2016-03-15
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 6 classes from Leanyer Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Leanne Avery and Ms Claire Rowat. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 167, I advise that I have received Message No 31 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to bills passed at the February 2016 sittings. The message is dated 8 March 2016.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the Administrative Arrangements Order published in Northern Territory Government Gazette No S9 dated 15 February 2016. I advise the Assembly that on 15 February 2016 His Honour the Administrator made the additional appointment of a minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Nathan Barrett, as Minister for Sport and Recreation. I congratulate Nathan Barrett on his promotion.
Continued from 11 February 2016.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, this bill was adjourned at the consideration in detail stage during the last sittings. The Deputy Speaker will assume the Chair to facilitate debate. I understand the minister will seek leave to withdraw the amendments schedule circulated in February for a replacement schedule to be considered.
Consideration in Detail
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to withdraw the remainder of Amendment Schedule No 46 as circulated during the February sittings and replace it with a newly circulated Amendment Schedule No 49.
Leave granted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Assembly has before it the new amendment schedule, which replaces the previously proposed amendment to clause 7 of the bill, which was not moved before the matter was adjourned last sittings. The Assembly has agreed that clauses 1 to 6 stand as printed.
Clause 7.
Clause 7 defeated.
New clause 7.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the amendment be agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: We are still waiting for the amendments to be circulated, which may …
Mr ELFERINK: That was circulated yesterday. You should have received an e-mail. Attached to the e-mail was a letter from the Chief Minister, as well as a letter from the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to its recommendations and the proposed amendment. Concerns raised about the last amendment have been addressed by withdrawing the last amendment and replacing it with the new amendment, which should have been circulated to you last night.
Essentially, the change to the amendment is that the Chief Minister must refer to the Remuneration Tribunal to exercise the power. This gives greater comfort to members regarding the issues they raised last time.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! We received a letter from the Chief Minister dated 10 March, but I did not receive an e-mail yesterday.
Mr ELFERINK: It is the same letter. Does it have the letter from the Remuneration Tribunal attached to it?
Ms LAWRIE: No.
Ms FYLES: I received a letter from the Chief Minister which had an attachment from the RTD. That was dated 10 March, not yesterday.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, 10 March. I have had so much paperwork going through my office that I cannot remember exactly when I signed off on it, but I am sure they have been circulated. It was deliberately designed to attend to all the issues that were dealt with last time.
Ms LAWRIE: In regard to the amendments before us, (2A) has been inserted which says:
Could you explain? I understand that the Chief Minister has new discretionary powers …
Mr ELFERINK: No, they are not new. Anyway, go on, sorry.
Ms LAWRIE: Broader discretionary powers. A step is now being inserted to receive advice from the tribunal before exercising those powers. Is that advice binding?
Mr ELFERINK: No, it cannot be, as you well know. Let us go back to the first assertion you made. The power has always existed. The effect of this amendment will limit that power.
The concern raised was that the bill originally brought before the House to amend the legislation had the effect of repealing that power which had always existed. The last amendment sought to restore the power which had always existed. However, members raised questions about that so the new amendment places a greater limitation on that. Bear in mind, of course, that if the power is sought to be exercised by the Chief Minister when he seeks information from the Remuneration Tribunal it must be tabled. That is the comfort there.
However, in binding the Chief Minister necessarily to the Remuneration Tribunal I am not sure, in the hierarchy of things, if that would be appropriate. Certainly, he must seek advice which has to be tabled. It is then up to the public to determine the appropriateness of the Chief Minister’s actions.
Ms LAWRIE: My understanding of the powers of the Chief Minister is they are not just contained to severance pay. Going to the letter of 10 March, is it the intention of this government to exercise those powers in relation to severance pay only?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, with the exception that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also be properly remunerated for her role as well. Those are the two recommendations from the Remuneration Tribunal, and what we will limit ourselves to.
Ms LAWRIE: Sadly the Attorney-General moved away from the microphone during the last statement, but that is the statement I am seeking.
Mr ELFERINK: As per the letter from the Chief Minister, I give a cast iron guarantee – as cast iron as it can be – that the intent is to only apply the recommendations from the Remuneration Tribunal.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 10 February 2016.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Territory Labor supports these amendments. Last week the Department of the Chief Minister briefed my office and me on the amendments. I thank the public servants who took the time to do that. The amendments will strengthen the operation of the Inquiries Act and the authority of the board, commissioner or authorised person acting in an official capacity conducting an inquiry. These amendments bring the power to the board or commissioner under the act in line with similar provisions in other jurisdictions. The amendments strengthen the provisions for witnesses to cooperate with an inquiry, with the creation of offences for contempt and obstruction of a commissioner. They strengthen the confidentiality provisions by inserting a penalty for a breach.
Labor supports amendments to legislation which strengthen government accountability and transparency. Last year we released our discussion paper outlining options for reform, both in parliament and electorally, for the improvement of public disclosure laws, the establishment of an integrity framework and that an ICAC will be a part of the Northern Territory. That is the important bit for debate today. There needs to be a framework and an ICAC should be a part of it.
Labor had a good track record of improving transparency when last in government. Labor introduced freedom of information laws, provision of information about government services to the public and whistle-blower laws for the protection of individuals, and improved the administration of government services. Labor established the Estimates Committee process for public scrutiny of the government’s budget. Labor established a ministerial code of conduct and limited government advertising through the Public Information Act.
I do not believe you can look at this bill today in isolation of what is happening in the Northern Territory. There is a case for urgent comprehensive reform and action in the Northern Territory to restore trust and integrity to government. Over the last three-and-a-half years Territorians have witnessed a series of events which have seen trust and confidence in public officials and the Northern Territory government hit an all-time low.
The behaviour of the CLP has cost the trust of Territorians. The actions of the CLP government show a complete disregard for the rights of Territorians to an open and transparent government. There is a desire for comprehensive reform to restore trust and integrity, but nobody trusts the CLP government to do it. The CLP cannot be trusted to bring forward that reform, and this bill serves as an example of why. Sadly, the CLP’s motivation for this bill is not reform, but a vehicle to have another political kick at several politicians and that is a shame. At a time when the public wants comprehensive reform, all the CLP has done is look for a cheap vehicle for political kicks. We have seen that in the way they approached this in the media.
Territorians need more than that. The desire for petty politics or self-interest as motivation over meaningful reform or the best interests of Territorians is another reason Territorians do not trust this government to deliver comprehensive reform to restore trust and integrity to government. They do not trust the Chief Minister, Cabinet or the CLP.
Labor believes a new public integrity framework needs to be created to restore integrity and trust in the Northern Territory political process. This is a critical step in the Northern Territory’s evolution as a stable and mature democracy. If you are not trusted you cannot deliver government. If you are not trusted you struggle to deliver reform or make big decisions and have them carried through. A lack of trust in this government has seen repercussions everywhere.
Recent events, in particular the multiple investigations into allegations of improper conduct by the former Northern Territory Police Commissioner, demonstrate the need for a clear, efficient and transparent integrity framework which must include an ICAC. We made a submission to the inquiry – it is happening right now – into an ICAC in the Northern Territory. An ICAC must be established in the Northern Territory and should exist within an integrity framework.
The Northern Territory has existing statutory authorities with significant powers to investigate matters in an independent manner within their legislative purview. Territory Labor outlined in its submission and reform paper a desire to add an ICAC and an integrity commissioner or committee – that is important – to this framework so all the pieces fit together. As already stated, the recent multiple investigations into the alleged misconduct of the former NT Police Commissioner show the need for an holistic framework to investigate all matters raised in a way that maintains public confidence, exists separate to government and fits together in way that ensures people can have trust in the system.
