2012-03-29
DEBATES – Thursday 29 March 2012Madam Deputy Speaker Walker took the Chair at 10am.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Katherine South Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Tanya Lambert, Ms Natalee Waterton and Mrs Jennifer Trew. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Health Practitioners Act to remove regulatory provisions relating to Aboriginal Health Workers, occupational therapists and radiographers, collectively referred to as the NT professions, by 1 July 2012 and implement consequential amendments and transitional arrangements related to the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (the national scheme) in the Northern Territory.
The further amendments relate to the remaining powers within the NT Health Practitioners Act around the Pharmacy Premises Regulations and the Health Professional Review Tribunal in the Northern Territory.
The national scheme commenced in all jurisdictions except Western Australia on 1 July 2010, and commenced in Western Australia on 18 October 2010. The national scheme currently covers 10 health professions: medical; nursing and midwifery; pharmacy; physiotherapy; dental, including dentists, dental prosthetists, dental therapists and dental hygienists; psychology; optometry; osteopathy; chiropractic; and podiatry.
The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the national law) provides for four more health professions to join the national scheme on 1 July 2012, at which time national registration will apply to:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice, known as Aboriginal Health Workers in the Northern Territory;
The Council of Australian Government’s Intergovernmental Agreement for a National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions (the COAG agreement) which was signed by all first ministers on 26 March 2008, requires jurisdictions to make the necessary legislative amendments to support implementation of the national scheme.
This bill is the final stage of implementing the national scheme in the Northern Territory and supports application of provisions under the national law to the additional professions from 1 July 2012. The bill will implement significant amendments to the Northern Territory’s Health Practitioners Act by removing regulatory provisions that currently apply to the Northern Territory professions. This will prevent two different regulatory systems applying to the Northern Territory professions and provide clarity for clients about the standards of service they can expect from health practitioners and the legislation under which they can take action if those expectations are not met.
In 2008 and 2009, the provisions covering the four additional professions went through an extensive national public consultation process in developing the national law, and those provisions were supported by Northern Territory stakeholders. Further extensive consultation has occurred leading up to the four additional professions commencing under the national scheme on 1 July 2012.
A preliminary regulation impact assessment has been conducted by the Regulation Impact Unit, Northern Territory Treasury. Treasury has advised that a full regulation impact statement is not required.
Provisions will be retained within the Health Practitioners Act for matters that remain the responsibility of the Northern Territory.
The remaining provisions will cover functions of the Health Professional Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) as the ‘responsible tribunal’ in the Northern Territory for the purposes of the national law. The tribunal operates on a fee-for-service basis when dealing with matters under the national law. A tribunal is established in each jurisdiction to deal locally with any matters raised by a health practitioner dissatisfied or seeking review of a decision made by their registration board.
In relation to the tribunal, a 28-day appeal period has been included. This allows for a specified period in which an appeal against a decision of a National Health Practitioner Registration Board can be made. An appeal period had not been included previously when the national law was adopted in the Northern Territory. Without an appeal period, there is no time restriction as to when a person can lodge an appeal for review by the tribunal. Twenty-eight days is the standard appeal period across jurisdictions. These amendments bring the Northern Territory in line with other jurisdictions.
The Northern Territory Health Practitioners Act includes provision to regulate pharmacy premises. When implementing the national law it was agreed that these functions would not transfer to the national law but be maintained by each jurisdiction.
A large number of consequential amendments to other Northern Territory acts are proposed under the bill necessary to update terminology and references to the Northern Territory professions. These amendments have been discussed and agreed with representatives of the relevant agencies.
As of 1 July 2012, all registered health professions in the Northern Territory will be covered by the national scheme, and any other professions seeking regulation in the future will need to pursue registration under the national scheme. The principal objective of the national scheme is to protect the public by reducing multiple regulation systems across Australia and professions, and establishing one national system that sets standards and processes to apply Australia-wide.
This bill ensures the Northern Territory meets its obligation under the COAG agreement and the Northern Territory community is assured of quality services provided by health practitioners who achieve the standards of national registration.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement accompanying this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The amendments in this bill give the minister responsible for administering the Associations Act the power to consent to the granting of a lease over part of a community living area for a term longer than 12 months for a wider range of lease purposes. At present, the minister can only consent to leases over a part of the community living area so as to enable the provision of health, education, housing, and financial services.
These amendments expand the types of lease purposes for which the minister can give consent to the grant of a lease over part of a community living area for a term longer than 12 months to include leases for commercial purposes, including community stores, leases for the provision of infrastructure, and leases for public purposes, including essential services. The proposed amendments will facilitate the provision of additional services and infrastructure on community living areas.
In the immediate term, this will open up community living areas to potential investment by the Commonwealth government such as the Commonwealth’s Community Stores program.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill makes amendments necessary to enable the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act, which this Assembly passed last year, to commence. These reforms bring the Northern Territory into line with the Uniform Evidence law which has been adopted by the Commonwealth, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and Norfolk Island. The amendments in this bill make no policy changes to existing law.
The legislation will commence on 1 September 2012.
A series of briefings and workshops involving the legal profession have been, or will be, held to ensure the transition process is as smooth as possible. Professor Les McCrimmon from Charles Darwin University, one of Australia’s leading experts in this area, as well as interstate lawyers and judicial officers who have gone through the change to the uniform law of evidence, will also be involved.
The transitional provisions are contained in Part 2 of the bill. They add a new Chapter 6 to the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act. Subject to the most minor of drafting differences, these provisions are uniform across the jurisdictions and have adopted the Uniform Evidence Act. The transitional provisions will provide that the Uniform Act applies to any proceedings commenced after the commencement date. In a case of a proceeding that began before commencement date, the Uniform Act applies to that part of the proceeding that takes place after the commencement date, other than any hearing that began before the commencement date. For these hearings, the old act continues to apply to the hearing until it is completed.
Part 3 of the bill makes the necessary repeals and consequential amendments to the current Evidence Act. The explanatory statement explains in considerable detail which sections of the current act have been repealed and which sections of the Uniform Act replace them.
Part 4 of the bill moves section 39 of the current Evidence Act to the Administration and Probate Act where it better belongs. This section goes beyond the general law of evidence and provides that once a court has granted probate or letters of administration, the fact of the grant is evidence of the due execution of the will itself.
Part 5 deals with technical amendments to various Northern Territory acts.
There are a number of areas of evidence law where the Uniform Act will not apply and both the common law and existing Northern Territory acts continue to apply. In this regard, I propose to mention only one area, that being the law concerning sexual offences, as other areas are referred to in the explanatory statement.
All states and territories have laws which deal with evidence in criminal proceedings where someone is charged with a sexual offence. These laws regulate the examination of witnesses and the administration of evidence of their sexual history.
In the Northern Territory, the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act:
prohibits the administration of evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation, except with the leave of the court, if the court is satisfied that the evidence has substantial relevance to the facts in issue;
prevents the use of sexual history evidence to establish the complainant is the ‘type’ of person who is more likely to consent to sexual activity, except with the leave of the court, if the court is satisfied that the evidence has substantial relevance to the facts in issue; and
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debated adjourned.
Continued from 15 February 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, we in the opposition have no problems with this; this is simply commonsense legislation.
There are certain superannuation schemes over which the Northern Territory government has care and management including NTGPASS, the Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme, and one other which escapes me at the moment. I have sought a briefing from Treasury officials in relation to this. These schemes are, essentially, closed schemes. This means they do not accept new entries. Of course, the other scheme is LAMSS, the Legislative Assembly Members Superannuation Scheme. They do not accept new members and, so, it is a question of managing the schemes in an effective way whist these schemes wind down into the future. It just makes sense to go down this path.
I have been sufficiently well-comforted in the briefing that no member shall have a deleterious effect inflicted upon them as a result of the operation of this legislation. Indeed, I would expect, if there was such a deleterious effect, this legislation would be effectively struck down as being unlawful. You cannot promise something as a government which is, essentially, a property right, and then seek to take it away without settling it on just terms as required not only by the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, but also the Australian Constitution. Consequently, with those legal safeguards in mind, and the associated reassurance I have from the briefing I received, I am well satisfied this is a matter of good and principled management of superannuation schemes, rather than anything else.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as a consequence, the opposition has no issue with this bill and supports its passage.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support of the legislation. I was waiting because I know the Independent member for Nelson also sought a briefing; it is my advice he agrees that this is sensible legislation.
In summary, as articulated, the bill makes amendments to the Superannuation Act. As I said in the second reading speech, it expands the membership of the Superannuation Trustee Board to include representation from each of the three superannuation schemes for which the board will be responsible.
In late 2010, the Assembly passed amending legislation to combine these three separate boards: the NT Government and Public Authority Superannuation Scheme, known as NTGPASS; the Legislative Assembly Members Superannuation Scheme, known as LAMSS; and the Northern Territory Police Supplementary Benefits Scheme, known as NTPSBS, to create a single trustee board to oversee the investments of their members’ funds.
The new governance arrangements commenced on 15 March 2011 to allow further consultation with stakeholders on the final composition of the Superannuation Trustee Board, and to facilitate a seamless transition to the new governance regime during the formal transfer of agreements and investment to the Superannuation Trustee Board.
As the schemes are all now closed, the bill provides a mechanism for reviewing the composition of the board to ensure it remains representative as membership declines in the future. We have ensured that we have expanded the current board membership from six members - three members and three alternative members - to nine members, all appointed by the minister to ensure representation from each of those superannuation schemes. To ensure a quorum for a meeting there must be at least five of the nine members, which must include a chairperson or a deputy chairperson, plus a union-nominated member and an employer-nominated member. We will be appointing members for five years, unless they resign or are terminated by the minister. Only the Under Treasurer will be permanently appointed.
We will be ensuring transitional provisions allow the former NTGPASS Board members and the police representative to become initial Superannuation Trustee Board members until expiry of their current membership. We will be ensuring the minister takes a regular review of the Superannuation Trustee Board to determine whether the composition remains appropriate, as membership will decline from each of the closed schemes. We have ensured there has been significant consultation on this with the relevant unions and the trustees from each of the previous boards. We provided briefings and extensive consultation on the structure of the governance arrangements, and have endorsed the proposed composition of the Superannuation Trustee Board. I can inform the House that relevant employer representatives, such as the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Commissioner for Police, were also consulted.
We fully believe there are absolutely no negative impacts on member funds or benefits. The expanded Superannuation Trustee Board establishes what we know will be a contemporary, flexible governance framework for the management of the Territory’s public sector superannuation funds.
The investment portfolio currently managed by the Superannuation Trustee Board is around $750m and it continues to grow. The recent global financial crisis has highlighted the need for superannuation trustees to have a good understanding of investment markets. The expansion of the Superannuation Trustee Board will ensure there are a sufficient number of board members to institute best practice investment and governance arrangements.
Scheme members will have greater confidence, as an expanded trustee board with a greater range of experience and expertise will be better placed to manage their retirement savings. Additionally, investment decisions will be made for a larger pool of funds and may lead to more cost-effective investment products for members. From a public perspective, the need for government and member confidence in the prudential and fiscal management of the Territory’s superannuation funds is extremely important, and there is a strong public expectation that members’ interests are protected.
Each of the three schemes are closed to new membership, so this bill requires the minister to undertake a regular review of the board to determine whether the composition remains appropriate as scheme membership declines. The review of the board will be aligned with the triennial actuarial review of each scheme. This will provide the minister with an independent assessment and include consideration of equal representation between employer and employee nominees, the number of scheme members, and the value of investments held for each of the three funds.
The review requires consultation with each of the nominating sponsors. Where the constitution of the board is no longer appropriate, the bill requires the minister to take all reasonable steps to have the legislation amended to ensure appropriate representation. For example, active NT Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme membership will cease when the 85 police officers remaining in the scheme retire and move from being contributing members to pension members. When an NT Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme member retires, the balance of their superannuation account is paid to the Central Holding Authority and their pension is paid directly from that source. This means when active membership ceases the NTPSBS fund that is managed by the STB will have a zero balance and there will no longer be any requirement to have any NTPSBS representatives on the board.
I can advise there are no costs associated with expanding the board, and one of the drivers of the reforms is the potential to create administrative efficiencies. The need for three separate boards to meet to consider similar fund investment issues will be reduced to one board, and this will result in more efficient use of resources associated with management of boards, including preparation of board papers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all past board members who have been involved and been through this process with us, who have been active participants in the consultations, and who have been very supportive. Ultimately, without their support we would not been able to meet this sensible administrative change in the three superannuation schemes that are closed to new members.
I also thank Monty and Kathleen for their tireless efforts in ensuring that superannuation administration within the NT is contemporary. They have been undertaking enormous superannuation reforms diligently and quietly within Treasury and, as each tranche of those reforms come to fruition, I am able to come before this parliament with legislative tools to give those reforms effect. This builds on the reforms of 2010 and closes off that element of the reforms. That said, we are still working to ensure all contemporary practices in superannuation management for the Northern Territory occur within Treasury.
With my thanks to Monty and Kathleen, and my thanks to all the outgoing board members, and the guidance of the Under-Treasurer in these reforms, I commend this legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 22 February 2012.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for, once again, taking an interest in the opposition’s amendments as he did with the poisons bill which passed through the House yesterday. He has done so with this, and I thank him. It is very important this amendment stand and is incorporated into this bill for a number of reasons. The amendment is that the annual report for the governing councils for the local hospital networks find its way into this parliament for scrutiny.
It is very important for a number of reasons. We just have to go back a couple of years and see what happened in about 2008 or 2009 when a number of hospital board annual reports failed to find their way into this parliament. That was a breach of the Hospital Boards Act, and the then Minister for Health found himself on the receiving end of a sacking - and appropriately so.
It is very important that such information finds its way into the parliament, and that all members of parliament are able to scrutinise the operations of a hospital, or at least as much as those operations are published in these reports such as waiting lists, emergency department waiting times, various financial records of the hospital, and the goings on of the hospital management through the boards. This is all part of the federal government’s health reform. I have said a number of times it is really far from reform; it is just a change in funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states and, indeed in this case, the Territory. So, it is hardly reform. It has morphed into what it is today.
The then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, announced, in chest-beating style in 2007, that he would reform Australia’s healthcare system through acute service delivery through the hospitals, and he was going to do it by 2009. That has since changed a number of times. As we know, in the political landscape since then, many things have changed quite dramatically. This is, in a sense, a watered-down version. Nonetheless, it enjoys some support from the opposition. We realise areas of our health service in our hospitals - particularly hospital service delivery –needs a tweak, and this may well go towards doing that.
We have always maintained our hospital health system in this country, particularly in the Northern Territory, does not require fundamental change or need to be reformed. What we need, and where we stand, is to strengthen our local hospital boards and local community engagement. If we have hospital boards and local community engagement with clout, then you will start to see the types of better health service delivery we all seek. As I have always said, head office - the Department of Health, based in Darwin - has to win the argument against the local hospital boards or, in this case, the governing councils - not the other way around which it is at the moment. In this case, the local community so desperately has to put their case forward and win the argument against the Department of Health. In other words, the department is right; you try to convince it otherwise. It should be the other way around. It should be that the local community is right, and you try to convince the department or the boards otherwise.
We believe that type of engagement and that kind of model will see a much better community engagement, a much better service delivery. No one knows their health service and their hospital service better than the local communities; those people who live and work in those communities.
That is why we have always maintained that hospital boards with clout or, in this case, local governing councils with serious clout, with some power, will provide a much better health service for Territorians than a centralised model - which is really, in a sense, what this is. I have to point out also that this started off with one local hospital network and, through engagement with communities, the Central Australian community spoke loud and clear, as they always do - and rightly so in this case - that they would settle for nothing less than a local hospital network for Central Australia. It is only appropriate, right, and just that Central Australia has its own local hospital network.
I shudder to think how our local hospitals such as Tennant Creek and Alice Springs and all the healthcare centres from Elliott down to the South Australian border would operate if it was dictated to by a Darwin local hospital network, or one single network operating out of Darwin. It would be totally unsatisfactory, and I do not think it would be functional at all.
With that said, this is pretty good legislation. However, there is a point I picked up after reading it, which is the accountability to the parliament. It is very important that this eventually comes back. The operations of the local governing councils need scrutiny by this parliament. That was conspicuous by its absence in the bill. In fact, the original bill - the bill as it stands without the amendment - essentially says a governing council of a hospital network must provide the minister with an annual report by 31 October each year. Nowhere in that clause 30 does it say that report must come back to the parliament for further scrutiny.
As I say, if it was not for that clause in the previous hospital boards network, we would still see the member for Johnston as the Health Minister - which would be a disaster for the Northern Territory community and the health sector across the NT. Thank goodness that clause was there because we now no longer have the member for Johnston as the Health Minister. I say we have someone who is far more competent - and that is saying something - as our Health Minister. It is very important this amendment be supported. I thank the member for Nelson for his interest and support.
Member for Nelson, I do not think it goes far enough. As it stands, it is 10 sitting days after the minister receives the report. Essentially, that is 10 sitting days after 31 October each year. That means that we will not see these annual reports until February of the following year, which is a long time. Anything could happen by then; it is a long time to start scrutinising the activities of the local governing council of a hospital.
The previous clause in the hospital boards report was quite appropriate. I believe that is where we should be going with this one; that is, before 30 September each year the board must give the report to the minister, and it must be tabled within 10 sitting days in the Legislative Assembly after the minister receives it. That means we would see those reports in this parliament by, at the very least, the last sitting day of that year.
In this case, we will not see those reports, depending on how the parliamentary calendar is structured, until the February sittings, possibly later, the following year. That is really five months or so after those reports have been compiled and handed to the minister. I would like to see that a bit neater. I would like to see the reports as soon as possible. In the previous act, 30 September was good because it meant 10 days after that was the last day of sittings for the year - maybe the second last. It meant the reports were in members’ hands in this parliament much sooner. Dragging it out until February, possibly even the March sittings, is too much.
While I appreciate the interest and the efforts the member for Nelson has gone to - and clearly he has spoken with the government and the government has conceded - I would have liked to have seen it go a little further. In the interests of all of us in this House - and, indeed, what is really important here, of course, is the healthcare of Territorians - if we are able to scrutinise the local governing councils annual reports much sooner that should lead to better healthcare and better service delivery for all of us. That is really what we are talking about here: we are talking about hospitals; people’s lives; people’s health; and people’s wellbeing. That is what is really important. That is why I would have liked to have seen those reports being available much sooner. Nevertheless, you cannot have everything in life and we have got somewhere with this: at the very least, these reports are coming back to the Legislative Assembly.
There is still a clause that the notifications of meeting outcomes will be published on websites. I will read that for the House:
Coupled with this, that is a pretty good safeguard now. We should be able to see and scrutinise the outcomes of these meetings. While that is good, I believe as a standalone that was not quite good enough, hence the opposition’s interest in ensuring those reports make their way back to the Legislative Assembly. People might say we may be making a rod for our own back but, of course, we are interested in accountability and openness.
Eventually, if there is a change of government, for whoever might be the Health minister at the time, that might be a bit of a pain in the neck - but so be it, that is what it is all about. You need to be open, honest and accountable, not only to those people who put us there, but those people who rely on us to provide the best possible healthcare for Territorians. This is the way of doing that.
If there is some bad news in those reports, well then, so be it. In my view, that is the nature of the job. It cannot all be good news, and we cannot go ahead and start covering stuff up just because we do not like it and it might cause us to have a bad day ...
Mr Knight: Have you told Alison that?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am referring to the member opposite.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: I cannot quite hear what is happening over there.
Nevertheless, we believe this is pretty good as long as the governing councils remain local and focused - and we will be keeping a very close eye on this sort of thing. It needs to remain local. It is part of our principles and philosophy to empower the individual; the individual in this case is the local community. The local communities are best placed to make decisions on the health service delivery they require.
Madam Deputy Speaker, hospital boards with clout would have been a good thing. We did not need the whole health reform stuff; we could have just empowered our hospital boards and - God forbid! - we could have renumerated them. If this is the path we are now treading let us hope these local governing councils - are they called local governing councils or are they just governing councils? They might be – no, it is just a governing council. Well, I am going to call it a local governing council because it should be local governing councils. Let us hope they remain local and people in the community have ample say in their health service delivery.
Thank you, member for Nelson, for accepting the amendment, or at least listening to the concerns of the opposition. I would have liked to see it go a little further. Nevertheless, at least these reports are now coming back to the parliament for scrutiny.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was interested in hearing the member for Greatorex debate on this issue. An old Irish priest I knew used to say ‘count your blessings one by one’. Not everything works out exactly how you want it sometimes, but I still think it was a good outcome.
I thank the department for its briefings. This is a new concept for managing hospitals, and it has come out of the National Health Reform Agreement. Whether you agree with that or not, that is the agreement made by governments to have these networks set up, and that is where we are going with this particular bill. I believe it is worth reading out the purpose of the act:
(1) The main purpose of this Act is to achieve improved health outcomes for Territorians in the public hospital system.
(2) This purpose is to be achieved by establishing local hospital networks for the National Health Reform Agreement and governing councils for those networks.
That is in the bill. If the purpose is to do the things it is said to do – that is, to achieve improved outcomes for Territorians in the public health system - there needs to be a mechanism which questions the status of our public hospital system in the Northern Territory today and, in 12 or 24 months time, the status of our health outcomes for Territorians in the public health system. This bill makes the statement that there is a purpose for these changes. If one is to say today this is a fantastic change, in 12 or 24 months time the same person should say this is working.
It is no good us having legislation for the sake of legislation. If we are going to have these changes, then someone has to prove, in a specified time, that has actually happened. If it has happened, you know all the work in establishing these networks and these governing councils has been worthwhile. If we come back in two or three years time and find things have gone backwards, one would question whether the system we are putting in place today is going to achieve that.
I am not trying to be negative about what has been put forward. I am saying the bill has a purpose, and that purpose needs to be looked at in the future to see whether it is occurring, otherwise we are fooling ourselves. We are just introducing things because the Commonwealth said, in conjunction with all the ministers, this was the way to improve things.
I have seen many bills go through this parliament that have reasons: ‘This will achieve this; this will achieve that’. It would be nice to have an independent person go back through all the bills that have said something like that and see whether they have achieved what they set out to do. Obviously, in some cases, that would be true. In this case, we have a clear purpose and it would be good to see if, in years to come, that has been achieved.
We have established a hospital network. Clause 5(2) says:
Clause 5(3) states:
What has caused confusion about the annual reports is you now have hospital networks being set as GBDs, and they have a requirement to report to parliament. Within this particular bill, you have a set of annual reports to be written by the governing councils which are part of the hospital network. The report they write should be, logically, part of the GBD’s report. The only concern I had about that was when I looked at the Financial Management Act on which the GBD would report. It does not clearly say some of the matters in the annual reports for the governing council fit into the requirements of the Financial Management Act - they are fairly broad parts that are required to be reported on by the governing councils.
Perhaps this bill could have been better worded; that the annual reports were to simply be part of the GBD’s annual report because that would still have to come to parliament and been scrutinised. We have added this bit on which may reflect what the previous hospital boards did. However, we have a new framework which is that the hospital networks under which governing councils operate will be a GBD. GBDs, as you know, report to parliament - they have annual reports. The Darwin Port Authority is a GBD; it has an annual report. The Parks and Wildlife is a GBD and has an annual report within NRETAS. Maybe that side of it could have been better done.
Be that as it may, it is in here and the concerns of the member for Greatorex are well founded, because it leaves one feeling: where did this annual report go? Did it really fit in to the requirements of the Financial Management Act the GBDs had to work under, or was it going to be left out there in the hands of the minister - not knocking the minister, it could be any minister? Where would that report end up if there were some bad stories in there about a particular hospital?
In the end, I agree with what the member for Greatorex said about the 10 days. At least it is coming to parliament and, if people have a concern about it, it will be there. I expect that, regardless of whether it comes as an annual report, it will be included in the report of the GBD because the governing councils and the hospital networks are intrinsically combined. I do not think the CEO of the hospital networks is going to put out a report on hospital networks without knowing what the governing councils are doing. I believe you will get two reports. One will be in the GBD and one will be an independent report - which is probably the same report, as it is in this bill because that is the way it has been set up. At least that will be available to parliament as a separate item.
I am not saying that is the perfect way for it to all happen - and that is the difficulty I had trying to work out whether it was actually going to be available to the public. After a bit of toing and froing - and I thank the minister for listening to the concerns and appreciate that sometimes, at a late hour, these are difficult things. Although, I must admit if Parliamentary Counsel found it difficult to write that, I will go he. That is not a difficult amendment. However, I appreciate that the government has come on board with that. It clears the air and we do not get sidetracked too much with that particular issue, which is important, but we need to also focus on what has been put before us today.
It will be interesting to see how the governing councils work. They have a role to work with the community. The Executive Director, the CEO, the minister, and the Medicare local for the Territory have a strategic direction which is consistent with the health needs of its community - the health priorities of the Territory government and the priorities of the agency. There are certainly plenty of guidelines for the roles and functions of the governing councils, and that is important. They have a major role, and that is sometimes forgotten here.
When we had the discussions on the annual reports, we tried to compare the governing councils with the advisory board for the port - that would be a good example - and you have about a page. There is the advisory board for Tourism NT, and you have a page.
The governing councils have a bit more oomph than those particular boards. I will read what their strategic functions are:
(a) in conjunction with the Executive Director of the network – lead the development of a strategic plan with a health improvement focus, including the development of vision, values and goals for the network; and
(b) regularly review and update the strategic plan; and
(c) encourage innovation to improve health outcomes; and
(d) contribute, at a policy level, to:
(i) annual budget reviews and planning; and
(ii) long-term budget priorities, including master planning and capital budget planning; and
(e) in conjunction with the Executive Director of the network – propose and consider strategies to improve the transition of patients between primary, secondary and tertiary health care providers.
That is much more important than the advisory board you have on the port or on Tourism NT. I am not saying they are not important, but this particular advisory board - and we will call it the governing council - plays a key role in how our hospital networks will function. Even though we have had some argy-bargy about when that annual report should be released and whether it will fit into the GBD, it is a very important annual report.
The annual report must address several issues. One is the governing council’s annual work plan. The annual work plan, for instance, will, I imagine, take into account the functions of the governing councils. That would be a clear area, you would have thought, for the work plan of the council. I am looking for the issue on work plan. Regardless of that, you know the work plan would have to deal with the strategic functions. If they are to report that work plan as a part of that annual report, then you would expect a reasonable amount of detail which would be about reporting on how that annual work plan is going.
They also talk about the activities and achievement of the network. Once again, the council would be, I imagine, discussing things like the strategic plan, and whether there has been an improvement of the transition of patients between primary secondary and tertiary. They must report on long-term budget priorities including master planning and capital budget planning. The report must also include an audited financial statement in relation to any trust money held by any government in council.
Whilst it might look like a little clause in relation to the annual report, what is written there is quite broad. One would hope the annual report will have a reasonable amount of detail so people looking at it can see what that governing council has done, and what its views are on areas such as the strategic development of our hospital networks.
One of the good things in this bill is clause 23, as mentioned by the member for Greatorex. We might talk about the annual reports and any complexities in relation to GBDs, but this is the most important for people to find out what is going on. It says:
Notification of meeting outcomes
I presume they will have their own website spot within the Health Department, and what they write there does not have to be checked by the CEO; that this will be the governing council’s own area, and they can publish the resolutions and meeting outcomes. People who have an interest in what is happening on their governing council should be looking at this site on a regular basis. That will give you up-to-date information. The problem with annual reports, like any annual report, is that it comes later. It comes at least three months down the track - in this case, it might even come later than that - but it is nearly out of date by the time you get to read it. This will allow people to have an understanding of governing councils in the immediate. If we are talking about openness and transparency, that is an excellent addition to the act.
I mentioned the annual work plan and that it would have to be reported on in the annual report. I will read that clause to show you how important that annual work plan is:
(2) The proposed work plan for the upcoming financial year must be presented to the Minister for his or her approval by 1 May before the financial year starts.
That will not apply in the first year because, if you read the whole bill - I was a bit concerned about how you were going to get it done by 1 May - in Division 2, Transition matters, for the first time the governing councils operate under clause 39:
This makes sense. I know this is the way things are drafted, but I do not know why that little clause could not have been in brackets. However, it is not for me to question Parliamentary Counsel. It just goes to show that when you are referring to the annual report, the report must address matters in the governing council’s annual work plan. That is a fairly important thing to be reported on. For those people who are interested in what is happening, I believe there should be a reasonable amount of information for people to have an understanding of what has been happening over that last year.
The other interesting area was the setting up of advisory groups. Clause 32:
(1) A governing council of a hospital network may establish advisory groups from interested persons, including persons employed within the network, to assist the council to perform its functions.
That also opens it up so you do not have this network that necessarily turns up somewhere or relies on itself for information. It can actually set up advisory groups to help the governing council obtain advice and assist in the performance of its functions. I believe that should be noticed, because it is also part of a reporting process to make the governing councils and the networks work more efficiently.
I go back to the original statement I made at the beginning: the main purpose of this bill is to achieve improved health outcomes for Territorians in the public health system. If I was to look at this broadly - having governing councils, advisory boards, reporting on the website, annual reports, and being required to report through GBDs - with all that scrutiny occurring and with expert people on these governing councils - I believe there is a section on the membership for these councils; they are looking for people who are in Indigenous health, community development, health leadership, business or finance, community engagement, academic, teaching or research, primary healthcare or governance - if you get a good combination of those people, you would hope the governing council will be a council that has expertise, which is what you need, and has the skills, knowledge, and experience to ensure it provides advice and strategic planning for those hospital networks.
If you look at this bill overall, there are the foundations for change and improving health outcomes for Territorians. The proof will be in the pudding. Will the government be able to say this was the status of health in the Northern Territory in March 2012, and come back in 2014 and show improved health outcomes? That is a good reason for passing this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the department for its briefings. I support the legislation.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank both speakers on this important legislation.
Let us remember that what this government inherited in 2001 was a system that was in place for 27 years. In 27 years of CLP government, the CLP never actually thought about health reform or establishing separate boards to govern the two really clear geographical areas of the Northern Territory. In addition to that, they had hospital boards and, in some cases, they were struggling to find people to fill the vacancies on them. The reason the reports were not tabled is because out of 12 meetings they had to have a year, some of them had one, two or three members, and some of them did not even have a quorum. So, this is a significant step forward.
I recall very well the debate we had about hospital networks. I insisted we would listen to the community - exactly what the member for Greatorex is asking now - instead of me appointing two, three or four, or even one hospital network. It was my will that there would be local input. That is why we have two local hospital networks.
We have now established these networks as GBDs, government business divisions. If I had my way, my preference would be something like Victoria, where the original boards are appointed; the minister allocates funds; they run the whole hospital; but they also hold responsibility. If things go wrong, the minister is not standing in front of everybody in parliament to answer the questions about those hospitals. He refers them to the board, and the board has to come up with the answers, because the board is adequately funded. Of course, the board then has to hold responsibility for the funding, for the allocation.
You cannot have it both ways; you cannot have an independent body. You provide the finance, the power, and the legislative backing. At the same time these guys say: ‘It is not our fault; it is the minister’s fault’. As you said yesterday, you have to accept personal responsibility, either as a person or as a group.
The GBD model was agreed upon with the Commonwealth government after lengthy community consultation. The government business divisions are discrete entities, and have an agreed governance mechanism. The networks can use the Department of Health and share services, thus reducing costs, and allow for separate performance reporting. It also allows for ongoing employment of hospital network staff as Northern Territory government employees.
The challenge for the future is to find suitable people from the community and get them in the local hospital network or the governing councils. We had problems having and maintaining people on the hospital boards; however, the governing councils can now have people from the old hospital boards be part of the new governing councils. They will work together with the department’s chief executive and the hospital network executive director to oversee the performance and capability of the hospital network against agreed targets. They are not going to be totally dependent; they will work with the department. They have to work with the department; after all, funding will come from the department. We have agreed on this with the Commonwealth.
We will have a very close relationship with the governing councils. We have to have a working relationship in order to provide the best service for the areas they govern - Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, all the health clinics and facilities south of Elliott and, of course, the northern one will have responsibility for Katherine, Royal Darwin Hospital, Gove, and all the health clinics and facilities north of Elliott.
The governing councils have reporting responsibilities written into the bill so the business they are dealing with is available to the community they represent. As the member for Greatorex said, clause 23 requires the governing council to publish on the Department of Health website a summary of the resolutions and meeting outcomes within 10 working days of the verification of the minutes of the meeting. That means every month their minutes will be ratified and will be available on the website for everybody to see.
The level of reporting has not previously been available. A report is tabled in parliament every year for the hospital boards. I do not know how many people, apart from us here in parliament, and some of the health staff, will look at the reports. Is the public really interested in those reports? They are probably interested in how well the hospital performs and are interested to go to the hospital and receive good service rather than reading the report of the board. However, they will be available every month. Also, the governing council, every six months, will report on their annual work plan and provide an annual report to the minister.
The member for Greatorex said there is no fixed requirement to table the annual report within the bill, and the community will not be informed of the business of the governing council. I believe the governing council is an advisory committee for the GBD of the hospital network. It has no financial or commercial responsibility for the hospital network. Formal financial and operating reporting of the GBD is a legislative requirement, and this annual report must be provided by the department’s chief executive to the minister for tabling in parliament.
Therefore, because of what the governing councils do, there is no formal requirement for an advisory committee - which will be the governing council - to have an annual report tabled. However, I discussed this with - I do not have a problem; it does not make any difference if it is going to be tabled in parliament or tabled through the annual report of the department. There will be no difference and there is nothing for the minister to hide. It is not my decision. If there is going to be criticism of their decisions, it is going to be directed towards them. I proposed an amendment where we will follow the example we have now with the hospital board’s annual report: given to the minister and, within 10 sitting days, it will be tabled in parliament. That will overcome any problems people may perceive.
It is a big step forward. We have never had something like this in the Territory. I believe, with the amendment, it will satisfy any doubts people opposite may have.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to go to committee stage so I can propose the amendment.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we move into committee stage, I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Katherine South Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Marina Faulkner and Mr Eddie O’Heir. On behalf of honourable members, I extend you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Hospital Networks Governing Councils Bill 2012 (Serial 201), together with schedule of amendments No 76, circulated by the Minister for Health, Mr Vatskalis.
Clauses 1 to 29, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: Could I just speak on clause 16 please?
Madam CHAIR: Yes, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Just a clarification, minister, on clause 16. It is about the establishment of a panel comprised of representatives from the agency and stakeholders of the relevant hospital network. Is the CEO, himself or herself, part of that panel?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, he is not.
Mr WOOD: Okay, that was all, thank you.
Clauses 1 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 76.1, to insert, after clause 30(3):
Mr CONLAN: Very quickly, minister, I noticed in your reply that it did not make any difference to you about tabling the report in the Legislative Assembly: you have nothing to hide, it is all well and good, and you were quite prepared for scrutiny by the Assembly. I was just wondering, in that case then, if you are quite nonchalant about it, would you consider amending that again to ‘within five sitting days after the minister receives the report’, so we actually receive it by the end of the year? If it makes no difference, if there is no difference, then what is the difference?
Mr VATSKALIS: Currently, the minister is required to table the report by the hospital board within 10 days. I do not want to change it. I will leave it as it is because it is already the norm. So, I will leave it as it is.
Mr CONLAN: No, that is all right. I just wondered, if it made no difference to you, the 10-day period is just 10 days; it could well be five days. I thought if it was no concern to you - you said in your second reading speech that you are not bothered either way, you are quite prepared to do it. So, I thought, put your money where your mouth is, and why not make it five days?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, considering every month the webpage of the department will have all the minutes and everything else, the waiting period will be – how can I put it? – hypothetical, because you will be able to actually see in October, November, December, and in January the governing council’s minutes, and you will be aware what is happening.
Mr CONLAN: We have to take your word that what is appearing on the website is the information that will appear in the annual reports. The member for Nelson and I both raised concerns that there may be information in those annual reports that does not appear on the website, hence, our concern and our insistence that this report finds its way back into the Legislative Assembly. As a result, minister, I was just trying to call you out. You said you did not care; you were not concerned, you are more than happy to have the reports tabled in the Legislative Assembly. I thought while I have the chance to directly ask you a question and get a response, if you truly meant what you said five minutes ago, then why not bring it forward to five days instead of 10? However, I guess that is not going to happen.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, again, regarding this suspicion about what will be in the annual report might not be what the governing council will provide, first of all, the governing council will be independent, so they will guard their independence with fervour. If, at the end of the day, any member of the public is suspicious, there is always freedom of information.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, we are quite justified in our suspicion considering we did not receive annual reports for a number of years under the previous Health Minister, hence our insistence that it is legislated that these reports do come back. Again, if what is reported in the monthly website updates - or whatever they are under clause 30 - is the same information that is in the annual report, all well and good. However, at the same time, we want to see that report come back to parliament. We need a mechanism so someone is ultimately responsible, and that responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Health Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 15 February 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I respond to these proposed amendments to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act and, at the outset, indicate that we do not have major issues with them. I do not want to take the bills into committee, but I will pose several questions which have already been touched upon in the second reading speech. If the minister is able to answer those questions succinctly or clearly in his second reading response, then I expect we will not go into the committee stages - otherwise I will have to drag the thing into the committee stages. I ask the minister to pay attention to those particular issues to save this House some time.
The legislative instrument before the House seeks to amend the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act, specifically in two areas. The first is in relation to an anomalous relationship that exists between it and the Unit Title Schemes Act of the Northern Territory. The anomalies arise out of the operation of section (15)(3)(a) and section 15(3)(b). There is a wording issue that creates this anomalous situation which has a lack of clarity attached to it, and it is in this area that my particular questions arise.
Specifically, the current arrangements are that unit owners pay rates at the same rate as the Darwin City Council rates. However, the corporation has seen fit to exercise its prerogatives under the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act to exert a 20% levy in favour of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation. That is part of the act, and we will not go into the nuances and politics surrounding a 20% extra levy because that is beside the point for the purposes of this discussion. What I want to make absolutely clear in here, with certainty from the Chief Minister, is that as a result of the operation of this legislative instrument, should this bill pass, those arrangements will not change. Essentially, those people who live at the waterfront are levied their normal rates as UCV in accordance with the normal operation of the Darwin City Council, as a comparator, and that the body corporate, which is essentially the corporate structure, actually pays the 20% levy. As I understand it, there are some issues surrounding the payment of that 20% levy at the moment.
What I seek from the Chief Minister is reassurance that does not change, so there is no capacity, as a result of this - and I do not read it in here by the way, but it is just for clarity sake - that there is no intention for 20% to be levied against individual homeowners or specific unit owners. If I can seek and get those assurances from the minister during his reply, I see no point in taking this matter into committee.
The second issue deals with the consistency with the Local Government Act. Needless to say, the collection of taxation, in any of its forms, including rates, is a matter that attracts great legislative scrutiny. Governments like to collect money from a public which is unwilling to give money and, consequently, legislative instruments need to be very carefully drafted so the capacity for people to avoid their rating obligations is not avoided.
This is, basically, a series of amendments to deal with the issue of consistency with the Local Government Act so the corporation has the power - and I am going to read from the second reading speech:
This bill inserts those provisions. We have no problem with that. I am a great champion of normalisation, as far as possible, with what goes on at the waterfront. I look forward to the new Lord Mayor striking up a full discourse with the Northern Territory government so the waterfront can be incorporated within the municipality of Darwin and the anomalous situation that exists at the moment does not continue. However, that is a debate for another day.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the Chief Minister’s response. I noted he carefully penned down my questions, and I hope I get a fulsome and unequivocal answer in this area and we can deal with this matter quickly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Department of Justice for its briefing. I would like to tell them I still have this beautiful diagram they gave me, handwritten, trying to explain what this whole bill is about. It is certainly not easy for a lay person to understand the contents of the bill.
I do not have any problems with the bill per se, but I believe it is an opportunity to talk about some of the issues. For instance, we have Division 2, General matters, clause 39, Rateability of plan in Precinct. I believe I have mentioned before the Boston Tea Party - taxation without representation. It is an important issue when you are talking about the Darwin waterfront. The people there are being rated. You could apply the same argument to people who come under the East Arm port area. There are people there who pay rates but are, basically, not represented by anybody in a democratic form they can say is their representative body for that area.
