner’s comments from the 2009-10 annual report:
- It is noteworthy that considerable interest has been shown by a number of other states in the Small Business Commissioner model.
Given Western Australia and South Australia have an office, I wonder which other states have shown interest and hope the Northern Territory is on this list of visitors to the Victorian office.
Where does a small business go when it has a complaint against another small business? I do not mean a vexatious complaint, rather a serious issue such as collusion or commercial bullying. Where does a small business go when it has an issue against a much larger business or company? For example, a large mining company writing into its contract that a small business would be liable for lost production if it fails to deliver the replacement part on time regardless of legitimate reasons for doing so. The deal might be legal but considered onerous and anti-small business.
I should make it clear this office is not a substitute for an industry group or ACCC or ASIC. Rather, it is intended to be the champion of small business, and an office which assists government agencies to ensure the environment their actions and legislation impact on is not detrimental to small business.
The office, as with other small business ombudsman offices, could assist with small business disputes. The office could assist with improving small business conduct, which could be done in association with industry groups and government agencies, and possibly employee associations. The office could assist with owner/drivers of heavy vehicles if they have a dispute with a major contractor, as often occurs interstate. Where does the owner/driver - a small business person - go if such a dispute exists? It is important small business operators know who to turn to for free, independent and impartial advice in relation to their rights.
The office could assist with franchising disputes. This is something to keep a watching brief on as Northern Territory commercial complexes develop and expand, for example, the proposed complex at Coolalinga; a shopping centre proposed in Nhulunbuy; and the expansion of the Casuarina shopping complex. There are many franchising businesses in those complexes. There could be a strong connection with the retail tenancy legislation as exists in other states. The office could provide a preliminary phone inquiry assistance service. Of course there would be a strong working relationship with ACCC and ASIC, as both these agencies deal with business disputes and mediation.
Legislation would be required to establish the office as is the case with interstate small business commissioners or ombudsmen. The office would have a small staff, with selection of staff critical to ensure the success of the office and its objectives. The focus would be on business, with legal background and knowledge.
In presenting this motion I have consulted with business and industry groups and small business people, receiving a positive response. I will continue to talk with them, refining this proposal for an office of small business ombudsman or commissioner. I will take a proposal to the Law Society for their comments and provide details of the benefits to small business and the Northern Territory economy as a whole.
In conclusion, I stress this will not be a complaints agency; rather an independent and adequately resourced small business ombudsman or commissioner to provide a voice for small business from within government with a key objective to enhance a competitive and fair operating environment for small business in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I ask members opposite and the Independents to support this motion as it will bring solid benefits to business and the economy of the Territory as a whole.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward this proposal. It is somewhat strange it has not come from the shadow Business spokesperson, the Leader of the Opposition; anyway, we will work with that. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition …
Mr Mills: Do not stress over that.
Mr KNIGHT: Leader of the Opposition, you are the shadow; I presume something to do with business would come from you. Anyway, I will deal with the Deputy Leader.
It is an interesting proposal calling for a small business ombudsman to play an advocacy role for the small business community. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke extensively about contractual arrangements business to business. This is an innovative idea, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. You did not give much credit to the people who came up with the idea - the federal Liberal Coalition, which announced this proposal in July this year. You failed to acknowledge it was Tony Abbott and Bruce Billson who came up with the idea of a small business ombudsman. They also spoke extensively about wanting to protect small business from contractual arrangements business to business, especially business to big business, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke of - unfair contractual protections. This is all noted in the Liberal Party’s policy announcement in July this year. I believe you have been plagiarising some of their policy position - it is curious. Their policy position went on to talk about finding money from within.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in her conclusion, spoke of setting up an office with a small discrete group of people to staff it. I anticipated that, and have had my office put some figures together. The federal opposition – the people who came up with this idea you have plagiarised – said such an office …
Ms Purick: Why has the Victorian model been around since 2002, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: This is exactly what Tony Abbott came up with less than three months ago, and you did not attribute his idea to what you have come up with today. You talked about other models in other states; you did not talk about Tony Abbott.
Let us move to the costs of this office. The federal opposition says it would cost about $2m to establish such an office. We have done some estimates. The position would be similar to our Ombudsman, an ECO2, with support staff and project officers at AO7/AO5 level, and someone at AO4 level to manage the front desk. All those costs - travel and office expenses - amount to around $2m. We have an idea for an office - $2m in our hand to support local business. Our idea is not to add to the ever present bureaucracy in the small business community. In Australia, SMEs make up 99% of all businesses in our community. When we talk about the department of Business, it really is the department of small to medium business. That is the primary work of the department.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went through the DBE website explaining what it does. She failed to realise - or talk to people - the field staff who engage with business every single day - and they do a fabulous job. I have never run into a business …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the minister to table his notes so we can get through this quickly.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, are they personal notes or a public document?
Mr KNIGHT: They are highlighted pieces from Tony Abbott’s media releases.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no requirement. That is fine, please continue.
Mr KNIGHT: The department of Business has a primary job; it speaks to business. I have not heard a business which has had support or engagement from the department say a bad word about the work they do.
The upskilling program, the business support programs and getting started in business programs are hailed by people. People, who have been in business for five, 10 years, attend business upskilling programs, and although they have been in business have never had the opportunity to have someone look at their organisation and see what they need to do to improve it. This is at a time when we have a slowdown in some sectors of the economy, where it is time to look at your business plan and your cash flows. We are at a time where the economy is going to surge ahead, and business needs to look at a business plan and cash flow to see how they can improve those.
There is a plethora of support for business. The Territory is a very small place. We have a range of support organisations for business. It seems a waste of money to spend $2m to have a policeman going around if you have a problem.
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I am out there; I knock on doors, people raise issues with me.
Ms Purick: You must have your boy ears on!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Look at the organisations! Most of the SMEs are part of these organisations. You are attempting to duplicate the work of the NT Chamber of Commerce; the Palmerston Regional Business Association; the Manufacturers Council; the International Business Council; AIDN, the Australian Defence Industry Group; the Motor Traders Association; the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association; the Seafood Council; the Housing Industry Association; the Property Council; Engineers Australia; the Real Estate Institute; the Trucking Association; the Australian Hotels Association; the Resources Council; Civil Contractors; AANT; and the project managers, the Australian Institute of Management; the Chartered Processing Accountants just to name a few. They are all organisations which represent the interests of their members, and those organisations directly engage with government. If there is an issue, they come to us.
Coupled with that, on a regular basis some 1400 businesses across the Territory are surveyed by the Sensis Business Index. The main problem business has is the attraction and retention of staff. What does Sensis have confidence in? It has confidence in this government. It consistently says the NT has the highest rate of confidence in the nation. The reasons include having forward orders, contracts in place, work has been consistent and the Northern Territory government is the most supportive of small business management training programs - management training programs run by the government. Also, the Northern Territory government has a better awareness of business, and is attempting to help small business.
This is what business is saying. They are not saying: we need a policeman; we need a $2m ombudsman to solve our problems. They have their peak bodies, their representative groups, and have ministers knocking on their doors. They have a business index survey where they can express their views. They are not saying they have problems. It is a great result, and $2m is wasted. This year we spent $363 000 on our Territory growth program with a great result. It has been a huge help for business to engage with us. Would you spend $2m on a policeman, or on expanding growth programs? I would spend it on the growth program, which is what business wants. Business wants the upskills programs. That is where they want help. They want help getting more staff in the skilled migration visa area, and the Trade Support Scheme. They do not want it to be another office taking their money.
This is a crazy idea which does not seem to be supported by business. If you had $2m to spend, you would not spend it on a policeman …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Goyder, if you had $2m you would …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member directs his comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a crazy assumption that business would invest money into something which did not produce results. There are other programs which will produce efficiencies; we have a range. We have pumped money into the small business sector because that is what it needs. Ultimately, it needs work.
Throughout the global financial crisis this government, and the federal Labor government, pumped money into small to medium businesses to keep them going. They are appreciative of that. They understand the cash register ticking over has helped them through the biggest financial crisis the world has seen. This year, all those tradesmen received support from the $1.8bn infrastructure spend: $995m in capital works; $437m in power and water infrastructure; and $198m in repairs and maintenance. A significant amount of money is going into hospitals, public schools, Indigenous housing - a range of areas. It is a great result, and this government realises cash flow for small business is important. Since 2004, to assist small to medium businesses supplying goods and services to the Northern Territory government, we have committed to pay on time or pay penalty interest to the supplier for any delay. We know they need a quick turnaround. This government has 30 days to pay.
A range of services is already available to small business. The Ombudsman’s office can be utilised for complaints from the business community, the Department of Justice’s Business Affairs Office also deals with complaints from business. The Department of Business and Employment’s Procurement Liaison helps up to 40 businesses each quarter improve their prospect of winning tenders. It is not about being the most expensive business policeman in the nation; it is about helping business work through issues. Much of the time it is about procurement, so we have a Procurement Liaison Unit to work with business to improve understanding of why decisions are made, why tenders did not work, and to improve tendering ability. We meet with associations and give presentations at industry forums to increase awareness of the procurement process.
This is a plagiarised policy from the federal Liberal party. It is a little rude that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not credit Tony Abbott and Senator Billson for this policy. She cut and pasted it, and we have costed it at $2m. My understanding is the federal Liberal Party’s proposal is to be found from within. Which programs would DBE have to slash to pay for the most expensive policeman in the nation? It would have to slash the support programs. It would have to slash financial support for many peak bodies in the business community: the Australian Hotels Association; the Chamber of Commerce; the Manufacturers Council. A range of organisations this government supports would face financial cuts because the DBE budget would need to fund employment of half a dozen staff to do a policing role which would not achieve the required outcome.
We do not support this proposition. It is not required in the Northern Territory. We have had muted calls from one industry sector for a similar position, however, we believe we can work through the issues with it. It is very expensive, it is not required and we do not support it. We have a great department doing all the right things which, quarter on quarter on quarter, has the Sensis Business Index saying the Northern Territory Labor government is the most supported. Having greater confidence in this government than any other jurisdiction in the nation is testament we are doing things the right way.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not support this motion.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was a wholly unconvincing defence against a good idea presented for the consideration of members for a member to enter the argument in such a low-level way by attempting to assert because it was on a Tony Abbott media release it has been lifted from there. You have made a fatal mistake underestimating your opposition. This is a good idea adopted by other jurisdictions - Labor jurisdictions as well - as early as 2003, and most recently by a Western Australian Liberal government. It crosses boundaries and is testament to the power of a good idea. For a spokesman from government to be so ill-prepared, condescending and ignorant when it comes to dismissing this, with snide criticism and sarcasm, is not befitting a government, or a government response to an idea which has been established and accepted as having merit in other jurisdictions. The worst part is the member representing the government clearly does not understand what is being described here.
Too busy trying to find some smart arse comment that is going – excuse me if that offends members – a low level, sarcastic, smart response which does not give any indication of even a grasp of what small business requires, illustrated most starkly by lifting up all the different representative bodies within small business and industry across the Northern Territory and saying we already have these things so we do not need that. It is not a very convincing argument; in fact, it betrays the failure to attend to the basic idea being described by the deputy leader.
For the advice of the member, you need to understand what words mean. An ombudsman - I am quoting from the Australian Oxford Dictionary - is: ‘an official appointed by a government to investigate complaints by individuals against public authorities’. Essentially, you have taken a position which indicates you have no knowledge that small business is challenged by a changing environment, particularly in the Northern Territory. You have betrayed the fact you have no connection to the challenges faced by our small business sector in a time of significant change in the Northern Territory. By trotting out these other bodies which should be there to represent the specific interests of those industry groups and confusing the argument by suggesting they play this role, indicates you have not understood what was presented by the Deputy Leader.
First up is the power of a good idea. Look at the idea, understand the idea, and then refute it or challenge it on the basis of understanding what it is. You did not do that. It was a very low-level, quite embarrassing response.
How is it the Deputy Leader - this is the opening argument: ‘I would have thought’, he said with hand on heart, ‘that the Leader would have been doing this, not the Deputy Leader. That is great cause for concern’. Do not underestimate your opposition. This is an opposition working hard to develop ideas in response to the needs of our community. This idea has been put into play by the Deputy Leader, and I commend her for it. We are open for business ...
Mr Knight: She stole it. She googled it.
Mr MILLS: That is quite an offensive assertion to make. I have already covered ...
Mr Knight: She did. Put ‘small business ombudsman’ in Google and you get the Liberal Party’s policy from months ago.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Honourable member, do not disgrace yourself further by going down that path. I have already covered that. If you want to go back to that you are showing yourself to be extremely foolish. It is the power of a good idea already put in play in Victoria, a Labor state, in 2003, and in other states - if I need to go back over that again. Calm down. It is a very silly thing to do.
You are recognising the idea you scoffed is something you think, in your misjudgement, industry does not want. Clearly, you have not asked the right question. In all the groups you listed as some defence to a weak argument, many of the groups you described have asked for something like this in the Northern Territory. They have asked for it, which indicates we have a member of government representing the interests of small business, who has no idea what the sector wants, does not understand their need, and is so shallow he will attempt to refute a proposition which has national merit - recognition in Labor and Liberal states as having merit and support for small business. In your shallow interest to score some kind of debating point, you betrayed a lack of interest or understanding of the small business sector. You displayed yourself in such a shameful way.
You trot out figures and say small business has such confidence. They have confidence in spite of you, minister. They have confidence because much is happening in the region. You seem to think all the good stuff happening in the resources boom is somehow connected to something you have done. You are delusional. China has had a significant effect on the Australian economy, principally the resource rich states. You are delusional if you think the confidence exhibited by small business in the Northern Territory is somehow connected to actions you have taken. You are dead wrong! One way or another it has occurred despite you. You are in a position to govern, and that is what you are attempting to do. However, to knock something out of play with such weak arguments is an embarrassment.
You then used another argument: ‘Oh yes, we have done some costing’. The member who sits in front of you did some costing during the 2008 election - it was called ‘Delia’s dodgy calculator’ - of how much it would cost to build Glyde Point. I would not trust a costing …
Mr Knight: The federal opposition said it would cost $2m. Tony Abbott said it was going to cost $2m.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly!
Mr MILLS: I would not trust a costing from the government …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51: I cannot hear the Leader of the Opposition speak because of the outbursts from the member for Daly.
Mr Knight: It is not worth listening to.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you …
Mr Mills: Leave the Chamber then. Leave the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, I ask you to cease interjecting, please. Leader of the Opposition, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We say you have attempted to refute this idea in a very embarrassing way with a couple of quite weak arguments. You said: ‘It is going to cost $2m because we have costed it’. I would not trust, ever, a costing from the government when it is apparently considering an idea it has taken a position against. We saw that in the 2008 election. We have seen it with many issues constantly trotted out in this House. People have given up believing you. You are saying it is going to cost $2m. Well, good on the member for Braitling for saying: ‘Show us the paperwork you are reading from’.
I would like to see the detailed costings if you are going to have any creditability in a discussion such as this - an important discussion which other states have taken on board and accepted, Labor states included. You better put these costings out if you want to retrieve some credibility. However, if your costings, which should not be considered, are based on the idea it will cost $2m because you worked out a big number on the run to help with the weak argument, then you say it will not produce anything - it costs $2m, now established as a fact because he has run some calculations, then he says, as a fact, it does not produce anything.