This bill focuses on one thing, and Territorians are demanding comprehensive reform. We see the role of an integrity commissioner or committee as providing advice and assistance to government agencies and other statutory officers to actively prevent corruption, as well as providing education to the Northern Territory community and public sector about corruption and its effects.
This was a recommendation in the Ombudsman’s report into Matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by the former Commissioner of Police and another police officer. He said:
Perhaps they do not want the advice. It is alarming to us, and there are constant examples of how this government goes head first into things without thinking them through or considering the integrity of how it should conduct itself. If we had an integrity commissioner in the Territory there is every chance the former Deputy Chief Minister could have received advice about proper conduct of a minister. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister’s and Deputy Chief Minister’s actions over the last month have shown a complete lack of understanding of the responsibilities of Cabinet ministers. Territorians understand why the former Deputy Chief Minister should not have had parallel conversations about personal and Territory interests.
The Chief Minister’s decision to welcome the former Deputy Chief Minister back to Cabinet post-election if the CLP wins shows no lessons have been learnt and the CLP accepts this conduct. It is no wonder the CLP consistently fails community standards, and no one trusts it to restore trust and integrity to government.
This bill is an example of why Territorians do not trust this government. It is not motivation for reform, but a vehicle to kick a few politicians – we saw the way they handled the media on this – and in ignorance of reforms recommended by the Ombudsman which could lead to meaningful reform about how ministers conduct themselves. The CLP has not gone down the path of comprehensive reform, restoring integrity and trust to government or repairing the trust deficit it created in the Territory. It is taking this piecemeal approach in the absence of a proper framework and approach.
This bill is another reason for the cynicism of Territorians and why they do not trust this government or how it conducts itself. There are constant examples of how this government fails the community test.
We support the bill and the amendments, but recognise they are in the context of a complete lack of trust in this government and its plan to deal with that. I acknowledge the government can do it anyway. No one trusts this government to bring forward the reforms or implement them meaningfully, or conduct them in a way that will work for Territorians.
The only way it can sell this is at the next Territory election. There will be a clear choice between the CLP and how it has conducted itself during this term of government, and a Labor government which will bring forward a comprehensive plan to restore trust and integrity to government – to have an ICAC, an integrity commissioner – and deal with the issues which have emerged through this term in a proper, comprehensive way.
Madam Speaker, we support this amendment and lament the inability of this government to bring forward a comprehensive reform package.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the amendments to the Inquiries Act. Why has it taken so long? The Stella Maris inquiry was completed a long time ago. Also, why was the clause I raised in debate at the last sittings, where one of the recommendations was the information commissioner also be the integrity commissioner – if you look at the Stella Maris inquiry recommendations you need to say up front that you agree with this many, there should have been a time frame for implementation, and there needs to be clear reasons for not having an integrity commissioner.
I said during the last sittings, when dealing with the minister for Primary Industry’s matter, that it showed we should have an integrity commissioner in the Northern Territory. Be that as it may, the Inquiries Act is an important one. I do not know if any recommendations will be made in relation to this act by Mr Brian Martin QC, who is looking at proposals for setting up an ICAC. Will the structure of the NT Inquiries Act be investigated by Mr Brian Martin? We will see when he delivers his report.
In the meantime the Inquiries Act should not have any holes in it. It is obvious from the second reading – the minister said the bill arose from recommendation 12 of the Stella Maris inquiry conducted by Commissioner Lawler. He found the act was deficient. The documents identified as relevant to the inquiry were unable to be seized because the act did not provide for seizure. There are also no penalty provisions for anyone hindering or preventing access to places, premises, buildings or documents. The current process provided in section 8 of the act does not provide a power to seize documents or compel production of documents or goods.
You would hope someone conducting an inquiry had that power, otherwise documents important to the inquiry technically could not be seized. That would make any inquiry unable to find the truth, which inquiries are all about.
I thank the minister for my briefing. There are some definition changes – powers of entry, inspection and seizure as mentioned previously, and obstructing a board member, commissioner or an authorised person. There is a definition of contempt, and there have been some changes since the briefing, which are last night’s amendments. I have been working through those and can ask some questions of the minister now or wait for the consideration in detail stage.
I thank the government for noting my concern in relation to the penalties for contempt. At the briefing I raised that under the previous amendments the maximum penalty for a person who committed contempt was 100 penalty units. That, in itself, seemed strange because a rich person could pay the fine, keep paying it and so be it. You are in contempt of the board or the commissioner if you do not take an oath, do not answer a question or do not produce a document or thing, although that has been changed slightly.
If someone refused to answer a question under the previous amendment it was only 100 penalty units. Someone with a lot of money could keep paying the fine. I am pleased to see a six-month imprisonment penalty now. That is good because you do not want people getting away with keeping quiet and making the inquiry, in theory, end if you could not get the answers you wanted. That could also make the inquiry reach a conclusion that might not be satisfactory because they could not get the answers they needed to make sure the inquiry made important findings.
I support this bill. There was a famous day where this parliament asked for an inquiry into Foundation 51 and the legislation regarding political donations, something I will hopefully bring forward before the election. I am sad that did not succeed. I understand the politics and why we had half an inquiry. Regardless of the politics or the issue, governments should be willing to stand up to the scrutiny of this House and an inquiry.
If there is nothing wrong the inquiry will show it. If you support an independent inquiry what do you have to fear? The government did itself a disservice because it supported that foundation, and has every right to. Others believe that body was perhaps doing something it should not have under the Electoral Act. The way to clear the air so people can make a judgment is through the inquiries system. After all, that is what it is for.
I am glad, Chief Minister, that you have introduced these amendments to the Inquiries Act. They strengthen it, and that is good. This is an important part of our democracy. The danger for majority governments is they could use it for political point scoring. I have faith that whoever is appointed to undertake the inquiry would step away from the partisan background of this parliament and look at the issues in a neutral way so the public sees the results as fair and proper.
In summary, to save us going to consideration in detail, minister, could your response include why clause 11, Contempt, 11(1)(b) has changed from:
To:
Perhaps you could explain the difference. It does not seem to make any difference to me. I am sure someone in your department could explain the difference.
There was another slight change in relation to new section 12(b)(iv) which was:
And has been changed to:
What are the technical reasons for the change to include a book, document or writing as required by the summons? I thought in ‘produce a document or thing’, that ‘thing’ would cover the world because it is such a broad word.
I am not criticising those changes, Chief Minister, but would like an explanation of why the changes have occurred. I am happy to raise them, if you want, in the …
Mr Giles: It is a drafting change.
Mr WOOD: I am trying to understand the reason for the drafting change. When people change things you ask what was wrong with the existing amendment. It is no big deal, Chief Minister, but perhaps you could answer those queries in your response.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for introducing this bill. In the past I have been opposed to setting up an ICAC or a Royal Commission in the Northern Territory for a number of reasons. One is that I believe such a commission, as shown elsewhere in the country, does nothing to improve perceptions of the institutions we have.
It is overwhelmingly important that people have faith in their institutions. ICACs can undermine that faith because they are not courts of law, do not necessarily deal in facts – they do, but they then have to go to a court of law to be proven. They do an enormous amount of damage to the perception of our institutions.
As Treasurer of the Northern Territory, I am acutely aware of the cost of Royal Commissions and ICACs. At a time when we are trying to clean up Labor debt and reduce deficit, spending somewhere between $20m and $80m on an ICAC or Royal Commission seems an excess, especially when there are many other worthwhile things government should be funding.