As the member for Port Darwin said, the sooner this area can be brought into the Darwin municipality the better. Darwin has some concerns about the cost of the pool. To me, a solution about that is, as at Leanyer water park and Palmerston water park, the government just controls the wave pool and it is not a function of the council.
I hope the people in this area eventually have some democratic rights in relation to local government which, in itself, is then about rates; that they have the ability to have a say on what is going on.
In the rate notice for the year it says:
If I was a ratepayer I would be asking them what that means. I do not know whether Darwin City Council - if we talk about uniformity - has a clause like that. I am interested to know what that 20% extra levy on people on the Darwin waterfront is.
I do not have a problem with the changes. It is important we are talking about the heading ‘General matters, rateability of land in the precinct’. You are dealing with an issue that has some underlying principles - the rating of people in those areas. I am unsure how many members of the board live at the waterfront. I know the chair does, but that still does not give any direct representation. It would have been nice, if when setting up this board, it included elected representatives - people who had commercial or residential interests in the waterfront. It would have given people in that area some direct say in what was happening with regard to rates.
That is what councils do: they have elected representatives and those elected representatives, every year, work out what the rates should be. Unfortunately, people in the waterfront area do not have a direct say and, therefore, are subject to a notice by the chief executive of the waterfront - and that is it. I hope, even though I do not have a problem with some of the other matters in this act, if we are talking about rates we cannot avoid the fact that people should have some direct say in how rates are levied, what they are levied for, and they do that through a democratic body which is called a council.
I support what the member for Port Darwin said. If we cannot get some form of democratic process with the existing board we have to represent people in that area, then the sooner we move on to Darwin City Council taking over that enclave – the Darwin port area should come under the same bracket because there are people who live in that area, people who pay rates in that area, but they do not pay it to a democratically elected body. That area should either belong to Palmerston or Darwin City Council, and that gives uniformity, as the member for Port Darwin said. Uniformity is important in this case. We need to look at that area as well.
Madam Acting Speaker, I support the legislation going through today. I also thank the Department of Justice, especially for their diagrams. Believe it or not, I appreciate that people have made the effort to put it down on paper; it is not easy to understand. I appreciate the time the department has put into explaining what is fairly difficult to understand, and putting it into a less difficult form. It is not easy to understand even now, but at least I have a better understanding.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have an interest in this bill. I debated similar issues with the member for Port Darwin on a GBD in February, I believe. Let me preface my remarks about this bill to extol the virtues and the wonder of the waterfront of which I am proud.
I am retiring; the next chapter begins after August. I will not be standing in the next election. If I look at solid infrastructure of real benefit to the city of Darwin that I was involved in, I can look back at the waterfront. I was given the task, as a fairly new Minister for Construction and Infrastructure, to oversee and take responsibility in relation to the construction of the waterfront, the Convention Centre, and the ancillary works as well.
There were difficulties around planning, and we debated that in this House. There were some objections. There were some residents who were not happy about the waterfront; they felt it might ruin their view and make a lot of noise during construction. They had genuine concerns. I can remember going along to a number of residents’ houses and meeting with them, standing on their back verandah overlooking the site. It was a construction site at that time. I believe we moved to assure those residents about this particular project.
Now, I would be very surprised if residents in that area have any major objections to that development, because I believe it adds to the amenity of their property. It is a great area and, basically, it would increase the value of their property. That was one challenge.
There were also challenges by the opposition - and the opposition members, in this sense, were doing their job - about the cost and the nature of the project. I remember meeting with all types of entities, including merchant bankers and others, on this issue. Up to that stage, I had not had much to do with merchant bankers - that is a different world again. However, looking back on my time as a minister over the last 10 years, I have had the privilege, through various portfolio areas, to meet many different people and learn about things I would never have learnt about before. That, to me, has been a real privilege and an honour, to try to represent the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory.
I believe the Convention Centre and the developments there such as the wave pool were controversial. I did not get to go overseas and test the different wave forms that existed in the United States, but I trust we have the right wave pattern. It certainly is used by both Territorians and visitors to the Northern Territory, and it not only compares well, it has it all over that area in Cairns. It has an open pool there. Our area has much more amenity, and much more history.
Whilst that area does have history – I understand it was the place where Goyder landed and set up camp, or was probably one of the places he set up camp. It has European history, but it also has very important Indigenous history. We hear about that many times. I have heard about it many times from the Larrakia people, particularly with their Welcome to Country they give in that wonderful venue at the entertainment centre ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! It is about the issue of digression. He has not yet once mentioned the word ‘rates’, and he is banging on about stuff utterly unrelated to this bill. I would hate to think the minister is using digression as a vehicle to get this bill through to lunch - and digression should not be used for that purpose. So, if the minister can come to the issues in the bill, that is well and good. However, using digression to avoid alerting the media they have run out of business by lunch is not a fair vehicle.
Dr BURNS: Well, Madam Acting Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Leader of Government Business, there is a certain degree of latitude in the debate, but I ask you to address the bill, please.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will abide by your direction because I respect the Chair and your rulings. I was merely trying to set a context – a wonderful context – of the area there ...
Mr Elferink: Oh, we have run out of business by lunch! Oh, my God!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … a context the opposition never wanted - ‘Scrap the Waterfront Call’, and revert to a 1999 model which probably did not even include any residential developments there. However, I digress.
We have established the residential development there, and I have to say – and I hope I am not called on relevance on this – whilst the opposition did its job as an opposition in questioning and, possibly, even opposing the developments there, the Darwin City Council, under former Lord Mayor and former minister in the CLP government, Mr Peter Adamson, who, as mayor, was really strident in his opposition and tried to put many obstacles in the way of that development. As the member for Port Darwin has alluded to previously, the council did not want to take on responsibility ...
Mr Elferink: Oh look, I am no champion of that decision, by the way.
Dr BURNS: That is right. I believe the Chief Minister has foreshadowed further talks. We have a new council, and let us open up those talks. I am not sure whether the member for Port Darwin has had talks with the council on this particular issue ...
Mr Elferink: I have mentioned it to a couple of aldermen already.
Dr BURNS: So, you have never gone along to a formal council meeting and put the case, as a local member, to the council? You have no doubt written to them, member for Port Darwin?
Mr Elferink: I have spoken to the old Lord Mayor; I have spoken to the current Lord Mayor.
Dr BURNS: So, you have been at a function somewhere and you have mentioned it in passing, but you have not written to council ...
Mr Elferink: No, no. I had a meeting with him about the issue and we sat down specifically to talk about it for an hour.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Oh good, well that is a good meeting. So I withdraw that assertion that it might have just been a passing conversation. But in a formal sense, you have not taken it up with council. I was skewered by Jo Sangster in the last election for writing too much to council and raising issues with council. I do not take a backward step; I am always willing to raise important issues formally with council in correspondence as local member.
No doubt, the member for Port Darwin will write. He will raise the issue and seek to meet formally with the new council. Hopefully, he will get a good hearing, and we can have productive discussions with the council ...
Mr Elferink: And I add Jamey Robertson and Ian Fraser to that list to make sure that everyone knew my ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call.
Mr Elferink: That is true; I do not, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr BURNS: I do not mind picking up the interjection.
Mr Elferink: Thank you, I wanted to get it in there.
Dr BURNS: We accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have a development there and residents at the waterfront. Until we can move some time in the future with the council - the council being willing, of course, to take on the responsibility. They have questions about the wave pool, about a whole range of things, so it could be quite a protracted negotiation. The council will look at its financial exposure in such discussions.
So in the interim, no matter how long that might take, it behoves government to make sure the Darwin Waterfront Corporation is operating as it should be. That is what these amendments really aim to do. There is a whole range of issues enshrined in the original Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act, and I will not go over that. Basically, the corporation has functions to develop, manage, and service the Darwin Waterfront Precinct for the benefit of the community - and aren’t they doing a fantastic job in relation to that; the Harmony Day Soiree the other day was a tangible example of the corporation operating under the act we are debating here today - to promote the precinct as a place of residence and business, and a venue for public events and entertainment. They are doing that in spades. I have to confess I have not really explored all the venues down there, but I have been to a few. It is a great precinct and there are many interstate visitors who really praise that area and say it has made their stay. Many residents there, whom I know personally, really enjoy living at the Darwin waterfront.
The functions of the corporation include among other things - as the Chief Minister said in his second reading speech - to preserve the good order of the precinct; to do anything for the provision of municipal services in the precinct; to do anything for the development and maintenance of other civic amenities and facilities in the precinct, including the staging of public events; and the corporation is similar to councils.
The member for Port Darwin is quite right: the people there currently - whilst they can have input into the corporation - it is not exactly the same as other citizens in Darwin who had the pleasure - some of them might not have seen it that way - of voting in the local government elections last week. That is something, as government, we will certainly work with council to look for a way through. There is a range of functions around sanitation, garbage collection, street cleaning, roads and footpaths, public places, storm drainage, street lighting, etcetera, as well as maintenance of the quality of water in the recreational lagoon and wave pool.
As the Chief Minister said, this particular bill is aimed at correcting a technical anomaly between the Darwin Waterfront Corporation and the Unit Title Schemes Act. Looking back, once again, to my experience as a Planning minister, I think I was the one who introduced or developed the revised unit title schemes. It is quite complex legislation. As I think about it more, the Deputy Chief Minister might have actually had carriage of that legislation within this House. I know in my time in that portfolio area, there was a great deal of consultation. It is a complex issue, given the nature of developments with commercial and residential. It is certainly complex legislation, so we needed to correct that technical anomaly. As the Chief Minister also said, we need to bring the act into line with the Local Government Act relating to the enforcement of rates.
Section 15(7) of the act was amended to refer to units in a scheme, a reference to a unit development under the plan of Unit Title Schemes Act, as well as units in a plan. Based on the current wording of section 15(7), it is not clear that the corporation can levy rates directly on the owner of a unit and, at the same time, levy rates on common property at the highest level of the scheme. That is what these amendments are seeking to do. The advice government received was that if we did not correct this it could have large impacts on the corporation, both administratively and financially. As government, we need to safeguard the financial health and stability of the corporation, and also to ensure it is able to administer its functions in the way it was intended. That is an important consideration.
Currently, the corporation has the power to levy rates. It was always intended that the corporation should be capable of enforcing rates in a manner that is very similar to the Local Government Act.
This bill inserts some provisions into the act in relation to unpaid rates. The unpaid rates can be deemed to be a charge on the land. The corporation will be able to allow the occupier of land, such as a hotel chain - there is a very successful hotel there now on a long-term lease. They are able to do that also.
Last, they will be able to levy rates on a proportional basis where land becomes rateable. These are very important functions. A number of ancillary provisions relating to the administration and enforcement of rates have been identified.
This is very important legislation. The member for Port Darwin has taken a very healthy and appropriate interest in this. This is his constituency, part of the electorate of Port Darwin and, no doubt, he is putting forward the views of a number people who reside at the waterfront. You are the local member, no doubt you are approached by people. In my travels, I have not picked up a large call on these particular issues. No doubt, there are people down there who are quite concerned. I have spoken to people I know who live there. They do not seem to share the same concern. They are mainly younger people and they are probably enjoying all the amenities there, so they do not seem to be too worried about the issues you have raised. However, you raised them here in all seriousness and I know the Chief Minister will respond in all seriousness.
To conclude, I am not trying to digress, but it is a wonderful area. As much as possible, we want everyone to be happy there. It is a great development. In my retirement, you might see a poor old bloke with a floppy hat on and a fishing rod, fishing off the end of the rock wall there, and you will say: ‘Oh look, there is Burnsy there’. I will be very happy, because I will be looking back at that wonderful Convention Centre, and the wonderful developments. I will be trying to keep my eyes away from the wave pool because I am too old to swim now. Many people go to the wave pool and have a great time. We live in a great city and it is part of a great city.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as government, we are keen to support the resident there, but we also have a responsibility in regard to the corporation. That is what we are doing through these amendments. I commend the bill to the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Darwin HomeSchool Network students accompanied by their parents. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to have the home school students here today. We have had some quite different groups of students through this week, and it has been great for them to see the workings of our parliament. We had children from Singapore in yesterday, and it was really great to see them coming to Darwin. Darwin is going to be the Singapore of Australia. It was great to have those, mostly ex-pat Australian kids there.
I have a keen interest in this legislation because of the legislation itself, but also my previous roles as Local Government minister and Business minister. This subject was brought up on a regular basis and, in my role as the Business minister, I had a great deal of representation from certain members of the Property Council in and around what is and is not CBD. At the moment, the CBD is viewed as not including the waterfront. However, it certainly is an attraction. The evolution of the waterfront needs to occur, and this is what this legislation does.
The council’s current and previous administrations have been very reluctant to take on responsibility of the waterfront. It is evolving. It is a great facility. When you look at other facilities across Australia of a similar nature - I always get confused whether it is Sunnybank or Southbank in Brisbane ...
A member: Southbank.
Mr KNIGHT: Southbank. That is a great facility. Other types of developments like this in capital cities have been taken on by a local council. It will be very interesting to see what the makeup of the new council is and whether it adopts that position as well. Yes, we have lost the mayor, but there is still a large majority of previous councillors.
Personally, it is a shame the council cannot be an advocate for the waterfront and be seen as a part of the city, because it is a huge feature of the city. There will be some home school kids from Darwin, but some out of Darwin - the kids from Singapore would have visited the waterfront. Whenever we have visitors coming to Darwin from interstate or overseas that is the place we take them. They love the wave pool and the growing number of restaurants and retail outlets there. It is getting to that stage of evolution that the businesses there are a real destination.
I struggle with the parking there and the nature of parking fees after closing hours in and around functions at the Convention Centre. There are no operations of the waterfront going ahead, but the Convention Centre and people attending functions need those spaces. Parking at the waterfront is an area of concern. This bill goes towards making a number of changes with respect to that.
I will talk about section 3 which is being amended under clause 4 of the bill. This section inserts provisions relating to the living enforcement of rates which is, obviously, a significant subject. Rates are demonised, across the world, I would imagine, but in Australia and the Territory it is no different. It is all about paying for the services there. As I described, the commercial nature of the operations will increasingly be able to cross-subsidise the rates there. I went there the other day and noticed a range of businesses opening up and providing a service, and that will go to allowing them to provide more rates.
New clause 39, which relates to the rateability of land in the precinct, provides that all land in the precinct is rateable and has some exceptions in a general principle. There is a clear definition. It also is with respect to Commonwealth land, of which there are some portions.
The waterfront has quite a mix of ownership and, over the history of that area, has had some different lives. That is recognition of the war history, the trading history, and the coal loading facility there. If you go into the library here and look at some of the old photographs of that little bay, it is, basically, mudflats. It has certainly evolved.
Clause 40, regarding Commonwealth land, provides that, similar to section 145(1) of the Local Government Act for certain land of the Commonwealth to be conditionally rateable. This is the evolution of the precinct, and of this act moving closer towards the Local Government Act.
Similarly, clause 41 provides - similar to section 147 of the Local Government Act - for allotments subject to separate use and occupation. In particular, this section creates the opinion of rating the separately used or occupied parts of allotments. This is a clearer definition of the different allotments there. I understand it is quite complex, with all those different allotments. It is something the Darwin Waterfront Corporation will actively work towards.
I am conscious of the new developments there. I understand Stage 2 is selling quite well. I guess they have Stage 3 after that.
We have all seen it, and I have been down to the sales office just to have a bit of a sticky beak really. It is not my cup of tea; I would like to be out a bit in the rural area and away from town. It certainly will be a fabulous facility once completed. It is a unique facility for prospective buyers in this market. Once all those properties are sold, they will be unique investments. As Business minister, there was much interest from interstate - certainly from Singapore, with investment into this coming from there. The investment opportunities in Darwin have been heavily marketed as well.
With respect to clause 44, this relates to the principal ratepayer. It provides - similar to section 151 of the new Local Government Act - that the occupier of the lot may apply to be designated as the principal ratepayer in respect to the allotment. There may be cases where there are multiple names on those titles and there needs to be a person identified as the principal ratepayer with respect to that.
The bill goes through a range of new sections with respect to the notice being given to the ratepayers. Again, this is part of reference to the new Local Government Act. Also, there are new sections relating to recording and corrections to recording and, also importantly, is the declaration of rates themselves which we take for granted. It moves through a whole range of new sections which relate to the procedural nature of the notification of rates. Similar to what we all experience - or most of us experience, I would imagine – there is the payment of instalments for those rates.
Also, with respect to the validity of the declarations, the new clauses provide provisions that are contained within the Local Government Act, and the minister, by gazettal notice, validates those rate declarations by the corporations despite some procedural non-compliance. It gives that ability. More provisions that relate, similarly, to the Local Government Act are the accrual of interest on overdue payments, the remittance of interest, the rate concessions generally, and the alleviation of financial hardships. I am not too sure how many people would apply for a financial hardship given the cost of properties there. Maybe they have financial hardship. However, it is bringing this in line with the normal provisions across the Northern Territory with the Local Government Act provisions. It is certainly good to see that is moving in that direction.
Furthermore, the Local Government Act section 167 has provisions which provide for the grant of rate concessions to advance certain purposes and circumstances. This is something that has been taken up in clause 57 relating to public benefit, and that is a good provision. Through definitions, through recovery of court actions, are more provisions that relate back to the Local Government Act.
I understand the corporation is moving in this direction and these amendments, hopefully, will be seen by the Darwin City Council as something to bring them closer in line with the existing operations of the rest of the Darwin City Council area. It would be good to see, with the various festivals and events which happen around Darwin, which are actively supported by the Darwin City Council - I congratulate them on all the activities they undertake around the city - that the waterfront is incorporated into all those festivals and events and is seen to be a very active part of the city for the whole of this CBD area.
One thing that the city does not have in the CBD is real areas for children. That is what is lacking in the city. I am not being critical of the council, but that is really taken up by the waterfront. So, when you are looking at the community of Darwin, bringing the waterfront into the council complements the community and the society we have in the Northern Territory; that young people are brought in by the council. They work very hard in other areas, but it does need some active consideration. It was a bit of a bugbear of mine when I was Local Government Minister and also as Business minister, with respect to its exclusion out of that. This is moving a step closer in the evolution of the waterfront, where it is all going to finally finish up ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, if I could just interrupt, we are at midday, are you intending to continue your remarks later or are you finishing?
Mr KNIGHT: I will continue after lunch.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Navitas English students accompanied by Ms Mikiko Kawano, Mr John Logan and Mr Matthew Bell and staff from the Department of Children and Families. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, we were talking about the waterfront and what a fabulous facility it is. We were talking about how this legislation will contemporise the arrangements there and will progress the further evolution of the precinct towards, hopefully, the full incorporation to a local government area and the normalisation of the local government services.
I will not go on for much longer. I commend the Chief Minister for presenting the bill. I will close by acknowledging what a great facility we believe it is - but the CLP opposition does not, particularly the Opposition Leader. I will read from an article in December 2004. I quote from the journalist, Paul Dwyer:
The current Opposition Leader, basically – oh, that is right, he has been Opposition Leader twice, hasn’t he? Sorry, I am just picking up on that - after he said he was not up to the job, he resigned. The opposition wanted to build a massive car park and a monument there and thought the building heights would be too high. Obviously, building heights have been taken into consideration and residents of the apartment blocks on Harry Chan Avenue, around the CBD area, were consulted and an equitable arrangement reached. The Opposition Leader was very much against the Convention Centre. He said: ‘I do not want to see a Convention Centre’.
How many times have I seen the Opposition Leader down there …
A member: He had his fundraiser down there.
Mr KNIGHT: That is right. He had his fundraiser at the Convention Centre he did not want, at a precinct he thought should have been a car park, with a Liberal colleague from interstate who wants to take more money off the Territory. All in all, it was a nice little campaign launch he had there. It really gave an indication of the fickle nature …
Mr Henderson: And Dave was not invited.
Mr KNIGHT: And Dave was not invited, so that sounds like a really strong, united, focused party. They are all over the shop and cannot focus on anything. You have Terry, as Opposition Leader, making this statement saying, ‘I am not up to it’ and resigned. Then he came back, so he is all over the shop. Now, he goes to the Convention Centre which he did not want to go ahead. He was against a $1bn development.
I remember what that place used to look like. It was horrid. There was a massive warehouse, and the contamination for decades and decades into the soil and the mudflats had to be removed. Obviously, much World War II history was removed at the same time ...
Mr Chandler: What about Arafura Harbour? You canned that pretty quick.
Mr KNIGHT: I will pick up on the interjection from the environment spokesperson, Peter Chandler, who is calling across the Chamber for Arafura Harbour, a project in the East Point area, to go ahead. That is what I have heard across the Chamber ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The shadow environment minister, Peter Chandler, is still advocating for the carving up of the East Point Peninsula, the destruction of Ludmilla Creek, and a whole range of other quite significant – yes, that is a good: approve it first and then figure it out, get the environmental conditions put in later. That is the way it goes for the CLP.
The people of Nightcliff and Fannie Bay electorates will be very interested in the CLP’s ever-present policy on Arafura Harbour. I thank the member for Brennan and the opposition spokesperson for confirmation of the current position. He is the environment spokesperson and has the decision-making with regard to that.
If people want to see the destruction of East Point they should support the CLP. If they do not, they support the local member, Michael Gunner.
This is a great facility, the waterfront. We have a very different view about the future of this precinct; we will see it evolve. It will move into a new phase with this legislation passing - the further development with Stage 2 and Stage 3. I am very excited about Stage 3 moving around the corner towards the Toll area, the old tank facilities, and the site of the old power station.
Increasingly, that whole peninsula is becoming very cosmopolitan, very much a feature of Darwin. When I show people pictures or take them down to the wave pool, it is a fabulous facility. Chief Minister, I commend your efforts in bringing this legislation forward.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank our Attorney-General for his support for the bill, and other colleagues who have spoken on this bill, because it is very specific to the Darwin waterfront, the Darwin Waterfront Corporation, and the residents and tenants at the waterfront. It is a very technical bill, and probably one of the most technical bills in the issues in regard to correcting the technical anomaly around the rating I have had to have carriage of. I thank the corporation staff for getting me through an understanding of the changes in this bill.
This bill, as well as being technical, is really in two parts. One is correcting that technical anomaly - I will go to that and answer the member for Port Darwin’s questions in a moment - and the second part is giving the corporation the same enforcement powers as other municipal councils to collect rates.
In answering questions from the members for Port Darwin and Nelson, the first was in regard to the additional 20% levy from the Darwin Waterfront Corporation. I can absolutely confirm that levy is only applied to the body corporate and not any further than that. It is the body corporate - one invoice to the body corporate, one payment from the body corporate back to the corporation.
The second question the member for Port Darwin asked was whether the enforcement powers that are provided to the corporation with the amendments in this bill are consistent with the enforcement powers as other municipal councils. My advice is they are totally consistent. Those are those two specific issues.
I believe this is on the public record, and we have people who have made investments in residential property at the waterfront, as well as people who have commercial tenancies. I will use some time this afternoon to talk through some of the public commentary that has been put out over the last few months and, in particular, since I introduced this legislation in the last sittings. I thought, member for Port Darwin, you would go a bit further in debate today because you have been at the forefront of much of that public commentary. I was expecting to go into committee.
However, for the public record, I want to address some of the issues for people who have, obviously, made representation to the member for Port Darwin on some of these issues over the last few weeks, and give clarity in regard to a number of positions.
The first one I will go to is the debate in the lead-up to the local government elections last weekend about the fact that the residents at the waterfront do not have a vote in local government elections. Of course, there is much history towards that. During the period of time when we were planning for this project, the absolute policy position of the Northern Territory government was that the waterfront should be part of the City of Darwin and come under the local government service provision of Darwin City Council. However, for the life of me, apart from pure bloody-minded politics, I could never understand why the former Darwin City Council, under Lord Mayor Peter Adamson in those days, would not see that the proposed project was really going to be a jewel in the crown for this great city of Darwin. I could not believe the mayor and the council, at the time, would not want to embrace and be part of maintaining the infrastructure and providing services to what is a jewel in the city of Darwin’s crown.
It just seemed, to me, the politics of those days were pretty confused, but always backed vested interest. The politics of that time was really about the siting of the Convention Centre. A number of property owners in the city of Darwin wanted a convention centre adjacent to, or next to, or in the vicinity of their properties, because they could see a commercial advantage to themselves, as opposed to the bigger picture about a convention centre that would be the catalyst for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment, both private and public investment - a new feature for the city of Darwin. If people were to be honest about the politics of those days, it was some people listening to some vested interests of property interests in the city, as opposed to an opportunity this government had the vision for in really stimulating private sector investment, attracting a world-class development for Darwin, and a jewel in the crown for Darwin.
I will say very clearly on the public record, I am looking forward to my first meeting very soon with the Lord Mayor elect, Katrina Fong Lim. I congratulate Katrina wholeheartedly on her election on the weekend. This issue will be on the agenda for that meeting about how we can put politics aside and work towards a transferral from the corporation through to the city council. Knowing Katrina as I do, I am sure she will be open to working through those issues. I am not verballing Katrina, but I am sure she will be her own person and come to her own mind. I want to work with her to see that, now the politics should be removed, we can work through the practical issues to an outcome we all support: that this jewel in the crown of Darwin, the infrastructure, maintenance and service provisions, should be done by the city council. That is the Chief Minister’s position on that.
In regard to a number of other issues such as representation of ratepayers, there is a structure that allows for residents who are paying rates and other charges to the corporation to be represented. Of course, they cannot vote in council elections because Darwin City Council and Lord Mayor Peter Adamson did not want a bar of the waterfront. So, the blame for the fact they cannot vote lies in the stewardship of the council when Adamson was the mayor. While they cannot vote in council elections until the transfer to Darwin City Council takes place, those residents enjoy interim representation by a precinct coordination group which provides a conduit for liaison and feedback on municipal and local government matters. The residential body corporate is invited to represent the residents of the precinct coordination group meetings on the basis that it is comprised of a number of elected individuals who represent the residents. In addition, the corporation has an office located within the precinct providing residents with direct access to communicate with corporation staff during business hours. Written submissions on relevant matters can be made to the corporation CEO for referral to the board of the corporation as required.
As I understand it, there is a precinct coordination group and there is also a Wharf One body corporate. That Wharf One body corporate represents, I think, 148 people who have residences there, or individuals who own a unit in the body corporation. I understand there are six members on that Wharf One body corporate who have been elected by those 148 residents who own units under the Unit Titles Act in the Wharf One precinct. So, there is direct representation through to the corporation.
I understand there have been very few issues raised with the corporation, and those issues that have been raised have been fully worked through in meetings and correspondence - maybe not to the satisfaction of all concerned, but certainly representation is afforded and is dealt with in the same way that representation could be made to a council such as Darwin City Council. However, just because you make representation does not necessarily mean you will get the result you want. There is representation; there is capacity for people to be put forward to the body corporate in an election process provided.
The corporation also provides an online communication method via a feedback form on its website and the corporation’s Facebook page. Again, as I understand it, there has been very little of significance in issues that have been put by significant numbers of people through to the corporation. The corporation continues to look at ways to enhance residential involvement during the interim period, such as increasing representation of residents on the precinct coordination group by including an elected panel of residents, or an elected representative from each residential building.
Again, I will agree it is not as representative as is voting for local government. However, there is opportunity for the residents of that residential component to be elected to the body corporate and have direct representation through to the corporation.
In regard to the complicated rating issues, just to put this in context and on the record, what we are doing in this bill is correcting a technical anomaly. I will try to explain it as succinctly as I can.
The corporation levies a rate on the owners of all land in the precinct, including the owners of residential units, under section 15(3)(a) of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act. This rate is the same amount, and calculated in the same way, as rates in the municipality of Darwin. The amount of the rate under section 15(3)(a) levied on owners of units in Wharf One is around $1100 per annum, the same as units in Darwin City. The corporation also levies a rate payable by all owners in the precinct, other than the owners of units under section 15(3)(b) of the act. This rate is calculated as a percentage of the section 15(3)(a) rate applicable to the relevant land. In particular, this rate can, and has been, levied on the body corporate for the Wharf One unit developments at the full 20% permitted under the act.
The amount of the rate under section 15(3)(b) levied on the Wharf One body corporate is approximately $33 600 per annum, equating to approximately $227 per unit per annum. The fact that an additional rate of up to 20% would apply was fully disclosed to intending purchasers by the developer in an information memorandum. It is like other rates levied on owners of land, a rate payable based on the benefit the land receives from public infrastructure. The Wharf One residents enjoy public infrastructure to a higher standard than in any other location in the Northern Territory in value-add and lifestyle opportunity it presents. The rates revenue represents a very small fraction of the cost of maintaining the precinct.
In regard to the additional 20%, we all know how fantastic the public areas are at the waterfront in the fabulous amenity. Of course, that all has to be paid for. I would have thought an additional $227 per unit per annum is, essentially, a bargain. I will just put on the public record the higher standards which provide visual and physical amenity include aspects such as: maintenance of the recreational lagoon to provide year round swimming, including cleaning, water quality testing, maintenance of pumps and intake screens; maintenance of pipelines and fixtures; removal and cleaning of the beach net; and cleaning and maintaining of the beach sand.
Other aspects, such as maintenance of boardwalks include: resealing of boards; active security and CCTV camera maintenance; the Surf Life Saving Northern Territory patrolled beach; maintenance of public domain lighting, including pole lights, wall lights, up lights and bollard lights; the high level of landscaping and irrigation system maintenance – there are approximately 750 trees and 29 000 shrubs throughout the public areas of the precinct - cleaning and sealing of pathways; maintenance and cleaning of public art elements; and high frequency lawn mowing and maintenance to high standards of presentation. In addition to these high standards, the residents also enjoy normal services such as access to the Darwin City Council library as arranged between the corporation and the council.
All in all, given the quality of the amenity there, there has been some debate about whether the corporation can and should be charging the additional 20% provided for under the act. Any fair assessment of the additional amenity, and given the fact the rates revenue represents a small fraction of the true costs of maintaining those features at that level of amenity, most people would say it is fair, particularly given the capital gain residents who have purchased into Stage 1 of the waterfront are likely to see over the next few years with the growth of Darwin. The capital growth is going to be equal to, if not greater than, what we will see happen in Darwin over the next few years. All in all, an extra $227 a year is a fair price to pay, given it does not recover those additional costs.
I also point out other amendments in the act. These amendments are designed to correct a technical issue in the act arising out of an amendment made to the act when the Unit Title Schemes Act commenced, and to bring the act into line with the Local Government Act in giving the corporation similar powers to local government councils for the purpose of enforcing the payments of rates. It is clarity, and there are no greater powers provided for the corporation under these amendments.
The amendments are to ensure ordinary rates are levied on the owner of the unit and, at the same time, rates of common property and unit developments under the Unit Title Schemes Act are levied on the body corporate at the highest level of the scheme.
The alternative would be for the section 15(3)(b) rates to be applied to each body corporate in a layered scheme; a more difficult and expensive method of levying the rate for both the corporation and for bodies corporate. This does not reflect the policy intention of the Unit Title Schemes Act or the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act. Nothing in this bill affects the amount of rates payable; nothing in this bill has retrospective effect.
The section15(3)(b) rates will be levied by the corporation on the highest body corporate in a layered scheme under the Unit Titles Act. That body corporate will pass it down to its members according to the rules that govern the body corporate and its members. Those rules are matters for each body corporate and its members, and the specific circumstance of the relevant development.
The Darwin Waterfront Corporation must have funding for the municipal services it provides and for the important functions it performs in the precinct. Similar to local government areas throughout the Territory, that funding is raised from a number of sources, including funding from the government and, importantly, the levying of rates on land within the precincts.
In regard to the additional 20%, this is not unusual in these types of developments either in the Northern Territory, interstate, or overseas where precincts within a city have greater level of amenity than the standards provided for in the city. Given the government structures around those precincts, there are normally mechanisms to raise additional levies. Cullen Bay is an example. Even though Cullen Bay has services provided through Darwin City Council, they also issue additional levies to the body corporate. The principle is the same: there is an additional level of amenity at Cullen Bay given the lock and the waterside aspect. The method of recovering those additional levies is different, given this is a corporation incorporated under Territory legislation. The principle is the same: the user has to pay part of the additional amenity. This is a fair way of achieving that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, this is quite complex and quite technical. There has been much discussion over the last few weeks and months leading to this second reading debate and passage of the bill tonight. I also put on the record my thanks to everybody at the Darwin Waterfront Corporation. These people do a magnificent job in maintaining the waterfront. I was also there on Saturday night for the Harmony Day Soiree, and there were thousands of people there. I believe there were 19 separate multicultural groups which had stalls - whether they were cultural stalls or food stalls. All of the cultural groups performed on stage. The food was from everywhere - from Africa through to Italy. I think the Italians said they went through 50 kg of dried pasta in the one night. That is a heck of a lot of pasta! There was a lot of hard work as I went around and thanked everybody who was performing and cooking for the residents.
There were families and people everywhere. The fireworks display was pretty amazing. It just went to show what great foresight went into creating that public space so residents from our broader, wonderful city could get down to the waterfront and enjoy those fabulous facilities with the residents there. It really was a wonderful night. My congratulations to all of those multicultural groups and the organisers of the soiree. It was the second one we have had, and it was incredibly successful.
I spent nearly three hours there just getting around talking to people. Everybody had an amazing time and many people were actually there for the first time. The feedback through to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation was from people who live in the northern suburbs and do not get into the city very often, with quite a few new arrivals to Darwin, who were just absolutely blown away about how fantastic the waterfront was.
This standard of amenity is not maintained by accident; it is maintained by a lot of hard-working people. Obviously, revenue has to be raised to maintain that asset. These amendments provide for clarity in how those rates are to be levied, and also in regard to the capacity for the corporation to recover those rates.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend these amendments to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it the will of the Assembly to go into committee?
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Should it assist the Assembly, the Chief Minister has answered the questions fulsomely that I raised, and I place on the record my gratitude to him. There is no requirement to go into committee.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Speaker has received the following letter from the member for Sanderson:
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I speak on this matter of definite matter of public importance; that is, the failure of the Northern Territory government to implement a policy that addresses the broad issues around alcohol consumption in the Territory and the impact of poor decision-making on Territorians.
The government, I believe, realises it has an enormous problem on its hands. The problem is, though, I believe it has tried a number of roads and found it has gone down the wrong road. The government came back into this House on Tuesday trying to correct some of its errors and, still, we do not see what we believe to be a good result from the efforts. With the Enough is Enough campaign well and truly on the road, it still has major problems. Government members stood in this House and expressed they had the answers and that all would be well, all would be fine.
The first thing I will raise is the job of the police. I believe police are doing a fantastic job out there. Having been part of that organisation for many years, and for most of my time in the Northern Territory, I can attest to the hard work and dedication of police officers in the Northern Territory. I hear the government, time and time again in this Chamber, confirm what I have just said: the police do a fantastic job. One can never argue with those people who are dedicated to ensuring other people are served and protected by the best police force we can have. If that is the case - and I wholly believe it is - if something is not working out there it is not the problem of the police. Police are required to implement the policy of the government of the day. So, if we have a policy and it is failing, then it is the government’s responsibility to correct that policy, and to find the answers or parameters to give to any government organisation, including the police, so they can go out and do a very effective job in executing the policy.
Sadly, we see an enormous problem with alcohol. We see the government trying all sorts of different roads. We, on this side of the House, attempt to give them ideas, and would be very grateful if they would accept some of those ideas and advice. Some of those ideas and advice are starting to sink in. We now see the government coming back into this House trying to tinker around the edges to improve what was a failed policy. The government claims some aspects are working. It is going to be interesting to see, over a period of time, what actually happens.
You do not have to go very far from this Chamber to see what is going on out there. At lunchtime today, I walked out and, within 250 m of Parliament House, I found people sitting around consuming what I believe to be alcohol in two different locations. At 7 am this morning, on the corner of Knuckey Street and Mitchell Street, there was a gathering of people. It looked like they were just waking up after what they would have considered to be a really good night. If you walk around Parliament House - and, again, in recent times, I walked out of the Chamber to the end of the building and, sitting outside this building, outside one of the windows behind this Chamber, was a group of people drinking alcohol. These are some of the issues. You say the Enough is Enough campaign is here, yet we still see an enormous number of problems.
We, on this side, have a slightly different view. Alcohol is not the problem; irresponsible consumption of alcohol is. That is what we believe the government has failed to address. They have many ideas at the front end, but there is very little support at the back end. The government will say it has this and that; it now has in excess of 2000 people on the register. Yet, when you look at rehabilitation facilities, they are just not there. It is going to be interesting to see just what the government will do with that many people.
The majority of people in the community consume alcohol in a responsible manner. I have listened to people who one might call teetotallers who want alcohol banned. They want to go back to prohibition. We all know that prohibition does not work, especially when you have had a legal drug around for many years – well, almost for time immemorial.
There are people who consume alcohol in their homes, in clubs, in social clubs, football clubs - a whole variety of clubs. I have heard some people would refer to some of these people as alcoholics - and some of them may be. However, many of them are not. They do not get involved in domestic violence with their partners, they do not drive cars when they have consumed alcohol, they go home, they lead lives, they contribute to productivity in our community, they pay taxes. Generally speaking, they are good people just trying to get on with their life. There are many people out there who are retired who enjoy a drink amongst friends. It is a part of our social fabric.
Excessive consumption is not and should not be. However, the fact of life is it is out there and it does not appear to be going away in a hurry. Therefore, we have to come up with policies out of this place that actually deal with the issue and living with alcohol.
There are quite a number of people, though, out there - and they are in the minority - who are addicted to alcohol and the excessive consumption of it, and these need to be our target market. We, of course, also have to have education programs in the beginning, in schools, so young people learn about the consequences of excessive consumption, what they should be held accountable for, and what the consequences of their actions will be.
The government will tell us - and I agree the figures are terrible – that 62% of assaults are alcohol related. It reports that alcohol costs the Northern Territory approximately $642m a year. It is an incredible amount of money involved in the abuse of alcohol in the Northern Territory.
A week-and-a-half ago, I did a trip from Darwin to Alice Springs. I stopped along the way and spoke to quite a number of people about various issues; in particular, alcohol. I asked many people about the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register to date, what people thought about floor prices, and some other issues that I asked them to consider.
I went through Katherine. Of course, Katherine still has a drinking problem. Irrespective of the fact that up and down the track there are alcohol management plans, people still seem to get alcohol. That brings us to an interesting point.
People who are addicted to a drug, without help and without the desire to get rid of their addiction, have terrible trouble actually trying to stop. You talk to people who are smokers or drinkers, people who consume illicit drugs. In my lifetime, as a member of the police force, I saw many people who felt they could not get off these things. When you actually try to restrict them from these drugs, they manage to get it. Those who, unfortunately, suffer from those terrible addictions will get their drug of choice. And if they cannot, then they will substitute their drug of choice with something else.
I went from Katherine to Elliott. Some time ago, when I was driving up and down the track, there used to be four service stations in Elliott. There is now only one. It is open from 7 am to 7 pm on weekdays, and on Sundays it closes at 5 pm. I spoke to a couple of people in Elliott, and I asked: ‘Why is that?’ They said: ‘Well, people do not seem to stop here much anymore’. Then I started asking a few people, caravaners and people I know, who drove around this country: ‘Why don’t people stop in a lot of these towns?’ I was quite interested in their answer.
Some of the answers I received came around to the issue of people being humbugged in towns. What they say is, you stop in towns, you get humbugged by groups of people for money, for cigarettes, for alcohol. That is in these towns up and down the track. Then, I found out that people were actually going out and camping at road stops. As we have all heard recently, towns are concerned, and tourist operators are asking why people are out in the middle of nowhere. One of the answers is these people, many grey nomads or people travelling on their own with kids, do not want to be in towns because they do not want to be humbugged. They do not want to be in caravan parks that are close to town. That is a concern not only for the alcohol issue we are talking about today, but also from a tourism perspective.
Of the four service stations that used to be in Elliott, one is left and I understand it is struggling. However, at the roadhouses, you do not find marauding groups of people looking for alcohol or humbugging people. There is a situation out there we need to deal with.