Let us look at the Chief Minister’s Palmerston office. How much does that cost? You would have run a few figures over that. What about the Katherine office? How much does that cost? Alice Springs, how much does that cost? We have the costs; you should be able to do a few calculations. Let me say it cost $50m - I will make up a figure. No, I am not that silly - it costs a certain amount of money. Let us run through those three offices again. We have worked out there is a cost. What does it produce? What is produced in the Palmerston office?
We have three electorate offices to represent and advance the interests of residents. However, when we send people across to that office what do they get? What they get is spin and gloss. It is a promotional office for the Chief Minister because he does not hold a seat in Palmerston. Taxpayers foot the bill. It is disgraceful. How dare you say this will cost $2m and will not produce anything. You have an office in Palmerston, another one in Katherine - hang on, that is held by the Country Liberals so you put a station there, at taxpayers expense, to promote the Chief Minister, and you dare run an argument to say an ombudsman for small business – it is something small business wants and needs and are calling for - you knock it out of play with such a ridiculous and offensive argument as that.
What has been produced in the Alice Springs office in recent times?
Mr Conlan: Where is the Tennant Creek office?
Mr MILLS: No, we do not need one. We do not need one in Nhulunbuy. We need one in those …
A member: We need some in the suburbs.
Mr MILLS: That is another argument you have attempted to run.
If some of the slogans run from the other side are to be believed, there is a belief in the Territory of a can-do spirit. There is but it has been in decline. It has been smothered by layer upon layer of bureaucracy and the failure to provide strategic plans, direction, and courage at the government level. Small business carries the cost and weight of that. Where does the can-do spirit reside in the Territory? Principally, in small business. All the way from the markets and those people who work with their small businesses, cottage industries, up to small and medium-sized businesses. That is where it essentially resides, and if we are to understand, ask them, minister.
Do yourself a favour - you do not have to report to the Chamber - on the quiet, look at this proposition and ask business whether they need something like this. This idea has come from business. You are still a young fellow with a few miles to run; have another look at this and ask the question. Do not fall into the trap others have of asking a question and not waiting for the answer. Ask the question and listen to what they say, because the small- and medium-sized businesses in the Territory are under increasing challenge; it is a changing landscape.
We all know the Territory is growing. We know larger operations are moving to the Territory and placing challenges on small operators. They need somewhere they can go to know matters which may arise can be properly, professionally and skillfully managed. I come from a small business background; my family has been involved - farming was a small business in my family. My mother has run small businesses most of her life. It is a consuming challenge citizens take upon themselves. Costs and risks are high. The rewards can be tremendous, but it is taxing. Often it is David against Goliath. The Goliath could be the bureaucracy or the threat of a multinational moving in down the street.
There are those who are running small operations – I had have them come to my office - where new legislation has been implemented. I spoke to the member for Casuarina about a matter where new legislation, to do with labelling of chemicals, was being administered by bureaucracy to the letter of the law. It made sense to the bureaucrat, but no sense, and in fact was offensive, to the interest of small business in the Territory. He needed someone to bat for him against the intrusion of the bureaucracy. It could be federal legislation, Territory legislation, or it could be the effect of higher level competition coming in from multinationals.
Minister, do not underestimate the power of a good idea. Do not knock it out of play with such a cynical and flippant response. Do not underestimate your opposition, which is listening and responding. Do not be confused that the Deputy Leader brought this into play; I commend her for it. It is a demonstration the opposition is open for business and is entertaining all manner of ideas. A word of warning, do not understate your opposition. Do not be deluded into thinking a strong argument is to say: I have done some costings; it is $2m and does not produce anything, when you have the Chief Minister’s promotional offices at Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs. I would not go anywhere near that if I were you.
The voice of small business has called for this. You clearly have not understood what was described by the Deputy Leader. I commend her for bringing this forward. She does so with the endorsement of small- to medium-sized business in the Territory. If we want to protect the can-do spirit in the Northern Territory, the place to start is small business. Strengthen them, protect them and help them grow because they are the employers, the ones who will take us to places we are dreaming and speaking of. I commend her and urge honourable members to give this motion full support.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a great idea, a small business Ombudsman. One reason is because of an article in today’s Northern Territory News:
- Nearly 30% of new Territory businesses went bust in the past two years, latest figures show.
I wonder why. I can only imagine one of the reasons was because they did not have an advocate; they did not have a service which could provide mediation, or a dispute resolution service. Maybe there was no sense of fair trade in the industry they were involved in. Maybe they did not have anywhere to go to complain about the issues they were facing, such as their commercial tenancy.
A small business ombudsman could save many new businesses in the Northern Territory from going bust within the first two years of operation. It is quite timely the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has brought to our attention this important service existing in other states in the country. So, $2m, in my opinion, is a bargain - value for money. If we can save even 5% of the 30% of new Territory businesses going bust, that is value for money.
There will always be complaints. Where do small business operators go now if they need to complain? I am a small business operator and do not know of any avenue I have to complain. We have been working in a vacuum for the last 10 years. I heard the Minister for Business and Employment talk about associations, councils and organisations I could belong to which will assist me to go about my business on a daily basis. I heard about the millions of dollars available for small business - gee whiz, I missed out on something. I have been in a vacuum, perhaps because I live in Alice Springs. Perhaps because I live in the Northern Territory these things are not available to me. My experience of being a small business operator is you work really hard, you are lucky to find the information you do, lucky to connect with the resources you do, and any assistance which comes your way, particularly when it comes to problems you are experiencing, is a bonus.
There are 8000 small businesses in the Northern Territory. That is a great deal of employers and employees. Small business is the backbone of the Northern Territory. Small business carries many families; it provides food, clothing and shelter for many people in the Northern Territory. When we talk about small business, we are talking about a huge section of the Northern Territory. To spend $2m to support these small businesses, enable them to survive the first two years of their operation if they have problems around advocacy, disputes and fair trade practices, tenancy and employment strategies - anything to assist new business survive the first two years has to be value for money.
We then look at the small businesses operating for longer than two years, for example, my business. I have had problems in the past and no avenue to resolve them. Had I had a small business ombudsman I would have managed much better, I can assure you.
You talk about the infrastructure available, the resources and money available for small businesses. I have not been able to access any. A small business ombudsman is something I could use at times of difficulty in my business. When you are desperate you access whatever information and resources are available to help you. A small business ombudsman would be somewhere to go with a problem. When things are travelling well, you do not need great resources which may or may not be relevant to your situation. However, funding is always a drawcard.
The minister described a most supportive government. He has been applauded for his excellence in business acumen. To uphold your reputation, minister, this could be another feather in your cap and could have helped the 30% of new businesses in the Territory that went bust. You could have saved those businesses. Would it not have been wonderful to say in parliament: ‘With my new small business ombudsman I have saved new businesses of the Northern Territory! I have promoted and helped them’. No, this is a bad idea because it is not original.
I did not hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say it was an original idea. I did not hear her say she had not taken information from interstate. This is a woman of great integrity and accusing her of plagiarism was rather rude. This is a fabulous idea. As a small business operator who has had no assistance from this government in the 10 years I have been operating my business, it is a fabulous idea. I applaud it. I am mystified as to why this government would not support it.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Deputy Leader in this fantastic motion. An opportunity for a small business ombudsman would be a fantastic outcome for the Northern Territory. It would be a clear indication the Northern Territory government is supportive of business.
I was not surprised to hear the minister for Business and his colleagues interjecting and condemning such a move. We hear it frequently - this government is a socialist, mendicant government. It will do nothing for business in the Northern Territory. If this was a motion about an ombudsman for a welfare sanctuary, a socialist alliance or something, it would be all for it. The reason it cannot accept this is because it is about business; it is about the heart. This government likes to put expense on business, not assist small business. This government wants to send clear signals to business it is not supportive of business.
The purpose of this motion is to allow an ombudsman to run a clear ruler over decisions made by this government to ensure it will produce the best outcomes for businesses in the Northern Territory. It will be conducive to providing a supportive business environment in the Northern Territory.
I reflect on a speech I made yesterday regarding the National Broadband Network. In that speech I made reference to an article in the government technology magazine which referred to the NBN costing a developer $3500 per property on a greenfield development site, which would ultimately be passed to the consumer. An ombudsman of small business would be able to say to people, such as the NBN or the Northern Territory government, this is an expense to a small business. That is an example of where additional business costs occur. We need an advocacy group.
The minister mentioned industry stakeholder groups in the Northern Territory. He went through the Chamber of Commerce; the Manufacturers Association; the Defence Industry Group; the Motor Traders Association; the cattlemen’s body; the seafood body; the Property Council; the Real Estate Institute; the Australian Hotels Association - the list went on. I thought it ironic he mentioned the Australian Hotels Association. In Alice Springs at the moment, the leftist socialists are trying to bring in a 3.5% mid-strength alcohol limit between 11.30 am and 2 pm. We do not support this. The AHA has heard the concerns of Alice Springs residents, and of the people who own and manage the clubs and restaurants. They have spoken to the AHA. The AHA is now trying to lobby government. Government does not listen because it is a bunch of socialist mendicants who want nothing to do with the interests of small business or the community.
The benefit of a small business ombudsman would be the AHA could go straight to the ombudsman and advocate in the best interests of small business - let alone the interests of the people of the Alice Springs community. No, we will not have that. The socialist mendicants of Labor who do not support business, or small business, will not stand up for the real people. There are ombudsmen and spokespersons for everything socialist, however, when you get to the heart of the economy and what drives job growth in the Northern Territory, the government will not listen.
This body could assist growth towns; it could speak up for people who want to develop shopping complexes in the growth towns or start a new business. We cannot have it; we have to have the socialists who support Labor; the unions - the right of entry people. They are happy to give a voice to those people - small business, no. Labor does not support small business.
I commend the Deputy Leader for this positive motion which supports the economy of the Northern Territory. It supports jobs growth in the Northern Territory. It will support people getting off welfare and into jobs. Is it any wonder these socialists do not support small business or a small business ombudsman? They should be condemned for forgetting the heart and soul of growing the economy in the Northern Territory.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their support. They can see clearly and listen well to industry and business. The minister for Business is not listening; he obviously has his little boy ears on and cannot hear what industry and business are saying. I have spoken to industry groups and small business people in the Territory. Obviously, you do not understand the role of an ombudsman or a small business commissioner and have not spoken to your Labor mates in Victoria or South Australia. You must not talk to Victoria, because it is seen as the leader in this kind of service to small business.
You also do not accept or acknowledge - which I find astounding given you are the Business minister - we are in a time of significant change in the economy. We are facing some major projects coming into Darwin. We are facing substantial shopping complexes being developed across the top part of the Territory, let alone elsewhere. Those shopping centres create issues between businesses. Yes, you rattled off a list of business groups, and I know exactly the list you are talking about - the list of the Northern Territory Business Council. Minister, I know more about the Business Council than you ever will given I was involved with it for 16 years. I have spoken to those business groups, and they tell me clearly what they think about you as Business minister. You say you have done your costings at $2m. My colleague from Alice Springs says that would be a bargain. You say it would $2m; I would like to know how you substantiated that, and why it is such an issue.
Let me go to the 2009-10 Annual Report of the Department of Chief Minister. I can tell you where you can get some money for such an office. Look at the grants handed out to community groups. Let me see: recipient - Unions NT, Trades and Labour Council, $30 000 for the May Day concert; Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, $2000. We have $80 000 for a festival; $29 000 for the same festival. If you stop giving money to your union mates, who do nothing to promote business, you would have money to fund an office of a small business ombudsman, which will bring benefits to the Northern Territory business community.
This has been a very dismal performance.
Mr Knight: Say thank you to Tony Abbott for the policy you copied.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: Yes, ask them. Ask them, minister, and they will say yes, I have spoken to them.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, if you could address your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms PURICK: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly recommend the minister for Business talks to the industry groups and discovers I have spoken to them. It is disappointing this government does not understand what this is about.
To refresh the minister’s understanding, or get him to understand, the Consumer Affairs division within Justice cannot, and does not, deal with business to business matters. It manages consumer complaints and scams - rightly so, that is their job. The Business department is constrained by government policy, regardless of consequences on small business. This office is not about regulation, it is about assisting small business in an independent, impartial and fair way - assist them to stay in business and not go broke within two years. Some businesses cease trading within two years because of practices from a larger business to a smaller business. Perhaps it is from franchising arrangements which they have not been able to address because the franchiser is in a much bigger and stronger position.
Minister, I suggest you read what I have said in Hansard. If I can summarise your understanding: your rubber has not hit the road at all.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Alcohol Demand – Rehabilitation and Education
Alcohol Demand – Rehabilitation and Education
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly call on the Northern Territory government to address the issue of alcohol demand through rehabilitation and education of habitual drinkers and not through a system that penalises the wider community as a consequence of their policy actions.
During Question Time today the Minister for Alcohol Policy stated the Henderson government is targeting the problem drinker and not the wider community. It is interesting reading the government’s policy, and listening to the statement in the House yesterday. I would like to go through the CLP policy to make some comparisons. I note the ministerial statement says the CLP is not committed to tackling crime in the Northern Territory. The CLP has a clear policy on habitual drunks; it is quite clear when you read it. We plan to place people into meaningful rehabilitation, first, in a voluntary capacity and, for those who do not volunteer, a mandatory situation would follow.
Looking at some of the alcohol issues occurring on our streets at the moment, people are punching police officers, punching police horses - all sorts of things. Government statistics say 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. Many of these people are recidivist offenders, continually spending time in gaol as a result of alcohol abuse. Other statistics the government provided show 60% of all assaults are alcohol-related, and 60% of all domestic violence incidents are alcohol-related.
The statement says the Country Liberals are not interested in tackling crime in the Northern Territory and have no way to stop the flow. If you take away the problem drinkers - and in Darwin there are approximately 300 - and give them some meaningful rehabilitation, you will reduce the demand for alcohol because these people, if in voluntary treatment, will not be drinking at all, or not as much. If they are in mandatory sentencing, they will be drinking zero and receiving treatment to assist them break the cycle of addiction.
I will talk to some of the key points in the Country Liberals’ Defeating the Drunks policy. Anyone picked up for public drunkenness three times in six months may be declared an habitual drunk. That is the first one. Number two says an habitual drunk may be issued with a control order to keep them off the streets and require them to undergo alcohol rehabilitation treatment. In the first instance, this is voluntary. That is great. I believe there are people who would love assistance to break their addiction and the lifestyle that goes with being addicted to alcohol or other drugs. When the government states we do not have any enforcement in our policy, I point out to those opposite point number three, which clearly says breaching a control order will trigger an automatic prison sentence. That means going to a prison farm where we will provide education services, health services, counselling, and all the things necessary to assist someone to break their addiction. As mentioned, it can be in a voluntary capacity, however, if not, it would trigger an automatic prison sentence.
I go to the government’s brochure Enough is Enough. When you compare key points, such as the government saying we do not have enforcement, I wonder. This brochure says:
- 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 bans or repeat offend will be subject to extended bans and further extensive rehabilitation.
It appears you are banned again, and again, and again, and again. You can continue to be banned. It does not say there is any consequence if you continue to offend. You are banned for one month, two months, three months, one year or two years. Does it continue to the point where people are banned for years and years and years?
These people are facing serious addiction issues and taking them off tap will not necessarily stop them drinking. The minister says turning them off and stopping it will stop people buying and drinking alcohol. I wonder where the minister is getting her information because in the real world, on the street, you find people addicted to alcohol, or some other addictive drug, will get hold of drugs. Alcohol is a legal drug available through our community. Irrespective of the time or the shop, people will find a way to get it. There are people who will do whatever it takes to get their drug of choice.