Since having voiced those views some time ago I have changed my mind. The perception of this place has been undermined to such an extent that the only way to clear it up is through a Royal Commission or an ICAC. It is fundamentally an issue of dealing with perceptions.
I have struggled with this since the start of this term of government. People may recall I was the original Health minister when we won government in 2012. I initiated the police investigation into the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme travel. I saw the inconsistencies following a fairly rigorous inquiry of the scheme by the Health department.
The system was being rorted. Perhaps that is too strong a word, but people were being very liberal with the way the concession was being treated. I initiated changes to the scheme in my first budget, changing the way pension and concession holders could access the scheme. It was originally calculated on a trip to Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne, and a person could qualify for a trip every four years and half a ticket every two years.
We changed that to a flat dollar amount, fundamentally to address the issue of people fooling the system. That was done to bring integrity back to the system. You would swear, by picking up a newspaper or listening to media reports, that this government is corrupt and had a problem with the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. An average reader would believe it is the government’s problem and we did not fix it. That is arrant nonsense. It has been interesting to see the way public perception has been changed by those opposite, and the media, to take aim at this government for having the audacity to inquire into what was happening with the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme.
This government made moves to rectify the situation. We had an inquiry. We also had an inquiry into Stella Maris. Unfortunately for those opposite, it did not appear the way they wanted it to, ‘There’s nothing wrong in giving a rent-free building to the unions for 10 years. That’s okay.’ That inquiry found something different. Interestingly enough, it found what they would consider no criminality.
It seems to have developed a life of its own because the former Leader of the Opposition has decided to take matters further. Containing things to that inquiry, it showed there was a dodgy deal that should not have taken place, but there was no criminal activity. That was our step into inquiries, commissions, court proceedings or whatever you want to call it.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the former Police Commissioner should be investigated by an ICAC. The former Police Commissioner is not only being investigated by Territory police, but by federal police and others. I have a high regard for the integrity of the organisations conducting those inquiries. Sooner or later we will see what the former Police Commissioner was involved in.
The member for Nelson said he is not happy with the outcomes of the inquiries into Foundation 51, irrespective of the fact the allegations were investigated by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, the Australian Electoral Commission, the Northern Territory Police and the federal police, and all have said there is no case to answer.
That is not good enough for the other side. They want an ICAC. If that is what it will take to lay these matters to rest, maybe that is what we need. I will be lobbying the Chief Minister for an ICAC. We need to take a serious look at the perceptions of this place because when you have the media focus, and a focus from the opposition that twists things the way it has and suggests we are somehow responsible for the rorting of the pensioner concession scheme and are rorting the system through Foundation 51, it is abysmal.
We recently saw a front page newspaper story about a deal done by the MUA some years ago in relation to the Blacktip gas field development. That deal was highlighted in the Royal Commission into trade unions. Reams of paper 10 boxes high came out of that Royal Commission. Contained in those findings was that the MUA and the Northern Territory extracted $1m from Saipem, a company doing barge work for the Blacktip field.
People need to remember that at the time that deal was occurring, the Power and Water Corporation – taxpayers, tariff payers and electricity users – was paying millions of dollars for road trains of diesel to go to Channel Island Power Station. Every day of delay in the Blacktip project cost electricity customers and taxpayers millions of dollars in extra diesel costs.
What did the Opposition Leader know of it? The Opposition Leader was chief of staff for the energy minister, Kon Vatskalis, at that time. He also later became chief of staff to the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson. The Leader of the Opposition was paid to know these things.
We all know of the close relationship between Labor and the unions. In fact, we also know that the MUA has formed a sub-branch of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory and is boasting it controls 10% of NT Labor Party membership. That is a big boast! It does that on its website.
Given the closeness of the MUA to the Labor Party, what did the Labor Party at the time, and in particular the now Opposition Leader, know about this effort to extort money from Saipem? Ultimately, that is what this debate is about. It goes to the integrity of every member. Until the Leader of the Opposition explains exactly what he knew, how the deal went down and whether he supported it or not, he has no right to question other members of parliament about their involvement in other things.
It is wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to make allegations of corruption. That is fundamentally what an ICAC is about. Maybe we should have an ICAC. Maybe we should look into the MUA deal that saw $1m extracted from Saipem and the gas pipeline deal the former Labor government made. That saw a 1500 km pipeline sold for $65m, and a gas transportation agreement put in place that did not recognise the fact that we provided the capital to maintain and operate the pipeline for 25 years plus completely amortise the loan.
Maybe we should have a Royal Commission into the 2009 Casuarina substation explosion to find out exactly what caused it and what Labor members knew about it. These are issues of public interest. The public has a right to know where billions of dollars have gone and what deals former and current Labor members were involved in or knew of.
If this is the way the Labor Party wants to go, well bring it on. We on this side have been inquired into death in the last three-and-a-half years. We have had to answer questions about decades of pensioner concession deals that had been done. We have inquired into ourselves. We have seen a former staff member charged with corruption. If we were trying to hide something, surely we would hide that.
No, it is out there. We have looked at ministerial travel back to 2012. The Chief Minister had the Chief Minister’s department go through ministerial travel bookings back to 2012 looking for anomalies. Any Royal Commission or ICAC should be able to troll through records in Labor’s term as well …
Ms Fyles: We welcome that.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nightcliff welcomes that. Let us see how it pans out, member for Nightcliff. This government has been in for three-and-a-half years, the previous government was in for almost 13 years. You cannot tell me in that time there were not more deals like the MUA and Saipem or Stella Maris, where Labor and the unions were in bed together.
I well remember those 13 years of hard labour. You could not get a gig here unless you were tied up with the union in some way. Unions were placed on every government board in the Territory and held in high esteem. A union would never be investigated or looked at. We never looked at what election funding goes into unions and is then paid out to Labor. We all know that Labor has a big washing machine called the union movement, where donors put money into unions for all types of things – training etcetera – and the unions pay it to Labor. Labor has a washing machine to clean up all the money it receives from business donations, but who is under fire?
In my view the Electoral Commission erred when it said Foundation 51 was an associated body. I cannot see how that is possible because Foundation 51 was set up at arm’s length from the Country Liberal Party as a business organisation to promote conservative political values. There is nothing wrong with that, and nothing to suggest it has to be associated with the CLP. However, the NT Electoral Commission determined it was an associated body.
The NT Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission have gone through all their records and the Northern Territory Police and the federal police have both gone through all their records, but that is still not good enough for members on the other side, including the member for Nelson. They will only be satisfied by a Royal Commission.
If we are to have a Royal Commission or an ICAC, yes, drag Foundation 51 to it. However, let us also drag in the union movement. Let us find out exactly what donations are going to unions from businesses in the Northern Territory to fund the Labor Party coffers. That is what I want to know.
My view has not changed; an ICAC is an expense. In the case of the Northern Territory, where this parliament has been maligned by those opposite and the media, it is high time to bite the bullet and allocate $50m to a Royal Commission and get this place cleaned out.
The member for Karama is smiling. She is having her day in court, but she will not be the only one. Others will be caught out and called up. The member for Barkly had his day in front of a judicial inquiry. I imagine it would not have been a pleasant experience. I never want to front one – touch wood. It seems that is the way we are going. I can hold my head up high and say in the last 15 years of parliamentary representation I have never been involved in those types of dealings, and have been fastidious to ensure I have not.
This is not about reality but perception. Those on the other side have done that so well. They have created a perception that we are all crooked and corrupt, and we all need to be thrown in gaol or something like it. You put the perception out and now this Treasurer is saying, ‘Let’s have one’, and calling on the Chief Minister to do the same. Let us get to the bottom of the MUA affair and a few others that have occurred.