That brings me to another area I went to, a roadhouse more south than north, where I spoke to the operator. Some of the things he had to say were very interesting. I asked him what a floor price would do, and about container deposit legislation. He said he does not sell to people on the Banned Drinker Register, but if he believes people have been drinking and are going to become more intoxicated, he refuses to sell to them. He said he does not need the money. He would, obviously, like to have a good income, but he does not need that type of money. He then raised a very interesting point and said these people drive into Alice Springs and then drive back. He gave me an indication of what a car might look like - which I cannot describe because it was a picture and his actions. Basically, he tried to replicate groups of cars travelling with a boot fully loaded, the springs down. A group stopped opposite his roadhouse on the other side of the road and bought some food. They sat there for probably the best part of an afternoon, maybe a bit longer and, when they left, they left their rubbish. He collected Bundy Rum bottles worth over $1000. He said he was quite shocked that this group of people - it was not a small group; a pretty large group - sat there most of the day and consumed an enormous quantity of rum.
That brings me to next thing: how socially ordered we are. I refer to an Australian Bureau of Statistics scale that was released in - I do not have the exact date, but it was conducted from July 2010 to June 2011. It is a time frame one can look at, and is the latest one I can find. In it, it says the most socially ordered places, according to the people who live there, are South Australia and the ACT, but the most disordered is unquestionably the Northern Territory. It is much the same on noisy and dangerous driven vehicles as elsewhere, but scores very badly on a swag of other questions with double the national average on public drunkenness and being insulted, pestered and intimidated in the street.
When you go through this chart there are 12 categories. In 10, we are way above the rest of Australia. We are similar, in relation to noisy driving and dangerous driving. When you start looking at, for instance, people being assaulted in the street - 26.7%, as opposed to others, around 11.9% - we are seriously well above the rest of the country.
It is an interesting point when you look at what we have from Tuesday evening and, on Wednesday morning, comments by a Northern Territory Police Watch Commander in relation to what happened the previous night and what has been accepted. There were 314 calls to 000 just in Darwin, 703 additional emergency calls, 24 arrests, 45 protected custodies, 41 assaults and 103 disturbances. These are interesting figures.
We have an enormous problem and I do not know what the government is going to do. It does not seem to have too many good, solid policies that are going to see a reduction in all of this nonsense we have to put up with in our community.
I listened to the radio this morning, and I heard an interview between Julia Christensen and Mr John Boffa. I make comment on a couple of things that Mr Boffa said. I quote from a transcript from that interview where he was talking about liberal traditions:
I do not disagree with Mr Boffa there. I believe we should act, and act strongly, and give these people the mandatory rehabilitation they obviously need when they cannot control themselves in public places. We are not talking about going into people’s homes and determining whether they have two, three, or four drinks, or whether they are alcoholic or not; we are talking about people out in the streets and getting them off the streets because, they are the people who are seriously affecting the lifestyle of good Territorians, tourism and a whole range of other issues.
He went on to say:
When you research you find stuff all over the place. The one bit of research I draw people’s attention to is the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition graph which says everything you buy in Alice Springs is over the cost of a standard drink, if you measure it at $1.20 per standard drink. The only thing that is under is wine, and that is about 85.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when one looks at some of the reports such as the Aliceonline.com report, you see it is not just wine, it is Jim Beam, rum, beer, and a whole range of drinks being consumed so, when we look at floor prices and policies, government has a responsibility to come up with some policy that is far better than we are subjected to now, otherwise we are just going to see this problem get worse.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure this afternoon to speak on this definite matter of public importance. One of the major problems the Northern Territory faces - and it is acknowledged by both sides of this House - is the misuse of alcohol in our communities across the Northern Territory, not only in the smaller centres but in our major cities and towns and regional towns as well. This has a significant impact on the quality and the way of life of people who live in the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, what we get to see is this impact, this significant effect on our way of life and our quality of life, occurring every single day. Every single day that you open your eyes and walk down the main streets of our towns, into our parks, into communities, and have a look at the drinking areas, you will see in all of those places the misuse or abuse of alcohol.
The Northern Territory government, for many years in its various forms, has tried to address this problem. In the latest attempt to fix this problem we have what the Labor government is calling the Enough is Enough reforms. I am in the position of having seen how many of the policies over the years played out on the ground. To be frank, not many of them have worked very well. I remember my time in the police force and having to deal with the same old drunks, day in and day out, the same old antisocial behaviour occurring around the place, and the same old offending. One of the things that became apparent to me as I got older, and became more mature and had a more mature outlook on how these issues were playing out, is the despair that surrounds alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
From a policeman’s point of view, you become frustrated. I know the men and women of the police force even today get frustrated because they are constantly picking up the same drunks. They take them to the cells at the police stations, to sobering-up shelters and home and leave them at home with a responsible person who can look after them. That is frustrating and annoying because you just become a street cleaner; cleaning up what is a mess on the street.
However, much deeper than that is the despair around that. Those people are being picked up constantly, taken to sobering-up shelters and police stations, and into protective custody time and time again. It is easy to stand on the outside and view those people simply as commodities: an antisocial behaviour problem and a person who is a drunk. Well, that person just happens to be a human being. Each and every time they are taken into protective custody under a policy setting that does little or nothing to address that underlying problem, they become a human tragedy. What we have seen through the latest raft of reforms is a perpetuation of that human tragedy because nothing is really being done to address the underlying problem of the drunks we pick up every day.
Look at what we have now, the Banned Drinker Register. In opposition, we are often accused of opposing just for the sake of opposing. You can argue, yes, that is our job. However, when there are some real issues underlying the opposition to government policy, when we have alternatives that we proffer up that the government could take notice of, when we look around the streets and really honestly see these policies are not working, not changing anything, and are, again, perpetuating the human tragedy that are the drunks that are being picked up every day, I do not think that is opposing just for the sake of opposing.
What we are trying to do is point out to the government that their ongoing raft of reforms simply is not working and, because they are not working, they are affecting the lives of every single Territorian who stands up, opens their eyes, and walks through our streets and parks, because they get to see the sum effect of these failed policies.
I do not have the police protective custody statistics for Katherine. It is easy for me to refer to Katherine because I spend a lot of time there. I can honestly say when I look at the environment in Katherine, there is little or no change to what it was one, two, five or 10 years ago. There are still literally thousands of people being taken into protective custody - albeit many of those thousands are repeat custody offenders. The scenes we witness on the streets of our towns, including Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin, have really not changed or, if they have, the only change we have seen is a transference of that behaviour to somewhere that might be just not far off the main street instead of right there. However, there is still plenty of the bad behaviour occurring right there for everybody to see.
I have people coming and talking to me all the time about these types of issues. It is a big issue for Katherine - a very big issue. They tell me how people are getting around this raft of reforms. We have a Banned Drinker Register, but a person who is on the Banned Drinker Register, as I understand it, can still go into the hotel and sit inside the hotel and have a beer. That is fine, I have no problem with that. What they cannot do is go into a takeaway, into a drive-through bottle shop or something like that, and purchase takeaway alcohol. Yet, that is so easily avoided, and I hear stories about it all the time. I have reported to the police on a number of occasions where citizens, taxi drivers, a whole raft of people have come to me and said: ‘They are selling sly grog at that house’. People who are not on the Banned Drinker Register go and buy up a great load of beer, rum, mixed drinks, or whatever it is they are getting, and simply sell them on to people who are on the Banned Drinker Register. It happens all the time.
That has been reported to the police. That is something I suppose, where it is fairly easy for the police to intervene. They can put some surveillance on that house. As they do sometimes when they are investigating drug matters, they might even set up a little buy - people set up someone to go there and purchase some alcohol when they should not. It is fairly easy to police that one.
What about the case where a taxi - it might not be a taxi, it could be any car - pulls into the drive-in bottle shop, there are five people sitting in the car, four of whom are on the Banned Drinker Register, and the guy sitting in the passenger seat in the front is not? The money is handed over from the back seat to the guy in the front who is not on the Banned Drinker Register, he purchases a couple of hundred dollars worth of booze, and off they go for a fat old time.
That is very difficult to police. The minister might say: ‘Yes, it is an offence if that person provides alcohol to a person who is on the Banned Drinker Register’. However, it is impossible to police. How on earth do you do that? It is impossible. Why have a law you cannot police …
Mr Styles: Because it sounds good.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Sanderson: ‘Because it sounds good’. The government is all about smoke and mirrors - it just sounds good - trying to give the impression it is doing something. However, it is simply not working largely because, at the end of it - I remember the Minister for Alcohol Policy some time ago spruiking the word ‘mandatory’. There is nothing mandatory about any of these reforms at all because there is no punitive measure at the end of it - none whatsoever. You get a banning notice, and the first one is for three months …
Mr Tollner: The BAT notice.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Your BAT notice. Then, you get caught drinking again and get another BAT notice for six months, which means you cannot drink for six months. You get caught again, you are on a BAT notice, a banned drinking notice, for 12 months and, after that, there is referral to the tribunal.
It is interesting to read the statistics that came out in the government’s own Enough is Enough Alcohol Reform Report from July 2011 to December 2011. It talked about the number of people who have banning notices and how many people have been referred - a mandatory referral. I suppose that is mandatory: we tell you that you have to go to the tribunal. But, what happens after that? They do not have to do anything and there is nothing mandatory about that.
It was interesting for me to read this report. It does not have a page number on what I am going to refer to, but it talks about the AOD Tribunal from 1 January 2012. It says of the 305 mandatory police referrals - those who have breached a third BAT notice - 104 were from the Katherine region. I do not know how many third BAT notices or referrals would have occurred outside the Katherine township. Not too many, I suspect. How is it more than one-third of the referrals to the AOD Tribunal have come from Katherine with a population of about 4% or 5% of the Territory? According to this, this is how well the government’s alcohol reforms are working in Katherine. Apparently, if you live in Katherine you are 10 times more likely to be referred to the AOD Tribunal than anywhere else in the Northern Territory. Tell me how that can be construed; how you can possibly interpret that as policy measures that are working? The simple fact that there are so many people on BAT notices who have continued to breach these notices, tells me these reforms are simply not working. Again, this simply goes back to the quality of life we would like to enjoy in the Northern Territory, and the denial of that quality of life because this government has not, will not, introduce alcohol policy that goes to the heart of the problem.
We have spoken – the member for Sanderson, the shadow minister for Alcohol Policy spoke about it in his contribution to this MPI tonight - about the Country Liberals’ policy for dealing with drunks. We have had this policy since 2008. The government does not want to talk about that, it wants to push us out there as an opposition without any policies. Well, the policies are coming, and we will put them out in our own good time. Of course, the policy we have on this side of the House they do not want to talk about is our habitual drunks policy ...
Mr Elferink: They do not criticise it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No, they do not criticise it. Maybe there is a school of thought on the other side of the House that this could actually be a bloody good policy. Could be! Of course, we would never get recognition of that because they would knock it just for the sake of it. However, what they have taken out of it is a portion of it. They have said they will build a prison farm in Katherine, of some kind. However, that is only part of the policy.
If you continue to do the same things you will get the same results, which is why the Country Liberals have taken the position of doing something that is way beyond what this government would even consider doing; that is, to enforce mandatory – and I mean mandatory; real mandatory, not like the gammon mandatory the minister talks about - real mandatory rehabilitation for drunks. The idea is we have to do two things. We have to reduce the cost to the Northern Territory taxpayer of alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory and, through that, include a rehabilitation scheme that will actually help people. The other thing we have to do is get the drunks off the streets.
Under a Country Liberals’ policy, a person who is taken into protective custody for a third time in six months will be referred - I guess similarly - to a AOD Tribunal of some kind. When I say similarly, I mean similar to the government’s policy now.
If that person who gets a referral to an AOD Tribunal of some kind gets an order for treatment, and does that treatment - good on them. It is all about personal responsibility. It is about people taking responsibility for themselves: for their own behaviour, for the level of alcohol and the amount of alcohol they decide to consume. That is what It is all about. If you take responsibility for yourself - good on you. But, if you do not take responsibility for yourself, then the Country Liberals’ policy will see you in mandatory detention getting the treatment you must have for your own health, for the sake of the taxpayers of the Northern Territory, and for the quality of life we expect to have in the Northern Territory. They are the things we have to focus on.
Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, we cannot get the government to take notice of us. We are accused of opposing for opposing sake. I accuse the government of not adopting our policies just for the sake of that, as well, because they are opposing us.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to contribute to the MPI. It is interesting that the opposition has brought an MPI talking about failure when we have actually introduced the toughest raft of alcohol laws in the world and, indeed, in our nation, in going to the heart of the problem and tackling the problem drinker. I listened with interest to the contributions of the members opposite. Little wonder that, as an opposition, they do not have credibility. You can drive a truck through the contradictions within the contributions from the members opposite. I am sure it will just get more interesting as the debate goes on into the afternoon.
There is no doubt they have, finally, through the comments of the member for Sanderson in the Chamber today, cottoned on that alcohol is the biggest cause of crime in the Territory. What they still have not cottoned on to though is, very clearly, this policy the government has targets the people who commit alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. They still try to peddle the myth that we are just hurting everyone, and we are not going after the problem drinker, when the Liquor Stores Association, the Australian Hotels Association, the Aboriginal Medical Services of the NT, and all of the treatment providers, have all recognised that this goes to the heart of dealing with the problem drinker. They stand still out there in the wilderness on their own peddling a myth that only they believe; that we are trying to hurt everyone in society and not go after the problem drinker. Quite the opposite.
The member for Sanderson is on the public record as saying there is a negligible link between alcohol and crime. Now, he is quickly backpedalling because he could not have it more wrong if he tried. The shadow for Alcohol Policy could not have it more wrong if he tried, and has been highly embarrassed ever since he proved he was an absolute dill and had no idea what he was talking about. The backpedalling continues from the member for Sanderson.
His contribution was, essentially, a description of a road trip. Well, okay, if that is how you research alcohol policy, little wonder you have no credibility whatsoever in the health sector which has specialists who understand the thorough research that has been undertaken of the impacts of alcohol, both economic and social.
Without a doubt, our tough measures go straight to the heart of the problem drinker. We have introduced the Banned Drinker Register, banning the problem drinkers. We put enforcing bans in place and we have put in powers to mandate treatment to stop the violence. Our Enough is Enough measures are committed to go to the heart of cutting crime and turning those problem drinkers off tap to prevent the violence and the antisocial behaviour.
Essentially, if you are not a banned drinker, then it is life as normal, because you are not the one with the problem. You are not exhibiting those problems that, quite rightly, our society is becoming incredibly intolerant to. None of us want to see those problems continue and be perpetrated.
The opposition rails against the scanning of a form of identification. Yet, even radio commentators such as Pete Davies point out this is a really small inconvenience, and if that is what it takes to help cut crime turning problem drinkers off tap then people do not have a problem with it. However, the CLP is out there, paddling around in its little boat, going around in circles, saying: ‘We are going to scrap this Banned Drinker Register because we do not like the ID system’. Most people, very quickly, got into the habit of having ID. Of course, we work very extensively and closely across a whole range of industries, including tourism, to let people know about the system here in the Territory.
I listened to the member for Sanderson talk about how he was a former police officer. I listened to the member for Katherine talk about his experience as a police officer. Yet, they ignore what the police are saying - the police who are on the coalface working with these laws: the Banned Drinker Register is the best tool they have to tackle alcohol crime and antisocial behaviour.
There is no doubt, of course, that Territorians want our government to tackle alcohol crime in our community. Why would you not want us to? In total, 60% of assaults are related to alcohol and 67% of domestic violence is related to alcohol. The costs are stark: $640m a year is the economic cost of the social harms of alcohol, with 54 000 protective custodies a year.
It took this Labor government to put in place biometrics and nurses at the watch houses to ID the protective custodies because, under the CLP it was - well, revolving door, folks. ‘Let us just have a revolving door and let us not actually ID people and place tough measures to tackle them’.
The facts are compelling. The facts made it very clear our government has done the heavy lifting and the policy framework, working with the sectors, the police, the justice sector, the health sector, and listening to experts to create the Enough is Enough reforms. It is interesting, under our reforms already we have 2100 people who are now banned from buying takeaway alcohol, yet we know the CLP’s policy is they will put them all back on tap. They will remove the Banned Drinker Register. Those 2100-plus people who are on the Banned Drinker Register can just, under the CLP, turn up to any takeaway bottle shop anywhere in the Territory and get the grog - pouring more of the problem onto the problem.
The Banned Drinker Register is working. We have the tools to enforce the bans. There have been 3000 refusals of sale – a fact you will not hear the CLP talking about because they do not like it when facts point out they are just peddling myths. We had the bizarre comments from the member for Sanderson saying people will have to show ID at a barbecue. Member for Sanderson, do you actually have any evidence whatsoever to show any shred of credibility over that comment? Have you found anyone yet who has had to show ID at a barbecue? Are you for real?
One of my all-time favourites was that comment from the member for Sanderson that the ID system is going to prompt bottle shop attendants to start stalking the attractive women who come to buy their alcohol. Well, again, member for Sanderson, I am still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that we have had these overly-amorous bottle shop attendants stalk the attractive women of the Northern Territory because they showed ID. But, by all means, I look forward to the evidence you want to lead around those two more extreme of the plethora of strange comments you have made on the subject of alcohol policy.
The member for Sanderson also went on to say the alcohol reforms would mean we would lose taxes from alcohol sales going online. That is curious. We do not actually collect taxes in the Northern Territory from alcohol sales - the Commonwealth does. A High Court decision in 1990 ruled the Territory constitutionally unable to tax or levy alcohol sales. Then, we had the strange debate in this Chamber - and my goodness, I look forward to them each time because they come out with some doozies – when the member for Drysdale suggested we copy New Zealand and ban the drive-through at the bottle shop.
The member for Braitling suggested, regarding Alice Springs, we could open bottle shops earlier and close them four hours earlier. Well, that would make it 5 pm in Alice Springs. I will give you the tip: go and put that idea around Alice Springs and just see how much support there would be for that, because most people would like to pop into a bottle shop on the way home from work to get a cleansing ale. No credibility.
Terry Mills is committed to overturning the alcohol laws - the laws that are turning these banned drinkers off tap. This is the same person who voted against repeat drink-drivers losing their licence and against alcohol ignition locks. Really, they have a bit of form when it comes to ignoring the carnage being caused to Territorians through these very tragic people who are chronically addicted to alcohol. They ignore also the 12% drop in alcohol-fuelled assaults in Darwin in six months of operation - straight off the PROMIS system. They ignore the 13% drop in alcohol-related assaults in Palmerston. They ignore the 8% drop in Alice Springs, and all of this data coming through the PROMIS system. Yet, they would have us believe there are many Territorians out there suffering as a result of these measures.
I visit the bottle shop on a fairly regular basis to get my wine to drink at home, and I am not hearing anyone complaining. I ensure I touch base with the liquor industry on a regular basis, and they are still supportive of the government’s Enough is Enough measures. Let us put this in perspective: in the first three months of the Banned Drinker Register over 2.7 million ID scans took place across the Territory. That helped us get those 2100 people on the Banned Drinker Register - those 3000 refusals of sale to problem drinkers. This tool is making a dent and is helping stop people following the grog from community to community because it is Territory-wide. If you are on the Banned Drinker Register, you are on the Banned Drinker Register Territory-wide.
We are proposing amendments to this legislation, amendments I am guessing the opposition will oppose, but I am still waiting to hear from them formally. I invite that contribution in this MPI, by the way - put it on the record.
We are proposing amendments to this world-first legislation to further target antisocial behaviour and public drinking and strengthen the powers of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. We will put infringements in place for drinking in the 2 km area …
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … to add to the existing tip-out laws. We will ensure the 2 km law gives police the power to issue infringement notices if people are drinking and causing a nuisance within 2 km of a licensed premise.
I will pick up on the interjection, ‘No, we do not have it’. Infringements exist for dry areas, not for the 2 km offence. You might want to do a bit of legal research on that one, member for Braitling.
Problems drinkers issued with these infringements three times in 12 months will be placed on the Banned Drinker Register. This is about giving police the extra powers to get the problem drinkers out of public places and into rehab, and strengthening the power of the tribunal to force problem drinkers into rehab, allowing it to make orders that a person be subject to income management.
In this debate, the member for Katherine categorically said there are no punitive measures in the tribunal. Member for Katherine, would you like 70% of your income managed? That is a punitive measure by anyone’s stretch - by anyone’s test. People on welfare will face up to 70% of their income being managed. Ex parte powers are great powers to give the tribunal. We do this by working with the tribunal members, the police, and the people in the sector, not by locking ourselves in our own little room or closet and trying to work out which circle to paddle in next.
This is evidence-based reform, and it is reform rooted in partnership across the sectors - across the legal sector, the law enforcement sector with police, and the health sector. We have worked with the treatment sector.
The member for Sanderson is still saying - and he said it today in this debate - rehab facilities are just not there. Well, pop along to the Salvation Army rehabilitation facility in Darwin, just for one. I am sure if you ask for a briefing we can give you a list of all the rehab facilities across the Territory; they are there. If you look at the resources supporting these reforms, there is $34m over five years for withdrawal, treatment, rehab services and case management alone. Seriously, member for Sanderson, simply because you say something does not mean it is true. If you want to have any credibility in this alcohol policy debate, do not say the wrong thing. Treatment is there; treatment is available today, and we are funding and resourcing increased treatment services through these reforms.
I welcome the announcement by minister Macklin today of alcohol and other drug treatment funding across our remote communities. Again, partnership. Some of us have the ability to work it out and work together instead of sit in our boat and go around in circles. We have built these off the evidence and knowledge we have seen in Groote Eylandt and in Nhulunbuy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish with a quote from Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Payne who stated:
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, in speaking about this I am actually going to go out on a limb and say, yes, the government has introduced policies which are more aggressive in relation to alcohol policing than have existed in the past. I am not going to dispute that. They are not the toughest alcohol policies in the world. I direct you to Saudi Arabia, off the top of my head, and suggest to you that perhaps Saudi Arabia has slightly more severe laws surrounding alcohol and alcohol policies than the Northern Territory does. However, we are not Saudi Arabia. The minister tells us to mind our language – well, it cuts both ways.
However, I have done what I have done before. Prior to entering into this debate, I went round the back here and grabbed the Northern Territory Legislative Council debates from 1973, which is the earliest copy I could find. I decided to have quick flick through the first day of sittings on Wednesday, 14 February 1973. In the space of a few minutes, I was able to find, in the first couple of days, four references to the problems of alcohol in our community. With interest, I noticed that Mr Bell was presenting a bill dealing with rowdy, blasphemous, lascivious and licentious parties which went on right throughout the night in places in the Northern Territory. I noticed Mr MacFarlane was responding to a letter to the editor - a rather interesting letter where a fellow was arrested, presumably for his alcohol-related conduct, and complained of the septic system, no blankets and pillows, and cells that were germ-infected and had mosquitoes. At least our drunks in 1973 were educated enough to write to the editor about the germ-infected pillows in their cells. Nowadays, I doubt many of the people, through the wonderful processes of education provided by the Labor government since 1973, are as literate as they were in that time.
There were comments from Mr Bell, further on, about the conduct of people within a 2-mile radius of the Berrimah crossroads. He was complaining about the lack of policing, by the looks of it, in that particular case. Just the next day, a Mr Withnall was introducing legislation dealing with drunk drivers in our community, suggesting that maybe it would not be a good idea to allow them to drive.
This problem of alcohol in our community dates back since Bacchus was a boy, I suggest, and it is not just in our community, it is in all communities. Alcohol is a drug of addiction. Some people become addicted to it, many people do not. Some people become addicted to cannabis, some people do not. Some people become addicted to heroin, and some people do not. That might be surprising to many people, but I am aware of research that has been done that has demonstrated only about 25% of heroin users in our community are actual addicts; there are members of the community out there who use this drug on a recreational basis. The reason we do not see them in the streets is because they do not manifest their addictive behaviour. There is, fundamentally, nothing different between a heroin addict lying on a street corner begging for money or generally making a nuisance of themselves, and an alcohol addict lying on a street corner begging for money or making a nuisance of themselves. What we are talking about is a drug of addiction.
I will say this government has introduced legislation that would work quite well, but for one fundamental flaw: there is no substantive consequence which attaches itself to the legislation it has introduced. That is the frustrating thing about the legislation. I am actually applauding this stuff. I am very curious - and I will pause here for a second although I am going to risk anticipation of debate – about this business of the issuing an on-the-spot fine. If you think about that – and by the way, just as an aside, on-the-spot fines used to be dished out for breaching 2 km laws; I know the member for Sanderson was in the police force long enough ago to remember that; I am not sure about the member for Katherine. Do you remember the on-the-spot fines?
Mr Westra van Holthe: Yes, absolutely.
Mr ELFERINK: There used to be a $20 on-the-spot fine - a little yellow ticket, if memory serves me. So, before the government goes out and says this is the first time this has been done - wrong. It has been done. It is very interesting, because it is going down a path which I have been banging on about since the day it introduced this legislation; that there is a consequence that flows.
An on-the-spot fine means – and I have not read the legislation yet so I could be wrong – you are issued with a penalty. If that fine is not paid, then it follows that a summons is issued. If the summons is not served the matter can still be heard ex parte because it would be under $100, I suspect - a very minor fine, which means a warrant of commitment will be issued on the finding of guilt, and you will go to gaol for failing to pay your on-the-spot fine. So, slowly - ever so slowly - the government is coming around to the position we have maintained for many years on this side of the House, since 2005 when we started to introduce our habitual drunks policy.
The approach by government has always been, and continues to be, the idea that you can insist on something without a consequence flowing. Nonsense. You cannot do it. People will not comply with what you want them to comply with unless there is a penalty attached to it. Putting a person back on the Banned Drinker Register after putting them on the Banned Drinker Register for breaching their listing on the Banned Drinker Register does not cut the mustard. You have 2000 people on this Banned Drinker Register and only 3000 refusals of service. All that tells me, out of the other 2.7 million purchases, is that they quickly realised: ‘Oh, I am on the Banned Drinker Register, I will get my mate to go and buy it’.
Yes, we are told that is an offence and you will be placed on the Banned Drinker Register if you do that. How many people have been prosecuted for that? Zip. One or two probably. Actually, that is not zip, there was one in Alice Springs where a lady was buying grog for people in the river. I saw some news about that. There was possibly one more in Darwin. That is about it. What if there were 30? That is only 30 more people on the Banned Drinker Register. Then, what happens? Nothing.
That is the fundamental difference. What has frustrated me since the day I walked into this place – in fact, before I walked into this place – is that alcohol is a problem in our community caused by some addicts. However, I do not want to make addiction illegal. If a person wants to back a ute up to the front door of the Parap Hotel, to the drive-through, and lawfully load the car up with Jim Beam and go home and get wasted, and do nothing more than sit there and get drunk on two bottles or a whole ute load of Jim Beam, why is it my business? Why is it my business to intervene in that person’s life? It is not, and it should not be government’s role to intervene in what are, essentially, areas which are people’s choices. I know this raises the issue in the area of illicit drugs. We do exactly that with illicit drugs because there is a public expectation. However, I often wonder about that component of how we try to police these things.
Getting back to the issue of alcohol, we want to prevent the conduct in our community which we find offensive. We do not want our drunks to drive cars. That is good, because there is a good public policy reason for doing so. We do not want drunks in our parks and gardens because there are good public policies against it. We do not want heroin addicts in our parks and gardens or driving cars, yet we are prepared to lock heroin addicts up for driving cars when they are drunk and for using in public. But, we are not prepared to do it for alcoholics.
The fundamental point of our philosophy is that if you continually present yourself as a public nuisance - which is, essentially, what section 128 of the Police Administration Act is attempting to address - then we will intervene. That component of our policy has been taken up by government, hence the Banned Drinker Register, but they could not bring themselves to go to that other step, which is making people accountable for themselves - that other step which is about actually enforcing the law. That side of the House makes a law, but applies no penalty. On this side of the House, should we form a government, we will enforce the law and ensure there is a penalty in the following sense: there is listing as a habitual drunk, then there is compulsory rehabilitation in an institution we will build using the court system to get them there. There is still a fair trial. There is no fair trial under the government system, but under our system there will be a fair trial, and an ability to have the quality of the government’s assertion about your public drunkenness tested. Not so, on the other side of the House. We are actually loading in a civil rights component which the government does not have.
However, once convicted for breaching an order under our system, you will go inside. We know that will have the effect of sharply increasing a slice of our prison population. We accept that as a natural consequence of our policy, but we understand we are using the criminal justice system to obtain two outcomes. One is the idea of safe parks and gardens that are actually free of drunks because we have removed them under our policy, which will be lawful, and people who are lawfully convicted will be sentenced to a period of mandatory rehabilitation. The second component is a health component. We will actually intervene with health services whilst they are in custody.
There will be NGOs and all those sorts of things available when people leave our institution. They may choose to go back to drinking, at which point they can find themselves back inside, or they can go and change their life. However, what will be fundamental about our policy is people will be responsible for their own conduct. That is the fundamental principle which is missing from the government’s policies at the moment: they are not making people responsible for their own conduct. Up until now, because now they are introducing an on-the-spot fine, which may lead to a warrant of commitment, which may lead to imprisonment. If that is the case, do you have the rehabilitation programs ready for when they go inside the slammer on their warrants of commitment? If you have not, then you still have not met the standards, qualities and benchmarks set by policies on this side of the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been interested in the discussion today. I actually believe this is one of those areas I would love to have debated without some of the political rhetoric that sometimes goes with this particular issue, especially around election time. I am not saying any of the previous speakers have done that, but it does sometimes become a political football. It is a subject I believe has been debated time and time again in this parliament, year in, year out.
Mr Elferink: Since 1972, mate.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I was going to comment on a couple of things the member for Port Darwin said. I am in this House saying I believe there should be some mandatory retention of people who continually are found to be drunk. There are rights in both directions. There are rights for people to drink, but there are also rights for other people to enjoy peace and quiet in their community.
My only difference would be that I do not believe we should, if possible, make this an offence. I use the example of legislation that has just been passed in parliament this week of the secure care facility, where there is the ability to require people to be confined for various reasons. In the case of the secure care facilities, we have people who have cognitive problems, and a court can make a decision that those people are required to stay in that facility for a period of time. I actually think that would be a better course than taking people to prison. It may have the same effect, but people who have problems with alcohol and are actually in a state where it is very difficult for them to help themselves, would be far better off in a purpose-built facility.
If you want a place where people are going to dry out, you also want things for them to do - whether it is gardening, reading and writing - with education and medical facilities. There is a place there that, by its very nature, will be compassionate but, also by its very nature, will say you are not going to leave for the time being because you are a nuisance to society, you do not have ability to help yourself, and there needs to be some force required to give the rest of society some peace and quiet.
I agree with the principle the member for Port Darwin has put forward, but I believe we can do it in a similar way to using the legislation that was passed this week in relation to people who need to be confined to a secure care centre. That legislation should be looked at as, perhaps, the way to do what the member for Port Darwin is saying.
It is difficult to talk about this subject in 15 minutes. One of the first matters I spoke about in this parliament was alcohol. I reminded people of a number of young boys I looked after at Daly River who came from cattle stations, and how half those boys died under the age of 21. I had 30 boys in that dormitory. I was looking at some pictures the other day of those kids and half that group is dead. It brought back to me the problems we have in this community with alcohol are not just in the Northern Territory.
I have some figures which say risky or high-risk alcohol consumption caused the death of 32 696 Australians age 15 and older in the 10 years from 1996 to 2005, and 813 072 Australians were hospitalised due to alcohol-caused injury and disease over the same period. We are not talking about a small problem; we are talking about a big problem which is Australia-wide.
One of the dangers we have in this discussion today is we tend to lean towards Indigenous alcohol issues. Alcohol is a problem in the Northern Territory for both non-Indigenous and Indigenous people. We have to acknowledge that we see Indigenous people in the parks, and they tend to be the focus of our discussions, whereas there are many other people who do the same thing on Mitchell Street or at the football club and we do not have a great concern about it. One group of people tends to be targeted when we talk about alcohol abuse more than another group of people. Even though some people cause problems because they are in the public arena more than others, in this debate we should not lose sight of the fact - just look at the figures - that alcohol is a problem in Australia, and is certainly a problem in the Northern Territory.
I have figures here for the Northern Territory - some are a little dated – where the age-adjusted NT alcohol attributable death rate for 2004-05 was 7.2 per 10 000 persons 15 years and over, compared with the national estimate of 2.1 per 10 000. Not only do we have a problem in Australia with alcohol consumption, but we have one which is, perhaps, even worse in the Northern Territory. There are other figures. For instance from 2002 - only a small time frame - alcohol was associated with 56% of suicides in the Northern Territory.
Getting back to the MPI, the member for Sanderson is saying the government has failed to implement a policy that addresses the broad issues around alcohol consumption in the Territory, and the impact of poor decision-making. What we have heard today is some discussion about a fix-it-up: how do we deal with the problem when we have the problem already. We need to debate how to prevent the problem occurring in the first place. What is the cause of alcohol abuse? You could probably be here for a day talking about that. For many people it might be simply unemployment, lack of housing, poverty, or people at the low socioeconomic scale of the population. There could be many reasons. The other reasons could be peer group pressure and the pressure from advertising. There is a whole range of reasons why people abuse alcohol.
I have mentioned before how we do not frown on drunkenness anymore. It seems to me we say: ‘We do not mind you being drunk …’ - to some extent, that is what the member for Port Darwin said – ‘… as long as you do it at home’. Yes, fair enough, people have the right to do what they like in their own house.
However, you still should not stop talking about what drunkenness does. Drunkenness is a health issue.
Regarding the abuse of alcohol, the figures will tell you the enormous number of people who died or were hospitalised. When you abuse alcohol, you can be pretty sure you are going to be drunk. That is what abuse is about; you lose control, you crash your car, you bash the wife, you do things you would not normally do. Yet, today we do not regard that as a problem, as long as - well, if it is out of sight, not a problem; catch the bus home, Sober Bob. We have these programs which do not say ‘do not get drunk’, they say ‘if you are going to get drunk, get someone else to drive you home’. There is no promotion of sobriety; drunkenness is not what should be promoted. It is promoted subtly by saying catch the bus, get a taxi, get Sober Bob. What you are saying is it is fine to get drunk, just do not do it this way. That is where our attitudes have to change.
People think it is cool. Why are young people, especially young girls, binge drinking? I know what young girls do; I have three daughters. I hear the stories: you get drunk before you leave, then you go into town and you get more drunk. It is a great night drunk. Going to a party where you are all drinking spirits is just fantastic. Do we talk about the issues of young people drunk, and what effects that can cause through unwanted pregnancies? Are they not some of the issues we should be concerned about?
Are we concerned about the relationship between alcohol advertising, advertising companies, and sport? The Northern Territory loves its sport. Many Aboriginal people love their sport. However, you will see up on the scoreboard XXXX, you will see over there VB. The companies are not silly, they do not advertise because it is just a nice thing to have up on the scoreboard, they know where to target. I do not know whether we get trapped into this false idea that is all part of our culture. It is part of our culture because that is what the companies want; they make money - lots of money - in the Northern Territory out of grog.
One of the areas we really should be looking at when it comes to trying to change people’s attitudes, to try to help people and have places where they can be rehabilitated, is the breweries who make the money out of the misfortune of many people should be paying for some of this as well. They should be paying. They will say they pay their taxes. Well, those taxes go all over the place. I say they should be contributing to helping those people who are affected by the effects of alcohol. Perhaps they might even look at some housing programs, something on the positive side - not just fixing up people who are in a bad way but knowing they maybe need some social responsibility because they take a lot of money out on a community. How about some of that money goes back into that community in the form of housing? Do something that is good for the community.
It is a complex issue. People who have alcohol problems, to some extent, have to take it on themselves to change their lives around - not easy. I am not here to sermonise on the ability of people who have to get off a drug habit of any sort. It is not easy for people to change their lives around, but there are people who will help. We have Alcoholics Anonymous. At Bathurst Island, we used to have the AAA, the Aboriginal Alcoholics Anonymous. There are people around so, if people want help there are facilities for those people to go to. They have to make that effort, and that is not easy. Of course, where those people cannot make that effort, where they become a public nuisance, the government has the right to step in, and do it in a compassionate way, and help those people. I do not want people being forced off the streets because that goes against one’s civil liberties, but other people have rights too. They have rights to peace and quiet in their neighbourhood and not to be humbugged at the shopping centre. I know all of those things happen, but there comes a point where governments step in.
I say this to the CLP: nobody has the magic wand for alcohol issues in the Northern Territory, or in Australia. A combination of things has to happen. We have to give many people opportunities for jobs, better housing and less overcrowding. We have to say to people that it is not cool to be drunk; it is not a healthy lifestyle. We should be promoting that.
At the same time, it is easy to knock the government. I am not necessarily supportive of the swipe card because it is difficult to see how it is going to work, although the new legislation coming in might do some good things if you read about the income management and possibility of on-the-spot fines. What I say is give them a go as they are trying. You might not agree with it, and you might think it is impractical, but at least they are having a go. The worst thing a government could do is not have a go. Then, you would criticise them for not having a go. They are trying.
I am happy for the trials to be longer because the minister said after three months it is all very successful. I said, bunkum, you cannot have such a short trial; you have to let it go longer. They are adjusting it. This side here, if it does not agree, has to make some really positive approaches to it as well. It is such a great problem for the Northern Territory. It has cost many lives, it has caused a huge amount of harm, especially to Indigenous people. It is something we need to work on together to try to find solutions. We have to bring the people with us. If we can work together as a parliament to find solutions it would be good.
I am glad the member for Sanderson has brought this up today. I know there is talk about a floor price now. Without getting into whether a floor price would make any difference to alcohol consumption, I must admit I cannot work out why alcohol is not taxed at the same price - end of story. Why not tax alcohol at the same rate, regardless of whether it is wine, sherry, beer or whatever? Whether it has an effect on consumption - I am sure Dr Boffa and a few other people could have a great argument about that. From a taxation point of view, I cannot work out why wine - unless the people who grow wine had a bigger lobby group when it came to asking the federal government to have a different taxation level for wine than for beer. However, that is a debate for another day.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Sanderson for raising this matter of public importance. It is an important issue and we need to keep debating it because it is one of those issues which is not going to go away, and we need to make change.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Sanderson for bringing on this matter of public importance. It is a matter of public importance and I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, except the member for Karama who did not have much to say that was positive. I listened intently to the member for Nelson who had some good, sensible things to say. I have not written any notes for this speech, but I will tell you how I see the problem of alcohol.
I see alcohol dependency and substance abuse issues as end-of-the-line issues. I see them as being the results of broader social problems we have in the Northern Territory. I am not going to talk about anywhere outside of the Northern Territory. I see alcoholism as a form of substance abuse and substance abuse as being a chronic disease, which is built on by the passive approach many people in our community participate in. The member for Nelson often talks about the chronic and systematic lifestyle of welfare and paternalism and everything in life being for free, and that system of inertia where people across the Northern Territory do not have a role to play, in a broad sense, in their own life. That is more prevalent in the regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory than the urban towns such as Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Tennant, Katherine and so forth. Until we start looking at the causes of people becoming substance abusers, we are not going to address the issue of alcohol abuse. What we are seeing through many different measures such as the intervention, the shires, welfare quarantining - and broader is the welfare system and inertia – is a welfare system which is reverse racist for political reasons, which is driving people into town without any capacity to find suitable housing.
We know overcrowding, living rough, and homelessness breeds a cycle of antisocial behaviour, alcohol abuse and so forth. Instead of addressing the issues out bush, we continue to see social engineering and assimilation models by the Northern Territory and federal Labor governments that drive people into town to participate and become victims in this cycle of antisocial behaviour and inertia.
At the end of the day, all we are doing is filling our gaols. All our gaols in the Territory are full - our police station custody areas are full every night. I am generalising, but we are turning Aboriginal people into criminals in the criminal justice system because of this reverse racist system of welfarism in the bush where people come to the town and get involved in a whole system. You have to get out there and start developing the bush and getting people in jobs, and show tough love on welfare - create the jobs and get people in them. At the moment, the CDEP system is being wound back and there is welfare quarantining for CDEP participants. I know the former Coalition government did this and I am critical of it. Where the CDEP positions are taken away, where there are no jobs, what are people going to do? Sit on the dole and move to town. Now, we are putting welfare quarantining on CDEP participants. That is crazy. These are the only people - and my comments are generalised - who are getting up doing something, and then you quarantine them. Sure, they might only be working 15 or 16 hours a week, they might be working 38 with top-up, or whatever the case may be, but you then go and penalise these people through quarantining. I am all for quarantining, if it is done the right way.