The government has no consequences for those who say no to rehabilitation. You place them on a banned register and keep banning them for longer periods; you tell them to have extensive rehabilitation. I do not see an end point here with a consequence. Put them into a mandatory process! Our policy is people can be ordered into mandatory treatment. When you are ordered to do something you do not have a choice, so mandatory should be mandatory, not optional.
Our primary concern is it is easy for others to buy grog for banned drinkers. What happens when you ban people? What happens when you have a large group of people, all friends, and all problem drinkers? You put someone on a banned register, they go to a hotel or bottle shop to buy alcohol and are refused - they walk away. The secondary offenders, if they are apprehended and the police can prove it, will be banned as well and charged under the Liquor Act.
What happens to people who still want alcohol? What if they refuse the mandatory rehabilitation? What happens at the end of that path? Are they out of sight, out of mind? Is the government taking the cheap option of a gloss over - we are making tough new laws - or are they just shifting the problem? If you put people on the banned list and they wander off into the bush to sit with friends, they may not come to notice. They might stay quiet for some time. You shift the problem off the street and hide it somewhere else. These people are still consuming alcohol.
I am sure the police, who are busy doing all sorts of things, will not be chasing people into secret areas of the bush where they drink. I suspect these people, far from dealing with their addiction or receiving meaningful rehabilitation and education to give them a hand, will continue to drink even though they are on a banned register. I have an issue with the black market which may evolve around this ban. People prepared to get others to buy grog for them will quite happily continue the spiral into poor health and even to violence.
The government’s plans for grog reforms and Labor’s practice of alcohol prohibition ahead of mandatory rehabilitation for drunks - wonder whether it is going to work. This is going to penalise the wider community. We all have to pay, in some way, for the government’s refusal to tackle the problem of problem drinkers. Not a large number of people are apprehended all the time. There are people well on their way to becoming habitual drunks who we should be targeting, especially through education on where their drinking habits are taking them.
The government cannot have it both ways: it has mandatory rehabilitation or it does not. It should not be optional as stated in the brochure. This brochure is going out to the public for comment. When you say a person can be ordered into mandatory sentence - there is a major difference between the government’s policy and our policy.
I am cautious about whether a banned drinker’s register will stop habitual drinking. The minister said yesterday this will stop people buying and drinking alcohol. I wonder if the minister believes that. To stop these people from drinking you need to offer real support to break the alcohol addiction. I do not see many mandatory rehabilitation programs.
The number of people in protective custody and sobering-up shelters in the last financial year was 50 000 - an extraordinary number. The government has introduced policies over the last 10 years saying it will do this and that - will assist these people; however, numbers are increasing.
The primary reason these people enter rehabilitation on a voluntarily basis is to address their lifestyle and drug abuse issues. We would hope many people choose to do so. There are programs in New South Wales, and I believe people from the Northern Territory have chosen to travel to New South Wales to participate. They are in fenced areas, no alcohol, with good counselling and rehabilitation services. Some people have stayed for a considerable time to break their alcohol addiction. I do not see in the statement or brochure from the government where we can offer something similar.
This appears to suggest brief interventions and working with GPs over an extended period of time. I am informed people in that area have issues with the amount of time required for brief interventions. We need a number of facilities in the Territory to house the 300 or so street people to provide them with assistance rather than send them to the bush where they continue to drink.
The government wants to build a new gaol. Government figures say 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. If we can take some of the habitual drunks who commit violent crimes or domestic violence - and I am talking about serious violence - these people get drunk, go through sobering-up shelters then start drinking the following day, almost being set up to fail. We have a revolving door syndrome. There is no prison farm to send people to dry out. I know from personal experience many people will not go voluntarily. They choose not to, and I wonder if they will be the same people who receive extended bans and extensive rehabilitation.
A core group of people in all our major centres will resist any form of rehabilitation. It is not within them. If we can identify them - and that will not be hard - go through the police records and see how many have been in more than three times in a week. The government says first three times in three months - ours is three times in six months. These people will not be very hard to identify because many are there three times in a week. We will quickly be able to identify people who are overloading our system and forming part of the 55 000 incidents of police taking people into custody. We heard yesterday 52% of police time is spent on alcohol-related issues. If we reduce that, police can deal with other community matters.
When people commit serious crimes they have to be put away for a length of time. I understand our gaols are full - no room. The Don Dale Centre in Darwin is full - no room. Courts are told early in the morning how many places are available in our correctional institutions. Some days it might be only one or two places. I have been told some people are released slightly ahead of time to free up a place in gaol so magistrates have an option to incarcerate one or two.
If we can avoid sending drunks to gaol and assist them with rehabilitation, for instance a farm in Katherine, we will reduce the prison population which brings us to the question of a new gaol. That is great; where is the money? The original quote was $300m. It now seems to be between $300m and $500m. I do not know the real figure. The government says one thing; people in the community say another.
If we reduce pressure on the prison system we may not need a new gaol. The members for Nelson and Barkly, and other government members, say the gaol is old and outdated. In comparison to correctional facilities around the country, it is quite new. It has only been there for about 35 years. It may have some design problems, but where do we get $300m to $500m to build a new one. We are failing to reduce the number of prisoners sent to gaol, which is an issue for government. If government can fix the problem by taking on some of the opposition ideas we may not need a new gaol.
The government tells us crime is down; I hear all the figures. I have several pages from the Northern Territory Quarterly Crime and Justice Statistics Issue 31 March quarter 2010. Looking at Katherine - my colleague, the member for Katherine, has been subjected to alcohol-fuelled violence in Katherine. Looking at offences against the person, in the March quarter 2008 we had 125 assaults and a few other offences. The total for March 2008 was 135. I will go through the quarters until we get to the current one: 122, 120, 156, 199, 179, 211, 206, and 172. When we look at the comparison for Katherine between the March 2008 quarter to the March 2010 quarter, it has gone from 135 to 172. Property offences show a slight reduction.
Let us go to Tennant Creek. What is happening in Tennant Creek? From March 2008 to March 2010, the number has increased by one, but very similar numbers all the way through. Break-ins are up, total property offences are up. I often wonder where the government gets figures from. When you look at the government’s statistics you see increases. We can all drag things out but when one hears government claiming this and that and then looks at their stats, they are increasing.
The government is taking the inexpensive option by allowing courts to order mandatory treatment and alcohol counselling, as opposed to the CLP’s clear indication it will breach people if they do not complete the control orders imposed upon them by a tribunal set up under the County Liberals.
I will go back to the banning. This says the first ban is three months. They are administrative bans. It says:
- 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.
We are not fixing the problem; we are moving it out of sight. Perhaps that is what the government wants - out of sight, out of mind. It is an inexpensive option. Providing meaningful rehabilitation to people addicted to alcohol is costly. However, the cost to the community is crime, assault, health costs, policing costs, and the education small kids do not receive? I know of many cases where kids look after their siblings rather than attend school. These are the people we need to provide assistance to so they can work through their issues and, if they choose to, kick their addiction. If they do not and continue to be drunk in our community, we need mandatory rehabilitation and mandatory education.
I would like to reiterate our enforcement policy: we will declare people are habitual drunks, and we will give counselling and mandatory rehabilitation if necessary.
The government brochure says there will be education. The banned drinker register and the ID system will target the good people in our community again; they will have to carry ID cards. You will not be able to take only cash. What happens when the power goes out, which happens regularly in the northern suburbs? I do not know what it is like in Alice Springs, I have not checked lately. People will not be able to purchase alcohol during a power outage. What about the tourist buses; people may want to stop as they are heading out of town. These are only little things; however, when put together they become a large problem.
Let us go back to community awareness and education. We have $500 000 a year for ongoing community education awareness to promote safe and responsible drinking and change the culture of drinking in the Territory. I will go back to one of my favourite subjects, school-based police. We used to have a fantastic …
Ms Lawrie: You were really good, weren’t you? You were so popular.
Mr STYLES: We had some good drug awareness programs. They were life skills programs where young people were exposed to things that empower them to say no.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my colleagues and members opposite. I will not take too much time. Much of this was said yesterday during the debate on the ministerial statement.
The government brochure does not mention what it will do with people who do not want to be rehabilitated. Will we leave them lying around the streets? Yesterday, a bunch of people were sitting around drinking, having a great time. The distance was 50 m from the front door of this House. What are we to do? How are you going to tackle those people?
We have laws and we should be using them. The problem is police are overloaded. We have more police per capita than anywhere else in Australia yet police officers are flat out. What does that indicate?
Madam Deputy Speaker, we need the government to put a criminal offence at the end of the line so people are aware if they do not go into voluntary rehabilitation there is a consequence. The general public is sick and tired of no consequences for things which happen in our community. I do not know if the government is listening, or talking to the people we are talking to. They might like to talk to real people with real issues. The CLP does not mind if government uses its policy points. We welcome that because it would create a better outcome for all Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion, which should come as no surprise to members opposite. We had this debate yesterday, and I look forward to debate continuing. Ultimately, the proof is always in the pudding. A radical reform system will attract much comment, which we are hearing from the opposition. It tends to be one out with its comment.
Everyone else in the stakeholder group embraces the reforms, and it is not unusual the opposition is out on a limb and fairly friendless. The debate will continue: the toing and froing between the respective political parties in this Chamber will continue. The proof will be in the pudding and implementation kicks in on 1 July 2011. We will then see whether this is stopping the habitual drunks the CLP referred to; the people we say are chronically reliant on alcohol. I have no doubt all issues raised in this debate will be raised ad nauseum through that period. That is democracy; it is good; it is healthy.
We are resolute in continuing with the reforms and basing our reforms on an evidence base, which we have done. We have looked at the evaluations of alcohol management plans, at how the ID systems work in different areas of the Territory, particularly Alice Springs and Katherine, but also Groote and Nhulunbuy, and understand those issues of secondary supply which the opposition continues to raise then turns a deaf ear to the answers. All of those issues will continue to be debated.
You can say: ‘You need to talk to real people to understand the real issues’. The reality is there would not a member of this parliament who does not spend most of their working life talking to the people of the Territory. That is what we are employed to do. We are meant to engage with people across the Territory, listen to the issues, learn about the aspirations of people and what they want, and understand what we need to do to tackle an issue head on, which is what these reforms are all about.
The example the opposition likes to use of people sitting in a local park drunk - and there is a park near Parliament House - are the people who need intervention to stop their reliance on grog and to turn their lives around, whether that is through picking up the ambulatory treatment we are talking about, or other types of treatment we are working on with the health sector. That could be existing treatment services or new services. It will be different for different people.
Some people will continue to go south. Some people will say: ‘I am going to get out of this environment altogether. I have the means, the support of my family, and I will go somewhere else for treatment’. It is all about putting in place a range of choices in treatment options to suit individuals, their circumstances, and their dependency. That is why we have been working so closely with the health sector to create therapeutic and health interventions to ensure we are not continuing to chase our tail - to give every chance of success with the health interventions. It is not such an easy thing to get someone off the grog and keep them off, or if they go back to ensure they are managing their use of the grog.
We have had suggestions and work from researchers around that and are picking up all those aspects, and it will be different. Some people will, like the member for Port Darwin, choose to become teetotallers for the rest of their lives because that suits them. Some people will choose to manage a consumption of alcohol if their therapeutic intervention gets them to that point. It will be different for people depending on their living circumstances - whether you are in an urban environment, a remote environment, a very remote environment or a regional environment, different packed together options and circumstances.
The notion we are taking the cheap way out - that we will push people into the bush where you will not see them and ignore the problem - is a heinous suggestion by the opposition. It is completely contrary to our direction in this reform package. I can understand why it would think that because it has been its practice forever and a day, and it often projects onto our side of the Chamber its own thoughts about how to tackle things. I would like to emphasise that it is absolutely wrong.
We are attempting to capture into an intervention people who have been living in the long grass or following the grog through the pathways of the Territory, a bold and strong intervention which will improve them and their lives. We say it is the individual’s responsibility as to how they behave with grog. It is their responsibility not the broader community, and there will be interventions on them rather than the broader community.
One thing in the entire reform package which affects everyone is the ID system - a less than 15 second swipe of your ID. People in Katherine and Alice Springs have been living with this for a long time. It is going to be a Territory-wide ID system. Yes, we are bold and we know it is not popular to have an ID system; however, what has been missing is the strong interventions which come with an ID system. People do not like ID systems because the rest of the system has not been packed with it - the bans from purchasing and consuming alcohol, the tribunal to deal with the mandatory treatment orders and the enhanced powers of the court.
That part of the reform to support the ID system has been missing. This is why we are confident about taking on the issue of creating an enforcement tool to ban people - turning the problem drinker off the tap. How do you create a tribunal to sort out mandatory treatment orders, because there will be different treatment orders depending on clinical assessments and the individual’s needs and circumstances.
The stark difference between the opposition and the government is its view - I listened carefully to the member for Sanderson saying you will send habitual drunks straight to gaol, back to …
Members: No, we are not.
Ms LAWRIE: I listened to him, and I will get the Hansard rush and repeat it. ‘We will get the habitual drunks and send them straight to gaol’ is what he said. The stark difference between the government and the opposition in this debate is government will not be criminalising drunkenness. That is archaic, and the Territory removed those laws decades ago. We say the community does not want to continue seeing harm; we are not going to continue putting up with antisocial behaviour. We are not going to continue to see the grog-fuelled crime rates, and will have bold and strong interventions. There is a very stark difference between the government and opposition views.
Maybe the member for Sanderson went a little too far with what he said in debate today. Maybe he was not quite sticking to the script when he said: ‘We will take the habitual drunks and we will send them straight to gaol’, then said: ‘The gaol will be like a work camp’. Work camps do not exist. He clearly missed the debate about the new era in Corrections. He clearly missed the investment the government is making in the Barkly to establish a work camp. He missed the entire debate around a new era in Corrections and the work we are doing in Katherine. He talked about not needing a new gaol; what is wrong with the existing one. I do not know if he has had a good look at Berrimah gaol - had a brief from Correctional Services in the way the gaol does not provide education and rehabilitation in a meaningful way to reduce recidivist behaviour. Let us not burst the bubble of ignorant bliss in which the member for Sanderson exists.
This government will continue with genuine reforms which go to the heart of the problem - the chronic reliance on alcohol across sections of our community. Not the majority, the majority is fine. The majority is going about its day, going to the pub, going to the bottle shop, going to a barbecue with mates, and doing the right thing. The minority with a chronic dependence on alcohol require intervention and this is what this reform will achieve.
Something showing up in the evidence, if you want an evidence-based approach, is it is not only a chronic dependence on alcohol; it is the associated high-risk binge-drinking behaviour. Some people are chronic drinkers but, for periods of time, will go to dry areas and not drink. An example is the flow of people in and out of Alice Springs. They go to a community, live in the community and are not on the grog. They go into town and there is this massive consumption of alcohol over a period of time. It is called binge-drinking by researchers and experts. They binge-drink then return to a community and be dry for quite some time. It is a unique situation in the remoter areas of Queensland, South Australia, Western Australian and the Northern Territory.
Using that evidence base, you look at a workable health intervention. That is why the experts in this field have advised the ambulatory aspect of the health intervention we have attached to the bans will work, based on the way people can come off a chronic grog binge into a dry scenario. They also say look at the support in the home environment, which is why we are so focused on the opportunities for the growth towns. We need alcohol and other drug service providers spread out beyond regional centres where they exist now. If someone is coming into town they have controls around them. When they go back, they are receiving ongoing support.