I was the minister at the time in charge of the failed AMS system, the Minister for Corporate and Information Services. I saw firsthand the money the former government flushed down the toilet – $70m. You may as well have put a pile of cash on the front steps of Parliament House and lit it. We would have had more entertainment than we did from the $70m Labor wasted on the AMS.
There were reports that the companies involved in the dodgy dealings in Victoria are the same as those here. Maybe an ICAC could investigate those arrangements. The company referred to in the newspaper headlines now has the former Labor Secretary working for it. There are questions about all these things. One would get the impression that this side of parliament is dodgy and those on that side are fine. The media can peddle that, but once an ICAC starts it will have to report reality, which is that this government has nothing to hide and never did. We have had to ferret out these problems. I ferretted out the health problems and the PenCon scheme. I referred it to police and instigated the investigation in 2013.
It is funny how things are twisted. If you read the peddler of smut, Chris Walsh, you would swear this government is on the nose. I heard a bizarre radio interview on the ABC recently where he said, ‘We all know you can’t trust this government; it does not have any transparency. The only question is whether we can trust the Labor opposition’ …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance, and Standing Order 32: offensive. Perhaps you could remind the minister his comments …
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The issues to which the member is referring were raised by the Leader of the Opposition when he was talking about ICACs. If the Leader of the Opposition raises those points of debate the government has the right to rebut.
Madam SPEAKER: I agree, Leader of Government Business. The Opposition Leader mentioned ICAC and things of that nature in his commentary, so it is okay for the minister to do the same.
Minister, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the member for Nightcliff for demonstrating that they want to gag this debate because it is not going their way. The Treasure has had the audacity to call out the chief political journalist from the NT News, who is a smut-monger …
Ms Lawrie: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr TOLLNER: … a peddler of smear …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I would prefer it if you withdrew those comments regarding a member of the public outside this building.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, but the point is made. The chief political correspondent for the NT News sees it as his job to bring this government down and is ably assisted by those sitting opposite. It is in his DNA. He said it on ABC radio last Friday. I am trying to think of the show they have on the ABC. He said, ‘You can’t trust this government, they are all crooked. There is no accountability. They are not transparent.’ That is just arrant nonsense. He says that because I refuse to talk to him. I will never speak to that journalist again. I know what he is like, his DNA, and know that he cannot be trusted. He still writes stories about me even though I do not talk to him. He is part and parcel of the Labor machine calling for an ICAC.
Mr Walsh and Leader of the Opposition, you now have me on board. I agree with you and will look for $50m for a Royal Commission or ICAC so we can get to the bottom of these things. Let us get to the bottom of the PenCon scheme and ministerial travel going back 25 years through an ICAC. If that is what will satisfy people on that side, that is what you just might get. As they say, be careful what you wish for because you might end up with it.
That is where we are going. There is a range of areas we can start investigating immediately, such as the MUA deal, the gas pipeline deal, the 2009 substation explosion, PWC and the fact there are very few records on any of this. I have made inquiries into these things and have run into brick walls. I do not run make allegations left, right and centre. It seems that is the order of the day for those opposite.
I have not been a supporter of ICACs, Royal Commissions or judicial inquiries in the past because I believe they undermine the perceptions of the most important institution in this country, the parliament. To recap so members can understand, this is the only institution where all members are publicly elected. No one elects judges, Royal Commissioners, judicial officers of inquiries, or anyone anywhere apart from this parliament. Territorians elect people to represent them. That is why this parliament is the most important institution we have, why it should be respected and why we should be doing everything we can within our power to improve the perception of this important institution rather than undermine it.
It seems the only way to do that is through an ICAC or Royal Commission. This is a slippery pole we are heading down, but I cannot see any other way.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Leanyer Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Fran Selvadurai, and also middle school students from Katherine School of the Air, accompanied by Sarah Dohl. You have come a long way. Welcome to Parliament House, and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition on several things, one being trust and integrity. I also heard the member for Fong Lim give a range of examples. Most of the things being investigated now started when the opposition was in government. I do not know what allegations they are making in relation to the current government, but it has got on with the job.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned trust and integrity and said the CLP, Cabinet and this government cannot be trusted. However, we are trying to build the Northern Territory with jobs and other things. The Leader of the Opposition is making contradictory statements about many things. He says he will have a moratorium on many things then backpedals. We then introduce sovereign risk. This comes down to the core question of who to trust. Sovereign risk is about what is happening in the Territory at the moment.
We have plans. We inherited a massive debt from the Labor Party with no plans to reduce it. We all saw what happened in Greece when they continued to live on borrowed money. I reference Margaret Thatcher’s great statement: socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money to spend. That is fine if it is what they want to do. If they want to run the Territory into debt and continue to borrow money to fund things we will end up in a bad place. That is what we inherited when we came to government.
We have made some tough decisions and tough calls. We saw many issues and, as the member for Fong Lim pointed out, we have brought a number of rorts to light. When we came to government we promised Territorians we would look into corruption. The first person we found was someone from our side, which was a shame, but we are finding numerous problems from the previous government’s time which need looking into.
Sovereign risk – a number of projects have already been put on hold. It comes down to trust and integrity. In the Labor government, when the current Leader of the Opposition was an adviser and chief of staff to the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, exploration permits were issued to about 94% or 96% of the Northern Territory. Here is the picture: bring your investment dollars in for exploration and bring in the jobs and wealth that is created. They did not say then that in a couple of years’ time they would have a moratorium and put a ban on gas.
People have spent their money. There is a precedent in this country for when you do things like that. You say you can do one thing one year then several years later change your mind. Companies and private enterprise spend their money in good faith. What happens in between? What pressure has been put on the Leader of the Opposition to change what the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, and Kon Vatskalis – which I agree with – did so well, and that is encourage people to invest in the Northern Territory.
Leader of the Opposition, what has changed? What has happened? Who has spoken to you? Who has put pressure on you? You are now telling people they cannot do this and that, and you will look at water licences. What will happen with water licences? TFS plans to build a $500m plant in Katherine. That is on hold at the moment, and I understand it is seriously looking at investing in the Territory. You see a big cross on the Territory map from all these companies. You cannot do business in the Northern Territory because things change. What changed? Given the Leader of the Opposition was working in the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson’s office, what has changed from when these things were done? Did he not agree with it? The question needs to be answered. I ask people listening to this to ask that question of the Opposition Leader. Who has put pressure on him?
Let us talk about the ban on gas. Who has put pressure on him to change his mind? Jay Weatherill, Labor Premier of South Australia, has a policy which says, ‘Bring your money from the Northern Territory. Bring your investment dollars and work to South Australia. We have shale gas here. We have the jobs and investment.’
Across the border, Annastacia Palaszczuk, the Labor Premier of Queensland, is saying, ‘Bring those investment dollars and jobs to Queensland’. Last Tuesday she said on radio that she will not let anyone get in the way of creating jobs in Queensland.
The sad thing is it appears not only state and federal Labor high profile figures are criticising the Opposition Leader for his stand on gas. For those listening, we are talking about shale gas not coal seam gas. Coal seam gas and shale gas are two different animals and cannot be compared. It is like comparing apples to oranges. There is one process for getting coal seam gas out of the ground, and a different process for shale gas. Coal seam gas is close to the surface, and shale gas is between 12 000 and 14 000 feet, roughly 4 km, below the Earth’s surface. I would also like listeners to understand that in the Northern Territory we have been getting shale gas out of the ground for over 50 years. The Mereenie fields around Alice Springs have been providing the gas we started Channel Island Power Station with in the mid-1980s.