There are a few flaws here and there, with veterans, pensioners, and so forth. There are some areas where I believe we need amendments. However, when you have people working on CDEP, do not penalise them. Do you know what will happen? I know the federal government recently decided to not do the next CDEP scale back because there is a Territory election coming and it would hurt them politically. However, everyone would stop participating in CDEP and be on more welfare, and many of the activities will actually stop being done in these communities. Services will actually stop.
When I was on my trip to Borroloola, talking to Mbuntji and all the people in the outstations and the community, they were venting their frustrations, as I hear everywhere. They were saying that people on those outstations will just stop working and all come into Borroloola. Then, they will pick up and move to Katherine. Then, they will pick up and move to Darwin, and there are more people on our streets. The fact is, our urban centres cannot handle that extra population for a couple of reasons: (1) because there is insufficient housing; and (2) the main reason, because the price of housing is just so dear. If you are living on welfare, you cannot afford to pay $600 or $700 a week for a house. It just does not work.
Then we come in here, and all over Australia, we debate how we are going to stop the alcohol problem. We had the same issue with petrol sniffing. Tony Abbott, when he was Health minister, did a fantastic job in bringing out Opal. I am a supporter of Opal. It has pretty much wiped out petrol sniffing everywhere it is has been rolled out ...
Mr Wood: BP did it on their own. BP did it by themselves.
Mr GILES: Yes, yes, just listening to the interjection. It did a really good thing, but there has been no longitudinal management or study about what happened to those people who were chronic abusers sniffing petrol. I am a believer that, if you are a substance abuser, you are a substance abuser. If you take the substance away, where do they all go? Do they migrate to amphetamines, to alcohol, to sniffing glue, drinking Listerine or vanilla essence, or whatever it may be? There has been no mapping done in that area, so we do not know what happened with that population.
We know that over the last couple of years since the Opal roll-out there has been in increase in alcohol substance abuse issues. However, instead of going back to the causal effect, we are now trying to address the problem of alcohol through a prohibition model similar to the one we rolled out through Opal. I can tell you from knowledge and experience in other parts of the country and research from around the world, when you put in a prohibition measure, people who are substance abusers will change their substance. As we keep inflating the price of alcohol, what we see come into range is a greater marketplace for other drugs: ganja, amphetamines and so forth. While we are not monitoring those people on alcohol and those petrol sniffing, what is going to happen when the amphetamine market becomes priced as an option rather than alcohol? That is exactly what is going to happen.
It has happened in other parts of Australia. I remember parts of New South Wales were heroin capitals of Australia. Because people could not get grog; there were Aboriginal people on heroin. It was a significant problem. I listened to the debate by organisations such as the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition. Sure, they have strong motives and personal interests in trying to reduce the problems of alcohol. However, they are not targeting the right area and there are significant problems with their approach. If we get to a model where we inflate the price of alcohol so high, we are just putting in place more opportunities for people to abuse other substances. Heaven help the day methamphetamines or any other drug is priced for substance abusers to take rather than drinking a 30 pack of VB or some other drink.
Yes, we need to address these things, but we also have to approach it on a left, middle, and right ground. From the left and from the right, I see the action and work by the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition, and the approach on the floor price of alcohol. I have paperwork they have sent me on the impact of a floor price based on $1.20. You can go through every product available in Alice Springs on this list I have - and there are plenty of products on here - and they have listed the current minimum price against the predicted or estimated floor price of $1.20. These are prices as at November 2011.
I will go through a few and explain how they are above $1.20. XXXX Gold slab, $1.75; Pure Blonde slab, $1.73; Heineken, $1.66 - I will rush through them - Coopers Pale Ale, $1.57; VB 30 pack, $1.38; Tooheys New box, $1.19 – of course, Tooheys New has gone up with the price of CDL; Bundy Rum cans, $1.65 …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr GILES: The member for Nelson laughs. A VB 30 pack was $58 before CDL, now it is $69 a carton. The CDL has priced them with up with the floor price ...
Mr Wood: Not by $6.
Mr GILES: No, by $11.
Mr Wood: That is right. It only cost $6.
Mr GILES: Jack Daniels, $1.50; Bundy Rum bottle, $1.65 - that is the 700 ml bottles; Johnny Walker, $2.14 against $1.20 floor price. All the premixed spirits are over $2 on this list I have in front of me. Coopers Pale Ale slab is $1.40. Spirits and liquors - Baileys, $2.76, and I am not being selective, I am just picking out the ones I see; Wild Turkey, $1.61 per standard drink; Vodka Cruiser slab, $2.75. You can go all the way through: Tawny Port, $1.32; McWilliams Musket, $1.27; Cinzano - it has been a while since I had a Cinzano - $1.54. The only thing that does not meet the floor price is non-fortified 2 L cask wine at 76 to 85. So when we talk about bringing in a floor price, it will not make much difference.
The People’s Alcohol Action Coalition took a photo of a big pile of casks sitting on the river bed somewhere in Alice Springs some time ago. I live there. I go past the river all the time - ride my bike past there every Saturday and Sunday exactly where they took that photo. It is full of VB boxes. You might find a cask here or there, but it is VB and bottles of Bundy Rum. Those two products, on here, are above the floor price. To say the floor price is going to make any big difference, I cannot see the argument. If the floor price did make a difference and priced people out, they are pricing in ganja and amphetamines. Albeit they are illegal products, but they become more and more the choice for substance abusers. You have to help those people. From the right, the Country Liberals want to rehabilitate people.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy, the member for Karama, spoke about a 2 km law - a dry town. In Alice we have had 2 km laws, we have had dry towns and we have had restrictions where you cannot get casks, or buy long necks of beer anymore. We have had restrictions coming out of our ears, but it is getting worse and worse all the time. The old argument used to be: ‘No, the restrictions are working. The violence levels are going down; fewer assaults, fewer rapes, fewer murders’. Look at the figures now. They are all miles away from the figures they used to argue. That argument has been left behind, now it is a floor price argument.
The floor price argument is flawed because everything is already above the floor price except for the 2 L wine cask. The other reason is because it does not look at the broader picture; it is an isolationist policy approach, and it is not going to solve the problem. The problem is bigger. I do not want to see our gaols full of people who are drunks who committed crimes, such as drink-drivers. I do not want that; I want to see development out in the communities. I want to see people in jobs, off welfare, being a participant in society in an economic sense.
I can tell you the Country Liberals’ policy, which everyone knows. We have to be reactionary with this policy. I do not want to be reactionary, but we have to be. We have to get the drunks off the street; it is an unsafe environment. It is unsafe for me, as a general citizen, walking down my street - it is completely unsafe. I know people say: ‘Oh, do not talk the town down’. However, the fact remains that is how it is. I feel unsafe going down to my bottle shop, where a knife was pulled on the bottle shop attendant just a couple of weeks ago. Someone tried to knock off a couple of bottles of Bundy rum - not 2 L cask wine, Bundy rum.
We will get the drunks off the street. If you get picked up three times in six months, you will go to a tribunal where you have to take voluntary rehabilitation. If you do not, you will be mandatory rehabilitated for three months. You will be picked up off the street. We will make the street safer, but that is just one part of the right approach to the alcohol debate.
The broader debate is development and getting people into jobs - and that is not easy. We have had too many years of failed leadership by the federal level politicians in the Northern Territory, particularly the member for Lingiari. We have to have economic development and jobs, and get to the root cause of why this substance abuse continues. We are worse in the Territory than anywhere else in Australia. You do not need statistics and reports to tell you that. We have to get a working population; it is the only way.
However, from the short term, as soon as we get into government, we will be cleaning up the drunks off our street. They will all be going to a tribunal. If picked up three times in six months, they will be going to the tribunal and into voluntary rehabilitation. If they skip that voluntary rehabilitation or they do not want to do it, they will be mandatorily rehabilitated. We will not put up with it anymore; we want our streets clean; we have had enough. While we take that hard line approach, we will also be looking at measures to put in place to try to help people not be substance abusers, and be participants in society and get a job - that is the most important part.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Sanderson for bringing this debate on this matter of public importance today. It is quite right the Northern Territory government be condemned for their failed implementation of policies that addresses the broader issues of alcohol consumption in the Territory. What they are doing is dilly-dallying; they are not addressing the real issue. They are putting inflationary pressures on the good people who do the right thing, just like the minister for CDL, putting inflationary pressures on Territorians by putting up the prices - nothing has changed. The CDL’s scams are not working now, the alcohol measures are not working - you have lost complete control.
Discussion concluded.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I would like to mention some retirees from my department. Joan Ivinson has retired after more than 40 years of dedicated service with the Department of Health. Mrs Ivinson commenced in the paediatric measles ward in 1971, and has since worked in Docker River, Yuendumu, Katherine District Hospital and Royal Darwin Hospital. She has worked in various wards at RDH since 1973, before taking up the role of the Central Sterilising Service Manager in 1998.
Larry Low is retiring after 25 years of dedicated service in the Royal Darwin Pathology Department. Mr Low commenced in the department in 1986 as a multidisciplinary scientist in clinical microbiology before moving into chemical pathology where he has been second-in-charge for many years up until his retirement. Mr Low officially retired in February 2012. I thank both Joan and Larry for their commitment to the department and wish them both all the best in their retirement.
During my adjournment on health in the February sittings, I mentioned that the first Indigenous dentist had been appointed to commence work in Alice Springs. It is with great sadness that I inform the House that the person passed away suddenly in Alice Springs earlier this month at a very young age. She was a graduate of the University of Western Australia. She was the first member of the Noongar people of Western Australia to complete a dentist qualification. The doctor’s partner, family and colleagues have been provided support by the department at this difficult time. I offer my sincerest condolences to her partner and family.
I am proud to inform the House that the Royal Darwin Hospital laundry now employs seven people with disabilities and has recently taken delivery of a gown folder to support them in their work. Project Employment approached the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment with a proposal to supply the gown folding machine to enable a person with a disability to be employed at RDH. The initiative was driven by the RDH laundry manager and Project Employment, with funding from the Australian government to purchase the machine. The machine, which folds gowns and many other linens, allows a person with a disability to successfully undertake laundry tasks. People with disabilities now represent 23% of the RDH laundry’s total workforce, which reflects the goals of the Northern Territory government policy initiatives for employing persons with a disability to become valuable members of the workforce and broader community.
Since last sittings, I had the privilege of hosting the presentation ceremony for the first Department of Children and Families graduates of the Graduate Certificate in Remote Health (Child Protection Practice). This unique qualification focuses on Aboriginal child protection and is not offered anywhere else in Australia. I congratulate those successful graduates who are: Amy Fogarty, Rachel Francescutti, Alannah Gallagher (Advanced Practitioner), Vicky Haddon, Lynne Jackson, Jenny Letchford, Jacqueline McCann, Patricia McMinn, Helen McKeiver,
I also had the privilege of hosting the International Social Work Day function and the Mary Moylan Award, which provides an opportunity to recognise the pioneering achievement of social workers in the Northern Territory at this event. I congratulate the winner of the Mary Moylan Award, Annette (Nettie) Flaherty.
I was very pleased to attend a special Harmony Day at Nakara Primary School. I was very impressed by the diversity of the children. Many of them wore their national costumes - or I should say their parents’ national costumes - and performed some incredible dances - the Indians, the Chinese, the Greeks. I was astounded when two young Indigenous children who were waiting for their turn to perform started playing the sticks in rhythm to the very quick music of the Greek dancers. That is something I do not think you would see anywhere else in Australia - apart from the Chooky Dancers, of course. It was an incredible spectacle. I very much enjoyed the celebrations.
After that, I went to the Happy Migrants’ Harmony Day celebration at Casuarina Library. Many of them were from different backgrounds. Some of them are learning English because English is their second or third language, and they are socialising together. The best way to learn English is by making friends with people who speak English and spending some time with them.
On a sad note, I send my deepest condolences to Katie Vrodos and John Vrodos, and their family, on the loss of their beloved, husband, father, grandfather, brother and uncle, Mr Michael Vrodos. Michael was a much-loved and respected member of the Greek community and a wonderful friend. He will be dearly missed by us all. Michael represents the story of all the migrants, especially from the Greek community, who arrived here in the late 1950s and early 1960s, worked very hard and brought up their children. Michael has a daughter who is a teacher, Yvonne, and a son, Nikita, who is working as an electronic technician. Through hard work, they brought their family up and retired in Darwin.
Many times I asked why they do not retire in Greece. They told me that Darwin was home, not Greece any more. That become apparent after Cyclone Tracy. The first people to come back after Tracy were the Greek migrants. Many of them told me they had nowhere else to go. In Greece, which they left 30 years beforehand, they had no friends anymore, their relatives were getting thinner on the ground, and the only place they had friends and relatives was in Darwin. Many of them had invested their life savings in property in Darwin. They had educated their kids in Australia, so Darwin was the place to be. My condolences again to Katina, to Nikita, Yvonne and Michael’s brother, John.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I say thank you to the hard-working and accommodating vet clinics which operate in the rural area, in particular, the businesses in my electorate which are: Humpty Doo Vet Surgery, Girraween Vet Surgery and the Litchfield Vet Surgery. I will comment on the recently closed vet clinic and the Palmerston and Parap surgeries, although they are not in the rural area.
These vet clinics are all very good places, immaculately presented and staffed by exceptionally professional and caring people who are dedicated to excellence in veterinary medicine. While I have not seen mission statements on their walls, exactly, I know all of the businesses practice the highest quality medicine and surgery with compassion and an emphasis on client education. The vet, nurse, and support staff are committed to providing personal attention to each pet that comes through their door, and to the concerns of each individual pet owner. Being vets in the rural area, they see all manner of unusual accidents and ailments and, sadly, some incidents of harm and cruelty.
From my dealings with them, they understand the special role a pet plays in a family or to a pet owner, and are dedicated to being a partner in your pet’s healthcare. They know, in order to provide pets with the medical care they need, they must provided excellent medical services and have the most capable staff possible, plus they must take time and care to provide the pet owner who brings in these pets with thoughtful and respectful client service. I have found they are always willing to take the time needed to explain an animal’s condition and discuss options for the best care.
I know the clinics well and most of the staff, as I have had reason to visit them often at all times of the day and night - with the money-draining dogs I own. In some way, I feel I half own some of the surgeries, and in my next life I am definitely going to study and become a vet.
The vet and staff have come to know my dogs well, including Musket, who now has one ear, and Dagger, who has no tail. However, they are happy, well-functioning dogs, albeit not as pretty as they used to be. On more than one occasion when I have presented at the vet surgery with a mangled dog, I know the vets have looked on with despair and were not hopeful for a recovery. However, I have had great faith in their skills and capabilities and, of course, my dogs’ resilience and fighting spirits. They have recovered, and recovered well, if not a bit more ugly.
I express my thanks to these vets, and I know people across the rural area do as well, as they have saved many a pet from snake bite, barbed wire injuries, thrown fetlocks, skin problems, broken limbs and diseases. Sadly, sometimes pets cannot be saved; however, the vet and the human care are exemplary during what is always a tough time for a pet owner.
In regard to the Coolalinga vet clinic, which was owned by Ulich and Maria Wong, I say congratulations on a long and meritorious career in vet care for all animals, big and small, and for providing vet and support services to the rural area for many years. Ulich and Maria recently closed their clinic to have some lovely rest time, and I am sure Ulich will be out fishing as often as he can. I used Ulich and his services many times over the years, as did my family, and I have him to thank for saving one of my previous dogs, a lovely blue heeler, from a king brown snake bite. I wish Ulich and Maria the very best in their retirement and I am sure they will continue to live in and enjoy the rural area.
In regard to the Palmerston and Parap vet surgeries which I had the mixed fortune to have used over a recent period of three weeks, I express my thanks to vets Bree, Sue, Ian and Fleur and all the staff at the two vet clinics. Without your care and skills and loads of treatment, Dagger not only would not have a tail, she would not have had a life.
I place on the public record the good work, as I have said, and the care that vet clinics provide, and the people involved. At the Humpty Doo vet clinic there is Emma Zalcman, who is the primary vet, Jessrey Brouss, Jess Clarke, Joanne Behrendorff, Kwan Lee and Jenny Thomas – vets, manager, surgery nurse. At Girraween, Laurelle Bates who is the vet and owner, Jessica Gould is a vet nurse, and Sandy Presneill is the manager. At the Litchfield vets, Bree Hansell is the vet and owner, vets are Alexandra Hesford, Jennifer Coates, Annie Kicinski, Caroline Astley; Janine McArtney, who is a manager; Steffi Hubel, receptionist; Merial McKay, senior nurse; Lisa Munroe, senior nurse; Samantha Sheen, nurse; Danica O’Neil, trainee nurse; and Demmi Tinning, kennel hand.
To all the vets and the staff in the vet clinics in the rural area, and in all places in Darwin and the Northern Territory - because it is an interesting place to practice, given the animals and the type of activities - I say thank you to one and all. I wish you all the best in your practices and, hopefully, all your patients have a very successful recovery.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I deal with an issue raised in this House last night by the Leader of the Government Business. The Northern Territory parliament has better things to do with its time than to support or be used for Labor Party witch-hunts by a tired old and retiring member of parliament.
The allegations raised in last night’s debate by the Leader of Government Business amount to absolutely nothing. They have no substance, no weight, and even the assertion about the ownership of a vehicle has been discounted during the course of the day. One could be forgiven for wondering what goes on between the ears of the Leader of Government Business. His obsession with the member for Macdonnell has become something akin to stalking. He dedicates so much time to attacking her on the flimsiest of assertions it is becoming an embarrassment to government.
When I see him rise in this House, I am set in mind of a Dickensian character, a Uriah Heep - no a Scrooge, better still. I can picture him as he shuffles around his office with a candle holder as it weakly burns light against the air-conditioning of his office, providing him with little warmth, his glasses perched on the end of his excessively long nose, shuffling about, pulling the wings off flies saying: ‘Alison, Alison, Alison, Alison’. It is bizarre - absolutely bizarre - because the member for Macdonnell has, according to his own Chief Minister, been exonerated from all these investigations.
I can point to questions asked about the member for Macdonnell. I raised issues about the member for Macdonnell at one stage based on information I had received, and she was thoroughly investigated. The 2005 Acumen Alliance report, which the minister raised in this House last night, cleared the member for Macdonnell of anything. However, because he suddenly says the terms of reference were wrong, he laid table, after chart, after document, on the table as evidence of his tired, pathetic stalking, serial offending in this House. He referred to newspaper articles dating back to 2006. However, he did not refer to media releases from the government on 13 October 2005 saying: ‘Nothing wrong’. The minister himself has said she has done nothing criminally wrong. This is the minister, by the way, who has faced allegations of interfering in police investigations. His obsession with other members and the standards that surround them is just amazing.
This Ebenezer Scrooge, who shuffles around in his slippers and nightgown in this cobweb-infested world, is a mere remnant of the decent bloke who walked into this House. He once said to me, the very first time I met him at the declaration of polls in the 2001 election: ‘Even though you are CLP, I am looking forward to working with you and I really want to do good things for the people of the Northern Territory’. What happened to that guy? What happened to make that man become the shuffling, old, bitter, twisted, angry man he has become now? Where has the decency gone?
This is the guy who will spend hours trawling through hundreds of pages of documents in an effort to pursue this matter to its nth degree, and pursue the member for Macdonnell because she did whatever she did to the Labor Party - to the nth degree - but will not turn his attention, effectively, to his own ministries.
If the Leader of Government Business wants to leave a lasting legacy, surely it should be doing something or leaving structures in place that will do something for education of the kids of the Northern Territory. Yet, when you hold up the results of the NAPLAN tests, it is a sea of red because he is too busy going through piles of documents, hundreds of pages long, trying to find evidence in some sort of witch-hunt - which the rest of the world has moved on from, including his own colleagues. However, he continues to hunt and jump at spectres, shuffle down the corridors of power, infatuated with the history of the member for Macdonnell, despite the fact he has said in this House that she has never been charged or even accused of a criminal offence. Yet, he insists and goes on with it. It is pathetic, it is sad, and it shows what a shambolic wreckage he has become as a minister of the Crown.
This man is the minister who was prepared to stand up in this place and say: ‘Yes, we are giving Year 12 certificates away to people who cannot read English’. Surely, that is where his focus should be. Surely, the next time he walks into this place, he should saying, ‘I have announced I am going to do something about the fact that we give matriculation certificates to kids who cannot read’, rather than pursuing a vendetta which is entrenched in a black and withered heart.
Surely, there must be something left of the man in 2001 who said he wanted to do really good things for the kids and the people of the Northern Territory. Surely, there must be some semblance of that decency left. He engages in personal vitriol, day after day in this House, attacking the member for Macdonnell for no other offence than being sufficiently critical of the Labor Party as to leave it, rather than attending to his duties as the minister of the Crown. Surely, the attention to detail and the care he puts into his vitriolic attacks should be energy better expended in the governance of the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
I know what this is about. It is all about generating a little political noise so he can muddy the waters around the member for Macdonnell and run his allegations. Well, all those allegations have been run and they have died natural deaths. That is not just an opinion of mine; it is the opinion of the current Chief Minister, who has said so in this place. It is the opinion of the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, who has said so in this place. What is he trying to do? What on earth does he think he is going to achieve?
The critical issue I raised many years ago about the member for Macdonnell has come to nought. I have been told that by reports and by ministers on that side of the House. We have all been told that at length. Yet, he persists for nothing other than some tawdry political points scoring. Is that really what the Labor Party has come to in the Northern Territory? Rather than standing proudly on their achievements - such as they are - and saying: ‘This is the product of good governance of a good Labor government’. Rather than that, it is vile, venom, strychnine-laced criticism of an individual member of parliament who had the audacity to leave the Australian Labor Party because she no longer agreed with its philosophies.
That is what they offer to the people of the Northern Territory as a government. That is what Anna Bligh’s Labor Party tried to do during the election campaign in Queensland. References to the Crime and Misconduct Commission by the Queensland government, I think it was, about Campbell Newman, his family, and his wife, amounted to nothing because the public could see what it was - a desperate slime being bucketed at the other side of politics in an effort to obfuscate the real shortcomings of a long-term government.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, a bit of free advice for those people over there, particularly the Leader of Government Business: lift your own standards rather than just pouring anger and bitterness over everybody else, and you may actually have a chance of being re-elected. But, keep up the stalking weirdness, and people will treat you as though you are a stalker and you are weird.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak this evening in the adjournment debate about a recent visit I made to the beautiful town of Alice Springs. I was approached by the Education minister’s office to see if I could represent him in Alice Springs, given he has great difficulty in being in two places at the same time.
I went for a couple of reasons. The first was to do with an invitation from United Voice union with regard to a campaign they are running to highlight the importance of child educators within early learning centres and childcare centres. It is part of the campaign called Walk a Day in My Shoes. The minister had accepted an invitation and had also invited the member for Araluen to participate in the campaign. So, that is what took me to Alice Springs for 14 March. I was very happy to represent the minister. When I was asked if I might be available to cover for him, I leapt at the opportunity.
I have a long association with childcare in my community of Nhulunbuy, given that each of my three children were in childcare whilst I was working as a high school teacher. I was involved with Nhulunbuy Community Childcare Centre over those years, most of them on the committee in one way or another. As a consumer of childcare services, but also as someone who has been involved in the committee, I gained some insights into how centres are run and how hard the people in those centres work to look after our most precious assets, our children. I attended the YMCA of Central Australia childcare centre. The director is Mr Navin Bhandari. I was met by Navin when I arrived ready for duty at about 7.40 am on 14 March.
I shadowed the early childhood educators I was working with. I had a group of children in the three to five age group. The member for Araluen was in the room next door with the younger children. The campaign Walk a Day in My Shoes is for politicians and decision-makers to participate in and to put themselves in the shoes of early childhood educators to see how hard they work, and the tasks they take on. It is a very valuable exercise to see how hard they work. We know people in this sector are undervalued and underpaid and they work incredibly hard. Because they are undervalued and underpaid, far too often it is the domain of short-term employment. It was a very valuable morning for me. I was lucky enough to have a tea break. There were a number of young women – and it is predominantly women who work in this sector - who did not have a tea break because there was no time. There was not a floater available to provide coverage so they could do that.
It gives you firsthand insights. The most poorly paid people in this sector earn around $15 an hour and those with Certificate III start at just over $17 an hour. I have an 18-year-old daughter who has just picked up casual work in a supermarket to supplement her cost of living whilst she is at uni, and she is making nearly $18 an hour. It seems incredibly unfair that people in this very important sector of early childhood in our childcare centres are so poorly paid. We know the ages from birth to five years are the most formative years in a child’s life. The people who work in that sector are not babysitters or childminders, they are early childhood educators.
This campaign, which is driven by United Voice union, is all about gaining that recognition. I have read their submission to the federal Treasurer seeking dollars from the federal government to boost their wages. Our minister supports it, and I am pleased to see the member for Araluen supports it. It is a very positive step and I wish them well in their campaign.
At the end, as I departed, we had a debrief and a chat about what I had seen and experienced. I signed a document to say I pledged to support this campaign and I was a handed a mock cheque for around $71, which is what I would have been paid for my five hours on the floor at this centre before tax. It is not a great deal of money.
In the afternoon I represented the minister, wearing my hat as parliamentary secretary for Education and Training. I attended Centralian Senior Secondary College to meet with the principal teacher and 11 bright-eyed students from Years 10 and 11 who are in the new Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Futures, which was established at the school at the beginning of this year.
This is one of four Centres for Excellence in the Northern Territory. It is all about recognising that we need to provide opportunities for our very bright young things in our schools. We need to promote opportunities for them to pursue their talents. In Alice Springs, which we know is a city renowned for its solar capacity, this particular centre is about excellence in sustainable futures. I met with the students - all bright, curious, talented young things - led by their award-winning science teacher, Ms Jennifer Trewren and Principal, Eddie Fabijan. We had a very interesting chat about what had brought them into this course and what it was they wanted to do when they left school. Their interests were really diverse, from architecture to politics for one of them; science, and journalism. They are all undertaking additional studies in sustainability in their own time.
There was a bit of a demonstration of a number of projects these students were undertaking around power generation using water, the sun’s energy, and wind as well. What they are doing there is fantastic. It is the first year. These 11 young people are very excited about what they are doing. We hope to see this program grow. They are ideally situated alongside the CDU campus. It is obviously a very good relationship that Centralian Senior College has with CDU. In fact, it is the first time I have visited Centralian Senior College, and it has a real feel about it, like a university campus. They made a decision at that school not to wear uniforms. As Year 10, 11 and 12 students, they are treated as young adults and, accordingly, it is their choice not to have a uniform. Anyway, all power to them. I wish them all well with the Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Futures at Centralian and, indeed, I wish all students there the very best of luck with their studies.
Because I was travelling all the way to Alice Springs, there was not much point travelling all that way just for a day, so I opted to stay on for an extra day. With some support and an escort from the Office of the Chief Minister, I made a visit to the community of Santa Teresa. I had only visited there once a couple of years before with the Council of Territory Cooperation, so I was seeking an opportunity to return to that community again as parliamentary secretary for Education and Training, to step into that school. I had not had the opportunity previously, so I thank Greg Crowe, who is a very busy man, for spending a little time with me to walk me through the school. It is a fantastic school, it looks all the better for a BER project that has only recently been completed that has delivered a new library, a new computer, and also a new staff room area.
It is a good school. They struggle in some areas with attendance, but I have to say, the most impressive class was Year 7. There was a bottom on every seat in that class and a group of bright-eyed, young things. It certainly was not set up for me, it just happened to be the class I stepped into at that time. There was a young Indigenous man from Santa Teresa - and forgive me, I cannot remember his name – who was, effectively, doing a practical teaching session and teaching maths to those kids. That was really great to see. We want to see more Indigenous people in our schools. Growing our own is critically important. I was very impressed with that school.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was also very impressed to see the swimming pool was full of water and a lot of work is under way. It has been a long time coming, but that community welcomed their new pool, due to open very soon, I understand.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will do a quick rundown on a few issues. First, I wish the Speaker all the best. She has been working under a strain, as we know, this week, and I believe she was looking quite ill this afternoon. I hope she has plenty of rest between now and the next sittings. I wish her well, and I am sure other members do so as well, because she is a great woman who works hard for the parliament and has a hard job trying to keep us in line. We would love to see her back at the next sittings feeling much better than she is today. All the best to Jane Aagaard.
I will also talk about something that happened today and thank the member for Goyder for being involved, and the minister for helping with it as well. There was some difficulty getting some funding for the Litchfield Bears Rugby League Club. They had money set down in the agreement I had with the Chief Minister regarding funding for the Freds Pass Reserve. Unfortunately, it had been withheld because of some other issues at Freds Pass.
Thankfully, with some negotiations which included the member for Goyder, the minister obviously spoke to some of his staff and had a meeting with a couple of representatives from the Litchfield Bears Club. A successful outcome was achieved and that money is being released for lights. There will be lights at Freds Pass at the Litchfield Bears’ home ground and, hopefully, on their fifth – I believe they have five - home matches this year, which is an achievement in itself because for so long the Northern Territory Rugby League has refused home games away from Richardson Park. If you want to develop a supporter base, you have to have home games where the people live. That is a great thing and these lights will really help that club.
I do not often defend my good friend in front of me, Mr Tollner. He uses me for a bit of a free kick now and again. There was a misunderstanding in the debate about the council elections with the member for Arnhem. The member for Arnhem mentioned one of the causes of low percentage voting was because of sorry business. The laughter was not aimed at that particular person. We thought it seemed a bit much to say the low turnout of voting across the Territory was caused by sorry business. That was the issue that was being laughed at. I do not believe the member for Fong Lim intended any hurt when he laughed. It was just that we thought the comment from the minister sounded like an exaggeration as the reason why, over all the Territory in the shires, there had been a low turnout. I thought I would clarify that because I believe there was a misunderstanding.
I made a trip to Lambells Lagoon, which used to be called Humpty Doo in the war time, where they used to grow rice. Our department of Primary Industries as I like to call, but it is the Department of Resources, has rice trials out there at the moment. A couple of weeks ago, I went out to look at those rice trials and they are certainly quite impressive. I thank Rowena Eastick who is, I believe, the chief scientist looking after those trials. Important information is being extracted from those trials. They are growing upland rice under irrigation, and are comparing a range of varieties. Some are more suited to colder climates and some are more suited to the tropical climates of the Northern Territory. They are testing out the best varieties. Blast is a rice disease and it can wipe out a crop. Blast was one of the reasons rice did not go so well in the Kununurra region when it was being grown there.
We have one grower at Tortilla Flats who grew a small crop last year. He had some difficulties, but he is intending to grow rice again this year. I hope to find some time to see how he is going. If you want to look at an old crop in the Territory being revisited, it is worth going out to Coastal Plains Research Station at Lambells Lagoon and looking at the rice trials there; they are quite impressive.
Another area of concern to me is we still have no movement on a regional waste facility. At the present time, nearly all the waste from the rural area goes to Shoal Bay. It all goes there eventually - people take it to the transfer stations. We do not have a place for dry waste and contractors either dump it in the bush or have to travel miles into Shoal Bay just to take a little pile of concrete and tiles from a plumbing job. I ask the government to really get going on this. If it has decided the regional waste facility will not be suitable at Howard Peninsula, which is north of the new prison, they should really have had in their planning - and they talk about strategic planning - a place where a new regional waste facility would go. If there is a gap in that strategic plan, it is where waste will go. I do not think councils want to be relying on Darwin Shoal Bay. It might be good for Darwin City Council, because they collect all the money, but it is not good for residents in the rural area. When the new town of Weddell is developed, there will certainly be a bigger need for a regional waste facility.
There have been comments in the NT News. I do not have anything against the NT News making comments about me, but they do harp a little that, for some reason, I was the cause of the tip closing down and the reason we have to go to Shoal Bay now. The reality is, I probably cannot argue with them; they all believe that is the truth. There may be some element of truth in it, but there were three reports done by Litchfield to try to get an alternative site: in John Maley’s time, just at the end of my time when Mary Walshe took over, and during Mary Walshe’s time. There were three independent reports. The council never owned tips; it always leased the land government had provided them. The council, up until now, did not have any land it owned; it only had permission to use land from the government by a leasing arrangement.
The council, through its reports, identified Sunday Creek as an option. The minister, at the time, said no. Then, the minister said Humpty Doo should close down. I am not saying Humpty Doo should not have closed down. What the council was asking for was some time to keep Humpty Doo open while it developed Sunday Creek. Unfortunately, that did not happen; Humpty Doo was closed down. It was a good thing it was closed down. However, I sometimes think the stories are spread by people who do not actually understand the issues in the rural area; they make a judgment from a long way away and do not understand the frustration local government had with Northern Territory governments for a long period of time. In many cases, Northern Territory governments were anti-local government. I can tell you many a story where that was the case.
The other area I will talk about is the council elections. It amazes me - and I do not know whether anything can be done; maybe we can ask at the Estimates Committee - that we had to wait all week to find out who the mayors were. I cannot, for the life of me, work out why we are not counting preferences on Monday and count the postal votes, if they are needed, on the Friday. If someone could tell me what would be wrong with counting the preferences at the present time - I do not know.
I even looked up tonight just before I came in here about 5.30 pm to see if there have been any changes on the Alice Springs’ council elections. There does not seem to be any change. It seems a very slow process. I do not think proportional voting has anything to do with it. I actually asked, many years ago, that we look at proportional voting. I put a submission to LGANT many years ago. I still have the files in my office.
In Tasmania, it takes a very short time - two days I think - to put it through the computer and come up with the answers. I ask the NT Electoral Commission, why can preferences not be counted earlier? You know the number of postal votes, because you would have sent them out to those people, and you will know whether those postal will make any difference to the final count. It is a little disappointing. People voted last Saturday, and they still do not know who their representatives are, especially in Litchfield, Palmerston - Katherine is pretty well certain. In Alice Springs, there is still some doubt. You would hope we have a system that does not leave people sit around for a week waiting for the final count.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope things can be improved. If legislation needs to be changed, maybe that is an option. However, if it is just a regulation that says you cannot count until Friday, well, maybe common sense should take over.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak quickly tonight on three issues. The first one is an e-mail I received. I want to read it out it. It is from a lovely young family in Palmerston and, once again, provides evidence things do not always go to plan. This government often talks about how great things are, yet, things are not as great as they continually make out. If things did work as well as this government always leads us to believe, then no one would come into our office to complain. We would never receive a phone call or an e-mail.
I thought this one was quite sad. It says:
Brandon is her son:
That e-mail struck me because the original call that was placed to 000 would have said that a young boy had stopped breathing. You would expect, whatever was going on, that would have become the highest priority. It should be mentioned that this is a boy with special needs, who had to wait 30 minutes because the ambulance service had to send a paramedic from Darwin, because there was no one in the Palmerston area - and this is the Quick Response Unit, not a fully-fledged ambulance. That this car had to come all the way from Darwin because there was nothing in the Palmerston area is a sad indictment on this government.
They talk very tough about how they have delivered services, are managing growth, are planning for growth, yet, here we have a city of 30 000, a rural area of that number again, and we do not have an ambulance which can get to a boy who has stopped breathing. That is the truth. That is the situation we find ourselves in. It is not good enough.
The second issue I am hoping the Transport minister might be able to answer. I have had a number of complaints about the Roystonea Avenue/Lambrick Avenue extension. The earlier complaints were to do with dust and so forth. I know the workers there did what they could to alleviate that with watering the area. However, the sad reality is that extension has had the bitumen down since December. We are now approaching the end of March and there is still a fence across the road. I realise there are some lights to go in on the Lambrick Avenue/Roystonea Avenue intersection, but I do not understand why it is taking so long.
It turns out I figured, wrongly, that perhaps with the minister in town this week for sittings they were waiting for an opportune time to open the road. It is fine to have your opening at a later stage when it is appropriate for you to make the time, but that road could be open today. The bitumen is down and has been since December. The white lines are down. Everything is ready to go except there is a big fence across the road. That will allow traffic to flow through that area much more efficiently than it can be now.
I have written to the minister quite a few times about this. It poses another question because the Roystonea Avenue/Temple Terrace intersection is already under great pressure and needs to be duplicated and upgraded. When this extension is opened it is only going to add more pressure to that intersection. That is the same intersection which will be under further pressure as the Palmerston Hospital is constructed. That is where all the major traffic is going to come in from. It is already under pressure today. We have not opened the road. We have not done any work on that intersection. I can tell you it is grid locked there in the morning with all the Defence members trying to reach Robertson Barracks from the Gunn area and other suburbs in Palmerston. It is terrible in the morning; cars are lined for what looks like miles back down Roystonea Avenue. I can only imagine that intersection is going to become a great deal worse when that road is opened.
The last issue I want to talk about is I received a complaint which was also sent to Tony Burke MP, and to ministers McCarthy and Lawrie. There are a couple of other people on here, including Martin Ferguson. It was in regard to parks. We have a government that talks about what they are doing to promote tourism in the Northern Territory, but what I found surprising in this letter, which was sent on 12 February, is nobody on the list had even bothered to get back to this gentleman. I will read the e-mail:
Interestingly enough, I followed up with Philip Coleman, from Auswalk walking tours, who wrote that. Astoundingly, no one from either the Northern Territory government or the federal government has got back to him to even acknowledge there is a problem. Again, I ask this government if we have any chance of bringing tourism back to its once heyday. Whilst we acknowledge there are many problems with the high Aussie dollar and a number of reasons why people are choosing not to tour as they once did, unless we meet these challenges by doing things such as supporting these small businesses - we are doing no favours for them, our hotel industries, or our economy if you just continually provide more bureaucratic bull layer upon layer, as you seemingly do. What we have to do is streamline the processes. What we have to do is support small business so we can support our own industry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Katherine South Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Tanya Lambert, Ms Natalee Waterton and Mrs Jennifer Trew. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
HEALTH PRACTITIONER (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 207)
(Serial 207)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Health Practitioners Act to remove regulatory provisions relating to Aboriginal Health Workers, occupational therapists and radiographers, collectively referred to as the NT professions, by 1 July 2012 and implement consequential amendments and transitional arrangements related to the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (the national scheme) in the Northern Territory.
The further amendments relate to the remaining powers within the NT Health Practitioners Act around the Pharmacy Premises Regulations and the Health Professional Review Tribunal in the Northern Territory.
The national scheme commenced in all jurisdictions except Western Australia on 1 July 2010, and commenced in Western Australia on 18 October 2010. The national scheme currently covers 10 health professions: medical; nursing and midwifery; pharmacy; physiotherapy; dental, including dentists, dental prosthetists, dental therapists and dental hygienists; psychology; optometry; osteopathy; chiropractic; and podiatry.
The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the national law) provides for four more health professions to join the national scheme on 1 July 2012, at which time national registration will apply to:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice, known as Aboriginal Health Workers in the Northern Territory;
The Council of Australian Government’s Intergovernmental Agreement for a National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions (the COAG agreement) which was signed by all first ministers on 26 March 2008, requires jurisdictions to make the necessary legislative amendments to support implementation of the national scheme.
This bill is the final stage of implementing the national scheme in the Northern Territory and supports application of provisions under the national law to the additional professions from 1 July 2012. The bill will implement significant amendments to the Northern Territory’s Health Practitioners Act by removing regulatory provisions that currently apply to the Northern Territory professions. This will prevent two different regulatory systems applying to the Northern Territory professions and provide clarity for clients about the standards of service they can expect from health practitioners and the legislation under which they can take action if those expectations are not met.
In 2008 and 2009, the provisions covering the four additional professions went through an extensive national public consultation process in developing the national law, and those provisions were supported by Northern Territory stakeholders. Further extensive consultation has occurred leading up to the four additional professions commencing under the national scheme on 1 July 2012.
A preliminary regulation impact assessment has been conducted by the Regulation Impact Unit, Northern Territory Treasury. Treasury has advised that a full regulation impact statement is not required.
Provisions will be retained within the Health Practitioners Act for matters that remain the responsibility of the Northern Territory.
The remaining provisions will cover functions of the Health Professional Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) as the ‘responsible tribunal’ in the Northern Territory for the purposes of the national law. The tribunal operates on a fee-for-service basis when dealing with matters under the national law. A tribunal is established in each jurisdiction to deal locally with any matters raised by a health practitioner dissatisfied or seeking review of a decision made by their registration board.