It is not the cheap option; it is a complex, health interventionist model put together with experts. All the experts - AMSANT, Amity, FORWAARD, the Northern Territory Council of Social Services and the AMA are fully supportive. I am not going to go through - although I have the quotes with me - the strong support they have for these reforms.
On the other side of the coin is the liquor industry. I have had several good meetings with the Liquor Association and taken them through the reforms. They are interested. Use the point of sale examples existing in Alice Springs and Katherine. They have taken the time to find out details, such as if there is a power blackout, it is okay and they can continue to trade; there are no penalties, etcetera. Tourists and locals can make their purchase. They have taken the time to find out - not just spurious thought bubbles from the member for Sanderson.
The Australian Hotels Association recognises the importance of the reforms, and will continue working with the government on them. The Liquor Association has signed up, Coles and Woolies, and large retailers within the Liquor Association have signed up, and local small traders within the Liquor Association support it. It is good to have discussions with them. They are curious about secondary supply issues and we have talked them through the secondary supply action we will be taking. We talked about accessing wine clubs and purchasing online. We are working in a reality scenario with the people on the front line, people who know sale of grog really well because it is their day-to-day business.
On the other side of the coin are the health experts who deal with the alcohol and other drugs rehabilitative environment. We have also engaged the legal fraternity on criminal offences which are alcohol-fuelled, and how best to tackle those. That is the SMART Court and the expanded powers, and joining the grog court and the credit court.
This has not been a theoretical let-us-draw-on-a-whiteboard exercise; it has been a significant body of work engaging with people across all sectors. Not surprisingly, they have supported the reforms. Not surprisingly, the CLP stands on its own condemning them, not understanding them, misrepresenting them and making up mistruths about them. I had to explain on radio this morning what was said earlier on radio was wrong, and why it was wrong.
The proof will be in the pudding. It is tough. They are tough new measures. It is a tough love regime - tough interventions. No one has tried it before. Everyone who understands this field recognises it is tough. Nowhere in Australia, or the world, has a government proposed anything this tough.
This issue is too important not to tackle in such a comprehensive way. It is having such a significant effect across our community, from individuals, their families, to our broader community. No one can say what the success rate will be; it has not been done before. We have seen dramatic crime reductions in Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy. We have seen significant serious assault reductions in Alice Springs. We are giving it a shot.
Because we have different models in different parts of the Territory, we have seen people following the grog. This is why we have a reform which is consistent across the Territory. It is bad enough someone making a decision about where they will live based on whether they can access grog, it is even worse to dislocate their family, which is the neglect we have been debating for days, quite appropriately, post the Growing them strong, together report.
I have no doubt the CLP will continue misleading the community about the details of this reform. I put you on notice - you will be proven to have misled - be careful how far you go because we will come at you every time you tell a porky pie. The more times you tell a porky pie it will become the boy who cried wolf - people will stop believing you. You are on the verge of not being believed at all on this. Continue to spin out in the strange way, bearing in mind the broad support we have from the industry associations, the health organisations and the legal associations. We have taken the time to go into the detail of our proposal. Keep spinning and you will lose the shards of credibility you may have left.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the debate. I look forward to the continuing misrepresentation from the CLP because every time it does it, it destroys the slim shards of credibility it has left.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we have heard the standard tactic to be employed by the Attorney-General - the holder and keeper of all truths in the Northern Territory. If we disagree with the Attorney-General on any issue she publicly calls us liars. That is the philosophy and approach of this government. By no means enter into a debate, enter into mudslinging and name-calling and saying anyone who disagrees with the comrades opposite is automatically a liar.
I say to my Fabian friends on the other side of the House, we will continue to call out the shortcomings of these policies, for all the reasons we have continued to call out the shortcomings of policies.
The great unmissed truth peddled is this is in some way the toughest thing ever done in the world. Nonsense! I point honourable members to what was done in the 1920s in the United States. That was tough. It also put into place organised crime which exists to this day.
They say: ‘We have banning orders’, which will be inflicted upon every individual who seeks to purchase liquor in our community because you have to stump up your ID. This is part of the great social plan we hear from members opposite. They say in the next breath: ‘We are going to do something about the black market we know it will create’. What will that be? It will simply be a law. That law will prevent the black market this will create. How many members of this House have worked in remote communities and seen the effort put into dealing with illicit grog being run into remote communities and the law? How much damage has been caused to families because a cask of wine which could have been purchased in Alice Springs for $10 or $15 has been on-sold in a remote community for $50 to $100 from the boot of a car?
Creating banning orders will create a black market for the people on it. These people are drug addicts. They are alcoholics. They will not give a rat’s backside about it being against the law. They will seek out their drug of passion by any means. I can see it now, in Alice Springs someone walks into the bottle shop, shows their licence, buys a cask of wine - what is a cask of wine worth nowadays?
Mrs Lambley: We do not sell them in Alice Springs.
Mr ELFERINK: Say $20 - they will walk to the river, 150 feet away, and sell it for $50. It will produce a result the government says it is trying not to produce. It says: ‘We are going to police it’. There will be a tidal wave of illicit grog sales. How are you going to police this? Are you going to have a copper sitting on every sand dune in the Todd River hiding with his binoculars, saying: ‘Oh, here comes one now. Lady in the boat approaching someone else, yeah, yeah, got them. No worries, they are under arrest’. You have one out of how many? While you are typing that up at the station, how many other casks are being sold?
The government is still enamoured with the concept you can manage society from this room - you can manage alcoholism and drug addiction from this room. It is nonsense.
Let us talk about Schedule 1, 2 and 3 drugs. How successful are we in applying the laws of this room? We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year policing illegal drugs in our community. Have we stopped them? Are fewer ecstasy tablets being sold in the nightclub strip of Darwin or Alice Springs tonight as a result? Probably a handful more. The government says: ‘We take their property away. We have legislation, and we prevent those big drug bosses from accumulating wealth. We acquired $2m last year off the illicit drug crime bosses’. That is a minor tax.
In this House we are still enamoured with the concept, particularly our friends opposite, that we can control what people want to do. Get between a heroin addict and his needle and see what happens. Get between an alcoholic and his pub - he will find away around you. He will tunnel under you, climb over the top of you and, if necessary, go through you. This is why I do not subscribe to what the government is doing. Members opposite are genuine in their efforts. What they want to do is noble. I used the word ‘beautiful’ in intent. Unfortunately, it is fundamentally wrong.
The purpose of our policy is to sidestep the problems this government will face in the implementation of the system. The Attorney-General said they are looking at the therapeutic response. The word ‘therapeutic’ is finally dropped into the lexicon of their vocabulary. That therapeutic response is based on a new philosophy of justice in our community. It is called therapeutic jurisprudence; I referred to it earlier tonight. Part of that process is what they introduced earlier with the concept of Alcohol Courts, which were sold as being tough on crime. I cannot lay my hands on the media release but they said Alcohol Courts would be tough on crime. The Alcohol Courts take people who would be going to gaol and provide them an opportunity to engage in something which keeps them out of gaol.
Similarly, the non-legislatively established credit courts, which were probably more effective in the therapeutic approach the government seeks to pursue, had the effect of keeping people out of gaol. If that is the approach the government wants to take, say it. Do not put out a media release saying you are being tough on crime with alcohol courts when you are taking a therapeutic approach.
Finally, the SMART Courts will be based on the same philosophical construct. You end up saying to people: ‘All right, you are not going to gaol because therapeutic jurisprudence means we do not want to hurt or upset you. We do not want to cause you grief or personal stress. We want you to come into the warmth of our embrace and have the court system be a non-negative experience for you’. That is the fundamental concept; I am oversimplifying it. I know much good work has gone into therapeutic jurisprudence; however, in a nutshell you do not want the court system, police officers, or gaol system to have a negative impact on people.
That is what the government is proposing. The problem I have is people will come before the SMART Courts, be charged with criminal offences, be subject to the banning orders the government is proposing, and will have breached those banning orders. What is the ultimate sanction? The Alcohol Court proposes a threat that if you breach your agreement with the court to do certain things your sentence will be resurrected and you will go to gaol. The whole process still presumes the existence of a penalty at the end. We are offsetting the penalty by one or two steps to bring about a therapeutic result. Therefore, we are engaged in rehabilitation. That is the argument the government is running.
I do not believe long-grassers will take a banning order seriously. That is true, also, for the model we are proposing. We are going to cut out the middle man. In our model, once you come to notice three times in six months - we are a little more generous than the government on this issue - for being picked up for being intoxicated in public, you will end up in front of a tribunal with an administrative role but a quasi-judicial quality, whereas the government will simply say: ‘The coppers will issue you a banning notice’. I am not fussing too much about the structures. The banning notice means, as an habitual drunk, you are still at liberty. Guess what, you will ignore your banning notice and be at the pub, or someone will buy grog for you. You will be picked up. Sooner or later, for breaching those orders that person will go to gaol. What happens then concerns me because I have heard nothing to suggest rehabilitation operates within the prison system. The system the government proposes as rehabilitation is something you do as a result of therapeutic jurisprudence to avoid going to gaol.
Addicts and alcoholics will not be keen to follow banning orders. They will ignore them. What happens is you end up in something like a gaol. Is it concrete walls? No, it will probably be a cyclone mesh fence - perhaps two. Will it be lock-up? Yes, but it will not be a high-security facility. It will be incarceration and a mandatory three months for breaching an habitual drunks order given by the system we propose. That is when the treatment is applied because that is when they are in custody. That is when they are straight, clean, and sober – not because they do not want to be; it is the way it is. They are controlled. We are saying to the community: ‘You must produce your driver’s licence, your passport photograph, or your bank account details, or whatever, when you are buying grog’. We are saying: ‘You are not responsible for the actions of a handful’.
The 35 000 people arrested last year is 14% of the Northern Territory population. I do not believe we arrested 14% of the population last year. I do not believe two people in this Chamber were arrested for being intoxicated. I believe it is about 300 or 400 people. The Chief Minister says only 250 people are frequent flyers; they keep coming through the system again and again and again. How do I know this? I used to lock them up. Some could have had their mail sent to the police station with their frequency of visitation. You give them their letters as they leave custody.
Under our system the therapeutic processes are inflicted, enforced or, in some way, compulsorily brought to people’s attention. It is done in a controlled environment. The government’s system cannot achieve that unless it introduces similar programs into the gaol system after these people enter the system, because that is where they are going to go. That is where the vast majority of people will end up under the government system; they just go through a few more steps to get there. If government intends to pursue this program it must have something available in the prison system.
I am curious about this passion for building this new edifice prison which will be the most modern prison doing modern things. We do not require that much concrete to hold people who are largely traffic offenders, or people who are not that bad, especially when not on the grog.
If we had the 250 to 350 frequent flyers in custody they would be very easy to manage. There may be one or two miscreants who could go in with the gaol population - maximum if they want to play up. Most of them will be fairly compliant. You are not going to need edifices around them. They could be housed in a much more simple system and programs could be brought to bear.
Government, do not inflict yourself on the whole of the community for the sake of being seen to be tough on this. I believe members opposite are genuine. I cannot imagine how often alcohol issues have been debated in this House; we have done it twice in two days. I do not believe your system will work. I heard the Attorney-General’s comments about speaking to FORWAARD and other organisations. Yes, there is no shortage of professionals who think this is a good idea. It is much better than what is happening at the moment, and probably better than anything the CLP did in office. At that time, there were only 11 000 apprehensions in the year 1999-2000 for protective custody in the Northern Territory. Last year there were 35 000 - a threefold increase.
The government has presided over a massive increase in these apprehensions, and we see more drunks in our parks than before. I have seen them in the newspaper today. They are washing up on the doorsteps of this House. Make those people who drink and cause problems in our communities responsible.
Madam Speaker, my comments tonight have been almost exclusively targeted at long-grassers. What would happen if we freed up the police resources involved in arresting 35 000 and put a small proportion into Mitchell Street? You could deal with the other issues Mitchell Street, and some of our other nightspots, produce. Thirty-five thousand arrests take a great deal of effort. The system will take many long-grassers out of circulation, but it will take longer because there are more stages between the orders and ultimate incarceration. Also, if a person breaches an order and ends up in court for sentencing, does the government guarantee a minimum period of incarceration as a result of breaching the order, or will people who breach orders be released so they can get back on the grog again at the rising of the court?
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I support this very important motion today.
Mr Knight: You are not reading from a speech, are you, Adam?
Mr GILES: I am not reading from a speech, member for Daly. Standing Order 51 - the member for Daly is interrupting.
This is a very important motion. The Northern Territory government addresses the issue of alcohol demand through rehabilitation and education of habitual drinkers, not through a system which penalises the wider community as a consequence of its policy actions. This is timely. This motion is put before us a day after debating alcohol in this Chamber, and on the back of reforms proposed in Alice Springs.
I am not talking about the Enough is Enough campaign. I am talking about the proposal by the government, supported by some in the Alice Springs community, who want to see all alcohol sold in Alice Springs between 11.30 am and 2 pm be of mid-strength only. That is not supported by the people of Alice Springs, small business or me. The proposal is a restriction on the good people who do the right thing in our town, and has nothing to do with the people doing the wrong thing in Alice Springs.
The member for Port Darwin gave a great speech about protective custody orders and people picked up by night patrol. People with chronic alcohol problems in our town are a small number and are repeat offenders. It is causing great concern. We have the People’s Alcohol Action Group, and John Boffa from Congress, pushing for further reform without any measures on the demand for alcohol. That is why this motion is very important; it talks about penalising the wider community, and does nothing about mechanisms to deal with substance abuse problems, or measures for people who are chronic abusers of alcohol.
It is very important I get the message through. I, and the community of Alice Springs, do not support the 3.5% limit. I request the Minister for Alcohol Policy not to go down that path. I implore the Licensing Commissioner to listen to the people of Alice Springs. I understand a public campaign is starting in Alice Springs next week to lobby government not to go ahead with this proposal.
I would like government to take on demand issues to limit people wanting to drink all this alcohol. If the 3.5% restriction is successful, people who go into these animal bars day in, day out will purchase 20 mid-strength beers not 10 VBs. They will be buying XXXX Gold and Carlton Midstrength until the cows come home, become bloated, more unfit because they are drinking more grog, spending more of their welfare dollars on alcohol, which is detrimental to them and their families, and penalising the wider community.
We debated the Enough is Enough campaign yesterday, and I spoke in favour of the campaign and what government is doing. However, I cannot support this, and ask the government to delay until we can see the results of the Enough is Enough campaign. There are several measures, including the identification system which has been in Alice Springs for a period of time, which will be rolled out across the Northern Territory.
My colleague is passing me the important points about the Enough is Enough campaign. There will be the banned drinker register and the need for people to utilise ID systems. It is tough; people do not like it. It would be easy for us to take a popular approach and not support it. I have given my support to the government addressing this problem. It will impinge on all people in the Northern Territory. If this limit of 3.5% alcohol in Alice Springs is so good, roll it out across the Northern Territory under your Enough is Enough campaign? See how popular it is in Darwin or the northern suburbs when you cannot have a glass of Riesling with your lunch. That is what they want in Alice Springs. You cannot leave the worksite on a Friday, possibly working on a SIHIP house, go to the Gillen Club and have a beer after work. You have to have mid-strength. Alcohol is a problem in the Territory, but for those of us who do the right thing it is a poor measure to introduce and I request government not do it.