I was here as a young bloke and remember a cleaner gas was the future. We would burn coal at Channel Island Power Station. However, half way through the construction the deal was done with gas, and we now have gas powering Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Yulara. Gas from the Alice Springs fields powered Darwin until 2007. You have something that is already happening.
I was on the phone to a constituent this morning about something else and we got to this gas business. She said, ‘I thought this was new’. I informed her that the shale gas we get out of the ground is not new and we have been doing it for 50 years.
I recall the member for Barkly, when in government, on radio espousing the virtues of gas and shale gas, saying it was a great idea. The former Chief Minister, ministers and minister Vatskalis all espoused the virtues of shale gas.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5 classes from Wanguri Primary School, accompanied by Julie Fraser and Rebecca Reyneke. I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, it is timely that these young people visit the Chamber to hear the debate. We are talking about trust, integrity and how you trust people. I am talking about things that are happening now. This is about your future. It is our job to make sure that you have a bright future.
With regard to gas, there has been a change of attitude from when the opposition was in government to now. When in government it issued exploration licences to private companies who invested hundreds of millions of dollars in exploration. They take expensive drill rigs and a lot of equipment out and drill for gas. In the Territory we do not have coal seam gas, and no coal seam gas exploration is occurring. It is all about shale gas which …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance. You allow a degree of latitude, but we are off track from the bill before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: I tend to agree.
Minister, if you could bring your comments back to the Inquiries Amendment Bill and not mining industry dialogue.
Mr STYLES: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will try to do that. This comes down to the pressure put on the Leader of the Opposition. When we ask that question of the Opposition Leader people need to understand in what context. When you ask a question you can get one of a million different answers.
This is about a change. Something has happened on the other side of the House. The opposition makes a decision then makes another one. What has happened? This is about Labor governments in Queensland and South Australia saying, ‘Bring your investment dollars to us’.
The Leader of the Opposition is out of step with everyone else in the country and Labor Party figures like Martin Ferguson. He is highly respected and I hold him in high esteem. He worked for Australia. Sure, he had different philosophical beliefs, but he believed in Australia. He too has asked what is going on. In fact, in his statement he said you would destroy the future economy of the Northern Territory for no environmental gain. This is the future of our kids and grandkids.
Leader of the Opposition, what pressure has been put on you to say to exploration companies, ‘Don’t worry about the billions of dollars you spent because we won’t let you take the gas from the ground’?
Speaking of integrity, you worked for the previous Chief Minister then suddenly you have a different opinion and are out of step with the rest of the country. This goes to trust. The Leader of the Opposition raised trust, and he has a lot to answer in regard to what he is doing for the future of the Northern Territory.
When you look at the pressure unions may have put on people, who are they working for? Are they working for Queensland and South Australia or the Northern Territory? When you are the only one with a certain point of view on particular issues, who is putting pressure on the current opposition to change what it set out to do a couple of years ago? People in the opposition have been on radio espousing the virtues of gas. I ask those people to look into it.
The Opposition Leader made statements about self-interest, which is about looking after the Territory. We are interested first in the Territory then in Australia. Our first self-interest is for Territory families and jobs. As the member for Fong Lim said, in relation to any corruption we need to ask what deals were done then. What is going on and what deal is happening to change everything? You cannot trust the opposition because they change their policies.
Let us talk about trust in water policies. What deals have been done behind the scenes in regard to water?
Mr Vowles: What about deals with water licences?
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection. You have put a $500bn development in Katherine at risk.
Queensland is saying, ‘Come to Queensland and we’ll give you as much water as you want’. Anna Palaszczuk said, ‘We won’t let anything get in the way of creating jobs for Queenslanders’. I assume they will do it the same way we have. It would have to go through a Water Controller, and they will not give licences away. We have a robust process in the Northern Territory and water licences have gone through it.
I understand 90 water licences were applied for when the current opposition was in government and nothing was issued. The best they did was nothing. They had applications for developing the Northern Territory and northern Australia and did nothing. Why did people on that side, when in government, almost stifle development?
We have the gas plant, and I give former Chief Minister Paul Henderson, and Clare Martin before him, credit for getting the INPEX project to the Northern Territory.
Since then people in the leadership of the opposition have had inquiries about their involvement in various corruption allegations. What was the involvement of the Leader of the Opposition, who worked for the then Chief Minister and gave him advice? Suddenly we have a different story. Why? Because someone, it would appear, said, ‘We want investment in other places in Australia’.
These are things the member for Fong Lim mentioned and any inquiry should ask. That is why I support the amendments to the bill. One has to make sure, when dealing with these issues, people take it seriously when they are summonsed; they need to produce the documents and records mentioned in the summons.
The value government places on the respect those in the service of Territorians should hold, and the responsibility to deal honestly and openly with a commissioner or board of inquiry performing its functions under the act, is made clear in this amendment. We need to ensure allegations are investigated and people are held accountable for any corruption, misleading information given to Territorians, or anything that has been done which is not in accordance with the law or spirit of what we do in this House.
Stella Maris is a classic example of an investigation that has revealed several things in relation to trust and integrity. What is the Opposition Leader doing about that? We have not seen too much. All he says is, ‘This is simply about having a cheap shot at several people in this House’. This goes to the core of what the Opposition Leader is about and whether you can trust him. What is he doing about people on his side?
The member for Fong Lim raised the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. I recall when the Country Liberal Party came to government and looked into it. I was a parliamentary secretary and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. A lot of information came to me, which I passed on. I understand some of that information is still being investigated. It is a long haul to find out where some of the corruption is.
One thing I came across in relation to alleged corruption caused the suicide of a person involved in the investigation. That was really sad. This person had worked hard all their life and was trying to run a business. They had been put out of business by people who did not get things right and – I will not talk about the case – it is still being investigated. When information comes to hand relating to some of the tenders dealt with, if there has been corruption someone might be held accountable.
Information also came from the Power and Water Corporation. Power and Water had become a basket case in relation to its finances, all under the leadership of the former ALP government. I will not use any names, but can advise of a case we started to investigate which has been passed on from the Public Accounts Committee. I assume there is insufficient evidence. I had information relating to a $28 000 valve job which turned into a $1.2m job. This spiralled out of control.
I had other people give me information, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, in relation to overruns. Things were out of control. They were part of a process and removed themselves from it saying, ‘I can’t stand this. This is not right.’
With regard to Power and Water and the ongoing investigations into what happened, look at what we did to prevent cost shifting in Power and Water. We separated transmission – poles and wires – from generation and from water and sewerage. When you separate those you get an idea of what may have been happening in Power and Water.
These things are ongoing. I hope we are proved wrong about corruption allegations in any organisation. However, the sad reality is some allegations need to be looked at. People, when summonsed, need to understand they have to turn up and answer questions. If they do not there are serious penalties.
Without these amendments people may not want to appear or, in some cases, may move to another country. Serious questions need to be asked, and these amendments – if anything needs to be tweaked in this legislation we will do it.
The easiest thing – we hear a lot about what Labor will and will not do – is to do nothing. I will reiterate this for those who read the end of speeches as well as the beginning; when there are issues of corruption they need to be investigated fully.
When I became Minister for Infrastructure we looked at the asset management system. One of the first questions, as a former fraud squad detective seeing how much money had been spent, was where had it gone. We tracked where it had gone. This was all under the former Labor government. There was a $70m overrun in one project which was supposed to cost $7m. It ended up costing over $70, heading towards $76m. If you have something that is supposed to run at $7m and it is running at $70m – a 1000% overspend – who authorised that money and where did it go? People were spending money hand over fist. Where were the controls?