In relation to the tribunal, a 28-day appeal period has been included. This allows for a specified period in which an appeal against a decision of a National Health Practitioner Registration Board can be made. An appeal period had not been included previously when the national law was adopted in the Northern Territory. Without an appeal period, there is no time restriction as to when a person can lodge an appeal for review by the tribunal. Twenty-eight days is the standard appeal period across jurisdictions. These amendments bring the Northern Territory in line with other jurisdictions.
The Northern Territory Health Practitioners Act includes provision to regulate pharmacy premises. When implementing the national law it was agreed that these functions would not transfer to the national law but be maintained by each jurisdiction.
A large number of consequential amendments to other Northern Territory acts are proposed under the bill necessary to update terminology and references to the Northern Territory professions. These amendments have been discussed and agreed with representatives of the relevant agencies.
As of 1 July 2012, all registered health professions in the Northern Territory will be covered by the national scheme, and any other professions seeking regulation in the future will need to pursue registration under the national scheme. The principal objective of the national scheme is to protect the public by reducing multiple regulation systems across Australia and professions, and establishing one national system that sets standards and processes to apply Australia-wide.
This bill ensures the Northern Territory meets its obligation under the COAG agreement and the Northern Territory community is assured of quality services provided by health practitioners who achieve the standards of national registration.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement accompanying this bill.
Debate adjourned.
ASSOCIATIONS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 193)
(Serial 193)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The amendments in this bill give the minister responsible for administering the Associations Act the power to consent to the granting of a lease over part of a community living area for a term longer than 12 months for a wider range of lease purposes. At present, the minister can only consent to leases over a part of the community living area so as to enable the provision of health, education, housing, and financial services.
These amendments expand the types of lease purposes for which the minister can give consent to the grant of a lease over part of a community living area for a term longer than 12 months to include leases for commercial purposes, including community stores, leases for the provision of infrastructure, and leases for public purposes, including essential services. The proposed amendments will facilitate the provision of additional services and infrastructure on community living areas.
In the immediate term, this will open up community living areas to potential investment by the Commonwealth government such as the Commonwealth’s Community Stores program.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
EVIDENCE (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS BILL
(Serial 204)
(Serial 204)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill makes amendments necessary to enable the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act, which this Assembly passed last year, to commence. These reforms bring the Northern Territory into line with the Uniform Evidence law which has been adopted by the Commonwealth, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and Norfolk Island. The amendments in this bill make no policy changes to existing law.
The legislation will commence on 1 September 2012.
A series of briefings and workshops involving the legal profession have been, or will be, held to ensure the transition process is as smooth as possible. Professor Les McCrimmon from Charles Darwin University, one of Australia’s leading experts in this area, as well as interstate lawyers and judicial officers who have gone through the change to the uniform law of evidence, will also be involved.
The transitional provisions are contained in Part 2 of the bill. They add a new Chapter 6 to the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act. Subject to the most minor of drafting differences, these provisions are uniform across the jurisdictions and have adopted the Uniform Evidence Act. The transitional provisions will provide that the Uniform Act applies to any proceedings commenced after the commencement date. In a case of a proceeding that began before commencement date, the Uniform Act applies to that part of the proceeding that takes place after the commencement date, other than any hearing that began before the commencement date. For these hearings, the old act continues to apply to the hearing until it is completed.
Part 3 of the bill makes the necessary repeals and consequential amendments to the current Evidence Act. The explanatory statement explains in considerable detail which sections of the current act have been repealed and which sections of the Uniform Act replace them.
Part 4 of the bill moves section 39 of the current Evidence Act to the Administration and Probate Act where it better belongs. This section goes beyond the general law of evidence and provides that once a court has granted probate or letters of administration, the fact of the grant is evidence of the due execution of the will itself.
Part 5 deals with technical amendments to various Northern Territory acts.
There are a number of areas of evidence law where the Uniform Act will not apply and both the common law and existing Northern Territory acts continue to apply. In this regard, I propose to mention only one area, that being the law concerning sexual offences, as other areas are referred to in the explanatory statement.
All states and territories have laws which deal with evidence in criminal proceedings where someone is charged with a sexual offence. These laws regulate the examination of witnesses and the administration of evidence of their sexual history.
In the Northern Territory, the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act:
prohibits the administration of evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation, except with the leave of the court, if the court is satisfied that the evidence has substantial relevance to the facts in issue;
prevents the use of sexual history evidence to establish the complainant is the ‘type’ of person who is more likely to consent to sexual activity, except with the leave of the court, if the court is satisfied that the evidence has substantial relevance to the facts in issue; and
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debated adjourned.
SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 195)
(Serial 195)
Continued from 15 February 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, we in the opposition have no problems with this; this is simply commonsense legislation.
There are certain superannuation schemes over which the Northern Territory government has care and management including NTGPASS, the Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme, and one other which escapes me at the moment. I have sought a briefing from Treasury officials in relation to this. These schemes are, essentially, closed schemes. This means they do not accept new entries. Of course, the other scheme is LAMSS, the Legislative Assembly Members Superannuation Scheme. They do not accept new members and, so, it is a question of managing the schemes in an effective way whist these schemes wind down into the future. It just makes sense to go down this path.
I have been sufficiently well-comforted in the briefing that no member shall have a deleterious effect inflicted upon them as a result of the operation of this legislation. Indeed, I would expect, if there was such a deleterious effect, this legislation would be effectively struck down as being unlawful. You cannot promise something as a government which is, essentially, a property right, and then seek to take it away without settling it on just terms as required not only by the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, but also the Australian Constitution. Consequently, with those legal safeguards in mind, and the associated reassurance I have from the briefing I received, I am well satisfied this is a matter of good and principled management of superannuation schemes, rather than anything else.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as a consequence, the opposition has no issue with this bill and supports its passage.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support of the legislation. I was waiting because I know the Independent member for Nelson also sought a briefing; it is my advice he agrees that this is sensible legislation.
In summary, as articulated, the bill makes amendments to the Superannuation Act. As I said in the second reading speech, it expands the membership of the Superannuation Trustee Board to include representation from each of the three superannuation schemes for which the board will be responsible.
In late 2010, the Assembly passed amending legislation to combine these three separate boards: the NT Government and Public Authority Superannuation Scheme, known as NTGPASS; the Legislative Assembly Members Superannuation Scheme, known as LAMSS; and the Northern Territory Police Supplementary Benefits Scheme, known as NTPSBS, to create a single trustee board to oversee the investments of their members’ funds.
The new governance arrangements commenced on 15 March 2011 to allow further consultation with stakeholders on the final composition of the Superannuation Trustee Board, and to facilitate a seamless transition to the new governance regime during the formal transfer of agreements and investment to the Superannuation Trustee Board.
As the schemes are all now closed, the bill provides a mechanism for reviewing the composition of the board to ensure it remains representative as membership declines in the future. We have ensured that we have expanded the current board membership from six members - three members and three alternative members - to nine members, all appointed by the minister to ensure representation from each of those superannuation schemes. To ensure a quorum for a meeting there must be at least five of the nine members, which must include a chairperson or a deputy chairperson, plus a union-nominated member and an employer-nominated member. We will be appointing members for five years, unless they resign or are terminated by the minister. Only the Under Treasurer will be permanently appointed.
We will be ensuring transitional provisions allow the former NTGPASS Board members and the police representative to become initial Superannuation Trustee Board members until expiry of their current membership. We will be ensuring the minister takes a regular review of the Superannuation Trustee Board to determine whether the composition remains appropriate, as membership will decline from each of the closed schemes. We have ensured there has been significant consultation on this with the relevant unions and the trustees from each of the previous boards. We provided briefings and extensive consultation on the structure of the governance arrangements, and have endorsed the proposed composition of the Superannuation Trustee Board. I can inform the House that relevant employer representatives, such as the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Commissioner for Police, were also consulted.
We fully believe there are absolutely no negative impacts on member funds or benefits. The expanded Superannuation Trustee Board establishes what we know will be a contemporary, flexible governance framework for the management of the Territory’s public sector superannuation funds.
The investment portfolio currently managed by the Superannuation Trustee Board is around $750m and it continues to grow. The recent global financial crisis has highlighted the need for superannuation trustees to have a good understanding of investment markets. The expansion of the Superannuation Trustee Board will ensure there are a sufficient number of board members to institute best practice investment and governance arrangements.
Scheme members will have greater confidence, as an expanded trustee board with a greater range of experience and expertise will be better placed to manage their retirement savings. Additionally, investment decisions will be made for a larger pool of funds and may lead to more cost-effective investment products for members. From a public perspective, the need for government and member confidence in the prudential and fiscal management of the Territory’s superannuation funds is extremely important, and there is a strong public expectation that members’ interests are protected.
Each of the three schemes are closed to new membership, so this bill requires the minister to undertake a regular review of the board to determine whether the composition remains appropriate as scheme membership declines. The review of the board will be aligned with the triennial actuarial review of each scheme. This will provide the minister with an independent assessment and include consideration of equal representation between employer and employee nominees, the number of scheme members, and the value of investments held for each of the three funds.
The review requires consultation with each of the nominating sponsors. Where the constitution of the board is no longer appropriate, the bill requires the minister to take all reasonable steps to have the legislation amended to ensure appropriate representation. For example, active NT Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme membership will cease when the 85 police officers remaining in the scheme retire and move from being contributing members to pension members. When an NT Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme member retires, the balance of their superannuation account is paid to the Central Holding Authority and their pension is paid directly from that source. This means when active membership ceases the NTPSBS fund that is managed by the STB will have a zero balance and there will no longer be any requirement to have any NTPSBS representatives on the board.
I can advise there are no costs associated with expanding the board, and one of the drivers of the reforms is the potential to create administrative efficiencies. The need for three separate boards to meet to consider similar fund investment issues will be reduced to one board, and this will result in more efficient use of resources associated with management of boards, including preparation of board papers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all past board members who have been involved and been through this process with us, who have been active participants in the consultations, and who have been very supportive. Ultimately, without their support we would not been able to meet this sensible administrative change in the three superannuation schemes that are closed to new members.
I also thank Monty and Kathleen for their tireless efforts in ensuring that superannuation administration within the NT is contemporary. They have been undertaking enormous superannuation reforms diligently and quietly within Treasury and, as each tranche of those reforms come to fruition, I am able to come before this parliament with legislative tools to give those reforms effect. This builds on the reforms of 2010 and closes off that element of the reforms. That said, we are still working to ensure all contemporary practices in superannuation management for the Northern Territory occur within Treasury.
With my thanks to Monty and Kathleen, and my thanks to all the outgoing board members, and the guidance of the Under-Treasurer in these reforms, I commend this legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
HOSPITAL NETWORKS GOVERNING COUNCILS BILL
(Serial 201)
(Serial 201)
Continued from 22 February 2012.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for, once again, taking an interest in the opposition’s amendments as he did with the poisons bill which passed through the House yesterday. He has done so with this, and I thank him. It is very important this amendment stand and is incorporated into this bill for a number of reasons. The amendment is that the annual report for the governing councils for the local hospital networks find its way into this parliament for scrutiny.
It is very important for a number of reasons. We just have to go back a couple of years and see what happened in about 2008 or 2009 when a number of hospital board annual reports failed to find their way into this parliament. That was a breach of the Hospital Boards Act, and the then Minister for Health found himself on the receiving end of a sacking - and appropriately so.
It is very important that such information finds its way into the parliament, and that all members of parliament are able to scrutinise the operations of a hospital, or at least as much as those operations are published in these reports such as waiting lists, emergency department waiting times, various financial records of the hospital, and the goings on of the hospital management through the boards. This is all part of the federal government’s health reform. I have said a number of times it is really far from reform; it is just a change in funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states and, indeed in this case, the Territory. So, it is hardly reform. It has morphed into what it is today.
The then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, announced, in chest-beating style in 2007, that he would reform Australia’s healthcare system through acute service delivery through the hospitals, and he was going to do it by 2009. That has since changed a number of times. As we know, in the political landscape since then, many things have changed quite dramatically. This is, in a sense, a watered-down version. Nonetheless, it enjoys some support from the opposition. We realise areas of our health service in our hospitals - particularly hospital service delivery –needs a tweak, and this may well go towards doing that.
We have always maintained our hospital health system in this country, particularly in the Northern Territory, does not require fundamental change or need to be reformed. What we need, and where we stand, is to strengthen our local hospital boards and local community engagement. If we have hospital boards and local community engagement with clout, then you will start to see the types of better health service delivery we all seek. As I have always said, head office - the Department of Health, based in Darwin - has to win the argument against the local hospital boards or, in this case, the governing councils - not the other way around which it is at the moment. In this case, the local community so desperately has to put their case forward and win the argument against the Department of Health. In other words, the department is right; you try to convince it otherwise. It should be the other way around. It should be that the local community is right, and you try to convince the department or the boards otherwise.
We believe that type of engagement and that kind of model will see a much better community engagement, a much better service delivery. No one knows their health service and their hospital service better than the local communities; those people who live and work in those communities.
That is why we have always maintained that hospital boards with clout or, in this case, local governing councils with serious clout, with some power, will provide a much better health service for Territorians than a centralised model - which is really, in a sense, what this is. I have to point out also that this started off with one local hospital network and, through engagement with communities, the Central Australian community spoke loud and clear, as they always do - and rightly so in this case - that they would settle for nothing less than a local hospital network for Central Australia. It is only appropriate, right, and just that Central Australia has its own local hospital network.
I shudder to think how our local hospitals such as Tennant Creek and Alice Springs and all the healthcare centres from Elliott down to the South Australian border would operate if it was dictated to by a Darwin local hospital network, or one single network operating out of Darwin. It would be totally unsatisfactory, and I do not think it would be functional at all.
With that said, this is pretty good legislation. However, there is a point I picked up after reading it, which is the accountability to the parliament. It is very important that this eventually comes back. The operations of the local governing councils need scrutiny by this parliament. That was conspicuous by its absence in the bill. In fact, the original bill - the bill as it stands without the amendment - essentially says a governing council of a hospital network must provide the minister with an annual report by 31 October each year. Nowhere in that clause 30 does it say that report must come back to the parliament for further scrutiny.
As I say, if it was not for that clause in the previous hospital boards network, we would still see the member for Johnston as the Health Minister - which would be a disaster for the Northern Territory community and the health sector across the NT. Thank goodness that clause was there because we now no longer have the member for Johnston as the Health Minister. I say we have someone who is far more competent - and that is saying something - as our Health Minister. It is very important this amendment be supported. I thank the member for Nelson for his interest and support.
Member for Nelson, I do not think it goes far enough. As it stands, it is 10 sitting days after the minister receives the report. Essentially, that is 10 sitting days after 31 October each year. That means that we will not see these annual reports until February of the following year, which is a long time. Anything could happen by then; it is a long time to start scrutinising the activities of the local governing council of a hospital.
The previous clause in the hospital boards report was quite appropriate. I believe that is where we should be going with this one; that is, before 30 September each year the board must give the report to the minister, and it must be tabled within 10 sitting days in the Legislative Assembly after the minister receives it. That means we would see those reports in this parliament by, at the very least, the last sitting day of that year.
In this case, we will not see those reports, depending on how the parliamentary calendar is structured, until the February sittings, possibly later, the following year. That is really five months or so after those reports have been compiled and handed to the minister. I would like to see that a bit neater. I would like to see the reports as soon as possible. In the previous act, 30 September was good because it meant 10 days after that was the last day of sittings for the year - maybe the second last. It meant the reports were in members’ hands in this parliament much sooner. Dragging it out until February, possibly even the March sittings, is too much.
While I appreciate the interest and the efforts the member for Nelson has gone to - and clearly he has spoken with the government and the government has conceded - I would have liked to have seen it go a little further. In the interests of all of us in this House - and, indeed, what is really important here, of course, is the healthcare of Territorians - if we are able to scrutinise the local governing councils annual reports much sooner that should lead to better healthcare and better service delivery for all of us. That is really what we are talking about here: we are talking about hospitals; people’s lives; people’s health; and people’s wellbeing. That is what is really important. That is why I would have liked to have seen those reports being available much sooner. Nevertheless, you cannot have everything in life and we have got somewhere with this: at the very least, these reports are coming back to the Legislative Assembly.
There is still a clause that the notifications of meeting outcomes will be published on websites. I will read that for the House:
- A governing council must prepare and publish on the Agency's website a summary of resolutions and meeting outcomes within 10 working days after the ratification of the minutes of a meeting or of a resolution as mentioned in section 22.
Coupled with this, that is a pretty good safeguard now. We should be able to see and scrutinise the outcomes of these meetings. While that is good, I believe as a standalone that was not quite good enough, hence the opposition’s interest in ensuring those reports make their way back to the Legislative Assembly. People might say we may be making a rod for our own back but, of course, we are interested in accountability and openness.
Eventually, if there is a change of government, for whoever might be the Health minister at the time, that might be a bit of a pain in the neck - but so be it, that is what it is all about. You need to be open, honest and accountable, not only to those people who put us there, but those people who rely on us to provide the best possible healthcare for Territorians. This is the way of doing that.
If there is some bad news in those reports, well then, so be it. In my view, that is the nature of the job. It cannot all be good news, and we cannot go ahead and start covering stuff up just because we do not like it and it might cause us to have a bad day ...
Mr Knight: Have you told Alison that?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am referring to the member opposite.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: I cannot quite hear what is happening over there.
Nevertheless, we believe this is pretty good as long as the governing councils remain local and focused - and we will be keeping a very close eye on this sort of thing. It needs to remain local. It is part of our principles and philosophy to empower the individual; the individual in this case is the local community. The local communities are best placed to make decisions on the health service delivery they require.
Madam Deputy Speaker, hospital boards with clout would have been a good thing. We did not need the whole health reform stuff; we could have just empowered our hospital boards and - God forbid! - we could have renumerated them. If this is the path we are now treading let us hope these local governing councils - are they called local governing councils or are they just governing councils? They might be – no, it is just a governing council. Well, I am going to call it a local governing council because it should be local governing councils. Let us hope they remain local and people in the community have ample say in their health service delivery.
Thank you, member for Nelson, for accepting the amendment, or at least listening to the concerns of the opposition. I would have liked to see it go a little further. Nevertheless, at least these reports are now coming back to the parliament for scrutiny.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was interested in hearing the member for Greatorex debate on this issue. An old Irish priest I knew used to say ‘count your blessings one by one’. Not everything works out exactly how you want it sometimes, but I still think it was a good outcome.
I thank the department for its briefings. This is a new concept for managing hospitals, and it has come out of the National Health Reform Agreement. Whether you agree with that or not, that is the agreement made by governments to have these networks set up, and that is where we are going with this particular bill. I believe it is worth reading out the purpose of the act:
(1) The main purpose of this Act is to achieve improved health outcomes for Territorians in the public hospital system.
(2) This purpose is to be achieved by establishing local hospital networks for the National Health Reform Agreement and governing councils for those networks.
That is in the bill. If the purpose is to do the things it is said to do – that is, to achieve improved outcomes for Territorians in the public health system - there needs to be a mechanism which questions the status of our public hospital system in the Northern Territory today and, in 12 or 24 months time, the status of our health outcomes for Territorians in the public health system. This bill makes the statement that there is a purpose for these changes. If one is to say today this is a fantastic change, in 12 or 24 months time the same person should say this is working.
It is no good us having legislation for the sake of legislation. If we are going to have these changes, then someone has to prove, in a specified time, that has actually happened. If it has happened, you know all the work in establishing these networks and these governing councils has been worthwhile. If we come back in two or three years time and find things have gone backwards, one would question whether the system we are putting in place today is going to achieve that.
I am not trying to be negative about what has been put forward. I am saying the bill has a purpose, and that purpose needs to be looked at in the future to see whether it is occurring, otherwise we are fooling ourselves. We are just introducing things because the Commonwealth said, in conjunction with all the ministers, this was the way to improve things.
I have seen many bills go through this parliament that have reasons: ‘This will achieve this; this will achieve that’. It would be nice to have an independent person go back through all the bills that have said something like that and see whether they have achieved what they set out to do. Obviously, in some cases, that would be true. In this case, we have a clear purpose and it would be good to see if, in years to come, that has been achieved.
We have established a hospital network. Clause 5(2) says:
- Each of the entities established by subsection (1) is a Government Business Division for the Financial Management Act.
Clause 5(3) states:
- However, subsection (2) does not require a hospital network to recover any of its operating costs through charges on users.
What has caused confusion about the annual reports is you now have hospital networks being set as GBDs, and they have a requirement to report to parliament. Within this particular bill, you have a set of annual reports to be written by the governing councils which are part of the hospital network. The report they write should be, logically, part of the GBD’s report. The only concern I had about that was when I looked at the Financial Management Act on which the GBD would report. It does not clearly say some of the matters in the annual reports for the governing council fit into the requirements of the Financial Management Act - they are fairly broad parts that are required to be reported on by the governing councils.
Perhaps this bill could have been better worded; that the annual reports were to simply be part of the GBD’s annual report because that would still have to come to parliament and been scrutinised. We have added this bit on which may reflect what the previous hospital boards did. However, we have a new framework which is that the hospital networks under which governing councils operate will be a GBD. GBDs, as you know, report to parliament - they have annual reports. The Darwin Port Authority is a GBD; it has an annual report. The Parks and Wildlife is a GBD and has an annual report within NRETAS. Maybe that side of it could have been better done.
Be that as it may, it is in here and the concerns of the member for Greatorex are well founded, because it leaves one feeling: where did this annual report go? Did it really fit in to the requirements of the Financial Management Act the GBDs had to work under, or was it going to be left out there in the hands of the minister - not knocking the minister, it could be any minister? Where would that report end up if there were some bad stories in there about a particular hospital?
In the end, I agree with what the member for Greatorex said about the 10 days. At least it is coming to parliament and, if people have a concern about it, it will be there. I expect that, regardless of whether it comes as an annual report, it will be included in the report of the GBD because the governing councils and the hospital networks are intrinsically combined. I do not think the CEO of the hospital networks is going to put out a report on hospital networks without knowing what the governing councils are doing. I believe you will get two reports. One will be in the GBD and one will be an independent report - which is probably the same report, as it is in this bill because that is the way it has been set up. At least that will be available to parliament as a separate item.
I am not saying that is the perfect way for it to all happen - and that is the difficulty I had trying to work out whether it was actually going to be available to the public. After a bit of toing and froing - and I thank the minister for listening to the concerns and appreciate that sometimes, at a late hour, these are difficult things. Although, I must admit if Parliamentary Counsel found it difficult to write that, I will go he. That is not a difficult amendment. However, I appreciate that the government has come on board with that. It clears the air and we do not get sidetracked too much with that particular issue, which is important, but we need to also focus on what has been put before us today.
It will be interesting to see how the governing councils work. They have a role to work with the community. The Executive Director, the CEO, the minister, and the Medicare local for the Territory have a strategic direction which is consistent with the health needs of its community - the health priorities of the Territory government and the priorities of the agency. There are certainly plenty of guidelines for the roles and functions of the governing councils, and that is important. They have a major role, and that is sometimes forgotten here.
When we had the discussions on the annual reports, we tried to compare the governing councils with the advisory board for the port - that would be a good example - and you have about a page. There is the advisory board for Tourism NT, and you have a page.
The governing councils have a bit more oomph than those particular boards. I will read what their strategic functions are:
(a) in conjunction with the Executive Director of the network – lead the development of a strategic plan with a health improvement focus, including the development of vision, values and goals for the network; and
(b) regularly review and update the strategic plan; and
(c) encourage innovation to improve health outcomes; and
(d) contribute, at a policy level, to:
(i) annual budget reviews and planning; and
(ii) long-term budget priorities, including master planning and capital budget planning; and
(e) in conjunction with the Executive Director of the network – propose and consider strategies to improve the transition of patients between primary, secondary and tertiary health care providers.
That is much more important than the advisory board you have on the port or on Tourism NT. I am not saying they are not important, but this particular advisory board - and we will call it the governing council - plays a key role in how our hospital networks will function. Even though we have had some argy-bargy about when that annual report should be released and whether it will fit into the GBD, it is a very important annual report.
The annual report must address several issues. One is the governing council’s annual work plan. The annual work plan, for instance, will, I imagine, take into account the functions of the governing councils. That would be a clear area, you would have thought, for the work plan of the council. I am looking for the issue on work plan. Regardless of that, you know the work plan would have to deal with the strategic functions. If they are to report that work plan as a part of that annual report, then you would expect a reasonable amount of detail which would be about reporting on how that annual work plan is going.
They also talk about the activities and achievement of the network. Once again, the council would be, I imagine, discussing things like the strategic plan, and whether there has been an improvement of the transition of patients between primary secondary and tertiary. They must report on long-term budget priorities including master planning and capital budget planning. The report must also include an audited financial statement in relation to any trust money held by any government in council.
Whilst it might look like a little clause in relation to the annual report, what is written there is quite broad. One would hope the annual report will have a reasonable amount of detail so people looking at it can see what that governing council has done, and what its views are on areas such as the strategic development of our hospital networks.
One of the good things in this bill is clause 23, as mentioned by the member for Greatorex. We might talk about the annual reports and any complexities in relation to GBDs, but this is the most important for people to find out what is going on. It says:
Notification of meeting outcomes
- A governing council must prepare and publish on the Agency's website a summary of resolutions and meeting outcomes within 10 working days after the ratification of the minutes of a meeting or of a resolution as mentioned in section 22.
I presume they will have their own website spot within the Health Department, and what they write there does not have to be checked by the CEO; that this will be the governing council’s own area, and they can publish the resolutions and meeting outcomes. People who have an interest in what is happening on their governing council should be looking at this site on a regular basis. That will give you up-to-date information. The problem with annual reports, like any annual report, is that it comes later. It comes at least three months down the track - in this case, it might even come later than that - but it is nearly out of date by the time you get to read it. This will allow people to have an understanding of governing councils in the immediate. If we are talking about openness and transparency, that is an excellent addition to the act.
I mentioned the annual work plan and that it would have to be reported on in the annual report. I will read that clause to show you how important that annual work plan is:
- 26 Annual work plan for governing councils
(2) The proposed work plan for the upcoming financial year must be presented to the Minister for his or her approval by 1 May before the financial year starts.
That will not apply in the first year because, if you read the whole bill - I was a bit concerned about how you were going to get it done by 1 May - in Division 2, Transition matters, for the first time the governing councils operate under clause 39:
- In the first year of operation of the governing councils, the proposed work plan for each council must be submitted to the Minister by 1st of September of that year.
This makes sense. I know this is the way things are drafted, but I do not know why that little clause could not have been in brackets. However, it is not for me to question Parliamentary Counsel. It just goes to show that when you are referring to the annual report, the report must address matters in the governing council’s annual work plan. That is a fairly important thing to be reported on. For those people who are interested in what is happening, I believe there should be a reasonable amount of information for people to have an understanding of what has been happening over that last year.
The other interesting area was the setting up of advisory groups. Clause 32:
(1) A governing council of a hospital network may establish advisory groups from interested persons, including persons employed within the network, to assist the council to perform its functions.
That also opens it up so you do not have this network that necessarily turns up somewhere or relies on itself for information. It can actually set up advisory groups to help the governing council obtain advice and assist in the performance of its functions. I believe that should be noticed, because it is also part of a reporting process to make the governing councils and the networks work more efficiently.
I go back to the original statement I made at the beginning: the main purpose of this bill is to achieve improved health outcomes for Territorians in the public health system. If I was to look at this broadly - having governing councils, advisory boards, reporting on the website, annual reports, and being required to report through GBDs - with all that scrutiny occurring and with expert people on these governing councils - I believe there is a section on the membership for these councils; they are looking for people who are in Indigenous health, community development, health leadership, business or finance, community engagement, academic, teaching or research, primary healthcare or governance - if you get a good combination of those people, you would hope the governing council will be a council that has expertise, which is what you need, and has the skills, knowledge, and experience to ensure it provides advice and strategic planning for those hospital networks.
If you look at this bill overall, there are the foundations for change and improving health outcomes for Territorians. The proof will be in the pudding. Will the government be able to say this was the status of health in the Northern Territory in March 2012, and come back in 2014 and show improved health outcomes? That is a good reason for passing this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the department for its briefings. I support the legislation.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank both speakers on this important legislation.
Let us remember that what this government inherited in 2001 was a system that was in place for 27 years. In 27 years of CLP government, the CLP never actually thought about health reform or establishing separate boards to govern the two really clear geographical areas of the Northern Territory. In addition to that, they had hospital boards and, in some cases, they were struggling to find people to fill the vacancies on them. The reason the reports were not tabled is because out of 12 meetings they had to have a year, some of them had one, two or three members, and some of them did not even have a quorum. So, this is a significant step forward.
I recall very well the debate we had about hospital networks. I insisted we would listen to the community - exactly what the member for Greatorex is asking now - instead of me appointing two, three or four, or even one hospital network. It was my will that there would be local input. That is why we have two local hospital networks.
We have now established these networks as GBDs, government business divisions. If I had my way, my preference would be something like Victoria, where the original boards are appointed; the minister allocates funds; they run the whole hospital; but they also hold responsibility. If things go wrong, the minister is not standing in front of everybody in parliament to answer the questions about those hospitals. He refers them to the board, and the board has to come up with the answers, because the board is adequately funded. Of course, the board then has to hold responsibility for the funding, for the allocation.
You cannot have it both ways; you cannot have an independent body. You provide the finance, the power, and the legislative backing. At the same time these guys say: ‘It is not our fault; it is the minister’s fault’. As you said yesterday, you have to accept personal responsibility, either as a person or as a group.
The GBD model was agreed upon with the Commonwealth government after lengthy community consultation. The government business divisions are discrete entities, and have an agreed governance mechanism. The networks can use the Department of Health and share services, thus reducing costs, and allow for separate performance reporting. It also allows for ongoing employment of hospital network staff as Northern Territory government employees.
The challenge for the future is to find suitable people from the community and get them in the local hospital network or the governing councils. We had problems having and maintaining people on the hospital boards; however, the governing councils can now have people from the old hospital boards be part of the new governing councils. They will work together with the department’s chief executive and the hospital network executive director to oversee the performance and capability of the hospital network against agreed targets. They are not going to be totally dependent; they will work with the department. They have to work with the department; after all, funding will come from the department. We have agreed on this with the Commonwealth.
We will have a very close relationship with the governing councils. We have to have a working relationship in order to provide the best service for the areas they govern - Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, all the health clinics and facilities south of Elliott and, of course, the northern one will have responsibility for Katherine, Royal Darwin Hospital, Gove, and all the health clinics and facilities north of Elliott.
The governing councils have reporting responsibilities written into the bill so the business they are dealing with is available to the community they represent. As the member for Greatorex said, clause 23 requires the governing council to publish on the Department of Health website a summary of the resolutions and meeting outcomes within 10 working days of the verification of the minutes of the meeting. That means every month their minutes will be ratified and will be available on the website for everybody to see.
The level of reporting has not previously been available. A report is tabled in parliament every year for the hospital boards. I do not know how many people, apart from us here in parliament, and some of the health staff, will look at the reports. Is the public really interested in those reports? They are probably interested in how well the hospital performs and are interested to go to the hospital and receive good service rather than reading the report of the board. However, they will be available every month. Also, the governing council, every six months, will report on their annual work plan and provide an annual report to the minister.
The member for Greatorex said there is no fixed requirement to table the annual report within the bill, and the community will not be informed of the business of the governing council. I believe the governing council is an advisory committee for the GBD of the hospital network. It has no financial or commercial responsibility for the hospital network. Formal financial and operating reporting of the GBD is a legislative requirement, and this annual report must be provided by the department’s chief executive to the minister for tabling in parliament.
Therefore, because of what the governing councils do, there is no formal requirement for an advisory committee - which will be the governing council - to have an annual report tabled. However, I discussed this with - I do not have a problem; it does not make any difference if it is going to be tabled in parliament or tabled through the annual report of the department. There will be no difference and there is nothing for the minister to hide. It is not my decision. If there is going to be criticism of their decisions, it is going to be directed towards them. I proposed an amendment where we will follow the example we have now with the hospital board’s annual report: given to the minister and, within 10 sitting days, it will be tabled in parliament. That will overcome any problems people may perceive.
It is a big step forward. We have never had something like this in the Territory. I believe, with the amendment, it will satisfy any doubts people opposite may have.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to go to committee stage so I can propose the amendment.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
_________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we move into committee stage, I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Katherine South Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Marina Faulkner and Mr Eddie O’Heir. On behalf of honourable members, I extend you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Hospital Networks Governing Councils Bill 2012 (Serial 201), together with schedule of amendments No 76, circulated by the Minister for Health, Mr Vatskalis.
Clauses 1 to 29, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: Could I just speak on clause 16 please?
Madam CHAIR: Yes, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Just a clarification, minister, on clause 16. It is about the establishment of a panel comprised of representatives from the agency and stakeholders of the relevant hospital network. Is the CEO, himself or herself, part of that panel?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, he is not.
Mr WOOD: Okay, that was all, thank you.
Clauses 1 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 76.1, to insert, after clause 30(3):
- (4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in the Legislative Assembly within 10 sitting days after the Minister receives the report.
Mr CONLAN: Very quickly, minister, I noticed in your reply that it did not make any difference to you about tabling the report in the Legislative Assembly: you have nothing to hide, it is all well and good, and you were quite prepared for scrutiny by the Assembly. I was just wondering, in that case then, if you are quite nonchalant about it, would you consider amending that again to ‘within five sitting days after the minister receives the report’, so we actually receive it by the end of the year? If it makes no difference, if there is no difference, then what is the difference?
Mr VATSKALIS: Currently, the minister is required to table the report by the hospital board within 10 days. I do not want to change it. I will leave it as it is because it is already the norm. So, I will leave it as it is.
Mr CONLAN: No, that is all right. I just wondered, if it made no difference to you, the 10-day period is just 10 days; it could well be five days. I thought if it was no concern to you - you said in your second reading speech that you are not bothered either way, you are quite prepared to do it. So, I thought, put your money where your mouth is, and why not make it five days?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, considering every month the webpage of the department will have all the minutes and everything else, the waiting period will be – how can I put it? – hypothetical, because you will be able to actually see in October, November, December, and in January the governing council’s minutes, and you will be aware what is happening.
Mr CONLAN: We have to take your word that what is appearing on the website is the information that will appear in the annual reports. The member for Nelson and I both raised concerns that there may be information in those annual reports that does not appear on the website, hence, our concern and our insistence that this report finds its way back into the Legislative Assembly. As a result, minister, I was just trying to call you out. You said you did not care; you were not concerned, you are more than happy to have the reports tabled in the Legislative Assembly. I thought while I have the chance to directly ask you a question and get a response, if you truly meant what you said five minutes ago, then why not bring it forward to five days instead of 10? However, I guess that is not going to happen.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, again, regarding this suspicion about what will be in the annual report might not be what the governing council will provide, first of all, the governing council will be independent, so they will guard their independence with fervour. If, at the end of the day, any member of the public is suspicious, there is always freedom of information.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, we are quite justified in our suspicion considering we did not receive annual reports for a number of years under the previous Health Minister, hence our insistence that it is legislated that these reports do come back. Again, if what is reported in the monthly website updates - or whatever they are under clause 30 - is the same information that is in the annual report, all well and good. However, at the same time, we want to see that report come back to parliament. We need a mechanism so someone is ultimately responsible, and that responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Health Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DARWIN WATERFRONT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 198)
(Serial 198)
Continued from 15 February 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I respond to these proposed amendments to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act and, at the outset, indicate that we do not have major issues with them. I do not want to take the bills into committee, but I will pose several questions which have already been touched upon in the second reading speech. If the minister is able to answer those questions succinctly or clearly in his second reading response, then I expect we will not go into the committee stages - otherwise I will have to drag the thing into the committee stages. I ask the minister to pay attention to those particular issues to save this House some time.
The legislative instrument before the House seeks to amend the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act, specifically in two areas. The first is in relation to an anomalous relationship that exists between it and the Unit Title Schemes Act of the Northern Territory. The anomalies arise out of the operation of section (15)(3)(a) and section 15(3)(b). There is a wording issue that creates this anomalous situation which has a lack of clarity attached to it, and it is in this area that my particular questions arise.
Specifically, the current arrangements are that unit owners pay rates at the same rate as the Darwin City Council rates. However, the corporation has seen fit to exercise its prerogatives under the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act to exert a 20% levy in favour of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation. That is part of the act, and we will not go into the nuances and politics surrounding a 20% extra levy because that is beside the point for the purposes of this discussion. What I want to make absolutely clear in here, with certainty from the Chief Minister, is that as a result of the operation of this legislative instrument, should this bill pass, those arrangements will not change. Essentially, those people who live at the waterfront are levied their normal rates as UCV in accordance with the normal operation of the Darwin City Council, as a comparator, and that the body corporate, which is essentially the corporate structure, actually pays the 20% levy. As I understand it, there are some issues surrounding the payment of that 20% levy at the moment.
What I seek from the Chief Minister is reassurance that does not change, so there is no capacity, as a result of this - and I do not read it in here by the way, but it is just for clarity sake - that there is no intention for 20% to be levied against individual homeowners or specific unit owners. If I can seek and get those assurances from the minister during his reply, I see no point in taking this matter into committee.
The second issue deals with the consistency with the Local Government Act. Needless to say, the collection of taxation, in any of its forms, including rates, is a matter that attracts great legislative scrutiny. Governments like to collect money from a public which is unwilling to give money and, consequently, legislative instruments need to be very carefully drafted so the capacity for people to avoid their rating obligations is not avoided.
This is, basically, a series of amendments to deal with the issue of consistency with the Local Government Act so the corporation has the power - and I am going to read from the second reading speech:
- The corporation has the power to levy rates, and it is intended the corporation should be capable of enforcing rates in a manner consistent with bodies under the Local Government Act.
This bill inserts those provisions. We have no problem with that. I am a great champion of normalisation, as far as possible, with what goes on at the waterfront. I look forward to the new Lord Mayor striking up a full discourse with the Northern Territory government so the waterfront can be incorporated within the municipality of Darwin and the anomalous situation that exists at the moment does not continue. However, that is a debate for another day.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the Chief Minister’s response. I noted he carefully penned down my questions, and I hope I get a fulsome and unequivocal answer in this area and we can deal with this matter quickly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Department of Justice for its briefing. I would like to tell them I still have this beautiful diagram they gave me, handwritten, trying to explain what this whole bill is about. It is certainly not easy for a lay person to understand the contents of the bill.
I do not have any problems with the bill per se, but I believe it is an opportunity to talk about some of the issues. For instance, we have Division 2, General matters, clause 39, Rateability of plan in Precinct. I believe I have mentioned before the Boston Tea Party - taxation without representation. It is an important issue when you are talking about the Darwin waterfront. The people there are being rated. You could apply the same argument to people who come under the East Arm port area. There are people there who pay rates but are, basically, not represented by anybody in a democratic form they can say is their representative body for that area.
As the member for Port Darwin said, the sooner this area can be brought into the Darwin municipality the better. Darwin has some concerns about the cost of the pool. To me, a solution about that is, as at Leanyer water park and Palmerston water park, the government just controls the wave pool and it is not a function of the council.
I hope the people in this area eventually have some democratic rights in relation to local government which, in itself, is then about rates; that they have the ability to have a say on what is going on.
In the rate notice for the year it says:
- ... for any other land 20% of the rate imposed on that land under paragraph (a) of this declaration.
If I was a ratepayer I would be asking them what that means. I do not know whether Darwin City Council - if we talk about uniformity - has a clause like that. I am interested to know what that 20% extra levy on people on the Darwin waterfront is.
I do not have a problem with the changes. It is important we are talking about the heading ‘General matters, rateability of land in the precinct’. You are dealing with an issue that has some underlying principles - the rating of people in those areas. I am unsure how many members of the board live at the waterfront. I know the chair does, but that still does not give any direct representation. It would have been nice, if when setting up this board, it included elected representatives - people who had commercial or residential interests in the waterfront. It would have given people in that area some direct say in what was happening with regard to rates.
That is what councils do: they have elected representatives and those elected representatives, every year, work out what the rates should be. Unfortunately, people in the waterfront area do not have a direct say and, therefore, are subject to a notice by the chief executive of the waterfront - and that is it. I hope, even though I do not have a problem with some of the other matters in this act, if we are talking about rates we cannot avoid the fact that people should have some direct say in how rates are levied, what they are levied for, and they do that through a democratic body which is called a council.