I have offered to work with government to support the Enough is Enough campaign. I hope it is not just a plan. I hope it is not all talk like everything else this government does. If it is serious, I will offer assistance. I ask you not to introduce the 3.5% alcohol restriction.
The member for Sanderson has brought this important motion before this House. It is important we do not penalise people who do the right thing in the Northern Territory. It is important to work with people who do the wrong thing, and those with substance abuse problems, address their concerns and have in place punitive approaches to penalise people who go against the system.
We have to remember we are here for all Territorians and not run some socialist red regime looking at one category of people. We have people in the Territory who work and pay taxes, and allow us to work in this House, unlike the socialists who want to help people in unfortunate circumstances by penalising people who are doing the right thing. We need a different way of looking at it. You have to have the right balance, and this government does not have that.
Madam Speaker, the member for Sanderson is doing a fantastic job representing the people of the Territory. I commend him for his approach. I will not talk further. I am sure members on the other side of the Chamber want to talk on this important motion. I commend the motion to the House, and I thank the member for Sanderson for bringing it on.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. Much has been said on this issue. The minister said the CLP wants to send everyone straight to prison. That is incorrect. I covered the three aspects of the CLP policy, and mentioned that point two says it is voluntary to comply with those orders. If you fail to comply with the order, it then becomes mandatory and you will be off to a prison farm. The minister believes I used the word ‘work camp’. I did not. She did that to talk about the work camp at Tennant Creek, which is different to what we envisaged in Katherine, being mainly rehabilitation and education.
I agree with the minister: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We will watch this new policy unfold with great interest.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Registration of Recreational Water Craft
Registration of Recreational Water Craft
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly calls on the Northern Territory government to be honest, accountable and transparent in their plans to introduce a scheme for registration of recreational water craft in all Northern Territory waters.
I will go straight to the point; the Chief Minister has an opportunity to respond to the public of the Northern Territory in relation to the government’s plan for a boat registration scheme. It promotes a policy of negotiation over litigation yet we see, in relation to the predicament government is in, it has pulled on the Northern Land Council instead of negotiating with it, taken it to the High Court and, lo and behold, lost. The government wanted to be seen as tough so it put advertisements in papers saying it would ensure the fishing rights of all people in the Northern Territory would be protected. I recall seeing those large ads. However, it did not negotiate; it chose to go to the High Court. This time the government rolled the dice and lost. The High Court gives you no room to move. The people you bullied into going to the High Court came out the winners, which has placed government in a difficult position to negotiate.
If negotiation had continued we may not be in the position we are today. However, the government lost and has to attempt negotiation. It does not have any cards left to play, and is at the mercy of the Tiwi Council, the Northern Land Council, and the Anindilyakwa Land Council.
We have looked at the intertidal zone. It used to be common law for people to enter those waters until requested to leave - they could fish there. However, as a result of a side issue from the Blue Mud Bay decision, the court found in land held under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, you could not go into the body of water at high tide which is over the line between the high water mark and the low water mark. We have a problem; common law access is lost. Members of AFANT, other fisher-people, people from interstate and tourists all have an issue. The government has nowhere to go; it has burnt its bridges. It is common knowledge in the community that the Northern Land Council, before it will negotiate with the government on access to this fishing ground, is insisting a boat registration system be introduced. Either that or the waters be closed.
The predicament government finds itself in is it would be political suicide to say: ‘You have to have permits’. It has previously stated that no one will need a permit, it will negotiate. The Chief Minister has said in answer to questions during Question Time government will be negotiating; all will be well. The government will not commit political suicide by telling Territorians we will further erode their lifestyle, and the reason for boat registration is the government has failed to negotiate with the land councils. We are trying to attract people. Government continues to say: ‘Come and enjoy our great lifestyle’. However, they are closing all aspects of the Territory lifestyle people enjoy.
It is an opportunity for the Chief Minister to tell Territorians how much this will cost. If negotiation is occurring, how much will it cost Territory taxpayers for access to these waters without permits? Given the government does not have any aces up its sleeve - it has played its cards - and is at the mercy of the land councils, I suspect this will cost Territory taxpayers a considerable amount. The Chief Minister might let us know what arrangements have been made. People are concerned. I have had numerous text messages and e-mails, as have my colleagues, in relation to this.
A member: A great, big, new boat tax.
Mr STYLES: Yes, great, big, new boat tax. Boat users want infrastructure. They are concerned the fees will be siphoned off for private interests. This issue has been managed badly from day one. The government is now passing this cost to the ordinary men and women of the Territory, particularly the Top End, who will pay for this mismanagement. I ask all members to support this motion.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, on 3 July 2008, the High Court handed down its decision in the Blue Mud Bay case. The High Court decision recognised the Fisheries Act is valid in all waters over Aboriginal land, and approval is required to enter and remain on those waters over Aboriginal land. Since that time, our government has entered into close negotiations with land councils and fisheries stakeholders to reach a practical, negotiated outcome. This government is committed to reaching an outcome which provides for the enduring and certain access to all waters without permits or permit fees for anglers. We are continuing to negotiate in good faith with land councils, AFANT and the Seafood Council. I thank the stakeholders for their ongoing commitment to negotiate a win/win situation.
No decision has been made by the government to implement a boat identification scheme for the Northern Territory - no registration and boat identification scheme. The boat identification scheme has been raised by land councils throughout the negotiating process, and is a key element of the Northern Land Council’s response to the government’s settlement proposal.
As the Territory’s boating population grows, the government is also committed to ensuring that those who use our waterways do so safely. Should any decision be made to introduce a boat identification scheme in preference to permits, we will consider suggestions from AFANT and other stakeholders regarding the design of the scheme. We have committed to negotiate in good faith, and will continue to consider issues which arise in the good faith negotiations.
Under the CLP, anglers will require permits to fish in Territory waters. Come the next election, a vote for the CLP will be a vote for fishing permits. The CLP has indicated - and the outcome will be - permits will be required. It is a very clear choice for anglers. The CLP promises to have fishing permits. The CLP will not negotiate. It has already brought proposed legislation around Blue Mud Bay before the House without any consultation.
In contrast, this government is committed to ensure our waterways remain open to recreational anglers. That is why this government is negotiating in good faith for a win/win outcome for anglers, commercial operators and Indigenous stakeholders. The Northern Territory government remains confident a practical negotiated outcome will be reached with all stakeholders.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Sanderson for bringing on this motion. I am disappointed to see the minister, yet again, reading a speech concocted by some faceless person from the 5th floor. Clearly, in this case, as in so many others, the minister is not across his brief. He came out with some good news - government has not made a decision. Had the minister ruled out boat registration it would have been much better news for this Chamber, and certainly for the fishos and boaters of the Territory.
The minister insists on verballing the Country Liberals, suggesting a Country Liberals government would introduce fishing permits. That is a message the minister would like to promulgate hoping the view gains currency across the Territory, especially amongst fishers and boaters in the Top End. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Part of the federal Liberal policy was outlined to AFANT in the 2007 election campaign, when the then federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, visited the Northern Territory and addressed concerns about possible consequences of the Blue Mud Bay case and the requirement people may have if the court handed down the decision it did. He explained to AFANT a re-elected Coalition government would legislate the issue away, and he had strong legal advice that was possible. I would have thought a Territory Labor government, in cahoots with the federal Labor government and so supportive of it, would be talking to the federal Attorney-General, saying: ‘Look, Mr Attorney-General, maybe you can consider legislating this problem away’. End of problem - no permit system, no need to have bulk registrations, no need to slug Territorians with new taxes and registrations. No, this government is not that creative. It will not take on the land councils even though it spent several million dollars worth of taxpayer’s money fighting the decision. It sees itself as a great supporter of the land councils; it will not do that.
Instead it reverts to the old Labor way, create a new tax. In this case, a brand new boat tax in the form of registration. I would like to go further with this debate, but time is pressing and other people want to speak. I support the member for Sanderson. I am disappointed at this government’s lack of creativity and desire to fix this problem. It takes the easy path; slug Territory boaters and fishermen and not come up with an alternative.
Madam Speaker, I will save my comments on the anti-development policies of the Northern Land Council for future debate.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, this debate will continue, especially in the community. As this mess unfolds community concern will be expressed through this side of the House, and the media. This is not over; more will come, and perhaps more motions on this very important issue affecting so many Territorians.
Motion negatived.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS) BILL
(Serial 134)
(Serial 134)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, I am introducing this bill as the first step to delivering the much needed reform advocated by the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. The opposition has a strong record of campaigning for reform of the Northern Territory’s child protection system. The opposition has been ahead of government at every turn in recognising the Northern Territory’s child protection system was in crisis, needed major reform, and has put forward policy and legislative changes to improve protection for children.
Work of the opposition, particularly my predecessor, led to the commissioning of the report. We are pleased the government established the inquiry with an independent committee and sincerely thank the work of the committee. I only wish its commissioning had not occurred as the inquiry itself identified:
- … in the wake of adverse publicity arising from a number of tragedies and public complaints about the inadequate responses of child protection services.
We can dwell on the past, on the 10 years of child protection failures under the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory, and the government’s failure to actively seek ways to protect children rather than weakly respond to horrendous stories of abuse and neglect. Today is not that day.
Today, I present very important legislative amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act, to strengthen the role and power of the Children’s Commissioner so he/she can more rigorously and comprehensively protect Northern Territory children. I have no doubt the government supports the intent of this legislation. This bill ensures the immediate implementation of recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report; a recommendation the government has accepted.
Today, I give the government a second chance; a second chance too many vulnerable Northern Territory children have never had. Today, I ask the government to do more than support the intent of the bill. I ask it to support the bill and make the first changes to the Northern Territory’s child protection system a bipartisan effort. Today, those opposite can show the leadership required of all in this Chamber to better protect our children, help build a child protection system with strong checks and balances, and enhanced oversight and monitoring, and stronger powers of investigation for the legislative child protection watchdog.
Yesterday, the Chief Minister said any legislative amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act would be introduced as one package. There is no logical reason for that position. You have before you very sound and thorough legislation implementing an important recommendation of the inquiry. You will have read in the inquiry report the current act provides the Children’s Commissioner with very limited means to ensure the wellbeing of protected children. You will have noted the other limitations placed on the position - serious limitations which put children at risk. How many more children are you prepared to put at risk? How many more children are you prepared to let slip through the cracks? Why wait when you can act now? The best public relations approach for your government is to back the opposition’s legislation and strengthen the Children’s Commissioner’s power. Thousands of Northern Territory children will thank you for such a bold and decisive move, one not borne of politics but of protecting our children.
Turning to the specifics: recommendation 136 demands the government:
- … reviews the roles and functions of the Children’s Commissioner in the light of this Inquiry with a view to amending the Act to address the needs for:
specific powers for the Children’s Commissioner to obtain documents, examine persons, or carry out any type of investigations as part of his/or her monitoring functions
a broader role in monitoring the implementation of Northern Territory government decisions arising from any inquiries in relation to the child protection system or the wellbeing of children under the Inquiries Act.
Amendments introduced by this bill will achieve this reform and borrow strongly from the bill introduced in February by my predecessor, the former member for Araluen. That bill expanded the commissioner’s functions, allowing him to initiate own motion investigations, receive and investigate matters of concern by the Child Deaths Review Committee, and investigate complaints about failings by the department or police when responding to a complaint about child abuse. The government’s excuse for not supporting the amendments at the time was it did not want to pre-empt the findings of the inquiry.
Well, the results are in: 147 recommendations were made by the Board of Inquiry to improve child protection in the Territory; 34 classified as urgent and to be implemented immediately, or within six months. The government has committed to support the implementation of all 34 recommendations within the six month time frame. The first thing it does is announce plans to form yet another committee - a committee still in the formation stage which will not be operational until after the government has released its response to each of the 147 recommendations. Goodness knows when that will be. In the meantime, there will be no independent body to monitor government decisions relating to the implementation of the recommendations.
This bill is about delivering real powers of investigation and real independence to the Children’s Commissioner now. Right now, not in six months time, or before the end of the year as requested by the government, before any more children can fall through the cracks and the much-needed change is lost in the smoke and mirrors engineered by the government’s spin doctors.
I will now talk to the clauses of the bill. Under existing legislation, the Children’s Commissioner can only investigate complaints relating to the care of protected children - children in the care of the CEO - or the implementation of recommendations arising from the protection of Aboriginal children from the sexual abuse report. The commissioner does not have the ability to initiate own motion investigations into matters he may come across through his functions of monitoring the administration of the act, or the implementation of decisions arising from the Little Children are Sacred report.
Clause 3 amends section 13 of the act and redefines the term ‘investigation’ to incorporate an expansion of the commissioner’s functions. The new definition expands the definition of ‘investigation’ to allow the commissioner to initiate own motion investigations into any matter relating to the wellbeing of a child, whether or not the child is a protected child, and to investigate a matter referred to him by the Child Deaths Review Committee. Both these powers build on his current ability to investigate a complaint made by a member of the public about the wellbeing of a child at risk.
To enable these expanded powers of investigation and the other amendments proposed by this bill, section 258 has been amended by clause 4 to clarify the object of this part is to ensure the wellbeing of all children, and to monitor the implementation of government decisions relating to inquiries under the Inquiries Act, and reports and judicial recommendations which relate to the wellbeing of children.
Clause 5 amends section 260 to expand the commissioner’s functions. The commissioner’s functions will be expanded to allow the commissioner to investigate complaints about the handling of allegations by the police force or the department, whether or not the original complaint referred to a protected child; to initiate own motion investigations on a matter relating to the wellbeing of a Territory child, whether or not that child is a protected child; to investigate a matter referred to the commissioner by the Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee; to monitor the implementation of government decisions relating to the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report and provide the minister with a quarterly report on progress of recommendations which much be tabled within six sitting days of receipt; and to monitor the implementation of government decisions relating to inquiries conducted under the Inquiries Act relating to the wellbeing of children and reports and judicial recommendations the commissioner considers relevant to the wellbeing of children.
This last function was specifically requested by the commissioner in his submission to the Growing them strong, together report. We have made one slight change to this recommendation by giving the commissioner the scope to consider all reports and judicial recommendations relating to the wellbeing of children, rather than only protected children. This will ensure government can be held accountable for decisions relating to recommendations, such as those made in the Coronial Inquest into the death of Georgia Rae Tilmouth, which demonstrated the need for major reform in the policy and practices within the maternity unit of the Royal Darwin Hospital - recommendations not specifically for protected children, but which impact on the wellbeing of all children born in the Territory.
Clause 6 amends section 262 to increase the independence of the commissioner by removing any restrictions on the commissioner’s independence imposed by another Territory act. The wording of the current section makes the role of the commissioner subordinate to the department’s CEO. To quote the Ombudsman in her submission to the Board of Inquiry, the wording of section 262:
- … places the Commissioner in the same position as any employee of the Department of Health and Families and make him subject to the authority of the CEO of the Department of Health and Families under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, including disciplinary action and contract renewal.
How can the commissioner be truly independent to comment and provide honest and constructive criticism of government, and the agencies responsible for the care and protection of children, if he is subordinate to the head of the Department of Health and Families? This amendment, and the amendment to section 271, are critical to improving the autonomy of the commissioner.