We inherited a $5.6bn projected debt, which was a 98% debt to income ratio, when we came to government. You have to ask where the money has gone. Perhaps we should look at that as well as the cost overruns in Power and Water. As the member for Fong Lim pointed out, we need to look at this. There is a need for these amendments to ensure people are required to front up and produce documentation. If they cannot then they are in contempt.
These are great amendments to a great bill. I look forward to contributing in any way I can to ensure those who may have done the wrong thing are held to account.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I want to address some of the issues and nonsense peddled by, predictably, the Leader of the Opposition in his contribution.
Once again he could not help but continue doing what he has been with success over the last few years, which is peddling dishonest reflections of members on this side of the House. He does it on radio, dishonourably, and in ways which I consider little better than wicked.
Let us talk about the idea he has been espousing in this House regarding how this government conducts itself. We heard on radio this morning that he wants to develop for the people of the Northern Territory, should he become Chief Minister, a boring government. He wants to create a government which will be, essentially, boring. That is a euphemism for do nothing. We can already see it writ large in their policies because so many of them say they will review, reflect and place moratoriums in place, along with other things that are code for doing nothing until they decide what they want to do. ‘We will not govern. We will do it all by some form of committee process.’
How long will that take? Will it take a year, 18 months or two years to go through these fairly comprehensive reviews? One thing they will review is water licences. Really?
Ms Walker: You bet.
Mr ELFERINK: Hear, hear! I pick up on the interjection. What will happen under the next Labor government, should it be elected, when someone wants to spend $100m and needs a water licence? ‘You cannot have a water licence because we are currently reviewing that.’ That will be the answer. There will be a moratorium, no doubt, on that as well.
A moratorium on gas is another example. Pangaea is stepping away from the Northern Territory largely because the Labor Party is threatening the future of gas supplies in the Territory. We intend to build a pipeline and have locked in to that, but you have to put gas down that pipeline. At the moment the gas supply we want to put down the pipeline is being shut down. The Labor opposition says nothing about that. The unions should be screaming about that because it is a threat to jobs.
The Labor leader said on radio today that the retail sector is suffering. How will the retail system do better in this jurisdiction if people do not have jobs that generate the money to buy retail products? It is fanciful nonsense, and all about being a small target opposition throwing as much mud as they like.
We also know they struggle with the fundamentals of getting policy settings right. The release of the health policy, which suddenly decayed into a health discussion paper, described anomalous and self-exclusive policy positions. ‘We’ll spend $10m building a new car park …’ – you will not get a very big car park for $10m – ‘… in a hospital we want to wind up.’ That is the rationale and logic. What will you pay for this $10m car park with? What will you shut down? You still have to balance the books, something we have been struggling with for a number of years. The last government that had it good in the Northern Territory was the Labor government, which was able to get GST revenues much greater than anticipated in any forward estimate, and they still managed to rack up debt.
Labor’s Geoff Gallop, from Western Australia, managed to get rid of Labor’s debt before he chose to give away his premiership. If Labor in Western Australia could manage it surely Labor here, which was being swamped in rivers of gold, could. No. We ended up inheriting a $5.5bn projected debt from the former government.
The member spoke about a trust deficit. How far back do you want to go in relation to the trust deficit? What is the ICAC allowed to look into? Will there be some form of restraint on how far back it can go? If it goes back 10 years, I would invite the ICAC to look at the circumstances surrounding Bob Collins’ suicide. One interesting fact many people seem to have missed in that process is that the then Police minister, Paul Henderson, and then Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, were briefed by the then Police Commissioner, Paul White, two days before Bob Collins attempted to commit suicide in relation to the inevitable charges that would flow in relation to paedophilic conduct.
There has never been an inquiry into what information was passed. That investigation, for all intents and purposes, seems to have gone on for some time. It was not the first time, if rumours are correct, that Mr Bob Collins had been investigated. The big difference on the occasion when Messrs Toyne and Henderson were briefed by the then Police Commissioner is that the Police Commissioner made a very important note to the effect that it did not matter what Mr Collins said, he would be charged. Two days later he got wind of that and tried to commit suicide. He eventually succeeded. There was not a word about that from the member opposite.
Will there be a boundary for how far the ICAC can go back and what it looks at? I bet under a Labor government there will be. ‘We’re not going to look at that.’
I invite members to look at the recent newspaper article, something I find utterly disturbing. It pertains to the MUA and its conduct around Saipem, which is a substantially-owned subsidiary of Eni. Saipem was part of the project to bring gas from the Blacktip field to Darwin. Saipem was supposed to participate in supplying the gas and building the pipeline. The MUA, as noted in the Royal Commission into union corruption, muscled Saipem for $1m, according to the newspaper article. That muscling process occurred when the now Leader of the Opposition, Michael Gunner, was chief of staff to the then Chief Minister, if not chief of staff to the then Mines minister of the day, Kon Vatskalis.
That position means you get to know pretty much everything that comes across your minister’s desk. The MUA was muscling, to the detriment of the Northern Territory, a company trying to provide gas to Territorians at a time when we were buying bulk diesel to pay for electricity generation. The MUA was not called to account in any way other than getting a mention in the Royal Commission into union corruption. What does the Leader of the Opposition know about the extortion by the MUA against Saipem and ENI at the risk of Territory jobs, whilst we saw power prices creeping up ever so inexorably to pay for the diesel to make sure the lights stayed on?
There was not a word from the Leader of the Opposition. He was asked but would not talk about it. Why not? Why would you not talk about what you know, Leader of the Opposition, in relation to the MUA’s muscling tactics? Leader of the Opposition, does the MUA donate money to the NT Labor Party …
Mr Barrett: Campaigned against me.
Mr Styles: It is 10% of their membership.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear answers but not from the Leader of the Opposition. Ten percent of their membership campaigned against the member for Blain. Obviously the MUA, which extorts money from businesses trying to deliver services to Territorians, is a donor to the Labor Party to run against the CLP, and the Leader of the Opposition is happy to take the donation. Leader of the Opposition, will you now reject any funding from the MUA whatsoever on the grounds that it threatened the energy supplies of the Northern Territory in pursuit of its own interests? I would like to hear an answer from the Leader of the Opposition.
It is all too easy to not answer the question. It gets several paragraphs in a newspaper article and is supposed to go away. It should not go away. These questions need to be asked. The opposition has been relentless in the way it has besmirched the reputations of people on this side of the House with the most tenuous links when you have real and defined links between the Leader of the Opposition, the MUA, the former government and the Blacktip arrangement in the Territory. He thinks he does not have any questions to answer in relation to that. He does and he should. He should condemn the conduct of the MUA in relation to how it conducted itself with Saipem, and make it clear that he will not take money from a union which has extracted money, by threats, from businesses operating in the Northern Territory. He says he is the champion of small business in the Territory because the retail sector is suffering a bit.
Some sectors of the Northern Territory economy have been challenged recently, but overall the economy is in good health. You cannot say you will be the champion of business when you have, either by omission or act of conduct, supported the conduct of a union which says to companies, ‘You do what we want you to. You give us $1m or we will make it impossible for you to deliver results in your workplace.’ Would Territorians have paid for that?
Is there another example of sweet deals with unions in the Territory? Let me think – that’s right! Stella Maris. That inquiry led to the amendment in this bill because the Stella Maris inquiry was not fully capable of uncovering documents which clearly demonstrated a conspiracy between the then Labor government of the NT and Unions NT to provide, rent free for the next 10 years, a government-owned building. That is a shocking and embarrassing arrangement.