I support what the member for Port Darwin said. If we cannot get some form of democratic process with the existing board we have to represent people in that area, then the sooner we move on to Darwin City Council taking over that enclave – the Darwin port area should come under the same bracket because there are people who live in that area, people who pay rates in that area, but they do not pay it to a democratically elected body. That area should either belong to Palmerston or Darwin City Council, and that gives uniformity, as the member for Port Darwin said. Uniformity is important in this case. We need to look at that area as well.
Madam Acting Speaker, I support the legislation going through today. I also thank the Department of Justice, especially for their diagrams. Believe it or not, I appreciate that people have made the effort to put it down on paper; it is not easy to understand. I appreciate the time the department has put into explaining what is fairly difficult to understand, and putting it into a less difficult form. It is not easy to understand even now, but at least I have a better understanding.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have an interest in this bill. I debated similar issues with the member for Port Darwin on a GBD in February, I believe. Let me preface my remarks about this bill to extol the virtues and the wonder of the waterfront of which I am proud.
I am retiring; the next chapter begins after August. I will not be standing in the next election. If I look at solid infrastructure of real benefit to the city of Darwin that I was involved in, I can look back at the waterfront. I was given the task, as a fairly new Minister for Construction and Infrastructure, to oversee and take responsibility in relation to the construction of the waterfront, the Convention Centre, and the ancillary works as well.
There were difficulties around planning, and we debated that in this House. There were some objections. There were some residents who were not happy about the waterfront; they felt it might ruin their view and make a lot of noise during construction. They had genuine concerns. I can remember going along to a number of residents’ houses and meeting with them, standing on their back verandah overlooking the site. It was a construction site at that time. I believe we moved to assure those residents about this particular project.
Now, I would be very surprised if residents in that area have any major objections to that development, because I believe it adds to the amenity of their property. It is a great area and, basically, it would increase the value of their property. That was one challenge.
There were also challenges by the opposition - and the opposition members, in this sense, were doing their job - about the cost and the nature of the project. I remember meeting with all types of entities, including merchant bankers and others, on this issue. Up to that stage, I had not had much to do with merchant bankers - that is a different world again. However, looking back on my time as a minister over the last 10 years, I have had the privilege, through various portfolio areas, to meet many different people and learn about things I would never have learnt about before. That, to me, has been a real privilege and an honour, to try to represent the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory.
I believe the Convention Centre and the developments there such as the wave pool were controversial. I did not get to go overseas and test the different wave forms that existed in the United States, but I trust we have the right wave pattern. It certainly is used by both Territorians and visitors to the Northern Territory, and it not only compares well, it has it all over that area in Cairns. It has an open pool there. Our area has much more amenity, and much more history.
Whilst that area does have history – I understand it was the place where Goyder landed and set up camp, or was probably one of the places he set up camp. It has European history, but it also has very important Indigenous history. We hear about that many times. I have heard about it many times from the Larrakia people, particularly with their Welcome to Country they give in that wonderful venue at the entertainment centre ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Speaker! It is about the issue of digression. He has not yet once mentioned the word ‘rates’, and he is banging on about stuff utterly unrelated to this bill. I would hate to think the minister is using digression as a vehicle to get this bill through to lunch - and digression should not be used for that purpose. So, if the minister can come to the issues in the bill, that is well and good. However, using digression to avoid alerting the media they have run out of business by lunch is not a fair vehicle.
Dr BURNS: Well, Madam Acting Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Leader of Government Business, there is a certain degree of latitude in the debate, but I ask you to address the bill, please.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will abide by your direction because I respect the Chair and your rulings. I was merely trying to set a context – a wonderful context – of the area there ...
Mr Elferink: Oh, we have run out of business by lunch! Oh, my God!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … a context the opposition never wanted - ‘Scrap the Waterfront Call’, and revert to a 1999 model which probably did not even include any residential developments there. However, I digress.
We have established the residential development there, and I have to say – and I hope I am not called on relevance on this – whilst the opposition did its job as an opposition in questioning and, possibly, even opposing the developments there, the Darwin City Council, under former Lord Mayor and former minister in the CLP government, Mr Peter Adamson, who, as mayor, was really strident in his opposition and tried to put many obstacles in the way of that development. As the member for Port Darwin has alluded to previously, the council did not want to take on responsibility ...
Mr Elferink: Oh look, I am no champion of that decision, by the way.
Dr BURNS: That is right. I believe the Chief Minister has foreshadowed further talks. We have a new council, and let us open up those talks. I am not sure whether the member for Port Darwin has had talks with the council on this particular issue ...
Mr Elferink: I have mentioned it to a couple of aldermen already.
Dr BURNS: So, you have never gone along to a formal council meeting and put the case, as a local member, to the council? You have no doubt written to them, member for Port Darwin?
Mr Elferink: I have spoken to the old Lord Mayor; I have spoken to the current Lord Mayor.
Dr BURNS: So, you have been at a function somewhere and you have mentioned it in passing, but you have not written to council ...
Mr Elferink: No, no. I had a meeting with him about the issue and we sat down specifically to talk about it for an hour.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Oh good, well that is a good meeting. So I withdraw that assertion that it might have just been a passing conversation. But in a formal sense, you have not taken it up with council. I was skewered by Jo Sangster in the last election for writing too much to council and raising issues with council. I do not take a backward step; I am always willing to raise important issues formally with council in correspondence as local member.
No doubt, the member for Port Darwin will write. He will raise the issue and seek to meet formally with the new council. Hopefully, he will get a good hearing, and we can have productive discussions with the council ...
Mr Elferink: And I add Jamey Robertson and Ian Fraser to that list to make sure that everyone knew my ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call.
Mr Elferink: That is true; I do not, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr BURNS: I do not mind picking up the interjection.
Mr Elferink: Thank you, I wanted to get it in there.
Dr BURNS: We accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have a development there and residents at the waterfront. Until we can move some time in the future with the council - the council being willing, of course, to take on the responsibility. They have questions about the wave pool, about a whole range of things, so it could be quite a protracted negotiation. The council will look at its financial exposure in such discussions.
So in the interim, no matter how long that might take, it behoves government to make sure the Darwin Waterfront Corporation is operating as it should be. That is what these amendments really aim to do. There is a whole range of issues enshrined in the original Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act, and I will not go over that. Basically, the corporation has functions to develop, manage, and service the Darwin Waterfront Precinct for the benefit of the community - and aren’t they doing a fantastic job in relation to that; the Harmony Day Soiree the other day was a tangible example of the corporation operating under the act we are debating here today - to promote the precinct as a place of residence and business, and a venue for public events and entertainment. They are doing that in spades. I have to confess I have not really explored all the venues down there, but I have been to a few. It is a great precinct and there are many interstate visitors who really praise that area and say it has made their stay. Many residents there, whom I know personally, really enjoy living at the Darwin waterfront.
The functions of the corporation include among other things - as the Chief Minister said in his second reading speech - to preserve the good order of the precinct; to do anything for the provision of municipal services in the precinct; to do anything for the development and maintenance of other civic amenities and facilities in the precinct, including the staging of public events; and the corporation is similar to councils.
The member for Port Darwin is quite right: the people there currently - whilst they can have input into the corporation - it is not exactly the same as other citizens in Darwin who had the pleasure - some of them might not have seen it that way - of voting in the local government elections last week. That is something, as government, we will certainly work with council to look for a way through. There is a range of functions around sanitation, garbage collection, street cleaning, roads and footpaths, public places, storm drainage, street lighting, etcetera, as well as maintenance of the quality of water in the recreational lagoon and wave pool.
As the Chief Minister said, this particular bill is aimed at correcting a technical anomaly between the Darwin Waterfront Corporation and the Unit Title Schemes Act. Looking back, once again, to my experience as a Planning minister, I think I was the one who introduced or developed the revised unit title schemes. It is quite complex legislation. As I think about it more, the Deputy Chief Minister might have actually had carriage of that legislation within this House. I know in my time in that portfolio area, there was a great deal of consultation. It is a complex issue, given the nature of developments with commercial and residential. It is certainly complex legislation, so we needed to correct that technical anomaly. As the Chief Minister also said, we need to bring the act into line with the Local Government Act relating to the enforcement of rates.
Section 15(7) of the act was amended to refer to units in a scheme, a reference to a unit development under the plan of Unit Title Schemes Act, as well as units in a plan. Based on the current wording of section 15(7), it is not clear that the corporation can levy rates directly on the owner of a unit and, at the same time, levy rates on common property at the highest level of the scheme. That is what these amendments are seeking to do. The advice government received was that if we did not correct this it could have large impacts on the corporation, both administratively and financially. As government, we need to safeguard the financial health and stability of the corporation, and also to ensure it is able to administer its functions in the way it was intended. That is an important consideration.
Currently, the corporation has the power to levy rates. It was always intended that the corporation should be capable of enforcing rates in a manner that is very similar to the Local Government Act.
This bill inserts some provisions into the act in relation to unpaid rates. The unpaid rates can be deemed to be a charge on the land. The corporation will be able to allow the occupier of land, such as a hotel chain - there is a very successful hotel there now on a long-term lease. They are able to do that also.
Last, they will be able to levy rates on a proportional basis where land becomes rateable. These are very important functions. A number of ancillary provisions relating to the administration and enforcement of rates have been identified.
This is very important legislation. The member for Port Darwin has taken a very healthy and appropriate interest in this. This is his constituency, part of the electorate of Port Darwin and, no doubt, he is putting forward the views of a number people who reside at the waterfront. You are the local member, no doubt you are approached by people. In my travels, I have not picked up a large call on these particular issues. No doubt, there are people down there who are quite concerned. I have spoken to people I know who live there. They do not seem to share the same concern. They are mainly younger people and they are probably enjoying all the amenities there, so they do not seem to be too worried about the issues you have raised. However, you raised them here in all seriousness and I know the Chief Minister will respond in all seriousness.
To conclude, I am not trying to digress, but it is a wonderful area. As much as possible, we want everyone to be happy there. It is a great development. In my retirement, you might see a poor old bloke with a floppy hat on and a fishing rod, fishing off the end of the rock wall there, and you will say: ‘Oh look, there is Burnsy there’. I will be very happy, because I will be looking back at that wonderful Convention Centre, and the wonderful developments. I will be trying to keep my eyes away from the wave pool because I am too old to swim now. Many people go to the wave pool and have a great time. We live in a great city and it is part of a great city.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as government, we are keen to support the resident there, but we also have a responsibility in regard to the corporation. That is what we are doing through these amendments. I commend the bill to the House.
_________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Darwin HomeSchool Network students accompanied by their parents. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to have the home school students here today. We have had some quite different groups of students through this week, and it has been great for them to see the workings of our parliament. We had children from Singapore in yesterday, and it was really great to see them coming to Darwin. Darwin is going to be the Singapore of Australia. It was great to have those, mostly ex-pat Australian kids there.
I have a keen interest in this legislation because of the legislation itself, but also my previous roles as Local Government minister and Business minister. This subject was brought up on a regular basis and, in my role as the Business minister, I had a great deal of representation from certain members of the Property Council in and around what is and is not CBD. At the moment, the CBD is viewed as not including the waterfront. However, it certainly is an attraction. The evolution of the waterfront needs to occur, and this is what this legislation does.
The council’s current and previous administrations have been very reluctant to take on responsibility of the waterfront. It is evolving. It is a great facility. When you look at other facilities across Australia of a similar nature - I always get confused whether it is Sunnybank or Southbank in Brisbane ...
A member: Southbank.
Mr KNIGHT: Southbank. That is a great facility. Other types of developments like this in capital cities have been taken on by a local council. It will be very interesting to see what the makeup of the new council is and whether it adopts that position as well. Yes, we have lost the mayor, but there is still a large majority of previous councillors.
Personally, it is a shame the council cannot be an advocate for the waterfront and be seen as a part of the city, because it is a huge feature of the city. There will be some home school kids from Darwin, but some out of Darwin - the kids from Singapore would have visited the waterfront. Whenever we have visitors coming to Darwin from interstate or overseas that is the place we take them. They love the wave pool and the growing number of restaurants and retail outlets there. It is getting to that stage of evolution that the businesses there are a real destination.
I struggle with the parking there and the nature of parking fees after closing hours in and around functions at the Convention Centre. There are no operations of the waterfront going ahead, but the Convention Centre and people attending functions need those spaces. Parking at the waterfront is an area of concern. This bill goes towards making a number of changes with respect to that.
I will talk about section 3 which is being amended under clause 4 of the bill. This section inserts provisions relating to the living enforcement of rates which is, obviously, a significant subject. Rates are demonised, across the world, I would imagine, but in Australia and the Territory it is no different. It is all about paying for the services there. As I described, the commercial nature of the operations will increasingly be able to cross-subsidise the rates there. I went there the other day and noticed a range of businesses opening up and providing a service, and that will go to allowing them to provide more rates.
New clause 39, which relates to the rateability of land in the precinct, provides that all land in the precinct is rateable and has some exceptions in a general principle. There is a clear definition. It also is with respect to Commonwealth land, of which there are some portions.
The waterfront has quite a mix of ownership and, over the history of that area, has had some different lives. That is recognition of the war history, the trading history, and the coal loading facility there. If you go into the library here and look at some of the old photographs of that little bay, it is, basically, mudflats. It has certainly evolved.
Clause 40, regarding Commonwealth land, provides that, similar to section 145(1) of the Local Government Act for certain land of the Commonwealth to be conditionally rateable. This is the evolution of the precinct, and of this act moving closer towards the Local Government Act.
Similarly, clause 41 provides - similar to section 147 of the Local Government Act - for allotments subject to separate use and occupation. In particular, this section creates the opinion of rating the separately used or occupied parts of allotments. This is a clearer definition of the different allotments there. I understand it is quite complex, with all those different allotments. It is something the Darwin Waterfront Corporation will actively work towards.
I am conscious of the new developments there. I understand Stage 2 is selling quite well. I guess they have Stage 3 after that.
We have all seen it, and I have been down to the sales office just to have a bit of a sticky beak really. It is not my cup of tea; I would like to be out a bit in the rural area and away from town. It certainly will be a fabulous facility once completed. It is a unique facility for prospective buyers in this market. Once all those properties are sold, they will be unique investments. As Business minister, there was much interest from interstate - certainly from Singapore, with investment into this coming from there. The investment opportunities in Darwin have been heavily marketed as well.
With respect to clause 44, this relates to the principal ratepayer. It provides - similar to section 151 of the new Local Government Act - that the occupier of the lot may apply to be designated as the principal ratepayer in respect to the allotment. There may be cases where there are multiple names on those titles and there needs to be a person identified as the principal ratepayer with respect to that.
The bill goes through a range of new sections with respect to the notice being given to the ratepayers. Again, this is part of reference to the new Local Government Act. Also, there are new sections relating to recording and corrections to recording and, also importantly, is the declaration of rates themselves which we take for granted. It moves through a whole range of new sections which relate to the procedural nature of the notification of rates. Similar to what we all experience - or most of us experience, I would imagine – there is the payment of instalments for those rates.
Also, with respect to the validity of the declarations, the new clauses provide provisions that are contained within the Local Government Act, and the minister, by gazettal notice, validates those rate declarations by the corporations despite some procedural non-compliance. It gives that ability. More provisions that relate, similarly, to the Local Government Act are the accrual of interest on overdue payments, the remittance of interest, the rate concessions generally, and the alleviation of financial hardships. I am not too sure how many people would apply for a financial hardship given the cost of properties there. Maybe they have financial hardship. However, it is bringing this in line with the normal provisions across the Northern Territory with the Local Government Act provisions. It is certainly good to see that is moving in that direction.
Furthermore, the Local Government Act section 167 has provisions which provide for the grant of rate concessions to advance certain purposes and circumstances. This is something that has been taken up in clause 57 relating to public benefit, and that is a good provision. Through definitions, through recovery of court actions, are more provisions that relate back to the Local Government Act.
I understand the corporation is moving in this direction and these amendments, hopefully, will be seen by the Darwin City Council as something to bring them closer in line with the existing operations of the rest of the Darwin City Council area. It would be good to see, with the various festivals and events which happen around Darwin, which are actively supported by the Darwin City Council - I congratulate them on all the activities they undertake around the city - that the waterfront is incorporated into all those festivals and events and is seen to be a very active part of the city for the whole of this CBD area.
One thing that the city does not have in the CBD is real areas for children. That is what is lacking in the city. I am not being critical of the council, but that is really taken up by the waterfront. So, when you are looking at the community of Darwin, bringing the waterfront into the council complements the community and the society we have in the Northern Territory; that young people are brought in by the council. They work very hard in other areas, but it does need some active consideration. It was a bit of a bugbear of mine when I was Local Government Minister and also as Business minister, with respect to its exclusion out of that. This is moving a step closer in the evolution of the waterfront, where it is all going to finally finish up ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, if I could just interrupt, we are at midday, are you intending to continue your remarks later or are you finishing?
Mr KNIGHT: I will continue after lunch.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Navitas English students accompanied by Ms Mikiko Kawano, Mr John Logan and Mr Matthew Bell and staff from the Department of Children and Families. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
DARWIN WATERFRONT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 198)
(Serial 198)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, we were talking about the waterfront and what a fabulous facility it is. We were talking about how this legislation will contemporise the arrangements there and will progress the further evolution of the precinct towards, hopefully, the full incorporation to a local government area and the normalisation of the local government services.
I will not go on for much longer. I commend the Chief Minister for presenting the bill. I will close by acknowledging what a great facility we believe it is - but the CLP opposition does not, particularly the Opposition Leader. I will read from an article in December 2004. I quote from the journalist, Paul Dwyer:
- The CLP called yesterday for the scrapping of Darwin’s $1bn waterfront development. The opposition wants the previous government’s 1999 plan adopted instead. That plan includes a large car park and a 120 m building which the CLP says would be a monument, not an apartment block. The Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, tried to censure the government in parliament yesterday over the development. He accused the government of trying to mislead Territorians over the height of the planned apartment buildings and said, ‘I do not want to see a project that is focused on residential and convention centre’, he said. ‘This is our waterfront, it is a recreational tourism precinct’.
The current Opposition Leader, basically – oh, that is right, he has been Opposition Leader twice, hasn’t he? Sorry, I am just picking up on that - after he said he was not up to the job, he resigned. The opposition wanted to build a massive car park and a monument there and thought the building heights would be too high. Obviously, building heights have been taken into consideration and residents of the apartment blocks on Harry Chan Avenue, around the CBD area, were consulted and an equitable arrangement reached. The Opposition Leader was very much against the Convention Centre. He said: ‘I do not want to see a Convention Centre’.
How many times have I seen the Opposition Leader down there …
A member: He had his fundraiser down there.
Mr KNIGHT: That is right. He had his fundraiser at the Convention Centre he did not want, at a precinct he thought should have been a car park, with a Liberal colleague from interstate who wants to take more money off the Territory. All in all, it was a nice little campaign launch he had there. It really gave an indication of the fickle nature …
Mr Henderson: And Dave was not invited.
Mr KNIGHT: And Dave was not invited, so that sounds like a really strong, united, focused party. They are all over the shop and cannot focus on anything. You have Terry, as Opposition Leader, making this statement saying, ‘I am not up to it’ and resigned. Then he came back, so he is all over the shop. Now, he goes to the Convention Centre which he did not want to go ahead. He was against a $1bn development.
I remember what that place used to look like. It was horrid. There was a massive warehouse, and the contamination for decades and decades into the soil and the mudflats had to be removed. Obviously, much World War II history was removed at the same time ...
Mr Chandler: What about Arafura Harbour? You canned that pretty quick.
Mr KNIGHT: I will pick up on the interjection from the environment spokesperson, Peter Chandler, who is calling across the Chamber for Arafura Harbour, a project in the East Point area, to go ahead. That is what I have heard across the Chamber ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The shadow environment minister, Peter Chandler, is still advocating for the carving up of the East Point Peninsula, the destruction of Ludmilla Creek, and a whole range of other quite significant – yes, that is a good: approve it first and then figure it out, get the environmental conditions put in later. That is the way it goes for the CLP.
The people of Nightcliff and Fannie Bay electorates will be very interested in the CLP’s ever-present policy on Arafura Harbour. I thank the member for Brennan and the opposition spokesperson for confirmation of the current position. He is the environment spokesperson and has the decision-making with regard to that.
If people want to see the destruction of East Point they should support the CLP. If they do not, they support the local member, Michael Gunner.
This is a great facility, the waterfront. We have a very different view about the future of this precinct; we will see it evolve. It will move into a new phase with this legislation passing - the further development with Stage 2 and Stage 3. I am very excited about Stage 3 moving around the corner towards the Toll area, the old tank facilities, and the site of the old power station.
Increasingly, that whole peninsula is becoming very cosmopolitan, very much a feature of Darwin. When I show people pictures or take them down to the wave pool, it is a fabulous facility. Chief Minister, I commend your efforts in bringing this legislation forward.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank our Attorney-General for his support for the bill, and other colleagues who have spoken on this bill, because it is very specific to the Darwin waterfront, the Darwin Waterfront Corporation, and the residents and tenants at the waterfront. It is a very technical bill, and probably one of the most technical bills in the issues in regard to correcting the technical anomaly around the rating I have had to have carriage of. I thank the corporation staff for getting me through an understanding of the changes in this bill.
This bill, as well as being technical, is really in two parts. One is correcting that technical anomaly - I will go to that and answer the member for Port Darwin’s questions in a moment - and the second part is giving the corporation the same enforcement powers as other municipal councils to collect rates.
In answering questions from the members for Port Darwin and Nelson, the first was in regard to the additional 20% levy from the Darwin Waterfront Corporation. I can absolutely confirm that levy is only applied to the body corporate and not any further than that. It is the body corporate - one invoice to the body corporate, one payment from the body corporate back to the corporation.
The second question the member for Port Darwin asked was whether the enforcement powers that are provided to the corporation with the amendments in this bill are consistent with the enforcement powers as other municipal councils. My advice is they are totally consistent. Those are those two specific issues.
I believe this is on the public record, and we have people who have made investments in residential property at the waterfront, as well as people who have commercial tenancies. I will use some time this afternoon to talk through some of the public commentary that has been put out over the last few months and, in particular, since I introduced this legislation in the last sittings. I thought, member for Port Darwin, you would go a bit further in debate today because you have been at the forefront of much of that public commentary. I was expecting to go into committee.
However, for the public record, I want to address some of the issues for people who have, obviously, made representation to the member for Port Darwin on some of these issues over the last few weeks, and give clarity in regard to a number of positions.
The first one I will go to is the debate in the lead-up to the local government elections last weekend about the fact that the residents at the waterfront do not have a vote in local government elections. Of course, there is much history towards that. During the period of time when we were planning for this project, the absolute policy position of the Northern Territory government was that the waterfront should be part of the City of Darwin and come under the local government service provision of Darwin City Council. However, for the life of me, apart from pure bloody-minded politics, I could never understand why the former Darwin City Council, under Lord Mayor Peter Adamson in those days, would not see that the proposed project was really going to be a jewel in the crown for this great city of Darwin. I could not believe the mayor and the council, at the time, would not want to embrace and be part of maintaining the infrastructure and providing services to what is a jewel in the city of Darwin’s crown.
It just seemed, to me, the politics of those days were pretty confused, but always backed vested interest. The politics of that time was really about the siting of the Convention Centre. A number of property owners in the city of Darwin wanted a convention centre adjacent to, or next to, or in the vicinity of their properties, because they could see a commercial advantage to themselves, as opposed to the bigger picture about a convention centre that would be the catalyst for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment, both private and public investment - a new feature for the city of Darwin. If people were to be honest about the politics of those days, it was some people listening to some vested interests of property interests in the city, as opposed to an opportunity this government had the vision for in really stimulating private sector investment, attracting a world-class development for Darwin, and a jewel in the crown for Darwin.
I will say very clearly on the public record, I am looking forward to my first meeting very soon with the Lord Mayor elect, Katrina Fong Lim. I congratulate Katrina wholeheartedly on her election on the weekend. This issue will be on the agenda for that meeting about how we can put politics aside and work towards a transferral from the corporation through to the city council. Knowing Katrina as I do, I am sure she will be open to working through those issues. I am not verballing Katrina, but I am sure she will be her own person and come to her own mind. I want to work with her to see that, now the politics should be removed, we can work through the practical issues to an outcome we all support: that this jewel in the crown of Darwin, the infrastructure, maintenance and service provisions, should be done by the city council. That is the Chief Minister’s position on that.
In regard to a number of other issues such as representation of ratepayers, there is a structure that allows for residents who are paying rates and other charges to the corporation to be represented. Of course, they cannot vote in council elections because Darwin City Council and Lord Mayor Peter Adamson did not want a bar of the waterfront. So, the blame for the fact they cannot vote lies in the stewardship of the council when Adamson was the mayor. While they cannot vote in council elections until the transfer to Darwin City Council takes place, those residents enjoy interim representation by a precinct coordination group which provides a conduit for liaison and feedback on municipal and local government matters. The residential body corporate is invited to represent the residents of the precinct coordination group meetings on the basis that it is comprised of a number of elected individuals who represent the residents. In addition, the corporation has an office located within the precinct providing residents with direct access to communicate with corporation staff during business hours. Written submissions on relevant matters can be made to the corporation CEO for referral to the board of the corporation as required.
As I understand it, there is a precinct coordination group and there is also a Wharf One body corporate. That Wharf One body corporate represents, I think, 148 people who have residences there, or individuals who own a unit in the body corporation. I understand there are six members on that Wharf One body corporate who have been elected by those 148 residents who own units under the Unit Titles Act in the Wharf One precinct. So, there is direct representation through to the corporation.
I understand there have been very few issues raised with the corporation, and those issues that have been raised have been fully worked through in meetings and correspondence - maybe not to the satisfaction of all concerned, but certainly representation is afforded and is dealt with in the same way that representation could be made to a council such as Darwin City Council. However, just because you make representation does not necessarily mean you will get the result you want. There is representation; there is capacity for people to be put forward to the body corporate in an election process provided.
The corporation also provides an online communication method via a feedback form on its website and the corporation’s Facebook page. Again, as I understand it, there has been very little of significance in issues that have been put by significant numbers of people through to the corporation. The corporation continues to look at ways to enhance residential involvement during the interim period, such as increasing representation of residents on the precinct coordination group by including an elected panel of residents, or an elected representative from each residential building.
Again, I will agree it is not as representative as is voting for local government. However, there is opportunity for the residents of that residential component to be elected to the body corporate and have direct representation through to the corporation.
In regard to the complicated rating issues, just to put this in context and on the record, what we are doing in this bill is correcting a technical anomaly. I will try to explain it as succinctly as I can.
The corporation levies a rate on the owners of all land in the precinct, including the owners of residential units, under section 15(3)(a) of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act. This rate is the same amount, and calculated in the same way, as rates in the municipality of Darwin. The amount of the rate under section 15(3)(a) levied on owners of units in Wharf One is around $1100 per annum, the same as units in Darwin City. The corporation also levies a rate payable by all owners in the precinct, other than the owners of units under section 15(3)(b) of the act. This rate is calculated as a percentage of the section 15(3)(a) rate applicable to the relevant land. In particular, this rate can, and has been, levied on the body corporate for the Wharf One unit developments at the full 20% permitted under the act.
The amount of the rate under section 15(3)(b) levied on the Wharf One body corporate is approximately $33 600 per annum, equating to approximately $227 per unit per annum. The fact that an additional rate of up to 20% would apply was fully disclosed to intending purchasers by the developer in an information memorandum. It is like other rates levied on owners of land, a rate payable based on the benefit the land receives from public infrastructure. The Wharf One residents enjoy public infrastructure to a higher standard than in any other location in the Northern Territory in value-add and lifestyle opportunity it presents. The rates revenue represents a very small fraction of the cost of maintaining the precinct.
In regard to the additional 20%, we all know how fantastic the public areas are at the waterfront in the fabulous amenity. Of course, that all has to be paid for. I would have thought an additional $227 per unit per annum is, essentially, a bargain. I will just put on the public record the higher standards which provide visual and physical amenity include aspects such as: maintenance of the recreational lagoon to provide year round swimming, including cleaning, water quality testing, maintenance of pumps and intake screens; maintenance of pipelines and fixtures; removal and cleaning of the beach net; and cleaning and maintaining of the beach sand.
Other aspects, such as maintenance of boardwalks include: resealing of boards; active security and CCTV camera maintenance; the Surf Life Saving Northern Territory patrolled beach; maintenance of public domain lighting, including pole lights, wall lights, up lights and bollard lights; the high level of landscaping and irrigation system maintenance – there are approximately 750 trees and 29 000 shrubs throughout the public areas of the precinct - cleaning and sealing of pathways; maintenance and cleaning of public art elements; and high frequency lawn mowing and maintenance to high standards of presentation. In addition to these high standards, the residents also enjoy normal services such as access to the Darwin City Council library as arranged between the corporation and the council.
All in all, given the quality of the amenity there, there has been some debate about whether the corporation can and should be charging the additional 20% provided for under the act. Any fair assessment of the additional amenity, and given the fact the rates revenue represents a small fraction of the true costs of maintaining those features at that level of amenity, most people would say it is fair, particularly given the capital gain residents who have purchased into Stage 1 of the waterfront are likely to see over the next few years with the growth of Darwin. The capital growth is going to be equal to, if not greater than, what we will see happen in Darwin over the next few years. All in all, an extra $227 a year is a fair price to pay, given it does not recover those additional costs.
I also point out other amendments in the act. These amendments are designed to correct a technical issue in the act arising out of an amendment made to the act when the Unit Title Schemes Act commenced, and to bring the act into line with the Local Government Act in giving the corporation similar powers to local government councils for the purpose of enforcing the payments of rates. It is clarity, and there are no greater powers provided for the corporation under these amendments.
The amendments are to ensure ordinary rates are levied on the owner of the unit and, at the same time, rates of common property and unit developments under the Unit Title Schemes Act are levied on the body corporate at the highest level of the scheme.
The alternative would be for the section 15(3)(b) rates to be applied to each body corporate in a layered scheme; a more difficult and expensive method of levying the rate for both the corporation and for bodies corporate. This does not reflect the policy intention of the Unit Title Schemes Act or the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act. Nothing in this bill affects the amount of rates payable; nothing in this bill has retrospective effect.
The section15(3)(b) rates will be levied by the corporation on the highest body corporate in a layered scheme under the Unit Titles Act. That body corporate will pass it down to its members according to the rules that govern the body corporate and its members. Those rules are matters for each body corporate and its members, and the specific circumstance of the relevant development.
The Darwin Waterfront Corporation must have funding for the municipal services it provides and for the important functions it performs in the precinct. Similar to local government areas throughout the Territory, that funding is raised from a number of sources, including funding from the government and, importantly, the levying of rates on land within the precincts.
In regard to the additional 20%, this is not unusual in these types of developments either in the Northern Territory, interstate, or overseas where precincts within a city have greater level of amenity than the standards provided for in the city. Given the government structures around those precincts, there are normally mechanisms to raise additional levies. Cullen Bay is an example. Even though Cullen Bay has services provided through Darwin City Council, they also issue additional levies to the body corporate. The principle is the same: there is an additional level of amenity at Cullen Bay given the lock and the waterside aspect. The method of recovering those additional levies is different, given this is a corporation incorporated under Territory legislation. The principle is the same: the user has to pay part of the additional amenity. This is a fair way of achieving that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, this is quite complex and quite technical. There has been much discussion over the last few weeks and months leading to this second reading debate and passage of the bill tonight. I also put on the record my thanks to everybody at the Darwin Waterfront Corporation. These people do a magnificent job in maintaining the waterfront. I was also there on Saturday night for the Harmony Day Soiree, and there were thousands of people there. I believe there were 19 separate multicultural groups which had stalls - whether they were cultural stalls or food stalls. All of the cultural groups performed on stage. The food was from everywhere - from Africa through to Italy. I think the Italians said they went through 50 kg of dried pasta in the one night. That is a heck of a lot of pasta! There was a lot of hard work as I went around and thanked everybody who was performing and cooking for the residents.
There were families and people everywhere. The fireworks display was pretty amazing. It just went to show what great foresight went into creating that public space so residents from our broader, wonderful city could get down to the waterfront and enjoy those fabulous facilities with the residents there. It really was a wonderful night. My congratulations to all of those multicultural groups and the organisers of the soiree. It was the second one we have had, and it was incredibly successful.
I spent nearly three hours there just getting around talking to people. Everybody had an amazing time and many people were actually there for the first time. The feedback through to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation was from people who live in the northern suburbs and do not get into the city very often, with quite a few new arrivals to Darwin, who were just absolutely blown away about how fantastic the waterfront was.
This standard of amenity is not maintained by accident; it is maintained by a lot of hard-working people. Obviously, revenue has to be raised to maintain that asset. These amendments provide for clarity in how those rates are to be levied, and also in regard to the capacity for the corporation to recover those rates.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend these amendments to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it the will of the Assembly to go into committee?
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Should it assist the Assembly, the Chief Minister has answered the questions fulsomely that I raised, and I place on the record my gratitude to him. There is no requirement to go into committee.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Failure of Government to Implement Policy on Alcohol Consumption
Failure of Government to Implement Policy on Alcohol Consumption
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Speaker has received the following letter from the member for Sanderson:
- Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day the following definite Matter of Public Importance:
the failure of the Northern Territory government to implement a policy that addresses the broad issues around alcohol consumption in the Territory and the impact of their poor decision-making on Territorians.
If you have any questions about this matter, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I speak on this matter of definite matter of public importance; that is, the failure of the Northern Territory government to implement a policy that addresses the broad issues around alcohol consumption in the Territory and the impact of poor decision-making on Territorians.
The government, I believe, realises it has an enormous problem on its hands. The problem is, though, I believe it has tried a number of roads and found it has gone down the wrong road. The government came back into this House on Tuesday trying to correct some of its errors and, still, we do not see what we believe to be a good result from the efforts. With the Enough is Enough campaign well and truly on the road, it still has major problems. Government members stood in this House and expressed they had the answers and that all would be well, all would be fine.
The first thing I will raise is the job of the police. I believe police are doing a fantastic job out there. Having been part of that organisation for many years, and for most of my time in the Northern Territory, I can attest to the hard work and dedication of police officers in the Northern Territory. I hear the government, time and time again in this Chamber, confirm what I have just said: the police do a fantastic job. One can never argue with those people who are dedicated to ensuring other people are served and protected by the best police force we can have. If that is the case - and I wholly believe it is - if something is not working out there it is not the problem of the police. Police are required to implement the policy of the government of the day. So, if we have a policy and it is failing, then it is the government’s responsibility to correct that policy, and to find the answers or parameters to give to any government organisation, including the police, so they can go out and do a very effective job in executing the policy.
Sadly, we see an enormous problem with alcohol. We see the government trying all sorts of different roads. We, on this side of the House, attempt to give them ideas, and would be very grateful if they would accept some of those ideas and advice. Some of those ideas and advice are starting to sink in. We now see the government coming back into this House trying to tinker around the edges to improve what was a failed policy. The government claims some aspects are working. It is going to be interesting to see, over a period of time, what actually happens.
You do not have to go very far from this Chamber to see what is going on out there. At lunchtime today, I walked out and, within 250 m of Parliament House, I found people sitting around consuming what I believe to be alcohol in two different locations. At 7 am this morning, on the corner of Knuckey Street and Mitchell Street, there was a gathering of people. It looked like they were just waking up after what they would have considered to be a really good night. If you walk around Parliament House - and, again, in recent times, I walked out of the Chamber to the end of the building and, sitting outside this building, outside one of the windows behind this Chamber, was a group of people drinking alcohol. These are some of the issues. You say the Enough is Enough campaign is here, yet we still see an enormous number of problems.
We, on this side, have a slightly different view. Alcohol is not the problem; irresponsible consumption of alcohol is. That is what we believe the government has failed to address. They have many ideas at the front end, but there is very little support at the back end. The government will say it has this and that; it now has in excess of 2000 people on the register. Yet, when you look at rehabilitation facilities, they are just not there. It is going to be interesting to see just what the government will do with that many people.
The majority of people in the community consume alcohol in a responsible manner. I have listened to people who one might call teetotallers who want alcohol banned. They want to go back to prohibition. We all know that prohibition does not work, especially when you have had a legal drug around for many years – well, almost for time immemorial.
There are people who consume alcohol in their homes, in clubs, in social clubs, football clubs - a whole variety of clubs. I have heard some people would refer to some of these people as alcoholics - and some of them may be. However, many of them are not. They do not get involved in domestic violence with their partners, they do not drive cars when they have consumed alcohol, they go home, they lead lives, they contribute to productivity in our community, they pay taxes. Generally speaking, they are good people just trying to get on with their life. There are many people out there who are retired who enjoy a drink amongst friends. It is a part of our social fabric.
Excessive consumption is not and should not be. However, the fact of life is it is out there and it does not appear to be going away in a hurry. Therefore, we have to come up with policies out of this place that actually deal with the issue and living with alcohol.
There are quite a number of people, though, out there - and they are in the minority - who are addicted to alcohol and the excessive consumption of it, and these need to be our target market. We, of course, also have to have education programs in the beginning, in schools, so young people learn about the consequences of excessive consumption, what they should be held accountable for, and what the consequences of their actions will be.
The government will tell us - and I agree the figures are terrible – that 62% of assaults are alcohol related. It reports that alcohol costs the Northern Territory approximately $642m a year. It is an incredible amount of money involved in the abuse of alcohol in the Northern Territory.
A week-and-a-half ago, I did a trip from Darwin to Alice Springs. I stopped along the way and spoke to quite a number of people about various issues; in particular, alcohol. I asked many people about the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register to date, what people thought about floor prices, and some other issues that I asked them to consider.
I went through Katherine. Of course, Katherine still has a drinking problem. Irrespective of the fact that up and down the track there are alcohol management plans, people still seem to get alcohol. That brings us to an interesting point.
People who are addicted to a drug, without help and without the desire to get rid of their addiction, have terrible trouble actually trying to stop. You talk to people who are smokers or drinkers, people who consume illicit drugs. In my lifetime, as a member of the police force, I saw many people who felt they could not get off these things. When you actually try to restrict them from these drugs, they manage to get it. Those who, unfortunately, suffer from those terrible addictions will get their drug of choice. And if they cannot, then they will substitute their drug of choice with something else.
I went from Katherine to Elliott. Some time ago, when I was driving up and down the track, there used to be four service stations in Elliott. There is now only one. It is open from 7 am to 7 pm on weekdays, and on Sundays it closes at 5 pm. I spoke to a couple of people in Elliott, and I asked: ‘Why is that?’ They said: ‘Well, people do not seem to stop here much anymore’. Then I started asking a few people, caravaners and people I know, who drove around this country: ‘Why don’t people stop in a lot of these towns?’ I was quite interested in their answer.
Some of the answers I received came around to the issue of people being humbugged in towns. What they say is, you stop in towns, you get humbugged by groups of people for money, for cigarettes, for alcohol. That is in these towns up and down the track. Then, I found out that people were actually going out and camping at road stops. As we have all heard recently, towns are concerned, and tourist operators are asking why people are out in the middle of nowhere. One of the answers is these people, many grey nomads or people travelling on their own with kids, do not want to be in towns because they do not want to be humbugged. They do not want to be in caravan parks that are close to town. That is a concern not only for the alcohol issue we are talking about today, but also from a tourism perspective.
Of the four service stations that used to be in Elliott, one is left and I understand it is struggling. However, at the roadhouses, you do not find marauding groups of people looking for alcohol or humbugging people. There is a situation out there we need to deal with.
That brings me to another area I went to, a roadhouse more south than north, where I spoke to the operator. Some of the things he had to say were very interesting. I asked him what a floor price would do, and about container deposit legislation. He said he does not sell to people on the Banned Drinker Register, but if he believes people have been drinking and are going to become more intoxicated, he refuses to sell to them. He said he does not need the money. He would, obviously, like to have a good income, but he does not need that type of money. He then raised a very interesting point and said these people drive into Alice Springs and then drive back. He gave me an indication of what a car might look like - which I cannot describe because it was a picture and his actions. Basically, he tried to replicate groups of cars travelling with a boot fully loaded, the springs down. A group stopped opposite his roadhouse on the other side of the road and bought some food. They sat there for probably the best part of an afternoon, maybe a bit longer and, when they left, they left their rubbish. He collected Bundy Rum bottles worth over $1000. He said he was quite shocked that this group of people - it was not a small group; a pretty large group - sat there most of the day and consumed an enormous quantity of rum.