Clauses 7 and 8 amend sections 263 and 264, and will allow a person who has made a report under the mandatory reporting provisions of the act - section 26 - to make a complaint to the commissioner if they believe the response to their report of child abuse by the department or the police has been inadequate.
This amendment will achieve two important functions. One, it will drive improvement in the way reports of child abuse and neglect are handled by the police and the department. This is an important step towards reducing the number of children falling through the cracks in the early stages of abuse and neglect. It will also encourage the department and the police to refer matters of abuse and neglect which may not meet the investigation threshold to appropriate support services to improve the wellbeing of that child. By doing so, it will address the cause of cumulative harm which, if addressed early in the cycle of abuse, may prevent the need for that child to be taken away from its family and put into the care of the CEO.
Two, it will give members of the public, workers within children services, education, and the health system the much needed reassurance of an independent complaints process when the normal reporting channels fail to address the problem or are simply ignored by the system.
Clause 11 amends section 271. Under the current act, the commissioner can only compel a person to give evidence or documentation in relation to the investigation of a complaint. There is no ability for the commissioner to compel information, or witnesses, in the performance of his other functions of monitoring administration of the act or government decisions relating to reports. This amendment proposes to expand this power to apply to the performance of any of the commissioner’s functions. This will give the commissioner much needed powers to better perform his functions and hold government to account.
The second amendment is to increase the penalty from 20 penalty units to 100 penalty units for persons failing to comply with a request of the commissioner to give evidence under oath, or failing to verify a written statement by an oath. It will remain at the commissioner’s discretion as to whether a person will be sworn or be required to verify a written statement. The maximum penalty for refusing to do so will be increased from 20 penalty units to 100 penalty units to bring it in line with similar offences in other Territory acts.
Clause 13 amends section 278, which will require the commissioner to report, at six-monthly intervals on the implementation of government decisions relating to the 147 recommendations contained in the Growing them strong, together report. This report is to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within six sitting days of receipt. Within three months from the three year anniversary of the release of the Growing them strong, together report, the commissioner must provide the minister with a report on which of the recommendations have been implemented, the extent of implementation, and the effectiveness of all recommendations contained in the report.
The excuse the government wants to introduce all legislative changes as a complete package is just that, an excuse; an excuse to avoid delivering real improvement to the role of the Children’s Commissioner; an excuse not to commit to any real action on the report’s recommendations; an excuse for the Chief Minister’s desperate desire for anything to make the government look like it is governing rather than acting as a bureaucracy’s PR agent.
The Chief Minister has committed to introducing a legislative package to implement the legislative reforms recommended by the report. Yesterday, during Question Time, the Chief Minister stated:
- The report handed to government last week foreshadows a raft of legislative amendments the government has committed to. It is not about picking up individual pieces of legislation in isolation of the whole report, and the government commits to amending legislation as recommended in this report.
The opposition welcomes the commitment to implement the legislative reforms recommended by the report; however, I am staggered by the Chief Minister’s hypocrisy in introducing today the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, Serial 133. Yesterday, he stated:
- … it is not about picking up individual pieces of legislation in isolation of the whole report.
Today, he introduces legislation addressing recommendation 25 of the report, to improve offender management strategies and implement a community-based child protection scheme - efficiencies directly addressed by the provisions of the Chief Minister’s bill through the requirement to report travel within the Territory and the sharing of information relating to reportable offenders with the CEO of an agency which has responsibility for children.
The Country Liberals originally introduced legislation to improve information sharing. The government had an opportunity to strengthen the role of the Children’s Commissioner in August and chose not to pre-empt the board’s recommendations. It dismisses this bill out of hand saying it wanted to bring legislative changes in as a package.
Labor’s rejection of our bill is like a child throwing a hissy fit when not getting their way. This is not kindergarten, Chief Minister; this is a major issue of public importance and your leadership in supporting our bill will pay dividends across the Territory for generations to come. We should not be surprised by the government’s response to this bill. We should not be surprised the Chief Minister, the leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory, says one thing yet does another.
This is modus operandi for the Labor Party. At a time when the Territory seeks strong decisive leadership and speedy reform of child protection, the Chief Minister plays politics. If there is one issue in the Territory where politics should never be played, it is child protection; it is protecting our children from abuse and neglect. The government has set a precedent. The government has been aware of many of the provisions of this bill since February, and now it has confirmation it aligns with the recommendations of the inquiry, has an opportunity again in this bill.
Madam Speaker, following the introduction of today’s bill, the Chief Minister can no longer hide behind the line that legislative change must be implemented as a complete package.
Debate adjourned.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT (FEES) BILL
(Serial 83)
(Serial 83)
Continued from 18 August 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the government indicates it does not support the bill. The bill proposes to amend the Information Act in relation to fees payable by specified applicants and in specified circumstances, including for freedom of information applications by members of the Legislative Assembly. No fees apply for applications amounting to less than $3000. Section 156 of the act provides a public sector organisation may charge an application or processing fee. It also provides the Information Commissioner may charge a fee in respect of the making of a complaint. Section 156(6) provides a fee may be waived or reduced if the public sector organisation, or the commissioner, considers it appropriate after having regard to both the circumstances of the application or the complaints, including financial considerations and the object of the act. This provides a broad discretion in determining a waiver or reduction of fees by the public sector organisation or the commissioner.
The bill proposes to insert a new subsection following section 156(6), namely section 156(6A), which would set out a specified application and circumstances in which a fee payable may be waived or reduced.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, it is now 9 pm. Pursuant to standing orders we are adjourning the House. If you prefer, you may continue for 10 minutes.
Ms LAWRIE: I am quite happy to continue my remarks at the next General Business Day.
Madam SPEAKER: The matter before us is adjourned until the next General Business Day.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: The Assembly is now adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the Assembly of my recent successful trip to the Middle East and Europe. The purpose of the trip was to visit key tourism, trade and media partners in the UK and Germany, the two biggest visitor markets to the Northern Territory with 55 600 visitors and 38 400 visitors respectively in the 2009-10 financial year.
I also took the opportunity to meet with key aviation partners, Etihad Airlines and Emirates in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The meeting with Etihad Airlines CEO, James Hogan, and his senior colleagues in Abu Dhabi was a great opportunity to put forward the Northern Territory’s credentials as a destination for future Etihad flights. It was also a chance to discuss their recent partnership announcement with Virgin Blue and how we can continue to undertake innovative joint campaigns into markets like Manchester and other parts of Europe. In 2009-10, 38 600 passengers flew Etihad from the UK and Germany to Australia. So capitalising on domestic flights and promoting the connections is vital for inbound tourism to the Territory.
In Dubai I met with senior officials from the Emirates Group which provided an opportunity to build on our existing relationship and offer an update on the latest happenings in the Northern Territory.
In London I attended Tourism Australia’s Leaders forum. A large number of major travel wholesalers attended and I was able to hear firsthand the challenges facing Australia as a destination. I also took the opportunity to be fully briefed by Tourism Australia and our team in London on the quickly developing plans for Corroboree, the major travel industry show for the UK and Continental Europe to be held in Darwin for the first time in June next year. This is shaping up to be a huge event for the Northern Territory and it was important I was able to spend that time in the pre-planning stage to ensure we are getting the people we need to attend that major conference, an incredible opportunity for the Northern Territory to be showcased internationally.
The September visit to London also coincided with the major youth campaign coordinated by Tourism NT London with media partner KissFM, and trade partner, Flight Centre. It was a terrific opportunity to spend time with the radio broadcasters at KissFM, which largely targets the youth audience in the UK. They have some terrific campaigns enticing listeners in London to come to Darwin in particular, but also across the Northern Territory. Stephanie, a young winner of a KissFM competition, came here from London to spend some time around Kakadu and in Darwin as well as heading down to the Centre. Stephanie was spending some time in work experience at Crocosaurus Cove, and she was having a terrific time there. We were able to take some photos of Stephanie and what she was doing over to KissFM.
The campaign leveraging off the success of Phase 1 in January has provided huge exposure of experiences in the Northern Territory to the London and greater London audiences. I was pleased to meet the key people involved in the campaign, which is supplemented by a digital campaign with Yahoo, to discuss its previous successes and projected outcomes. I commend our staff across Europe who are doing a wonderful job in promoting the Northern Territory.
In Germany, I had the wonderful opportunity to promote the Northern Territory through an interview on TV Berlin, a popular local TV station with a technical reach of 3.29 million people, or 175 000 average viewers daily. We know Germany is our second highest market, so it was important to target directly to Germans, and to thank them for coming to the Northern Territory and encourage them to keep coming.
Importantly, I also took the opportunity to follow up with key staff from one of our major travel wholesalers, DERTOUR, while in Frankfurt. It was important to follow up with them after their visit to the Northern Territory earlier this year in March/April, where 80 travel agents came from Germany to Darwin and I hosted a dinner for them at the Ski Club. Then they travelled throughout the Northern Territory, obviously going in different directions; there were 80 of them so they covered the whole of the Northern Territory between them. It was a fantastic opportunity to be able to connect with them again in Frankfurt.
Madam Speaker, the trip has highlighted the importance of the long-term relationships Tourism NT and Northern Territory industry partners have developed with our two biggest markets; we need to keep working actively with those markets to ensure they deliver for the long term.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of members an issue currently facing my constituents on the Sturt Plateau. The Sturt Plateau is south-west of Katherine and comprises around 14 pastoral properties. The residents of the area lead busy and isolated lives, even by 2010 standards.
The children in the area who are not sent to boarding school are reliant on Katherine School of the Air or correspondence. The district fought hard for a mail service to be started in the late 1990s, which has serviced the area once a week out of Katherine by a private courier company. With less than 1% of the Australian population receiving only one delivery per week, and most regional and remote areas, even in Queensland, receiving two services a week, you can see that my constituents on the Sturt Plateau are not extravagant in wanting a weekly mail service.
Since the 1990s, the Sturt Plateau district has made significant growth and, in turn, has made a significant contribution to the local economy. The formation of the Sturt Plateau Group in the district has helped define the families in the region who have common geography, aims, and issues. This is enhanced by a common, reliable mail service to the community.
Costs have now become the main factor in Australia Post claiming to be unable to find a service provider in the area. The mail run is now being split up which will see the people of the Sturt Plateau lose security, efficiency, and continuity with their service which, until now, has run very well. The families in the district now consider there is a real danger the service will be disbanded altogether if a new service provider, under the new regime, cannot be found.
With the recognition that rural and regional Australia underpins broader Australia, and the new emphasis the new federal Labor government has given to the bush, this is a timely reminder this small but positive service to this regional area is integral to the wellbeing of a community.
I was checking the Australia Post website and I came across a very concerning media release from Australia Post which mentioned it had recently achieved a $103m profit despite, as the media release says, ‘challenging conditions’.
I extend my support to my constituents on the Sturt Plateau in their current plight in this isolated, remote area. It is to that end I have taken the step of writing to Australia Post and the federal Minister for Regional Australia, the Honourable Simon Crean, to ask for their support to maintain the mail service currently delivered to the Sturt Plateau. Given the recent announcement on 15 October 2010 by Australia Post, saying it has achieved a $103m profit, it is most important some of this profit is maintained in the regions and remote areas, such as the Sturt Plateau, so people in remote and regional areas can continue to receive this important service.
I also encourage other members of this House, other bush members who would also be affected by this decision of Australia Post to cut costs, to write to Australia Post and the federal government, to rally around our remote regional Territorians and ensure this service is maintained at the current level.
Turning to other parts of my electorate, with so many festivals having happened this year it only seems fair to highlight to the members of the House some of the many successful festivals in my own electorate of Stuart. Festivals are a fantastic way of bringing small communities together and emphasising the great art, culture and sport that is characteristic of each community. Festivals also give communities a sense of pride and celebration, while offering an economic incentive. Many of the communities in my electorate have fantastic festivals which take a great deal of work from volunteers to make happen.
Earlier in the year, Mataranka, Pine Creek and Barunga held very successful art and culture festivals. This year, the Barunga Festival celebrated 25 years, making it the longest running and one of the most significant celebrations of Aboriginal culture, art, music and sport in the Top End and Australia.
In August, Wugularr held the incredibly popular Walking with Spirits festival at beautiful Beswick Falls. The festival, hosted by Djilpin Arts and Creative Director, Tom E Lewis, was a sellout. This festival combines ancient and modern performance, and a highlight was the popular Djilpin Dancers, who have an excellent reputation for supporting festivals throughout the region. I offer my congratulations to all those involved in making this a premiere event.
The Timber Creek Festival was also held in August this year, and Sue Kimpton, the Shire Services Manager at Timber Creek, worked hard to ensure another successful event which brought the community together was delivered.
In the Katherine Region, the Wakakirri Outback Festival was held, and again, I hear it was a huge success. This festival incorporates a film making and arts program designed for students living in remote and regional Australia. I understand Barunga, Wugularr, Mataranka, Jilkminggan and MacFarlane schools all took part in workshops which culminated in the screening of films developed at the workshops. There was also a barbecue and entertainment by the Wugularr School Band. As the local member for many of the communities involved I offer big congratulations to everyone who organised it.
Also in August, the Freedom Festival celebrated the famous 1966 Wave Hill walk-off. The festival is held to commemorate the fight for Indigenous land rights and is another significant festival, historically, in the Northern Territory. Sports, arts and a battle of the bands were some of the highlights on offer at the three-day festival held at Kalkarindji.
I congratulate the organisers of the Barthulha Webs, a cross-cultural gathering for artists in the Katherine region. The Barthulha Webs camp was conceived by Jayne Nankivell and Adrienne Kneebone, two artists from Katherine who work extensively throughout the region. Barthulha means strong, and the weekend artists’ camp works towards strengthening connections by sharing and learning with women from around the Katherine region who often work in isolation. The camp is held at Springvale Homestead in Katherine and Barthulha Webs grew from 60 participants in 2009 to 85 this year, with the opportunity to employ three Indigenous trainees, Karen Ashley, Stephanie Roberts and Wendy Daylight. Indigenous artists Rita Cameron, Lucy Cameron and Dorcas Thompson from Wugularr and the other communities joined other top-class art instructors to deliver workshops on paper-making with natural grasses, traditional weaving, traditional coil weaving, string rolling, postcard printing, paper prints, silk dyeing and making bush toys.
This is a fantastic initiative of organisers, Jayne and Adrienne, and looks set to grow in the future. My congratulations to all involved in making this the most significant and successful weekend.
On a recent visit to Timber Creek, I visited the Timber Creek School and I was very impressed with Principal, Jenny Sherrington, and the dedicated staff at the school providing learning opportunities and school lunches to support students. The new library, staffroom, office and classrooms, all thanks to the BER, are fantastic and really complement the school. Also the school has been part of the accelerated literacy program and has two extra teachers who have had an extremely positive effect on student outcomes.
After lunch, I spent some time in the senior class with teacher, Jo Sherrin. Jo’s class has been learning about civics and I was invited by the President of the School Representative Council, Jessica Motlap, to talk to the class. It was great to take part in a civics question and answer session with the senior class. The students had a wide range of questions such as, how do you become a confident speaker, which football team do I support, and should the finals go into extra time?
The classroom was wonderfully decorated and clearly a great deal of work has been done. I would like to thank the students for inviting me to speak, in particular Jessica Motlap, Madeline McCulloch, Hayden Hector, Joshua Jones, Niceshia Jones, Stevena Jones, Denita Retchford, Rebecca Smiler, Mark Tipiloura, Brianna McGillvray, Laurence Holt and Jazlyn Little. I would also like to extend an invitation to them to visit Parliament House in Darwin, perhaps next year.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the call. I understand there are far more important people in this Chamber than me, and it is very humbling to get the call from you.