It is all too clever for the Labor Party to say, ‘We are all sweet shining lights’. Shine a light on yourselves and what happened with the Stella Maris arrangement. The other component which is completely ignored by members opposite is how the sweet deal would work. Unions NT was in partnership with Harold Nelson Holdings, which was the Labor front company for storing its money. That is lawful; there are no problems with that. However, the deal was that Unions NT and the Labor Party shared the same building, which they no longer wanted because they wanted to redevelop the block.
Unions NT got a sweet deal and moved into a building the Territory taxpayer owns rent free for 10 years. They could then redevelop the block in Woods Street, along with Harold Nelson Holdings, and as a result the unions and the Labor Party would have been beneficiaries to millions of dollars. Yet, the people sitting opposite have the audacity to allege corruption by members on this side of the House. That is a lot less tenuous than some of the links they have tried to make about people on this side of the House.
It appears, under a future Labor government in the Northern Territory, if you have ever had anything to do with a political party which is not Labor – namely the CLP – you will not get a water licence because of your membership of the CLP or any other political party other than Labor. That is the angle they have run. They produced no evidence whatsoever relating to the unlawful or improper issue of water licences in the Territory. In fact, when they make that allegation without foundation, they do not attack the Northern Territory government but the integrity of the Northern Territory Water Controller …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause so I can welcome some students. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, accompanied by Courtney Morgan, Belinda Hicks and Nicky Farrell. Welcome to Parliament House, and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: Labor is more than happy to attack the integrity of the Water Controller of the Northern Territory, who sits at arm’s length from government. The Labor Party holds a curious world view, being that government should not govern but farm everything out to non-elected officials, and government should not make any decisions whatsoever because non-elected officials appointed by government should do that. In fact, they should be two steps removed. Under the Labor model of governance – small wonder they will be a boring government – they will not do anything because they will farm it out to a bunch of unelected people. Boards advise governments, not the other way around. Water Controllers and others advise government, not the other way around.
In this jurisdiction we want to make certain that government can govern. However, we have not been good at engaging in the trench warfare the members opposite have so relished since the get-go.
The most classic example of that is the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. PenCon has, as part of the scheme, allowances enabling pensioners to travel. That money is placed into the system. When we came to government we were aware of some issues with the PenCon scheme.
In December 2012, in this House, I said I would go after corruption where I found it inside government. A number of criminal matters were discovered, not pertaining to any member of parliament but officers inside the executive, both within government and some areas outside government, and either separations or criminal sanctions were brought against those people.
In early 2013 the Health minister advised Cabinet that he had become aware of potential rorting in the PenCon scheme. We are talking four months after forming government. As a consequence of that he referred those matters to police.
As early as 2012 the then Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, God rest his soul, reported to the then government that there were problems with the administration of the PenCon scheme and something needed to be done. They did nothing; they let it operate. It was not until early 2013 that the then Health minister said, ‘Go in and investigate’. Fraud investigations flowed from that. We are aware of how that flowed through the system. Fraud investigations, by their nature, tend to be complex and difficult things, particularly if you are uncertain whether criminality exists of if they are of a lesser standard, such as a breach of contract.
The most obvious matter investigated was Latitude Travel. We know where that landed. The model used by Latitude Travel was criminal in its nature. That is now supported by a subsequent guilty plea from the Katherine-based travel agent who pleaded guilty. A number of other matters are also under investigation.
We have lost sight of the fact that the Northern Territory CLP government blew the whistle. The former government did not blow the whistle despite the fact the then Auditor-General was saying, ‘Be aware, there are problems here’. That report was laid on the table and they did nothing; they did not want to look. That is the difference between the boring government the Leader of the Opposition would like to form and a government that does stuff.
We did not necessarily like, when we shook the tree, where some of the nuts fell. There are matters before the court now that I will not reflect on because they are matters for the court. However, because we have been brave and consistent with the message that we would respond to corrupt and criminal behaviour, that is what we have done. The Leader of the Opposition is now decrying he has discovered corruption and it is somehow magically our fault. Now he wants an ICAC. He says an ICAC will root out all the corruption. I say that the protocols in place, when effectively and properly applied, discovered this corrupt activity. If the Leader of the Opposition is aware of any further corrupt activity he should report it to the existing institutions.
Those institutions have been successful in their pursuit. Nevertheless, we will look at an ICAC and are waiting for Justice Martin to recommend a model we have committed to adopting sight unseen. The system has worked when government has told it to. We have not had last minute Cabinet meetings to shuffle land deals sideways to unions.
I opened the newspaper recently and saw the NT Prison Officers Association up in arms about what a Labor candidate is attempting to do. Let us talk about the fund associated with the NT Prison Officers Association. When I was a member of the police force I was in a similar fund, and fees were paid into it for a number of reasons. Those dues ran the police association, which then provided legal services if needed, bereavement services or sick days for people who had run out of sick leave. It was a trust account like any other.
The NT Prison Officers Association runs exactly the same type of account, to which prison officers regularly contribute a small amount from their pay. Along comes the annual general meeting of the NT Prison Officers Association and the Labor candidate says, ‘It’s got nothing to do with me; I’ll step out of the room.’ Magically, off the floor of that meeting attended by about one tenth of eligible members, somebody suggests putting $5000 into Phil Tilbrook’s election campaign. Why was that not on the agenda? It it because most prison officers do not want their trust account money spent on political campaigns? You would think, after the debacle in the teachers’ union a few years ago during the Blain by-election, the union movement would have figured that out. That has not happened and Phil Tilbrook, or his associates, is attempting to raid the trust account to fund his campaign after he uses the government e-mail system to canvass for votes and promote the Labor Party.
What would be the response of the Australian Labor Party if John Elferink, member for Port Darwin, started sending e-mails to the Health, Child Protection and Attorney-General departments saying, ‘Vote CLP in the next election’? It would be a screaming front page headline, an outrage. Corruption would be alleged by the members opposite. If one of their candidates does it – silence. It is disgraceful conduct. Why was this matter highlighted? When did this become a problem? Members of the NT Prison Officers Association in Alice Springs said, ‘Hang on, that is not right. That is our trust account for bereaved widows and members who are sick or who need legal representation.’
Subsequent to that I have received information about the operation of that trust account which concerns me. I have referred it to the appropriate authority, in this case the Director-General of Licensing, who oversights the Associations Act under which this trust account is formed.
I will be interested to see what the management of these trust accounts looks like, but they are not there for political parties to raid to support political candidates.
Leader of the Opposition, what will you do about that? What will you do about your candidate raiding a benevolent trust account for the purposes of funding his election campaign? What have we heard from the Leader of the Opposition so far? Nothing, nada. He could not be less interested in engaging in that type of controversy.
I find it astonishing that members of the Prison Officers Association say, ‘Goodness gracious, minister, what do we do? We have heard other information.’ If it is true, I am astonished at what I have heard ...
Ms Walker: What about the CLP raiding $500 000 of taxpayers’ funds for your On Track campaign?
Mr ELFERINK: What part of ‘trust account raid’ is the shadow Attorney-General struggling with? Trust accounts are generally run as benevolent accounts because there is a beneficiary at the end of it. When a person settles property in a trust account they understand the gift is conditional. In this case it is conditional on the terms of the account, which can be found in the second schedule of the association’s constitution. It is about bereavement payments.
The alternative Attorney-General does not care about that. It has to be a political cheap shot interjection. Seriously? Will the unions be given carte blanche that the alternative Attorney-General would turn a blind eye to trust accounts being raided? That is embarrassing. That is the alternative government of the Northern Territory. Whilst they think it is a popularity contest, as long as they can muddy the names of people on this side of the House successfully they will.