That brings me to next thing: how socially ordered we are. I refer to an Australian Bureau of Statistics scale that was released in - I do not have the exact date, but it was conducted from July 2010 to June 2011. It is a time frame one can look at, and is the latest one I can find. In it, it says the most socially ordered places, according to the people who live there, are South Australia and the ACT, but the most disordered is unquestionably the Northern Territory. It is much the same on noisy and dangerous driven vehicles as elsewhere, but scores very badly on a swag of other questions with double the national average on public drunkenness and being insulted, pestered and intimidated in the street.
When you go through this chart there are 12 categories. In 10, we are way above the rest of Australia. We are similar, in relation to noisy driving and dangerous driving. When you start looking at, for instance, people being assaulted in the street - 26.7%, as opposed to others, around 11.9% - we are seriously well above the rest of the country.
It is an interesting point when you look at what we have from Tuesday evening and, on Wednesday morning, comments by a Northern Territory Police Watch Commander in relation to what happened the previous night and what has been accepted. There were 314 calls to 000 just in Darwin, 703 additional emergency calls, 24 arrests, 45 protected custodies, 41 assaults and 103 disturbances. These are interesting figures.
We have an enormous problem and I do not know what the government is going to do. It does not seem to have too many good, solid policies that are going to see a reduction in all of this nonsense we have to put up with in our community.
I listened to the radio this morning, and I heard an interview between Julia Christensen and Mr John Boffa. I make comment on a couple of things that Mr Boffa said. I quote from a transcript from that interview where he was talking about liberal traditions:
- But within that tradition there are also very strong parts of that which say that when harm is being done to others, government needs to react.
It will cost taxpayers nothing, so it is hard to not have people who come from that very strong Liberal background, or even any position, where they believe that government has a responsibility to act to protect others from unnecessary harm.
I do not disagree with Mr Boffa there. I believe we should act, and act strongly, and give these people the mandatory rehabilitation they obviously need when they cannot control themselves in public places. We are not talking about going into people’s homes and determining whether they have two, three, or four drinks, or whether they are alcoholic or not; we are talking about people out in the streets and getting them off the streets because, they are the people who are seriously affecting the lifestyle of good Territorians, tourism and a whole range of other issues.
He went on to say:
- That is what is going on in the Northern Territory with alcohol, and this is a very effective public policy measure which, as I said, will cost nothing and be very effective.
When you research you find stuff all over the place. The one bit of research I draw people’s attention to is the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition graph which says everything you buy in Alice Springs is over the cost of a standard drink, if you measure it at $1.20 per standard drink. The only thing that is under is wine, and that is about 85.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when one looks at some of the reports such as the Aliceonline.com report, you see it is not just wine, it is Jim Beam, rum, beer, and a whole range of drinks being consumed so, when we look at floor prices and policies, government has a responsibility to come up with some policy that is far better than we are subjected to now, otherwise we are just going to see this problem get worse.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure this afternoon to speak on this definite matter of public importance. One of the major problems the Northern Territory faces - and it is acknowledged by both sides of this House - is the misuse of alcohol in our communities across the Northern Territory, not only in the smaller centres but in our major cities and towns and regional towns as well. This has a significant impact on the quality and the way of life of people who live in the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, what we get to see is this impact, this significant effect on our way of life and our quality of life, occurring every single day. Every single day that you open your eyes and walk down the main streets of our towns, into our parks, into communities, and have a look at the drinking areas, you will see in all of those places the misuse or abuse of alcohol.
The Northern Territory government, for many years in its various forms, has tried to address this problem. In the latest attempt to fix this problem we have what the Labor government is calling the Enough is Enough reforms. I am in the position of having seen how many of the policies over the years played out on the ground. To be frank, not many of them have worked very well. I remember my time in the police force and having to deal with the same old drunks, day in and day out, the same old antisocial behaviour occurring around the place, and the same old offending. One of the things that became apparent to me as I got older, and became more mature and had a more mature outlook on how these issues were playing out, is the despair that surrounds alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
From a policeman’s point of view, you become frustrated. I know the men and women of the police force even today get frustrated because they are constantly picking up the same drunks. They take them to the cells at the police stations, to sobering-up shelters and home and leave them at home with a responsible person who can look after them. That is frustrating and annoying because you just become a street cleaner; cleaning up what is a mess on the street.
However, much deeper than that is the despair around that. Those people are being picked up constantly, taken to sobering-up shelters and police stations, and into protective custody time and time again. It is easy to stand on the outside and view those people simply as commodities: an antisocial behaviour problem and a person who is a drunk. Well, that person just happens to be a human being. Each and every time they are taken into protective custody under a policy setting that does little or nothing to address that underlying problem, they become a human tragedy. What we have seen through the latest raft of reforms is a perpetuation of that human tragedy because nothing is really being done to address the underlying problem of the drunks we pick up every day.
Look at what we have now, the Banned Drinker Register. In opposition, we are often accused of opposing just for the sake of opposing. You can argue, yes, that is our job. However, when there are some real issues underlying the opposition to government policy, when we have alternatives that we proffer up that the government could take notice of, when we look around the streets and really honestly see these policies are not working, not changing anything, and are, again, perpetuating the human tragedy that are the drunks that are being picked up every day, I do not think that is opposing just for the sake of opposing.
What we are trying to do is point out to the government that their ongoing raft of reforms simply is not working and, because they are not working, they are affecting the lives of every single Territorian who stands up, opens their eyes, and walks through our streets and parks, because they get to see the sum effect of these failed policies.
I do not have the police protective custody statistics for Katherine. It is easy for me to refer to Katherine because I spend a lot of time there. I can honestly say when I look at the environment in Katherine, there is little or no change to what it was one, two, five or 10 years ago. There are still literally thousands of people being taken into protective custody - albeit many of those thousands are repeat custody offenders. The scenes we witness on the streets of our towns, including Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin, have really not changed or, if they have, the only change we have seen is a transference of that behaviour to somewhere that might be just not far off the main street instead of right there. However, there is still plenty of the bad behaviour occurring right there for everybody to see.
I have people coming and talking to me all the time about these types of issues. It is a big issue for Katherine - a very big issue. They tell me how people are getting around this raft of reforms. We have a Banned Drinker Register, but a person who is on the Banned Drinker Register, as I understand it, can still go into the hotel and sit inside the hotel and have a beer. That is fine, I have no problem with that. What they cannot do is go into a takeaway, into a drive-through bottle shop or something like that, and purchase takeaway alcohol. Yet, that is so easily avoided, and I hear stories about it all the time. I have reported to the police on a number of occasions where citizens, taxi drivers, a whole raft of people have come to me and said: ‘They are selling sly grog at that house’. People who are not on the Banned Drinker Register go and buy up a great load of beer, rum, mixed drinks, or whatever it is they are getting, and simply sell them on to people who are on the Banned Drinker Register. It happens all the time.
That has been reported to the police. That is something I suppose, where it is fairly easy for the police to intervene. They can put some surveillance on that house. As they do sometimes when they are investigating drug matters, they might even set up a little buy - people set up someone to go there and purchase some alcohol when they should not. It is fairly easy to police that one.
What about the case where a taxi - it might not be a taxi, it could be any car - pulls into the drive-in bottle shop, there are five people sitting in the car, four of whom are on the Banned Drinker Register, and the guy sitting in the passenger seat in the front is not? The money is handed over from the back seat to the guy in the front who is not on the Banned Drinker Register, he purchases a couple of hundred dollars worth of booze, and off they go for a fat old time.
That is very difficult to police. The minister might say: ‘Yes, it is an offence if that person provides alcohol to a person who is on the Banned Drinker Register’. However, it is impossible to police. How on earth do you do that? It is impossible. Why have a law you cannot police …
Mr Styles: Because it sounds good.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Sanderson: ‘Because it sounds good’. The government is all about smoke and mirrors - it just sounds good - trying to give the impression it is doing something. However, it is simply not working largely because, at the end of it - I remember the Minister for Alcohol Policy some time ago spruiking the word ‘mandatory’. There is nothing mandatory about any of these reforms at all because there is no punitive measure at the end of it - none whatsoever. You get a banning notice, and the first one is for three months …
Mr Tollner: The BAT notice.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Your BAT notice. Then, you get caught drinking again and get another BAT notice for six months, which means you cannot drink for six months. You get caught again, you are on a BAT notice, a banned drinking notice, for 12 months and, after that, there is referral to the tribunal.
It is interesting to read the statistics that came out in the government’s own Enough is Enough Alcohol Reform Report from July 2011 to December 2011. It talked about the number of people who have banning notices and how many people have been referred - a mandatory referral. I suppose that is mandatory: we tell you that you have to go to the tribunal. But, what happens after that? They do not have to do anything and there is nothing mandatory about that.
It was interesting for me to read this report. It does not have a page number on what I am going to refer to, but it talks about the AOD Tribunal from 1 January 2012. It says of the 305 mandatory police referrals - those who have breached a third BAT notice - 104 were from the Katherine region. I do not know how many third BAT notices or referrals would have occurred outside the Katherine township. Not too many, I suspect. How is it more than one-third of the referrals to the AOD Tribunal have come from Katherine with a population of about 4% or 5% of the Territory? According to this, this is how well the government’s alcohol reforms are working in Katherine. Apparently, if you live in Katherine you are 10 times more likely to be referred to the AOD Tribunal than anywhere else in the Northern Territory. Tell me how that can be construed; how you can possibly interpret that as policy measures that are working? The simple fact that there are so many people on BAT notices who have continued to breach these notices, tells me these reforms are simply not working. Again, this simply goes back to the quality of life we would like to enjoy in the Northern Territory, and the denial of that quality of life because this government has not, will not, introduce alcohol policy that goes to the heart of the problem.
We have spoken – the member for Sanderson, the shadow minister for Alcohol Policy spoke about it in his contribution to this MPI tonight - about the Country Liberals’ policy for dealing with drunks. We have had this policy since 2008. The government does not want to talk about that, it wants to push us out there as an opposition without any policies. Well, the policies are coming, and we will put them out in our own good time. Of course, the policy we have on this side of the House they do not want to talk about is our habitual drunks policy ...
Mr Elferink: They do not criticise it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No, they do not criticise it. Maybe there is a school of thought on the other side of the House that this could actually be a bloody good policy. Could be! Of course, we would never get recognition of that because they would knock it just for the sake of it. However, what they have taken out of it is a portion of it. They have said they will build a prison farm in Katherine, of some kind. However, that is only part of the policy.
If you continue to do the same things you will get the same results, which is why the Country Liberals have taken the position of doing something that is way beyond what this government would even consider doing; that is, to enforce mandatory – and I mean mandatory; real mandatory, not like the gammon mandatory the minister talks about - real mandatory rehabilitation for drunks. The idea is we have to do two things. We have to reduce the cost to the Northern Territory taxpayer of alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory and, through that, include a rehabilitation scheme that will actually help people. The other thing we have to do is get the drunks off the streets.
Under a Country Liberals’ policy, a person who is taken into protective custody for a third time in six months will be referred - I guess similarly - to a AOD Tribunal of some kind. When I say similarly, I mean similar to the government’s policy now.
If that person who gets a referral to an AOD Tribunal of some kind gets an order for treatment, and does that treatment - good on them. It is all about personal responsibility. It is about people taking responsibility for themselves: for their own behaviour, for the level of alcohol and the amount of alcohol they decide to consume. That is what It is all about. If you take responsibility for yourself - good on you. But, if you do not take responsibility for yourself, then the Country Liberals’ policy will see you in mandatory detention getting the treatment you must have for your own health, for the sake of the taxpayers of the Northern Territory, and for the quality of life we expect to have in the Northern Territory. They are the things we have to focus on.
Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, we cannot get the government to take notice of us. We are accused of opposing for opposing sake. I accuse the government of not adopting our policies just for the sake of that, as well, because they are opposing us.
Ms LAWRIE (Alcohol Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to contribute to the MPI. It is interesting that the opposition has brought an MPI talking about failure when we have actually introduced the toughest raft of alcohol laws in the world and, indeed, in our nation, in going to the heart of the problem and tackling the problem drinker. I listened with interest to the contributions of the members opposite. Little wonder that, as an opposition, they do not have credibility. You can drive a truck through the contradictions within the contributions from the members opposite. I am sure it will just get more interesting as the debate goes on into the afternoon.
There is no doubt they have, finally, through the comments of the member for Sanderson in the Chamber today, cottoned on that alcohol is the biggest cause of crime in the Territory. What they still have not cottoned on to though is, very clearly, this policy the government has targets the people who commit alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. They still try to peddle the myth that we are just hurting everyone, and we are not going after the problem drinker, when the Liquor Stores Association, the Australian Hotels Association, the Aboriginal Medical Services of the NT, and all of the treatment providers, have all recognised that this goes to the heart of dealing with the problem drinker. They stand still out there in the wilderness on their own peddling a myth that only they believe; that we are trying to hurt everyone in society and not go after the problem drinker. Quite the opposite.
The member for Sanderson is on the public record as saying there is a negligible link between alcohol and crime. Now, he is quickly backpedalling because he could not have it more wrong if he tried. The shadow for Alcohol Policy could not have it more wrong if he tried, and has been highly embarrassed ever since he proved he was an absolute dill and had no idea what he was talking about. The backpedalling continues from the member for Sanderson.
His contribution was, essentially, a description of a road trip. Well, okay, if that is how you research alcohol policy, little wonder you have no credibility whatsoever in the health sector which has specialists who understand the thorough research that has been undertaken of the impacts of alcohol, both economic and social.
Without a doubt, our tough measures go straight to the heart of the problem drinker. We have introduced the Banned Drinker Register, banning the problem drinkers. We put enforcing bans in place and we have put in powers to mandate treatment to stop the violence. Our Enough is Enough measures are committed to go to the heart of cutting crime and turning those problem drinkers off tap to prevent the violence and the antisocial behaviour.
Essentially, if you are not a banned drinker, then it is life as normal, because you are not the one with the problem. You are not exhibiting those problems that, quite rightly, our society is becoming incredibly intolerant to. None of us want to see those problems continue and be perpetrated.
The opposition rails against the scanning of a form of identification. Yet, even radio commentators such as Pete Davies point out this is a really small inconvenience, and if that is what it takes to help cut crime turning problem drinkers off tap then people do not have a problem with it. However, the CLP is out there, paddling around in its little boat, going around in circles, saying: ‘We are going to scrap this Banned Drinker Register because we do not like the ID system’. Most people, very quickly, got into the habit of having ID. Of course, we work very extensively and closely across a whole range of industries, including tourism, to let people know about the system here in the Territory.
I listened to the member for Sanderson talk about how he was a former police officer. I listened to the member for Katherine talk about his experience as a police officer. Yet, they ignore what the police are saying - the police who are on the coalface working with these laws: the Banned Drinker Register is the best tool they have to tackle alcohol crime and antisocial behaviour.
There is no doubt, of course, that Territorians want our government to tackle alcohol crime in our community. Why would you not want us to? In total, 60% of assaults are related to alcohol and 67% of domestic violence is related to alcohol. The costs are stark: $640m a year is the economic cost of the social harms of alcohol, with 54 000 protective custodies a year.
It took this Labor government to put in place biometrics and nurses at the watch houses to ID the protective custodies because, under the CLP it was - well, revolving door, folks. ‘Let us just have a revolving door and let us not actually ID people and place tough measures to tackle them’.
The facts are compelling. The facts made it very clear our government has done the heavy lifting and the policy framework, working with the sectors, the police, the justice sector, the health sector, and listening to experts to create the Enough is Enough reforms. It is interesting, under our reforms already we have 2100 people who are now banned from buying takeaway alcohol, yet we know the CLP’s policy is they will put them all back on tap. They will remove the Banned Drinker Register. Those 2100-plus people who are on the Banned Drinker Register can just, under the CLP, turn up to any takeaway bottle shop anywhere in the Territory and get the grog - pouring more of the problem onto the problem.
The Banned Drinker Register is working. We have the tools to enforce the bans. There have been 3000 refusals of sale – a fact you will not hear the CLP talking about because they do not like it when facts point out they are just peddling myths. We had the bizarre comments from the member for Sanderson saying people will have to show ID at a barbecue. Member for Sanderson, do you actually have any evidence whatsoever to show any shred of credibility over that comment? Have you found anyone yet who has had to show ID at a barbecue? Are you for real?
One of my all-time favourites was that comment from the member for Sanderson that the ID system is going to prompt bottle shop attendants to start stalking the attractive women who come to buy their alcohol. Well, again, member for Sanderson, I am still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that we have had these overly-amorous bottle shop attendants stalk the attractive women of the Northern Territory because they showed ID. But, by all means, I look forward to the evidence you want to lead around those two more extreme of the plethora of strange comments you have made on the subject of alcohol policy.
The member for Sanderson also went on to say the alcohol reforms would mean we would lose taxes from alcohol sales going online. That is curious. We do not actually collect taxes in the Northern Territory from alcohol sales - the Commonwealth does. A High Court decision in 1990 ruled the Territory constitutionally unable to tax or levy alcohol sales. Then, we had the strange debate in this Chamber - and my goodness, I look forward to them each time because they come out with some doozies – when the member for Drysdale suggested we copy New Zealand and ban the drive-through at the bottle shop.
The member for Braitling suggested, regarding Alice Springs, we could open bottle shops earlier and close them four hours earlier. Well, that would make it 5 pm in Alice Springs. I will give you the tip: go and put that idea around Alice Springs and just see how much support there would be for that, because most people would like to pop into a bottle shop on the way home from work to get a cleansing ale. No credibility.
Terry Mills is committed to overturning the alcohol laws - the laws that are turning these banned drinkers off tap. This is the same person who voted against repeat drink-drivers losing their licence and against alcohol ignition locks. Really, they have a bit of form when it comes to ignoring the carnage being caused to Territorians through these very tragic people who are chronically addicted to alcohol. They ignore also the 12% drop in alcohol-fuelled assaults in Darwin in six months of operation - straight off the PROMIS system. They ignore the 13% drop in alcohol-related assaults in Palmerston. They ignore the 8% drop in Alice Springs, and all of this data coming through the PROMIS system. Yet, they would have us believe there are many Territorians out there suffering as a result of these measures.
I visit the bottle shop on a fairly regular basis to get my wine to drink at home, and I am not hearing anyone complaining. I ensure I touch base with the liquor industry on a regular basis, and they are still supportive of the government’s Enough is Enough measures. Let us put this in perspective: in the first three months of the Banned Drinker Register over 2.7 million ID scans took place across the Territory. That helped us get those 2100 people on the Banned Drinker Register - those 3000 refusals of sale to problem drinkers. This tool is making a dent and is helping stop people following the grog from community to community because it is Territory-wide. If you are on the Banned Drinker Register, you are on the Banned Drinker Register Territory-wide.
We are proposing amendments to this legislation, amendments I am guessing the opposition will oppose, but I am still waiting to hear from them formally. I invite that contribution in this MPI, by the way - put it on the record.
We are proposing amendments to this world-first legislation to further target antisocial behaviour and public drinking and strengthen the powers of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. We will put infringements in place for drinking in the 2 km area …
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … to add to the existing tip-out laws. We will ensure the 2 km law gives police the power to issue infringement notices if people are drinking and causing a nuisance within 2 km of a licensed premise.
I will pick up on the interjection, ‘No, we do not have it’. Infringements exist for dry areas, not for the 2 km offence. You might want to do a bit of legal research on that one, member for Braitling.
Problems drinkers issued with these infringements three times in 12 months will be placed on the Banned Drinker Register. This is about giving police the extra powers to get the problem drinkers out of public places and into rehab, and strengthening the power of the tribunal to force problem drinkers into rehab, allowing it to make orders that a person be subject to income management.
In this debate, the member for Katherine categorically said there are no punitive measures in the tribunal. Member for Katherine, would you like 70% of your income managed? That is a punitive measure by anyone’s stretch - by anyone’s test. People on welfare will face up to 70% of their income being managed. Ex parte powers are great powers to give the tribunal. We do this by working with the tribunal members, the police, and the people in the sector, not by locking ourselves in our own little room or closet and trying to work out which circle to paddle in next.
This is evidence-based reform, and it is reform rooted in partnership across the sectors - across the legal sector, the law enforcement sector with police, and the health sector. We have worked with the treatment sector.
The member for Sanderson is still saying - and he said it today in this debate - rehab facilities are just not there. Well, pop along to the Salvation Army rehabilitation facility in Darwin, just for one. I am sure if you ask for a briefing we can give you a list of all the rehab facilities across the Territory; they are there. If you look at the resources supporting these reforms, there is $34m over five years for withdrawal, treatment, rehab services and case management alone. Seriously, member for Sanderson, simply because you say something does not mean it is true. If you want to have any credibility in this alcohol policy debate, do not say the wrong thing. Treatment is there; treatment is available today, and we are funding and resourcing increased treatment services through these reforms.
I welcome the announcement by minister Macklin today of alcohol and other drug treatment funding across our remote communities. Again, partnership. Some of us have the ability to work it out and work together instead of sit in our boat and go around in circles. We have built these off the evidence and knowledge we have seen in Groote Eylandt and in Nhulunbuy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish with a quote from Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Payne who stated:
- Police did see it as one of the most powerful tools, if not the most powerful tool available to police to actually deal with the source problem of antisocial behaviour and the violence that was occurring in the community. I think these early indicators prove that the initiative is working. From a policing point of view, we see some tremendous results from this initiative …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, in speaking about this I am actually going to go out on a limb and say, yes, the government has introduced policies which are more aggressive in relation to alcohol policing than have existed in the past. I am not going to dispute that. They are not the toughest alcohol policies in the world. I direct you to Saudi Arabia, off the top of my head, and suggest to you that perhaps Saudi Arabia has slightly more severe laws surrounding alcohol and alcohol policies than the Northern Territory does. However, we are not Saudi Arabia. The minister tells us to mind our language – well, it cuts both ways.
However, I have done what I have done before. Prior to entering into this debate, I went round the back here and grabbed the Northern Territory Legislative Council debates from 1973, which is the earliest copy I could find. I decided to have quick flick through the first day of sittings on Wednesday, 14 February 1973. In the space of a few minutes, I was able to find, in the first couple of days, four references to the problems of alcohol in our community. With interest, I noticed that Mr Bell was presenting a bill dealing with rowdy, blasphemous, lascivious and licentious parties which went on right throughout the night in places in the Northern Territory. I noticed Mr MacFarlane was responding to a letter to the editor - a rather interesting letter where a fellow was arrested, presumably for his alcohol-related conduct, and complained of the septic system, no blankets and pillows, and cells that were germ-infected and had mosquitoes. At least our drunks in 1973 were educated enough to write to the editor about the germ-infected pillows in their cells. Nowadays, I doubt many of the people, through the wonderful processes of education provided by the Labor government since 1973, are as literate as they were in that time.
There were comments from Mr Bell, further on, about the conduct of people within a 2-mile radius of the Berrimah crossroads. He was complaining about the lack of policing, by the looks of it, in that particular case. Just the next day, a Mr Withnall was introducing legislation dealing with drunk drivers in our community, suggesting that maybe it would not be a good idea to allow them to drive.
This problem of alcohol in our community dates back since Bacchus was a boy, I suggest, and it is not just in our community, it is in all communities. Alcohol is a drug of addiction. Some people become addicted to it, many people do not. Some people become addicted to cannabis, some people do not. Some people become addicted to heroin, and some people do not. That might be surprising to many people, but I am aware of research that has been done that has demonstrated only about 25% of heroin users in our community are actual addicts; there are members of the community out there who use this drug on a recreational basis. The reason we do not see them in the streets is because they do not manifest their addictive behaviour. There is, fundamentally, nothing different between a heroin addict lying on a street corner begging for money or generally making a nuisance of themselves, and an alcohol addict lying on a street corner begging for money or making a nuisance of themselves. What we are talking about is a drug of addiction.
I will say this government has introduced legislation that would work quite well, but for one fundamental flaw: there is no substantive consequence which attaches itself to the legislation it has introduced. That is the frustrating thing about the legislation. I am actually applauding this stuff. I am very curious - and I will pause here for a second although I am going to risk anticipation of debate – about this business of the issuing an on-the-spot fine. If you think about that – and by the way, just as an aside, on-the-spot fines used to be dished out for breaching 2 km laws; I know the member for Sanderson was in the police force long enough ago to remember that; I am not sure about the member for Katherine. Do you remember the on-the-spot fines?
Mr Westra van Holthe: Yes, absolutely.
Mr ELFERINK: There used to be a $20 on-the-spot fine - a little yellow ticket, if memory serves me. So, before the government goes out and says this is the first time this has been done - wrong. It has been done. It is very interesting, because it is going down a path which I have been banging on about since the day it introduced this legislation; that there is a consequence that flows.
An on-the-spot fine means – and I have not read the legislation yet so I could be wrong – you are issued with a penalty. If that fine is not paid, then it follows that a summons is issued. If the summons is not served the matter can still be heard ex parte because it would be under $100, I suspect - a very minor fine, which means a warrant of commitment will be issued on the finding of guilt, and you will go to gaol for failing to pay your on-the-spot fine. So, slowly - ever so slowly - the government is coming around to the position we have maintained for many years on this side of the House, since 2005 when we started to introduce our habitual drunks policy.
The approach by government has always been, and continues to be, the idea that you can insist on something without a consequence flowing. Nonsense. You cannot do it. People will not comply with what you want them to comply with unless there is a penalty attached to it. Putting a person back on the Banned Drinker Register after putting them on the Banned Drinker Register for breaching their listing on the Banned Drinker Register does not cut the mustard. You have 2000 people on this Banned Drinker Register and only 3000 refusals of service. All that tells me, out of the other 2.7 million purchases, is that they quickly realised: ‘Oh, I am on the Banned Drinker Register, I will get my mate to go and buy it’.
Yes, we are told that is an offence and you will be placed on the Banned Drinker Register if you do that. How many people have been prosecuted for that? Zip. One or two probably. Actually, that is not zip, there was one in Alice Springs where a lady was buying grog for people in the river. I saw some news about that. There was possibly one more in Darwin. That is about it. What if there were 30? That is only 30 more people on the Banned Drinker Register. Then, what happens? Nothing.
That is the fundamental difference. What has frustrated me since the day I walked into this place – in fact, before I walked into this place – is that alcohol is a problem in our community caused by some addicts. However, I do not want to make addiction illegal. If a person wants to back a ute up to the front door of the Parap Hotel, to the drive-through, and lawfully load the car up with Jim Beam and go home and get wasted, and do nothing more than sit there and get drunk on two bottles or a whole ute load of Jim Beam, why is it my business? Why is it my business to intervene in that person’s life? It is not, and it should not be government’s role to intervene in what are, essentially, areas which are people’s choices. I know this raises the issue in the area of illicit drugs. We do exactly that with illicit drugs because there is a public expectation. However, I often wonder about that component of how we try to police these things.
Getting back to the issue of alcohol, we want to prevent the conduct in our community which we find offensive. We do not want our drunks to drive cars. That is good, because there is a good public policy reason for doing so. We do not want drunks in our parks and gardens because there are good public policies against it. We do not want heroin addicts in our parks and gardens or driving cars, yet we are prepared to lock heroin addicts up for driving cars when they are drunk and for using in public. But, we are not prepared to do it for alcoholics.
The fundamental point of our philosophy is that if you continually present yourself as a public nuisance - which is, essentially, what section 128 of the Police Administration Act is attempting to address - then we will intervene. That component of our policy has been taken up by government, hence the Banned Drinker Register, but they could not bring themselves to go to that other step, which is making people accountable for themselves - that other step which is about actually enforcing the law. That side of the House makes a law, but applies no penalty. On this side of the House, should we form a government, we will enforce the law and ensure there is a penalty in the following sense: there is listing as a habitual drunk, then there is compulsory rehabilitation in an institution we will build using the court system to get them there. There is still a fair trial. There is no fair trial under the government system, but under our system there will be a fair trial, and an ability to have the quality of the government’s assertion about your public drunkenness tested. Not so, on the other side of the House. We are actually loading in a civil rights component which the government does not have.
However, once convicted for breaching an order under our system, you will go inside. We know that will have the effect of sharply increasing a slice of our prison population. We accept that as a natural consequence of our policy, but we understand we are using the criminal justice system to obtain two outcomes. One is the idea of safe parks and gardens that are actually free of drunks because we have removed them under our policy, which will be lawful, and people who are lawfully convicted will be sentenced to a period of mandatory rehabilitation. The second component is a health component. We will actually intervene with health services whilst they are in custody.
There will be NGOs and all those sorts of things available when people leave our institution. They may choose to go back to drinking, at which point they can find themselves back inside, or they can go and change their life. However, what will be fundamental about our policy is people will be responsible for their own conduct. That is the fundamental principle which is missing from the government’s policies at the moment: they are not making people responsible for their own conduct. Up until now, because now they are introducing an on-the-spot fine, which may lead to a warrant of commitment, which may lead to imprisonment. If that is the case, do you have the rehabilitation programs ready for when they go inside the slammer on their warrants of commitment? If you have not, then you still have not met the standards, qualities and benchmarks set by policies on this side of the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been interested in the discussion today. I actually believe this is one of those areas I would love to have debated without some of the political rhetoric that sometimes goes with this particular issue, especially around election time. I am not saying any of the previous speakers have done that, but it does sometimes become a political football. It is a subject I believe has been debated time and time again in this parliament, year in, year out.
Mr Elferink: Since 1972, mate.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I was going to comment on a couple of things the member for Port Darwin said. I am in this House saying I believe there should be some mandatory retention of people who continually are found to be drunk. There are rights in both directions. There are rights for people to drink, but there are also rights for other people to enjoy peace and quiet in their community.
My only difference would be that I do not believe we should, if possible, make this an offence. I use the example of legislation that has just been passed in parliament this week of the secure care facility, where there is the ability to require people to be confined for various reasons. In the case of the secure care facilities, we have people who have cognitive problems, and a court can make a decision that those people are required to stay in that facility for a period of time. I actually think that would be a better course than taking people to prison. It may have the same effect, but people who have problems with alcohol and are actually in a state where it is very difficult for them to help themselves, would be far better off in a purpose-built facility.
If you want a place where people are going to dry out, you also want things for them to do - whether it is gardening, reading and writing - with education and medical facilities. There is a place there that, by its very nature, will be compassionate but, also by its very nature, will say you are not going to leave for the time being because you are a nuisance to society, you do not have ability to help yourself, and there needs to be some force required to give the rest of society some peace and quiet.
I agree with the principle the member for Port Darwin has put forward, but I believe we can do it in a similar way to using the legislation that was passed this week in relation to people who need to be confined to a secure care centre. That legislation should be looked at as, perhaps, the way to do what the member for Port Darwin is saying.
It is difficult to talk about this subject in 15 minutes. One of the first matters I spoke about in this parliament was alcohol. I reminded people of a number of young boys I looked after at Daly River who came from cattle stations, and how half those boys died under the age of 21. I had 30 boys in that dormitory. I was looking at some pictures the other day of those kids and half that group is dead. It brought back to me the problems we have in this community with alcohol are not just in the Northern Territory.
I have some figures which say risky or high-risk alcohol consumption caused the death of 32 696 Australians age 15 and older in the 10 years from 1996 to 2005, and 813 072 Australians were hospitalised due to alcohol-caused injury and disease over the same period. We are not talking about a small problem; we are talking about a big problem which is Australia-wide.
One of the dangers we have in this discussion today is we tend to lean towards Indigenous alcohol issues. Alcohol is a problem in the Northern Territory for both non-Indigenous and Indigenous people. We have to acknowledge that we see Indigenous people in the parks, and they tend to be the focus of our discussions, whereas there are many other people who do the same thing on Mitchell Street or at the football club and we do not have a great concern about it. One group of people tends to be targeted when we talk about alcohol abuse more than another group of people. Even though some people cause problems because they are in the public arena more than others, in this debate we should not lose sight of the fact - just look at the figures - that alcohol is a problem in Australia, and is certainly a problem in the Northern Territory.
I have figures here for the Northern Territory - some are a little dated – where the age-adjusted NT alcohol attributable death rate for 2004-05 was 7.2 per 10 000 persons 15 years and over, compared with the national estimate of 2.1 per 10 000. Not only do we have a problem in Australia with alcohol consumption, but we have one which is, perhaps, even worse in the Northern Territory. There are other figures. For instance from 2002 - only a small time frame - alcohol was associated with 56% of suicides in the Northern Territory.
Getting back to the MPI, the member for Sanderson is saying the government has failed to implement a policy that addresses the broad issues around alcohol consumption in the Territory, and the impact of poor decision-making. What we have heard today is some discussion about a fix-it-up: how do we deal with the problem when we have the problem already. We need to debate how to prevent the problem occurring in the first place. What is the cause of alcohol abuse? You could probably be here for a day talking about that. For many people it might be simply unemployment, lack of housing, poverty, or people at the low socioeconomic scale of the population. There could be many reasons. The other reasons could be peer group pressure and the pressure from advertising. There is a whole range of reasons why people abuse alcohol.
I have mentioned before how we do not frown on drunkenness anymore. It seems to me we say: ‘We do not mind you being drunk …’ - to some extent, that is what the member for Port Darwin said – ‘… as long as you do it at home’. Yes, fair enough, people have the right to do what they like in their own house.
However, you still should not stop talking about what drunkenness does. Drunkenness is a health issue.
Regarding the abuse of alcohol, the figures will tell you the enormous number of people who died or were hospitalised. When you abuse alcohol, you can be pretty sure you are going to be drunk. That is what abuse is about; you lose control, you crash your car, you bash the wife, you do things you would not normally do. Yet, today we do not regard that as a problem, as long as - well, if it is out of sight, not a problem; catch the bus home, Sober Bob. We have these programs which do not say ‘do not get drunk’, they say ‘if you are going to get drunk, get someone else to drive you home’. There is no promotion of sobriety; drunkenness is not what should be promoted. It is promoted subtly by saying catch the bus, get a taxi, get Sober Bob. What you are saying is it is fine to get drunk, just do not do it this way. That is where our attitudes have to change.
People think it is cool. Why are young people, especially young girls, binge drinking? I know what young girls do; I have three daughters. I hear the stories: you get drunk before you leave, then you go into town and you get more drunk. It is a great night drunk. Going to a party where you are all drinking spirits is just fantastic. Do we talk about the issues of young people drunk, and what effects that can cause through unwanted pregnancies? Are they not some of the issues we should be concerned about?
Are we concerned about the relationship between alcohol advertising, advertising companies, and sport? The Northern Territory loves its sport. Many Aboriginal people love their sport. However, you will see up on the scoreboard XXXX, you will see over there VB. The companies are not silly, they do not advertise because it is just a nice thing to have up on the scoreboard, they know where to target. I do not know whether we get trapped into this false idea that is all part of our culture. It is part of our culture because that is what the companies want; they make money - lots of money - in the Northern Territory out of grog.
One of the areas we really should be looking at when it comes to trying to change people’s attitudes, to try to help people and have places where they can be rehabilitated, is the breweries who make the money out of the misfortune of many people should be paying for some of this as well. They should be paying. They will say they pay their taxes. Well, those taxes go all over the place. I say they should be contributing to helping those people who are affected by the effects of alcohol. Perhaps they might even look at some housing programs, something on the positive side - not just fixing up people who are in a bad way but knowing they maybe need some social responsibility because they take a lot of money out on a community. How about some of that money goes back into that community in the form of housing? Do something that is good for the community.
It is a complex issue. People who have alcohol problems, to some extent, have to take it on themselves to change their lives around - not easy. I am not here to sermonise on the ability of people who have to get off a drug habit of any sort. It is not easy for people to change their lives around, but there are people who will help. We have Alcoholics Anonymous. At Bathurst Island, we used to have the AAA, the Aboriginal Alcoholics Anonymous. There are people around so, if people want help there are facilities for those people to go to. They have to make that effort, and that is not easy. Of course, where those people cannot make that effort, where they become a public nuisance, the government has the right to step in, and do it in a compassionate way, and help those people. I do not want people being forced off the streets because that goes against one’s civil liberties, but other people have rights too. They have rights to peace and quiet in their neighbourhood and not to be humbugged at the shopping centre. I know all of those things happen, but there comes a point where governments step in.
I say this to the CLP: nobody has the magic wand for alcohol issues in the Northern Territory, or in Australia. A combination of things has to happen. We have to give many people opportunities for jobs, better housing and less overcrowding. We have to say to people that it is not cool to be drunk; it is not a healthy lifestyle. We should be promoting that.
At the same time, it is easy to knock the government. I am not necessarily supportive of the swipe card because it is difficult to see how it is going to work, although the new legislation coming in might do some good things if you read about the income management and possibility of on-the-spot fines. What I say is give them a go as they are trying. You might not agree with it, and you might think it is impractical, but at least they are having a go. The worst thing a government could do is not have a go. Then, you would criticise them for not having a go. They are trying.
I am happy for the trials to be longer because the minister said after three months it is all very successful. I said, bunkum, you cannot have such a short trial; you have to let it go longer. They are adjusting it. This side here, if it does not agree, has to make some really positive approaches to it as well. It is such a great problem for the Northern Territory. It has cost many lives, it has caused a huge amount of harm, especially to Indigenous people. It is something we need to work on together to try to find solutions. We have to bring the people with us. If we can work together as a parliament to find solutions it would be good.
I am glad the member for Sanderson has brought this up today. I know there is talk about a floor price now. Without getting into whether a floor price would make any difference to alcohol consumption, I must admit I cannot work out why alcohol is not taxed at the same price - end of story. Why not tax alcohol at the same rate, regardless of whether it is wine, sherry, beer or whatever? Whether it has an effect on consumption - I am sure Dr Boffa and a few other people could have a great argument about that. From a taxation point of view, I cannot work out why wine - unless the people who grow wine had a bigger lobby group when it came to asking the federal government to have a different taxation level for wine than for beer. However, that is a debate for another day.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Sanderson for raising this matter of public importance. It is an important issue and we need to keep debating it because it is one of those issues which is not going to go away, and we need to make change.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Sanderson for bringing on this matter of public importance. It is a matter of public importance and I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, except the member for Karama who did not have much to say that was positive. I listened intently to the member for Nelson who had some good, sensible things to say. I have not written any notes for this speech, but I will tell you how I see the problem of alcohol.
I see alcohol dependency and substance abuse issues as end-of-the-line issues. I see them as being the results of broader social problems we have in the Northern Territory. I am not going to talk about anywhere outside of the Northern Territory. I see alcoholism as a form of substance abuse and substance abuse as being a chronic disease, which is built on by the passive approach many people in our community participate in. The member for Nelson often talks about the chronic and systematic lifestyle of welfare and paternalism and everything in life being for free, and that system of inertia where people across the Northern Territory do not have a role to play, in a broad sense, in their own life. That is more prevalent in the regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory than the urban towns such as Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Tennant, Katherine and so forth. Until we start looking at the causes of people becoming substance abusers, we are not going to address the issue of alcohol abuse. What we are seeing through many different measures such as the intervention, the shires, welfare quarantining - and broader is the welfare system and inertia – is a welfare system which is reverse racist for political reasons, which is driving people into town without any capacity to find suitable housing.
We know overcrowding, living rough, and homelessness breeds a cycle of antisocial behaviour, alcohol abuse and so forth. Instead of addressing the issues out bush, we continue to see social engineering and assimilation models by the Northern Territory and federal Labor governments that drive people into town to participate and become victims in this cycle of antisocial behaviour and inertia.
At the end of the day, all we are doing is filling our gaols. All our gaols in the Territory are full - our police station custody areas are full every night. I am generalising, but we are turning Aboriginal people into criminals in the criminal justice system because of this reverse racist system of welfarism in the bush where people come to the town and get involved in a whole system. You have to get out there and start developing the bush and getting people in jobs, and show tough love on welfare - create the jobs and get people in them. At the moment, the CDEP system is being wound back and there is welfare quarantining for CDEP participants. I know the former Coalition government did this and I am critical of it. Where the CDEP positions are taken away, where there are no jobs, what are people going to do? Sit on the dole and move to town. Now, we are putting welfare quarantining on CDEP participants. That is crazy. These are the only people - and my comments are generalised - who are getting up doing something, and then you quarantine them. Sure, they might only be working 15 or 16 hours a week, they might be working 38 with top-up, or whatever the case may be, but you then go and penalise these people through quarantining. I am all for quarantining, if it is done the right way.