I wish to say a couple of things in relation to the Department of Defence. We had a statement from the Chief Minister last week about our support for the troops overseas and it goes without saying that every member of this parliament, and probably every parliament in Australia, expresses the same sentiment, we do support our troops.
Darwin has enjoyed a particularly special relationship with Defence. It stems back a very long time into our history. The relationship between Darwin and the Australian Defence community has been particularly strong for a very long time; and so may it continue. But I am concerned. I have real concerns about sentiments which I am hearing in the community in relation to some decisions Defence has made in the last few months or so, which I am concerned will spill over and fracture that wonderful relationship we have enjoyed with the Defence community for such a long time.
What I am talking about is the de-civilianisation of the RAAF Base in Darwin. We see it occurring with the demolition and removal of the suburb of Eaton. Not many people are aware that Eaton is the suburb with the RAAF Base houses. Someone, somewhere in Defence, the top brass, has made a decision that those houses should be removed or demolished. This comes at a particularly delicate time in the Northern Territory; I speak of the acute housing and accommodation crisis we are experiencing now. The wanton destruction of almost 400 houses, quite rightly, irks Territorians immensely.
I am glad to see there are other people in this place who share my concerns. To remove a suburb - I am told it will be gone somewhere around 2014-15, not a big time frame at all - and remove perfectly liveable houses which Defence say no longer meet their standards. I have no doubt they do not meet their standards because they have exceptionally high standards, and so they should have. People who work in Defence are defending our country and should be given first class treatment, but that is not to say those houses are not suitable for other people in the community.
I have looked at all of those houses; I know there are some which would require some work to bring them up to a suitable level, but the vast majority of the houses in the suburb of Eaton are of a comparable standard, if not better, than the houses most people in Darwin live in.
Mr Wood: Better than mine.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear the member for Nelson saying they are better than his. They are certainly better than mine. I am living in an old house constructed pre-cyclone, and it does not have any of the wonderful things these houses in the suburb of Eaton have.
So from a Darwin perspective, quite rightly, Darwinites and Territorians are feeling somewhat perturbed that in the middle of the worst housing crisis in Territory history we will see those houses removed. Not only that, but we have seen the closure of the childcare centre on the RAAF Base - the only Defence base childcare centre in the Darwin area. That facility was only opened in 2006. It was a facility I fought for funding for when I was the federal member. I had it constructed and opened it on 14 July 2006. It is a fantastic childcare facility and to see it closed - and the likelihood of it ever opening again is very slight - and that premises sitting vacant is an incredible shame.
Of course the de-civilianisation of the RAAF Base will have impacts on the RAAF Base Golf Club. I know there are many people in the Darwin community who enjoy getting out to the RAAF Base for a game of golf; it has become a fixture in the lives of many golfers in Darwin. It has a large civilian membership, a membership which will be asked to leave in the next few years. Those memberships will not be renewed.
The plans for the RAAF Base at this stage are still secret. We know nothing of them. I have heard rumours those houses will be knocked down, and the RAAF Golf Club will be removed to put in hangars for the new jets. Anyone who looks at a map of Darwin will see the RAAF Base has an incredibly large block of land smack bang in the middle of Darwin. Why these areas could not be excised from Defence land and given to the community while allowing Defence people to continue to utilise the houses is beyond me. I know there are a number of Defence people within the community who are living off-base in places like Lyons, the three towers in town, houses in Palmerston and the like, who would much prefer to live on-base. They would much prefer to be very close to the place where they work, but they are not being offered those Defence houses.
The de-civilianisation of the RAAF Base will have major impacts on local amenities such as the Winnellie Shopping Centre, the Ludmilla Primary School, and a range of other businesses in the area. It has already impacted on a number of civilian families whose children were going to the RAAF Base childcare centre. They have had to find other places to have their children looked after; some have been lucky and found places, but many of them have had to quit their jobs to look after their children. That is one of the realities of being a parent these days when there is a critical shortage of childcare places.
What is going on is a terrible shame, and I can only voice my concerns at some of the top brass within Defence who seem to think it is quite appropriate to shut down a whole suburb, the suburb of Eaton, in a time when Darwin is experiencing a critical accommodation crisis. I know there is a range of options which would be available. Territorians would be happy to rent those houses from Defence if they were made available. We do not necessarily have to have the land excised from Defence although, to all intents and purposes, it is excised now. The fact is anyone can drive out there; anyone can drive to the golf course. I believe the best option would be to excise that Defence land.
People are very flexible as to how that land could be used. To see the wanton waste of taxpayer assets being flushed down the toilet at a time when Defence is facing major budget cuts is wrong, and the Darwin community sees it as wrong. I pray it does not fracture the wonderful relationship we enjoy with the Defence community in Darwin.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, the East Point Aeromodellers Club is a great local community club. If members do not know where the club is, as you enter East Point and go past Lake Alexander, the front gates are on your right. If members do not know what aeromodellers are, they are passionate and enthusiastic flyers, highly skilled, who fly models of planes or helicopters. I have some examples here. They have some fantastic planes at the local club, quite amazing models. They range in size and shape and there is one which looked like a Frisbee. Unfortunately, I do not have a photo of it. There was a model helicopter with a jet engine …
Members interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: The member for Nelson has a photo of the Frisbee. The modellers love their planes or helicopters, and they are either builders or flyers. Some love to spend months in their workshops putting together a plane; much love goes into many of these planes, and beautiful craftsmanship. They go to East Point to see if they can fly, but their love is in the building of the plane or the helicopter.
Others will spend as little time as possible in the workshop and as much time as possible at East Point flying their often beautiful machines. The Frisbee I mentioned earlier was not beautiful, it was ugly, but presented a challenge, which some flyers love, to get it in the air and keep it there.
It was the club’s 40th anniversary this year and, as part of its celebrations it had an open day. It threw open the front gates and invited the community in to see what the club is all about. Over the last 40 years, the club has roamed; it has been operating around Darwin since the early 1950s in various locations, flying from Darwin Airport in the 1960s, from Darwin High School in the later part of the 1960s, from East Point gun turrets before formally becoming the East Point Aeromodellers Club in 1970, and flying close to the present site at East Point before moving in 1990 to the seaward side of East Point on the location of the old golf course.
The East Point Aeromodellers Club currently has around 80 full-time members, and I understand there are about 200 past and present members in Darwin. Members fly planes and helicopters at the club throughout the week, and the club has an open, fun flying day on Sundays from 9 am to 6.30 pm. I encourage anyone who has a passion for flying or models to get to East Point to check it out. I can vouch it is definitely worth the trip.
On the regular Sunday open day they do not loan you a plane, you have to bring your own and the safety officer will inspect it to ensure it is shipshape, or airtight, and teach you how to fly it safely. Once they are happy with it, they will invite you to attend regularly and fly on your own. Three or four times a year they have a come along and try open day where you can have a go at flying one of their machines. If it was my plane, my heart would be in my mouth, but if you want to have a try, the next one will be on Australia Day.
The club’s 40th was a huge event, with more than 400 people attending and people of all ages checking out the planes and the helicopters on show. There were a couple of hundred models to check out and there were also some amazing flying exhibitions. I was talking about some of the tricks earlier with the member for Nelson; they had a plane sit up on its tail and hover off the ground and there was an amazing mass synchronised display of 12 aircraft flying and landing at the same time.
There were also a few spectacular crashes; a few planes missed the landing strip, which can happen. It is difficult, as you can imagine, having control of the plane from the ground and having to picture the plane and the wind conditions it is dealing with dislocated from where you are. It is difficult, and aeromodellers are highly skilled, but they will still occasionally crash a plane. That is why they have suggested to Darwin City Council an alternate route for a proposed new footpath through East Point. They are happy to have the footpath but would like it in a slightly safer position for people walking along it. East Point is a beautiful spot and the aeromodellers are very happy to share it.
On the day, the Berrimah Scouts were manning the gates and collected over $300 in gold coin donations towards future scout activities. It is great to see a community event supporting other great community organisations; it is always good to see community partnerships. The club managed to raise $1800 from the sale of food and drinks. It was definitely a warm morning, I certainly put a few dollars over their bar for soft drinks.
The club recently held the NT Flying Titles, which saw people from all over the Territory attend, with eight flyers from Alice Springs, four from Katherine, and other competitors from other Darwin clubs; it was a genuine Territory-wide event. The Champion of Champions was Mr David Goodes from Alice Springs, who is also a supporter of the East Point Aeromodellers Club.
The Aeromodellers Club has set itself some future goals. It wants to be a proactive member of the community and will be going to local schools to promote the club and get new young members interested and involved in what is a fun and safe hobby. It will tie that in with more open days and family flying days. I am sure students will love a visit to their school from the aeromodellers with those big, amazing planes; model fighter jets; old Sopwith Camels; and the helicopters. I am sure if they rock up to a school with a few of those planes the students will go nuts and they will definitely be invited back.
The Australia Day event I mentioned is an open day event organised by the Australia Day Council of Australia. There will, of course, be some great tricks done by the experts, but people will also be welcome to fly some of the members’ planes there on the day. There will also be a good old Aussie barbecue and drinks, as well as lots of giveaways.
The current committee did a great job in organising the club’s 40th; it was a great event, one to be remembered. All committee members are volunteers; the people who contributed to the day are: event program organiser and Central Flight Line Director, Ross Finocchiaro; PA address, John Adams; catering a meet and greet for the invited guests, Greg Turnbull; advertising and photography, Adrian Leach; safety officers, Alex Sheppard and Tim Makepeace; Main Flight Line Director, Mark Smith; the Scout organisation; raffle tickets and coordination, Shane Walker; flight line assistant, Neil Rix; and community coordination, Tony Durian.
There were many other people who put in on the day. These are never easy days to organise; a great deal of hard work goes on behind the scenes before the day starts, and during the day there is the cooking, cleaning and running of all the things that happen. Many of the club members, their wives and their kids helped out; many people did many hard yards. Clubs live and die on the blood, sweat and tears of their volunteers.
I say thank you to everyone involved, it was a great day, and all the best for the club.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about Weddell. I am a little surprised the government has not made a statement on Weddell, considering the euphoria around it a couple of weeks ago.
It is something which needs to be commented on. I have been involved in planning in various committees and forums in Darwin but this was one of the best organised and most useful planning forums I have been to. Regardless of whether it was Weddell or somewhere else, many of the basics behind what was being put forward could be used for any other city or township the government might be thinking of developing.
To give you an idea of all the things which were discussed: airstrips, sandflies, dams, levies, light rail, heavy rail, ferries, Noonamah, industry, corner stores, conservation, schools, lakes, 50 000 people, 100 000 people, solar, gas, recycled water, rural connections, should it be developed or should it not be developed.
There was a great deal of community involvement at the beginning of the forum, and at the end of the forum and the end of each day. The community also had an opportunity through the competitions in the schools, and there was the ability for people to make comments on the Lands and Planning website - 70 to 80 comments were received.
The good thing about this forum was the people behind it knew their bit; they knew how to do these sorts of things. It was run by a gentleman called Stephen Bowers from Novus Urban Pty Ltd in Brisbane, and Wendy Morris from Ecologically Sustainable Design Pty Ltd, who is originally from New Zealand. They got together with a group of design team leaders and put out a range of possible designs for Weddell. The design scenarios were: a prosperous city with innovative jobs and business driving growth; an INPEX-led industrial development focus; a water city focusing on the Elizabeth River with an inland lake; a diverse, cost-effective and affordable city with affordable housing with diverse choice; and a sustainable, green city maximising environmental sustainability, which also optimises urban sustainability.
The team leaders were: Paul Murrain, an urban designer from London; Peter Richards, from Deicke Richards Architects, Brisbane; Clive Alcock from Annand Alcock Pty Ltd, Sydney; Jim Higgs from TTM Consulting Pty Ltd, Melbourne, who happens to be Jim Higgs the spin bowler who played for Australia and Victoria; I had a great time chatting to him about everything but planning - things like cricket. Then there was Evan Jones, from Multiplex Living in Perth; Malcolm Mackay, of Mackay Urban Design in Perth; Chris Humphries, Department of Lands and Planning, Darwin - Chris Humphries has been around a long time and is a well respected planner because he has a great deal of local knowledge. There was also Chip Kaufman of Ecologically Sustainable Design Pty Ltd from Melbourne; Chip originally comes from the United States.
They were just the leaders; there were also design team members: Department of Lands and Planning planners, engineers and project managers; other people from government agencies; local government members, there was a number from Litchfield Council; community interest groups like The Environment Centre; community members; non-government organisations; specialist technical advisors; business and industry representatives; and local design professionals. Chris Makepeace was there; he was involved in some of the work dealing with the Elizabeth River and took an interest in the whole project.
The groups were not only looking at the design scenarios; they were also looking at the input which had come in from the public and the schools before the forum was under way.
This is only the start. On the first day they had community involvement; on the second day they started to put in some basic scenarios where people sat down with pen and paper. I was in a group which had to design a city which was outside the sandfly area and would accommodate 50 000 people. Other people looked at ways of having a bigger city which would be in the sandfly area, and had to find ways to control the sandflies.
There were people who said: ‘Well, let us dam the Elizabeth River, or can we put in levies to raise the water slightly, or can we put dams on some of the smaller tributaries on either side of the Elizabeth River?’ There were other scenarios of putting a lake on some of the wetlands. Some of the designs had to ensure they did not interfere with the wet areas; they were the sustainable city designs. There were other options of putting dams on some of the freshwater creeks, using those as part of a recreational facility and having a city around those lakes to make them attractive.
There is talk about the MKT airstrip which was one of the first things raised on the first day when the community was there. A number of members of the MKT Flying Club turned up wearing shirts with MKT prominently displayed on the back of them to remind the planners they were there; it appears that was one group which had not been taken into account. The shirts highlighted that they were there which meant people designing around that area had to take them into account because they already use that area. It then looked like having an airstrip in Weddell would provide an ideal place to develop industry; if you had a light aircraft airstrip near the city you could develop industry around it. There was much discussion about that.
There were many discussions about how you would connect this city with the other cities other than driving; in other words, we were looking at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a fair way to Darwin, about 45 km. They looked at heavy rail, light rail, express buses and ferries. The first one knocked off was ferries because the cost is much higher than the other forms of transport. Until you have really large populations, like Sydney, you are not going to have the numbers of people required make travel by ferry economical.
Heavy rail was looked at using the present line; it appears the people who use the line for freight are not really happy with the idea of suburban passenger trains using the same line. So you would either have to build a parallel line or build a light rail line through Virginia and Freds Pass and going into town on the Stuart Highway.
There were many scenarios. I do not have time to go through the details, but I am told the website will have all those completed plans; they said six weeks and it is about three weeks since this forum occurred. I encourage people to check the website and look at the different scenarios. Some people may like them; some people may think they are ridiculous.
There is much talk about densification of Darwin as a priority before we develop Weddell. You can increase the density of Darwin and the northern suburbs if that is what people want, but there is still a desire for people to have a single home on a reasonable block. We are running out of that sort of land in the Darwin area and in Palmerston; that is one reason Weddell will eventually come on because we will not have that type of land which there is still a demand for, especially for families.