There are a few flaws here and there, with veterans, pensioners, and so forth. There are some areas where I believe we need amendments. However, when you have people working on CDEP, do not penalise them. Do you know what will happen? I know the federal government recently decided to not do the next CDEP scale back because there is a Territory election coming and it would hurt them politically. However, everyone would stop participating in CDEP and be on more welfare, and many of the activities will actually stop being done in these communities. Services will actually stop.
When I was on my trip to Borroloola, talking to Mbuntji and all the people in the outstations and the community, they were venting their frustrations, as I hear everywhere. They were saying that people on those outstations will just stop working and all come into Borroloola. Then, they will pick up and move to Katherine. Then, they will pick up and move to Darwin, and there are more people on our streets. The fact is, our urban centres cannot handle that extra population for a couple of reasons: (1) because there is insufficient housing; and (2) the main reason, because the price of housing is just so dear. If you are living on welfare, you cannot afford to pay $600 or $700 a week for a house. It just does not work.
Then we come in here, and all over Australia, we debate how we are going to stop the alcohol problem. We had the same issue with petrol sniffing. Tony Abbott, when he was Health minister, did a fantastic job in bringing out Opal. I am a supporter of Opal. It has pretty much wiped out petrol sniffing everywhere it is has been rolled out ...
Mr Wood: BP did it on their own. BP did it by themselves.
Mr GILES: Yes, yes, just listening to the interjection. It did a really good thing, but there has been no longitudinal management or study about what happened to those people who were chronic abusers sniffing petrol. I am a believer that, if you are a substance abuser, you are a substance abuser. If you take the substance away, where do they all go? Do they migrate to amphetamines, to alcohol, to sniffing glue, drinking Listerine or vanilla essence, or whatever it may be? There has been no mapping done in that area, so we do not know what happened with that population.
We know that over the last couple of years since the Opal roll-out there has been in increase in alcohol substance abuse issues. However, instead of going back to the causal effect, we are now trying to address the problem of alcohol through a prohibition model similar to the one we rolled out through Opal. I can tell you from knowledge and experience in other parts of the country and research from around the world, when you put in a prohibition measure, people who are substance abusers will change their substance. As we keep inflating the price of alcohol, what we see come into range is a greater marketplace for other drugs: ganja, amphetamines and so forth. While we are not monitoring those people on alcohol and those petrol sniffing, what is going to happen when the amphetamine market becomes priced as an option rather than alcohol? That is exactly what is going to happen.
It has happened in other parts of Australia. I remember parts of New South Wales were heroin capitals of Australia. Because people could not get grog; there were Aboriginal people on heroin. It was a significant problem. I listened to the debate by organisations such as the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition. Sure, they have strong motives and personal interests in trying to reduce the problems of alcohol. However, they are not targeting the right area and there are significant problems with their approach. If we get to a model where we inflate the price of alcohol so high, we are just putting in place more opportunities for people to abuse other substances. Heaven help the day methamphetamines or any other drug is priced for substance abusers to take rather than drinking a 30 pack of VB or some other drink.
Yes, we need to address these things, but we also have to approach it on a left, middle, and right ground. From the left and from the right, I see the action and work by the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition, and the approach on the floor price of alcohol. I have paperwork they have sent me on the impact of a floor price based on $1.20. You can go through every product available in Alice Springs on this list I have - and there are plenty of products on here - and they have listed the current minimum price against the predicted or estimated floor price of $1.20. These are prices as at November 2011.
I will go through a few and explain how they are above $1.20. XXXX Gold slab, $1.75; Pure Blonde slab, $1.73; Heineken, $1.66 - I will rush through them - Coopers Pale Ale, $1.57; VB 30 pack, $1.38; Tooheys New box, $1.19 – of course, Tooheys New has gone up with the price of CDL; Bundy Rum cans, $1.65 …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr GILES: The member for Nelson laughs. A VB 30 pack was $58 before CDL, now it is $69 a carton. The CDL has priced them with up with the floor price ...
Mr Wood: Not by $6.
Mr GILES: No, by $11.
Mr Wood: That is right. It only cost $6.
Mr GILES: Jack Daniels, $1.50; Bundy Rum bottle, $1.65 - that is the 700 ml bottles; Johnny Walker, $2.14 against $1.20 floor price. All the premixed spirits are over $2 on this list I have in front of me. Coopers Pale Ale slab is $1.40. Spirits and liquors - Baileys, $2.76, and I am not being selective, I am just picking out the ones I see; Wild Turkey, $1.61 per standard drink; Vodka Cruiser slab, $2.75. You can go all the way through: Tawny Port, $1.32; McWilliams Musket, $1.27; Cinzano - it has been a while since I had a Cinzano - $1.54. The only thing that does not meet the floor price is non-fortified 2 L cask wine at 76 to 85. So when we talk about bringing in a floor price, it will not make much difference.
The People’s Alcohol Action Coalition took a photo of a big pile of casks sitting on the river bed somewhere in Alice Springs some time ago. I live there. I go past the river all the time - ride my bike past there every Saturday and Sunday exactly where they took that photo. It is full of VB boxes. You might find a cask here or there, but it is VB and bottles of Bundy Rum. Those two products, on here, are above the floor price. To say the floor price is going to make any big difference, I cannot see the argument. If the floor price did make a difference and priced people out, they are pricing in ganja and amphetamines. Albeit they are illegal products, but they become more and more the choice for substance abusers. You have to help those people. From the right, the Country Liberals want to rehabilitate people.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy, the member for Karama, spoke about a 2 km law - a dry town. In Alice we have had 2 km laws, we have had dry towns and we have had restrictions where you cannot get casks, or buy long necks of beer anymore. We have had restrictions coming out of our ears, but it is getting worse and worse all the time. The old argument used to be: ‘No, the restrictions are working. The violence levels are going down; fewer assaults, fewer rapes, fewer murders’. Look at the figures now. They are all miles away from the figures they used to argue. That argument has been left behind, now it is a floor price argument.
The floor price argument is flawed because everything is already above the floor price except for the 2 L wine cask. The other reason is because it does not look at the broader picture; it is an isolationist policy approach, and it is not going to solve the problem. The problem is bigger. I do not want to see our gaols full of people who are drunks who committed crimes, such as drink-drivers. I do not want that; I want to see development out in the communities. I want to see people in jobs, off welfare, being a participant in society in an economic sense.
I can tell you the Country Liberals’ policy, which everyone knows. We have to be reactionary with this policy. I do not want to be reactionary, but we have to be. We have to get the drunks off the street; it is an unsafe environment. It is unsafe for me, as a general citizen, walking down my street - it is completely unsafe. I know people say: ‘Oh, do not talk the town down’. However, the fact remains that is how it is. I feel unsafe going down to my bottle shop, where a knife was pulled on the bottle shop attendant just a couple of weeks ago. Someone tried to knock off a couple of bottles of Bundy rum - not 2 L cask wine, Bundy rum.
We will get the drunks off the street. If you get picked up three times in six months, you will go to a tribunal where you have to take voluntary rehabilitation. If you do not, you will be mandatory rehabilitated for three months. You will be picked up off the street. We will make the street safer, but that is just one part of the right approach to the alcohol debate.
The broader debate is development and getting people into jobs - and that is not easy. We have had too many years of failed leadership by the federal level politicians in the Northern Territory, particularly the member for Lingiari. We have to have economic development and jobs, and get to the root cause of why this substance abuse continues. We are worse in the Territory than anywhere else in Australia. You do not need statistics and reports to tell you that. We have to get a working population; it is the only way.
However, from the short term, as soon as we get into government, we will be cleaning up the drunks off our street. They will all be going to a tribunal. If picked up three times in six months, they will be going to the tribunal and into voluntary rehabilitation. If they skip that voluntary rehabilitation or they do not want to do it, they will be mandatorily rehabilitated. We will not put up with it anymore; we want our streets clean; we have had enough. While we take that hard line approach, we will also be looking at measures to put in place to try to help people not be substance abusers, and be participants in society and get a job - that is the most important part.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Sanderson for bringing this debate on this matter of public importance today. It is quite right the Northern Territory government be condemned for their failed implementation of policies that addresses the broader issues of alcohol consumption in the Territory. What they are doing is dilly-dallying; they are not addressing the real issue. They are putting inflationary pressures on the good people who do the right thing, just like the minister for CDL, putting inflationary pressures on Territorians by putting up the prices - nothing has changed. The CDL’s scams are not working now, the alcohol measures are not working - you have lost complete control.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I would like to mention some retirees from my department. Joan Ivinson has retired after more than 40 years of dedicated service with the Department of Health. Mrs Ivinson commenced in the paediatric measles ward in 1971, and has since worked in Docker River, Yuendumu, Katherine District Hospital and Royal Darwin Hospital. She has worked in various wards at RDH since 1973, before taking up the role of the Central Sterilising Service Manager in 1998.
Larry Low is retiring after 25 years of dedicated service in the Royal Darwin Pathology Department. Mr Low commenced in the department in 1986 as a multidisciplinary scientist in clinical microbiology before moving into chemical pathology where he has been second-in-charge for many years up until his retirement. Mr Low officially retired in February 2012. I thank both Joan and Larry for their commitment to the department and wish them both all the best in their retirement.
During my adjournment on health in the February sittings, I mentioned that the first Indigenous dentist had been appointed to commence work in Alice Springs. It is with great sadness that I inform the House that the person passed away suddenly in Alice Springs earlier this month at a very young age. She was a graduate of the University of Western Australia. She was the first member of the Noongar people of Western Australia to complete a dentist qualification. The doctor’s partner, family and colleagues have been provided support by the department at this difficult time. I offer my sincerest condolences to her partner and family.
I am proud to inform the House that the Royal Darwin Hospital laundry now employs seven people with disabilities and has recently taken delivery of a gown folder to support them in their work. Project Employment approached the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment with a proposal to supply the gown folding machine to enable a person with a disability to be employed at RDH. The initiative was driven by the RDH laundry manager and Project Employment, with funding from the Australian government to purchase the machine. The machine, which folds gowns and many other linens, allows a person with a disability to successfully undertake laundry tasks. People with disabilities now represent 23% of the RDH laundry’s total workforce, which reflects the goals of the Northern Territory government policy initiatives for employing persons with a disability to become valuable members of the workforce and broader community.
Since last sittings, I had the privilege of hosting the presentation ceremony for the first Department of Children and Families graduates of the Graduate Certificate in Remote Health (Child Protection Practice). This unique qualification focuses on Aboriginal child protection and is not offered anywhere else in Australia. I congratulate those successful graduates who are: Amy Fogarty, Rachel Francescutti, Alannah Gallagher (Advanced Practitioner), Vicky Haddon, Lynne Jackson, Jenny Letchford, Jacqueline McCann, Patricia McMinn, Helen McKeiver,
I also had the privilege of hosting the International Social Work Day function and the Mary Moylan Award, which provides an opportunity to recognise the pioneering achievement of social workers in the Northern Territory at this event. I congratulate the winner of the Mary Moylan Award, Annette (Nettie) Flaherty.
I was very pleased to attend a special Harmony Day at Nakara Primary School. I was very impressed by the diversity of the children. Many of them wore their national costumes - or I should say their parents’ national costumes - and performed some incredible dances - the Indians, the Chinese, the Greeks. I was astounded when two young Indigenous children who were waiting for their turn to perform started playing the sticks in rhythm to the very quick music of the Greek dancers. That is something I do not think you would see anywhere else in Australia - apart from the Chooky Dancers, of course. It was an incredible spectacle. I very much enjoyed the celebrations.
After that, I went to the Happy Migrants’ Harmony Day celebration at Casuarina Library. Many of them were from different backgrounds. Some of them are learning English because English is their second or third language, and they are socialising together. The best way to learn English is by making friends with people who speak English and spending some time with them.
On a sad note, I send my deepest condolences to Katie Vrodos and John Vrodos, and their family, on the loss of their beloved, husband, father, grandfather, brother and uncle, Mr Michael Vrodos. Michael was a much-loved and respected member of the Greek community and a wonderful friend. He will be dearly missed by us all. Michael represents the story of all the migrants, especially from the Greek community, who arrived here in the late 1950s and early 1960s, worked very hard and brought up their children. Michael has a daughter who is a teacher, Yvonne, and a son, Nikita, who is working as an electronic technician. Through hard work, they brought their family up and retired in Darwin.
Many times I asked why they do not retire in Greece. They told me that Darwin was home, not Greece any more. That become apparent after Cyclone Tracy. The first people to come back after Tracy were the Greek migrants. Many of them told me they had nowhere else to go. In Greece, which they left 30 years beforehand, they had no friends anymore, their relatives were getting thinner on the ground, and the only place they had friends and relatives was in Darwin. Many of them had invested their life savings in property in Darwin. They had educated their kids in Australia, so Darwin was the place to be. My condolences again to Katina, to Nikita, Yvonne and Michael’s brother, John.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I say thank you to the hard-working and accommodating vet clinics which operate in the rural area, in particular, the businesses in my electorate which are: Humpty Doo Vet Surgery, Girraween Vet Surgery and the Litchfield Vet Surgery. I will comment on the recently closed vet clinic and the Palmerston and Parap surgeries, although they are not in the rural area.
These vet clinics are all very good places, immaculately presented and staffed by exceptionally professional and caring people who are dedicated to excellence in veterinary medicine. While I have not seen mission statements on their walls, exactly, I know all of the businesses practice the highest quality medicine and surgery with compassion and an emphasis on client education. The vet, nurse, and support staff are committed to providing personal attention to each pet that comes through their door, and to the concerns of each individual pet owner. Being vets in the rural area, they see all manner of unusual accidents and ailments and, sadly, some incidents of harm and cruelty.
From my dealings with them, they understand the special role a pet plays in a family or to a pet owner, and are dedicated to being a partner in your pet’s healthcare. They know, in order to provide pets with the medical care they need, they must provided excellent medical services and have the most capable staff possible, plus they must take time and care to provide the pet owner who brings in these pets with thoughtful and respectful client service. I have found they are always willing to take the time needed to explain an animal’s condition and discuss options for the best care.
I know the clinics well and most of the staff, as I have had reason to visit them often at all times of the day and night - with the money-draining dogs I own. In some way, I feel I half own some of the surgeries, and in my next life I am definitely going to study and become a vet.
The vet and staff have come to know my dogs well, including Musket, who now has one ear, and Dagger, who has no tail. However, they are happy, well-functioning dogs, albeit not as pretty as they used to be. On more than one occasion when I have presented at the vet surgery with a mangled dog, I know the vets have looked on with despair and were not hopeful for a recovery. However, I have had great faith in their skills and capabilities and, of course, my dogs’ resilience and fighting spirits. They have recovered, and recovered well, if not a bit more ugly.
I express my thanks to these vets, and I know people across the rural area do as well, as they have saved many a pet from snake bite, barbed wire injuries, thrown fetlocks, skin problems, broken limbs and diseases. Sadly, sometimes pets cannot be saved; however, the vet and the human care are exemplary during what is always a tough time for a pet owner.
In regard to the Coolalinga vet clinic, which was owned by Ulich and Maria Wong, I say congratulations on a long and meritorious career in vet care for all animals, big and small, and for providing vet and support services to the rural area for many years. Ulich and Maria recently closed their clinic to have some lovely rest time, and I am sure Ulich will be out fishing as often as he can. I used Ulich and his services many times over the years, as did my family, and I have him to thank for saving one of my previous dogs, a lovely blue heeler, from a king brown snake bite. I wish Ulich and Maria the very best in their retirement and I am sure they will continue to live in and enjoy the rural area.
In regard to the Palmerston and Parap vet surgeries which I had the mixed fortune to have used over a recent period of three weeks, I express my thanks to vets Bree, Sue, Ian and Fleur and all the staff at the two vet clinics. Without your care and skills and loads of treatment, Dagger not only would not have a tail, she would not have had a life.
I place on the public record the good work, as I have said, and the care that vet clinics provide, and the people involved. At the Humpty Doo vet clinic there is Emma Zalcman, who is the primary vet, Jessrey Brouss, Jess Clarke, Joanne Behrendorff, Kwan Lee and Jenny Thomas – vets, manager, surgery nurse. At Girraween, Laurelle Bates who is the vet and owner, Jessica Gould is a vet nurse, and Sandy Presneill is the manager. At the Litchfield vets, Bree Hansell is the vet and owner, vets are Alexandra Hesford, Jennifer Coates, Annie Kicinski, Caroline Astley; Janine McArtney, who is a manager; Steffi Hubel, receptionist; Merial McKay, senior nurse; Lisa Munroe, senior nurse; Samantha Sheen, nurse; Danica O’Neil, trainee nurse; and Demmi Tinning, kennel hand.
To all the vets and the staff in the vet clinics in the rural area, and in all places in Darwin and the Northern Territory - because it is an interesting place to practice, given the animals and the type of activities - I say thank you to one and all. I wish you all the best in your practices and, hopefully, all your patients have a very successful recovery.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I deal with an issue raised in this House last night by the Leader of the Government Business. The Northern Territory parliament has better things to do with its time than to support or be used for Labor Party witch-hunts by a tired old and retiring member of parliament.
The allegations raised in last night’s debate by the Leader of Government Business amount to absolutely nothing. They have no substance, no weight, and even the assertion about the ownership of a vehicle has been discounted during the course of the day. One could be forgiven for wondering what goes on between the ears of the Leader of Government Business. His obsession with the member for Macdonnell has become something akin to stalking. He dedicates so much time to attacking her on the flimsiest of assertions it is becoming an embarrassment to government.
When I see him rise in this House, I am set in mind of a Dickensian character, a Uriah Heep - no a Scrooge, better still. I can picture him as he shuffles around his office with a candle holder as it weakly burns light against the air-conditioning of his office, providing him with little warmth, his glasses perched on the end of his excessively long nose, shuffling about, pulling the wings off flies saying: ‘Alison, Alison, Alison, Alison’. It is bizarre - absolutely bizarre - because the member for Macdonnell has, according to his own Chief Minister, been exonerated from all these investigations.
I can point to questions asked about the member for Macdonnell. I raised issues about the member for Macdonnell at one stage based on information I had received, and she was thoroughly investigated. The 2005 Acumen Alliance report, which the minister raised in this House last night, cleared the member for Macdonnell of anything. However, because he suddenly says the terms of reference were wrong, he laid table, after chart, after document, on the table as evidence of his tired, pathetic stalking, serial offending in this House. He referred to newspaper articles dating back to 2006. However, he did not refer to media releases from the government on 13 October 2005 saying: ‘Nothing wrong’. The minister himself has said she has done nothing criminally wrong. This is the minister, by the way, who has faced allegations of interfering in police investigations. His obsession with other members and the standards that surround them is just amazing.
This Ebenezer Scrooge, who shuffles around in his slippers and nightgown in this cobweb-infested world, is a mere remnant of the decent bloke who walked into this House. He once said to me, the very first time I met him at the declaration of polls in the 2001 election: ‘Even though you are CLP, I am looking forward to working with you and I really want to do good things for the people of the Northern Territory’. What happened to that guy? What happened to make that man become the shuffling, old, bitter, twisted, angry man he has become now? Where has the decency gone?
This is the guy who will spend hours trawling through hundreds of pages of documents in an effort to pursue this matter to its nth degree, and pursue the member for Macdonnell because she did whatever she did to the Labor Party - to the nth degree - but will not turn his attention, effectively, to his own ministries.
If the Leader of Government Business wants to leave a lasting legacy, surely it should be doing something or leaving structures in place that will do something for education of the kids of the Northern Territory. Yet, when you hold up the results of the NAPLAN tests, it is a sea of red because he is too busy going through piles of documents, hundreds of pages long, trying to find evidence in some sort of witch-hunt - which the rest of the world has moved on from, including his own colleagues. However, he continues to hunt and jump at spectres, shuffle down the corridors of power, infatuated with the history of the member for Macdonnell, despite the fact he has said in this House that she has never been charged or even accused of a criminal offence. Yet, he insists and goes on with it. It is pathetic, it is sad, and it shows what a shambolic wreckage he has become as a minister of the Crown.
This man is the minister who was prepared to stand up in this place and say: ‘Yes, we are giving Year 12 certificates away to people who cannot read English’. Surely, that is where his focus should be. Surely, the next time he walks into this place, he should saying, ‘I have announced I am going to do something about the fact that we give matriculation certificates to kids who cannot read’, rather than pursuing a vendetta which is entrenched in a black and withered heart.
Surely, there must be something left of the man in 2001 who said he wanted to do really good things for the kids and the people of the Northern Territory. Surely, there must be some semblance of that decency left. He engages in personal vitriol, day after day in this House, attacking the member for Macdonnell for no other offence than being sufficiently critical of the Labor Party as to leave it, rather than attending to his duties as the minister of the Crown. Surely, the attention to detail and the care he puts into his vitriolic attacks should be energy better expended in the governance of the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
I know what this is about. It is all about generating a little political noise so he can muddy the waters around the member for Macdonnell and run his allegations. Well, all those allegations have been run and they have died natural deaths. That is not just an opinion of mine; it is the opinion of the current Chief Minister, who has said so in this place. It is the opinion of the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, who has said so in this place. What is he trying to do? What on earth does he think he is going to achieve?
The critical issue I raised many years ago about the member for Macdonnell has come to nought. I have been told that by reports and by ministers on that side of the House. We have all been told that at length. Yet, he persists for nothing other than some tawdry political points scoring. Is that really what the Labor Party has come to in the Northern Territory? Rather than standing proudly on their achievements - such as they are - and saying: ‘This is the product of good governance of a good Labor government’. Rather than that, it is vile, venom, strychnine-laced criticism of an individual member of parliament who had the audacity to leave the Australian Labor Party because she no longer agreed with its philosophies.
That is what they offer to the people of the Northern Territory as a government. That is what Anna Bligh’s Labor Party tried to do during the election campaign in Queensland. References to the Crime and Misconduct Commission by the Queensland government, I think it was, about Campbell Newman, his family, and his wife, amounted to nothing because the public could see what it was - a desperate slime being bucketed at the other side of politics in an effort to obfuscate the real shortcomings of a long-term government.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, a bit of free advice for those people over there, particularly the Leader of Government Business: lift your own standards rather than just pouring anger and bitterness over everybody else, and you may actually have a chance of being re-elected. But, keep up the stalking weirdness, and people will treat you as though you are a stalker and you are weird.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak this evening in the adjournment debate about a recent visit I made to the beautiful town of Alice Springs. I was approached by the Education minister’s office to see if I could represent him in Alice Springs, given he has great difficulty in being in two places at the same time.
I went for a couple of reasons. The first was to do with an invitation from United Voice union with regard to a campaign they are running to highlight the importance of child educators within early learning centres and childcare centres. It is part of the campaign called Walk a Day in My Shoes. The minister had accepted an invitation and had also invited the member for Araluen to participate in the campaign. So, that is what took me to Alice Springs for 14 March. I was very happy to represent the minister. When I was asked if I might be available to cover for him, I leapt at the opportunity.
I have a long association with childcare in my community of Nhulunbuy, given that each of my three children were in childcare whilst I was working as a high school teacher. I was involved with Nhulunbuy Community Childcare Centre over those years, most of them on the committee in one way or another. As a consumer of childcare services, but also as someone who has been involved in the committee, I gained some insights into how centres are run and how hard the people in those centres work to look after our most precious assets, our children. I attended the YMCA of Central Australia childcare centre. The director is Mr Navin Bhandari. I was met by Navin when I arrived ready for duty at about 7.40 am on 14 March.
I shadowed the early childhood educators I was working with. I had a group of children in the three to five age group. The member for Araluen was in the room next door with the younger children. The campaign Walk a Day in My Shoes is for politicians and decision-makers to participate in and to put themselves in the shoes of early childhood educators to see how hard they work, and the tasks they take on. It is a very valuable exercise to see how hard they work. We know people in this sector are undervalued and underpaid and they work incredibly hard. Because they are undervalued and underpaid, far too often it is the domain of short-term employment. It was a very valuable morning for me. I was lucky enough to have a tea break. There were a number of young women – and it is predominantly women who work in this sector - who did not have a tea break because there was no time. There was not a floater available to provide coverage so they could do that.
It gives you firsthand insights. The most poorly paid people in this sector earn around $15 an hour and those with Certificate III start at just over $17 an hour. I have an 18-year-old daughter who has just picked up casual work in a supermarket to supplement her cost of living whilst she is at uni, and she is making nearly $18 an hour. It seems incredibly unfair that people in this very important sector of early childhood in our childcare centres are so poorly paid. We know the ages from birth to five years are the most formative years in a child’s life. The people who work in that sector are not babysitters or childminders, they are early childhood educators.
This campaign, which is driven by United Voice union, is all about gaining that recognition. I have read their submission to the federal Treasurer seeking dollars from the federal government to boost their wages. Our minister supports it, and I am pleased to see the member for Araluen supports it. It is a very positive step and I wish them well in their campaign.
At the end, as I departed, we had a debrief and a chat about what I had seen and experienced. I signed a document to say I pledged to support this campaign and I was a handed a mock cheque for around $71, which is what I would have been paid for my five hours on the floor at this centre before tax. It is not a great deal of money.
In the afternoon I represented the minister, wearing my hat as parliamentary secretary for Education and Training. I attended Centralian Senior Secondary College to meet with the principal teacher and 11 bright-eyed students from Years 10 and 11 who are in the new Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Futures, which was established at the school at the beginning of this year.
This is one of four Centres for Excellence in the Northern Territory. It is all about recognising that we need to provide opportunities for our very bright young things in our schools. We need to promote opportunities for them to pursue their talents. In Alice Springs, which we know is a city renowned for its solar capacity, this particular centre is about excellence in sustainable futures. I met with the students - all bright, curious, talented young things - led by their award-winning science teacher, Ms Jennifer Trewren and Principal, Eddie Fabijan. We had a very interesting chat about what had brought them into this course and what it was they wanted to do when they left school. Their interests were really diverse, from architecture to politics for one of them; science, and journalism. They are all undertaking additional studies in sustainability in their own time.
There was a bit of a demonstration of a number of projects these students were undertaking around power generation using water, the sun’s energy, and wind as well. What they are doing there is fantastic. It is the first year. These 11 young people are very excited about what they are doing. We hope to see this program grow. They are ideally situated alongside the CDU campus. It is obviously a very good relationship that Centralian Senior College has with CDU. In fact, it is the first time I have visited Centralian Senior College, and it has a real feel about it, like a university campus. They made a decision at that school not to wear uniforms. As Year 10, 11 and 12 students, they are treated as young adults and, accordingly, it is their choice not to have a uniform. Anyway, all power to them. I wish them all well with the Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Futures at Centralian and, indeed, I wish all students there the very best of luck with their studies.
Because I was travelling all the way to Alice Springs, there was not much point travelling all that way just for a day, so I opted to stay on for an extra day. With some support and an escort from the Office of the Chief Minister, I made a visit to the community of Santa Teresa. I had only visited there once a couple of years before with the Council of Territory Cooperation, so I was seeking an opportunity to return to that community again as parliamentary secretary for Education and Training, to step into that school. I had not had the opportunity previously, so I thank Greg Crowe, who is a very busy man, for spending a little time with me to walk me through the school. It is a fantastic school, it looks all the better for a BER project that has only recently been completed that has delivered a new library, a new computer, and also a new staff room area.
It is a good school. They struggle in some areas with attendance, but I have to say, the most impressive class was Year 7. There was a bottom on every seat in that class and a group of bright-eyed, young things. It certainly was not set up for me, it just happened to be the class I stepped into at that time. There was a young Indigenous man from Santa Teresa - and forgive me, I cannot remember his name – who was, effectively, doing a practical teaching session and teaching maths to those kids. That was really great to see. We want to see more Indigenous people in our schools. Growing our own is critically important. I was very impressed with that school.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was also very impressed to see the swimming pool was full of water and a lot of work is under way. It has been a long time coming, but that community welcomed their new pool, due to open very soon, I understand.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will do a quick rundown on a few issues. First, I wish the Speaker all the best. She has been working under a strain, as we know, this week, and I believe she was looking quite ill this afternoon. I hope she has plenty of rest between now and the next sittings. I wish her well, and I am sure other members do so as well, because she is a great woman who works hard for the parliament and has a hard job trying to keep us in line. We would love to see her back at the next sittings feeling much better than she is today. All the best to Jane Aagaard.
I will also talk about something that happened today and thank the member for Goyder for being involved, and the minister for helping with it as well. There was some difficulty getting some funding for the Litchfield Bears Rugby League Club. They had money set down in the agreement I had with the Chief Minister regarding funding for the Freds Pass Reserve. Unfortunately, it had been withheld because of some other issues at Freds Pass.
Thankfully, with some negotiations which included the member for Goyder, the minister obviously spoke to some of his staff and had a meeting with a couple of representatives from the Litchfield Bears Club. A successful outcome was achieved and that money is being released for lights. There will be lights at Freds Pass at the Litchfield Bears’ home ground and, hopefully, on their fifth – I believe they have five - home matches this year, which is an achievement in itself because for so long the Northern Territory Rugby League has refused home games away from Richardson Park. If you want to develop a supporter base, you have to have home games where the people live. That is a great thing and these lights will really help that club.
I do not often defend my good friend in front of me, Mr Tollner. He uses me for a bit of a free kick now and again. There was a misunderstanding in the debate about the council elections with the member for Arnhem. The member for Arnhem mentioned one of the causes of low percentage voting was because of sorry business. The laughter was not aimed at that particular person. We thought it seemed a bit much to say the low turnout of voting across the Territory was caused by sorry business. That was the issue that was being laughed at. I do not believe the member for Fong Lim intended any hurt when he laughed. It was just that we thought the comment from the minister sounded like an exaggeration as the reason why, over all the Territory in the shires, there had been a low turnout. I thought I would clarify that because I believe there was a misunderstanding.
I made a trip to Lambells Lagoon, which used to be called Humpty Doo in the war time, where they used to grow rice. Our department of Primary Industries as I like to call, but it is the Department of Resources, has rice trials out there at the moment. A couple of weeks ago, I went out to look at those rice trials and they are certainly quite impressive. I thank Rowena Eastick who is, I believe, the chief scientist looking after those trials. Important information is being extracted from those trials. They are growing upland rice under irrigation, and are comparing a range of varieties. Some are more suited to colder climates and some are more suited to the tropical climates of the Northern Territory. They are testing out the best varieties. Blast is a rice disease and it can wipe out a crop. Blast was one of the reasons rice did not go so well in the Kununurra region when it was being grown there.
We have one grower at Tortilla Flats who grew a small crop last year. He had some difficulties, but he is intending to grow rice again this year. I hope to find some time to see how he is going. If you want to look at an old crop in the Territory being revisited, it is worth going out to Coastal Plains Research Station at Lambells Lagoon and looking at the rice trials there; they are quite impressive.
Another area of concern to me is we still have no movement on a regional waste facility. At the present time, nearly all the waste from the rural area goes to Shoal Bay. It all goes there eventually - people take it to the transfer stations. We do not have a place for dry waste and contractors either dump it in the bush or have to travel miles into Shoal Bay just to take a little pile of concrete and tiles from a plumbing job. I ask the government to really get going on this. If it has decided the regional waste facility will not be suitable at Howard Peninsula, which is north of the new prison, they should really have had in their planning - and they talk about strategic planning - a place where a new regional waste facility would go. If there is a gap in that strategic plan, it is where waste will go. I do not think councils want to be relying on Darwin Shoal Bay. It might be good for Darwin City Council, because they collect all the money, but it is not good for residents in the rural area. When the new town of Weddell is developed, there will certainly be a bigger need for a regional waste facility.
There have been comments in the NT News. I do not have anything against the NT News making comments about me, but they do harp a little that, for some reason, I was the cause of the tip closing down and the reason we have to go to Shoal Bay now. The reality is, I probably cannot argue with them; they all believe that is the truth. There may be some element of truth in it, but there were three reports done by Litchfield to try to get an alternative site: in John Maley’s time, just at the end of my time when Mary Walshe took over, and during Mary Walshe’s time. There were three independent reports. The council never owned tips; it always leased the land government had provided them. The council, up until now, did not have any land it owned; it only had permission to use land from the government by a leasing arrangement.
The council, through its reports, identified Sunday Creek as an option. The minister, at the time, said no. Then, the minister said Humpty Doo should close down. I am not saying Humpty Doo should not have closed down. What the council was asking for was some time to keep Humpty Doo open while it developed Sunday Creek. Unfortunately, that did not happen; Humpty Doo was closed down. It was a good thing it was closed down. However, I sometimes think the stories are spread by people who do not actually understand the issues in the rural area; they make a judgment from a long way away and do not understand the frustration local government had with Northern Territory governments for a long period of time. In many cases, Northern Territory governments were anti-local government. I can tell you many a story where that was the case.
The other area I will talk about is the council elections. It amazes me - and I do not know whether anything can be done; maybe we can ask at the Estimates Committee - that we had to wait all week to find out who the mayors were. I cannot, for the life of me, work out why we are not counting preferences on Monday and count the postal votes, if they are needed, on the Friday. If someone could tell me what would be wrong with counting the preferences at the present time - I do not know.
I even looked up tonight just before I came in here about 5.30 pm to see if there have been any changes on the Alice Springs’ council elections. There does not seem to be any change. It seems a very slow process. I do not think proportional voting has anything to do with it. I actually asked, many years ago, that we look at proportional voting. I put a submission to LGANT many years ago. I still have the files in my office.
In Tasmania, it takes a very short time - two days I think - to put it through the computer and come up with the answers. I ask the NT Electoral Commission, why can preferences not be counted earlier? You know the number of postal votes, because you would have sent them out to those people, and you will know whether those postal will make any difference to the final count. It is a little disappointing. People voted last Saturday, and they still do not know who their representatives are, especially in Litchfield, Palmerston - Katherine is pretty well certain. In Alice Springs, there is still some doubt. You would hope we have a system that does not leave people sit around for a week waiting for the final count.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope things can be improved. If legislation needs to be changed, maybe that is an option. However, if it is just a regulation that says you cannot count until Friday, well, maybe common sense should take over.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak quickly tonight on three issues. The first one is an e-mail I received. I want to read it out it. It is from a lovely young family in Palmerston and, once again, provides evidence things do not always go to plan. This government often talks about how great things are, yet, things are not as great as they continually make out. If things did work as well as this government always leads us to believe, then no one would come into our office to complain. We would never receive a phone call or an e-mail.
I thought this one was quite sad. It says:
- Hi Pete, I just thought I would like to let you know about a problem with the ambulance service. On Monday at the Palmerston shopping centre, Brandon collapsed.
Brandon is her son:
- He stopped breathing for approximately 30 seconds his face went a ghostly white, lips and hands went purple. An ambulance was called. Half an hour later the ambulance car turned up. He had been sent from Darwin. He said he could take him in but if we wanted an ambulance it would be at least another hour.. Luckily Brandon had started to pick up in that half an hour waiting so he was able to go by car. I was very upset. If he hadn’t started to breath we would have lost him. By taking over an hour for a proper ambulance to arrive could have lost him his life or someone else.
That e-mail struck me because the original call that was placed to 000 would have said that a young boy had stopped breathing. You would expect, whatever was going on, that would have become the highest priority. It should be mentioned that this is a boy with special needs, who had to wait 30 minutes because the ambulance service had to send a paramedic from Darwin, because there was no one in the Palmerston area - and this is the Quick Response Unit, not a fully-fledged ambulance. That this car had to come all the way from Darwin because there was nothing in the Palmerston area is a sad indictment on this government.
They talk very tough about how they have delivered services, are managing growth, are planning for growth, yet, here we have a city of 30 000, a rural area of that number again, and we do not have an ambulance which can get to a boy who has stopped breathing. That is the truth. That is the situation we find ourselves in. It is not good enough.
The second issue I am hoping the Transport minister might be able to answer. I have had a number of complaints about the Roystonea Avenue/Lambrick Avenue extension. The earlier complaints were to do with dust and so forth. I know the workers there did what they could to alleviate that with watering the area. However, the sad reality is that extension has had the bitumen down since December. We are now approaching the end of March and there is still a fence across the road. I realise there are some lights to go in on the Lambrick Avenue/Roystonea Avenue intersection, but I do not understand why it is taking so long.
It turns out I figured, wrongly, that perhaps with the minister in town this week for sittings they were waiting for an opportune time to open the road. It is fine to have your opening at a later stage when it is appropriate for you to make the time, but that road could be open today. The bitumen is down and has been since December. The white lines are down. Everything is ready to go except there is a big fence across the road. That will allow traffic to flow through that area much more efficiently than it can be now.
I have written to the minister quite a few times about this. It poses another question because the Roystonea Avenue/Temple Terrace intersection is already under great pressure and needs to be duplicated and upgraded. When this extension is opened it is only going to add more pressure to that intersection. That is the same intersection which will be under further pressure as the Palmerston Hospital is constructed. That is where all the major traffic is going to come in from. It is already under pressure today. We have not opened the road. We have not done any work on that intersection. I can tell you it is grid locked there in the morning with all the Defence members trying to reach Robertson Barracks from the Gunn area and other suburbs in Palmerston. It is terrible in the morning; cars are lined for what looks like miles back down Roystonea Avenue. I can only imagine that intersection is going to become a great deal worse when that road is opened.
The last issue I want to talk about is I received a complaint which was also sent to Tony Burke MP, and to ministers McCarthy and Lawrie. There are a couple of other people on here, including Martin Ferguson. It was in regard to parks. We have a government that talks about what they are doing to promote tourism in the Northern Territory, but what I found surprising in this letter, which was sent on 12 February, is nobody on the list had even bothered to get back to this gentleman. I will read the e-mail:
- I’m writing to you as the Director of National Parks at Parks Australia regarding the proposed increase in public liability from $10m to $20m, which your department will require from commercial tour operators starting in 2012.
I am objecting to such a huge increase. The $10m has been in place for several years, and presumably it has been sufficient for that period of time. Why is there a sudden need to double this amount, especially when the other state national parks services have a $10m requirement?
Patty from Parks Australia Uluru has quoted from your Parks Australia website: ‘We understand that the increased cost of premiums will be modest. The impact on a tour operator to acquire and maintain the higher level of cover should generally be small (and premium costs are tax deductable)’.
That comment displays a lack of understanding of the impact this will have on small businesses. Tax deductibility is not a magic technique for avoiding payment.
My insurer has quoted $6200 for $20m cover, an increase of $1000, or 19% from the $10m cover …
That is certainly not a ‘small’ increase and is way out of line with CPI or any other such measure.
- Auswalk commenced in 1994 with just four walking holidays. Since then we have gradually increased our tour operations to all states. We start with just one tour in a state, and then gradually expand from there. Most states welcome the additional business we bring to them, with a large percentage of our customers coming specifically to walk.
There are already more obstacles for tour operators such as ourselves in the NT than in other states. An excellent example of this is the university course that we must undertake in order to be able to guide at Uluru Kata Tjuta. And another different course in order to be able to guide in Kakadu. These courses cost a significant amount of money to undertake and can take up to several months to complete. Each guide who takes a group into these parks must undergo the course, when they leave our employment we must have another new employee do the course.
More business hurdles equate with less business. We are typical of other national tour operators in Australia. If government keeps putting obstacles in the way then companies such as ours will inevitably bypass those ‘difficult’ states and focus on working in states that do not have such onerous conditions and costs.
Tourism is good for the Australian economy, a fact which I am sure you are most aware of. I am writing to ask what you can do to reverse or reduce any of these new burdens being imposed on tour operators.
Interestingly enough, I followed up with Philip Coleman, from Auswalk walking tours, who wrote that. Astoundingly, no one from either the Northern Territory government or the federal government has got back to him to even acknowledge there is a problem. Again, I ask this government if we have any chance of bringing tourism back to its once heyday. Whilst we acknowledge there are many problems with the high Aussie dollar and a number of reasons why people are choosing not to tour as they once did, unless we meet these challenges by doing things such as supporting these small businesses - we are doing no favours for them, our hotel industries, or our economy if you just continually provide more bureaucratic bull layer upon layer, as you seemingly do. What we have to do is streamline the processes. What we have to do is support small business so we can support our own industry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016