How will we develop? I do not know. There is much more to be done. There is also supposed to be a design competition for the CBD. There is also the option of starting with Noonamah, which is a part of Weddell; that may be a private development but it may get the whole scenario going.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it was an excellent forum and I thank everyone involved. I hope this does not sit on a shelf and disappear; we have to keep moving with this issue.
I would like to thank the member for Fong Lim for his discussion on the RAAF Base houses. It is nearly a crime that we pull down houses when we have such a shortage of houses. Surely, the Department of Defence also has a conscience. I have been told it wants to use the land for warehouses, but with the amount of land there for the airport, we can find another place for warehouses. In this case, people should come first.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to echo the comments of the member for Fong Lim, ably supported by the member for Nelson, about the RAAF houses.
I have a personal interest in this issue because my block shares a common boundary with the RAAF houses block; I put it clearly on the public record that there is a personal interest.
I find it astonishing beyond words that the existing suburb of Eaton is going to be bulldozed, and those sections which are not bulldozed, dragged away. I have heard several comments from Defence in relation to this matter, and not one of them comes close to satisfying the reality of what is occurring there.
You have an existing suburb. Anyone driving onto the RAAF Base through the suburb of Eaton could be forgiven for thinking the suburb of Eaton is outside the RAAF Base; you can access it by foot, by walking through the open gates on Bagot Road. If you drive in past the Winnellie shops you drive into the suburb of Eaton, but you pass through no check point; there is no security check and any person can access and egress the area of Eaton behind my house at any time they choose, including three o’clock in the morning.
One of the comments I heard from the military establishment is the land is required for strategic purposes. I find that arrant nonsense. The massive hoards of enemies of Australia have restrained themselves from sweeping down through the Indonesian Archipelago to invade the Top End of Australia because the suburb of Eaton remains in RAAF hands. Nonsense! The military establishment is simply being bloody-minded. It is the only thing I can put it down to.
If you calculate the average house in that area to be worth $600 000, and look at recent sales in The Narrows, that would be a surprising understatement of value. The overall value of Eaton to the RAAF, if it were to be sold in situ as it is, unimproved, would be in the order of $250m, I believe. That is an extraordinary amount of money.
This is a community with a housing crisis, and the fact the government sits on its hands and listens to any excuse from the military and its Labor mates down south tells me it is not interested in our housing crisis. Those blocks could be released in fairly quick succession without affecting the house prices of the area. I am astonished that this government is not fighting for it. I would praise this government if it at least made the effort. I have been told by shopkeepers at the Winnellie shops who approached the Chief Minister a few months ago that he indicated to them he considered it a waste. Now, all of a sudden he finds himself trapped and does not want to pursue it. I really would welcome his effort to pursue it. I would welcome this whole House, as one voice, saying the suburb of Eaton needs to be turned over to Northern Territory freehold.
There are these excuses about houses with asbestos in them, and houses with other problems. Two words to deal with that issue - caveat emptor - it is that simple. Many people buy houses which are in worse condition than the ones in Eaton, but they do them up; they become, in some way, their superannuation policies into the future.
I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Solomon in her campaign, and I commend her on her thrust to have these blocks turned over to Northern Territory freehold. I congratulate the member for Fong Lim for pursuing the matter, as well.
I also wish to discuss the matter of itinerancy in my electorate; it continues to be a problem. Whilst the government puts out media release after media release on how it is going to deal with the issue and introduce their new nine-point plans and 17-point plans, and plans with overhead, under-hang, and goodness knows what else, when I come to Parliament House and walk through Bennett Park - which is literally a stone’s throw from the front doors of this House - and find the drunks are amassed there and unpoliced, it demonstrates there is a void between the government’s statements and reality which is of a cosmic scale.
This government has lost control of itinerancy throughout the Northern Territory. The Territory statistics for apprehensions for protective custody in 1999-2000 was about 11 000.
Last year, 35 000 people were arrested in the Northern Territory for being drunk. The government says: ‘Well, we have a plan for this, and we have the Enough is Enough campaign’. I am wondering how many long-grassers are sitting in the long grass watching their plasma screen TVs being impressed by the Enough is Enough campaign; or is it the case they have already sold their plasma screen televisions many years ago so they can buy booze?
The government’s policy on the control of liquor in our community is going to be inflicted upon the whole community because the government continues to call these people victims. They are not victims when they choose to drink. They are not victims when they swear and scream in our parks. They are not victims when they urinate in our parks. They are not victims when they defecate on our doorsteps. And they are not victims when they are throwing up all over the place because they have a skin full of grog.
It is time to make those people responsible. For that reason I have been communicating with my electorate, and there is a resounding response from that electorate. From the shops in the Smith Street area all the way to Bicentennial Park, even down to the Waterfront, I receive complaints about drunks. The government will say: ‘Oh, we are going to fix it’.
It has had 10 years and has failed to fix this issue. I will continue to pressure it to do the right thing, and I will continue to pressure it to adopt the Country Liberals policy of mandatory rehabilitation in institutions for habitual drunks - not some warm and fluffy idea before they get done for breaching an order - actually putting them into institutions when they are declared to be habitual drunks and getting them off the streets, out of our parks, playgrounds, schools, and out of our community’s face.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the month of October has seen a very visible presence for Breast Cancer Awareness Month in Nhulunbuy with the Fields of Women. Linda Alexander, Mary-Clare O’Dell, Rhoda Jayne Dixon and Janine Bevis, with a few other helping hands, created a Field of Women in Nhulunbuy Town Square to support Breast Cancer Network Australia. The Nhulunbuy Field of Women was the only one registered in the Territory and involved more than a hundred little, pink women, each about 30 cm high and spread across the grassed area in front of the Endeavour Medical Centre.
I spent one really pleasant morning there the week before these sittings; I thank Linda and Rhoda for their company and Mary-Clare for the excellent coffee. Throughout October, these wonderful women have been selling badges and they have been selling raffle tickets for items generously donated by local businesses. For a small donation you could purchase a tribute tag, which allowed people to write a message dedicated to someone close to them who had been affected by breast cancer and attach it to one of the little, pink ladies. They also sold home-grown Panama Passionfruit seedlings, anything to make money for breast cancer. Last time I checked with them, they had raised more than $2000 and are still going, with the raffle being drawn at this Saturday’s monthly art and craft market at the town hall; I am very honoured to have been asked to draw that raffle.
All funds raised will go to Breast Cancer Network Australia, which provides information, treatment, care and support for those diagnosed with breast cancer, and their families. Special thanks to Linda Alexander for organising this event. I also congratulate her on her recent completion of a Graduate Certificate in Breast Cancer Nursing. She is a very special person and provides a very special service in our community.
Following a conversation I had a while ago with a constituent whose wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer, I was prompted to make my first visit to the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre; I thank the Health minister’s office for organising this for me and thanks to Giam, the Practice Manager, for showing me through. It is a very impressive facility, which now gives Territorians access to oncology treatment without having to travel interstate.
People from remote areas still have to travel away from home but Barbara James House in Stuart Park, opened in June this year, provides beautifully appointed, very comfortable and very affordable accommodation at the PATS, Patient Assistance Travel Scheme, rate of $35 per night for people from rural and remote areas. This government funded the facility, which is run by the YWCA, and if members of this House have not visited these new facilities then I recommend they do, especially those representing constituents from outside Darwin.
I would like to talk about the Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club and their recent participation in the NT Surf Lifesaving Titles. Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club had 67 people, of whom 49 were competitors, attend this year’s NT titles held in Darwin at Casuarina beach. The competition also attracts the Broome club from Western Australia.
The Gove juniors pushed themselves to the limit through event after event to beat the receding tide, making their club extremely proud and taking out the Junior Championship. Gove juniors dominated the age championship awards as follows: Under 8 female, Sophia Russell; Under 8 male, Noah Conobie; Under 9 female, Tayla Dowzard; Under 9 male, Macallaster Barnett; Under 11 female, Sinead Salisbury; Under 12 male, Clifford Timms; Under 13 female, Meagan Morris; Under 14 male, Jessie Chamberlain.
In the seniors’ field, the Under 17 female award was taken out by Maddi Reid.
Overall, Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club came an admirable second with a total points score of 557, behind Darwin Surf Club with a winning point score of 640; but, of course, they did have the home ground, or home beach, advantage.
Gabbi McGrath won the prestigious Junior award - the Tony Tilley Memorial trophy, for her enthusiastic participation at the NT Titles. She shows great potential for next year’s competition.
A special mention must go to the adult contingent of the team including Jackie McGrath, Angela Morris, Cathy Forbes, Alan Cross and Denise Marrable for all the organising, training and sheer hard work behind the scenes to make it all happen.
I have no doubt that members of Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club will be putting their hands up and training hard to represent the Northern Territory in the Interstate Surf Lifesaving Championships to be held in Sydney on 23 and 24 January 2011. I wish them well in the lead-up to that. I hope the water is not too cold down south.
The club, after a very busy season including Nippers and volunteer patrols every Sunday throughout the dry season, is drawing to its end of year Volunteer Night on 13 November. There will be many worthy nominations because the club is entirely driven by dedicated and tireless volunteers who provide a fantastic service for our community and a great service for its junior and senior members.
I also pay tribute to the Gove Variety Club and their recent involvement in the annual Variety Bash. For the first time ever, the Variety Bash travelled across the Top End and into Nhulunbuy on 19 August - a logistically challenging trip, but a very successful one. In terms of logistics, picture a tray-back truck ferrying the Bash vehicles across the Goyder River, dodging crocodiles. The Queens, the name the Gove Variety Club girls go by, were once again high achieving fundraisers in the Variety’s Gold Heart category, raising over $34 000 - the highest funds raised in the Northern Territory, and it is not the first time the Gove girls have done that.
In total, the Variety trip to Nhulunbuy, which included 28 Bash cars, raised more than $340 000, which was 30% up on last year’s Bash. Who said there was a GFC? The Variety Bash visited schools, including Nhulunbuy High School, to hand over much appreciated electronic smart boards which Variety NT contributed $18 000 towards. Variety also provided a laptop worth over $2000 to a visually impaired student.
The long day handing out ‘how to votes’ at the polling booth at Nhulunbuy Primary School on Saturday, 21 August received a very welcome interruption with the arrival of all the Bash cars and their teams - some of them in fabulous costumes, my favourite was the camel car complete with Arabs - which drew large numbers of locals onto the primary school oval.
Many Nhulunbuy businesses and organisations supported this year’s Bash, including Rio Tinto Alcan Gove, Sodexo, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, Corporate Protection Australia and the Walkabout Lodge, to name a few. I congratulate Variety for the great work they do for underprivileged and needy children; in particular, Gove Variety, for such an amazing event.
Congratulations to the members of Gove Variety for their great and generous work: Glenys Cummings, Coral Dennerley, Angie Moyle, Liz Pickett, Kelly Thomson, supported by Peter Mallard, Peter Cornell and Chris Putland. Bad luck, Putty, you never did make the trip into Gove.
The annual Rotary Beach Volleyball event was held on Sunday, 19 September, attracting 46 teams. For the second year in a row the team from the homeland of Dhalinbuy took out line honours; the way that team played and set up shots was poetry in motion. For the most part teams get together for a great social day out, without too much attention to practising. However, the folk at Dhalinbuy are diehard volleyballers; cleared they had practised in the lead-up to the event and they certainly deserved to win.
While Rotary takes on the lion’s share of the organising, they are reliant on community groups which take on a job for the day and earn funds for their efforts. This year 15 community groups came on board including Nhulunbuy Speedway, Yirrkala Football Club, Nhulunbuy Over 3s, Nhulunbuy BMX, Gove Junior Football Association - that is soccer - Gove Rugby 7s, Gove Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club, Gove Peninsula Tennis Club, Gove Netball Association - seniors and juniors, Gove Touch Football, 8EAR Gove FM, Gove St John Ambulance, Nhulunbuy High School formal committee, and Gove 8-Ball Association.
These clubs shared in a total of $16 500 for their efforts. I have not received advice as to the final fundraising figure Rotary made, but whatever that figure is I know it will go toward very worthy causes in our community. Rotary in Nhulunbuy is very well-known for its generosity and hard work. It was a fantastic day for a fantastic cause. Well done Barry Scott, Steve Castelli, Marian Richter, Lyn Whitford, and other Rotary members.
I finish by talking briefly about the recent success of a group of young dancers who are part of the Arafura Dance Association which travelled to Cairns to compete in the City of Cairns Festival of Highland Competition held a couple of weeks ago. Arafura Dance walked away with more than eight trophies and medals - an impressive achievement given it was the first competition it had been to beyond one held in Nhulunbuy earlier in the year.
Congratulations to Stephanie Martinez, Eliza Jovicic, Maddison Santarossa, Megan Donovan, Emily Tankard, Alicia Wong, Kiarra Lenane, and Sarah Waters. Your hard work and dedication obviously paid off, girls.
I had the privilege of attending a wonderful recital by these extremely talented young girls in the week prior to their travel to Cairns; I have to say their costumes were incredible. Marie Martinez and Sharlene Cardilini were among those who managed and arranged those all-important things like booking flights and accommodation. The trip was all self-funded by participants, costing more than $2000 per family. Special acknowledgement and congratulations must go to Sharlene Cardilini who is Arafura Dance’s specialist instructor in highland dancing. Her enthusiasm is matched by her support of and dedication to these young dancers. Well done, Sharlene, you are amazing!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, yesterday I spoke in this House about the National Broadband Network and touched on an issue of contracting by the Department of Business and Employment in relation to IT contracts. I said I would give notice today and refer that matter to the Public Accounts Committee.
I will be writing to the Public Accounts Committee to ask it to forensically investigate the mismanagement and maladministration, by the minister and the department, of the IT contracts in regard to when the old contracts expired and the new contracts commenced. The department showed poor management by operating for the Northern Territory government for four months without IT contacts; so much so that we saw the expenditure of more than $4m minimum wasted on additional expenses through IT services.
It is estimated that instead of local call costs being 4 for Northern Territory government employees, they were paying 22 per local call. Instead of paying the minimum contracted rate for satellite phones, they were paying the maximum rate. Same for mobile phones - they were paying full tote odds. I will write to the Public Accounts Committee this evening asking it to forensically investigate the mismanagement by the minister for Business on the execution of new contracts for IT.
On another matter, in our rural and remote locations and communities in the Northern Territory it is important to have the provision of health services, particularly doctors and nurses. I am concerned to have heard that residences occupied by healthcare professionals, namely doctors and nurses, are being taken over by shires from the Northern Territory Health department in some kind of transition to shire councils. I have been made aware of this occurring in Umbakumba, and I have been informed the doctor at Borroloola has been ordered to vacate his premises within two weeks. I am also of the understanding this will occur in another 16 houses across Northern Territory remote locations.
It is important for the Chief Minister to come forward and provide certainty to those remote communities that they will not lose their doctors and nurses. It is also important the Chief Minister stands and reassures those doctors and nurses they will have somewhere to live in the next few weeks. It is important for the Local Government minister to step forward to reassure the Health department that the shire councils will not be taking these houses from the Health department, and that communities will not be losing the services of healthcare professionals, which they are worried about.
We know the provision of healthcare services in rural and remote locations was an important component in improving the services in light of the Little Children Are Sacred report, designed to protect children and improve healthcare services in remote locations. I call on the Chief Minister to provide some certainty to those communities, Umbakumba and Borroloola in the first instance, but also the other 16 communities which have been earmarked to have their houses taken from them as part of a shire transition.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016