It is already clear that union trust accounts will not be safe. The education union raided membership funds to run political campaigns for Independents in an attempt to deliberately undermine an EBA negotiation. The Stella Maris debacle was an attempt to move hundreds of thousands of dollars of free rent into the pockets of unions. The MUA has extorted money from NT businesses. That successful attempt at extortion led to money going directly into the coffers of the political party of the members opposite. They say and do nothing about it.
All they want to do is accuse this side of the House of corruption. Really? The worst they pointed to was Foundation 51, an organisation which was ultimately determined – whether you like it or not, or the Treasurer agrees with it or not – to be an associated entity of the CLP. When that determination was made I immediately made the full declaration we are required to. The fine for failing to do so is $200. The police thought it was so unimportant they decided not to prosecute because it was not worth the effort – a $200 fine.
That is the worst they have been able to throw at us, despite the shocking revelations about how unions conduct themselves. The frustration I feel is that the Opposition Leader, the alternative Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, will turn the same blind eye in the same way Labor traditionally has.
Labor turned a blind eye to the Collins stuff because he was a Labor senator. They turned a blind eye to the MUA stuff, the Northern Territory Prison Officers Association, windows being punched out by a candidate, PenCon when they were warned, and for some reason that is the CLP’s fault. Perhaps a great way to win an election is to drag everything down. What about the vision for the future, the belief that we can build a gas industry which will employ thousands of people or a pipeline worth $1bn. All that is under threat because these guys are officially saying their policy is to do nothing.
I am frustrated that this Labor opposition may well come to government on a policy platform of: do nothing, be boring, have a bunch of committees to look into stuff and whatever you do, do not question the union movement in the Northern Territory. It is a sad government that pursues governance in that fashion.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 123, I inform honourable members that a response to Petition No 51 has been received and circulated to members.
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to give notice of a motion.
Leave not granted.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would enable the minister to give notice of a motion.
Ms Lawrie: Madam Speaker, is this a standing order debate?
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is a debate about the suspension of standing orders to allow the minister to give notice of a motion.
Ms Lawrie: Madam Speaker, can we debate whether or not we suspend standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms Lawrie: Madam Speaker, I would like to contribute to that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that standing orders be suspended.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I will move that this House condemns Territory Labor and its leader for creating a crisis in confidence, caused by its anti-jobs stance for short-term political expediency that has resulted in companies laying off Territory workers. In doing so it has sent a serious message internationally that the Northern Territory under a potential Labor government is too high a risk for investment.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Inquiries Act to allow a member of the board of inquiry, a commissioner or any other person to have power to seize any item, books, documents or paper they reasonably believe to be related to the inquiry.
Recommendation 12 of the inquiry into Stella Maris recommended the Inquiries Act be amended to allow for the seizure of documents and provide a penalty for breaches of the act for obstruction or hindrance of a board of inquiry or commissioner by a person.
The reason the Country Liberals government introduced the Inquiries Amendment Bill 2016 is quite clear: Labor cannot be trusted to maintain transparent relationships with its union mates. Territorians need to look at the dodgy eleventh-hour Stella Maris deal to remember that NT unions will always be in Labor’s favoured circle. Labor always has been, and will be, nothing more than a union puppet.
I can recall when that file came over my desk because I was then Lands and Planning minister. The file asked to sign over the Stella Maris site to Unions NT. As soon as I saw the damn thing my guts churned. I felt sick. I thought there was something wrong. I did not know whether it was technically right, legal or illegal, but something about that file made me feel sick.
Only the Country Liberals government can be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to the future of the Territory. You only have to look at the history of this government. I doubt there has been a more accountable or open government. Everything is either on the front page of the NT News or mentioned in this House. We hide from nothing. In fact, recent inquiries have all come under the watch of this government.
I do not recall the Labor government conducting inquiries into themselves, their government processes and so forth. I do not see any of them front court.
The processes of this government have worked. This bill and the amendments further strengthen them and that is why we are here today. The bill has arisen as a result of Recommendation 12 of the Stella Maris inquiry by Commissioner Lawler, who found the act was deficient in that documents identified as relevant to the inquiry were unable to be seized because the act did not provide for seizure. There was also no penalty provision for anyone hindering or preventing access to places, premises, buildings or documents. One can only imagine, if this law had been in place when the investigation was occurring, what the inquiry may have brought to the surface, giving Territorians a clear insight into the Labor government and its relationship to unions.
These situations are considered when there is a reasonable possibility that documents or goods such as computers might be concealed, lost, mutilated, destroyed or disposed of. Had this law been in place when that investigation was being undertaken, the outcome could have been far worse than it has been. During a briefing on the bill with the member Nelson, which occurred after the bill was introduced last month, the member expressed the view that given the seriousness of an offence of contempt the maximum penalty of 100 penalty units, or $15 300, was not a strong enough deterrent and that including a period of imprisonment would be a stronger deterrent.
The member for Nelson recognises the seriousness of the offence. The Country Liberals government also recognises the seriousness and agrees that the penalty should be equal. There should be a strong deterrent. Therefore we have included a term of imprisonment of six months for contempt.
The Territory’s Labor government formally decided to lease the Stella Maris building to Unions NT before the department had seen the proposal. The department had no record that a proper application form had been submitted. Given the privilege of being the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment and having access to quite a bit of information, it became clear to me that at no time had this been a recommendation of the Department of Lands and Planning. Decisions made by the former Labor government were in no way a recommendation of the department.
The whole thing stunk and was dodgy. It was typical of the way the previous Labor government worked. It was not in the public interest, we know that. The process undertaken by the Country Liberals government means that a well-respected body has taken charge of the site. There are now many opportunities for the community as a whole to benefit from – certainly not what it was intended to provide for if I had signed off as the relevant minister giving the site to Unions NT. We know what it would have been used for and how they would have capitalised on it.
It was a simple plan by the former Labor government. On its last day in power the former Labor government gave Unions NT a 10-year rent-free lease to a $300m Darwin property for a cost of $442, GST included, despite objections from the Lands department, which wanted to site put out to tender. It was not just the former Labor leader who was involved in this smelly deal. The member for Barkly was found not to have acted with accountability, responsibility or proper consideration of those likely to be affected by the decision.
Instead of copping it the former Labor leader protested to the NT Supreme Court, as has already been discussed today, that she has been denied fair process. The former Labor leader lost that one as well. I believe she is appealing that decision at the moment.
The Stella Maris inquiry came to the right conclusion: the secretive lease deal was dodgy. Where was the honesty and integrity when the deal was done? Was the greater good of the wider community considered when the deal was being done behind closed doors? When was the average punter considered in that deal – the wider community? How would they benefit from this deal which was no doubt put together to ensure a long association with unions and a slush fund of money to line the pockets of Territory Labor?
This government made improvements to the system so that kind of deal cannot happen again. This has a broad positive effect with the potential to save taxpaying Territorians millions of dollars.
Any future member of a board of inquiry, a commission or authorised person will benefit from the legislation because it will allow the necessary powers to effectively conduct an inquiry under the act.
The general public will benefit from this legislation because any future inquiries conducted pursuant to the act will have improved transparency and efficiency. The dodgy deal shows Labor cannot be trusted. I hope Territorians are listening to this today. They should also understand that this Country Liberals government can be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to the future of Territorians. We have introduced this act because of the shady past of the Labor Party.
The member for Fannie Bay, Michael Gunner, has often called for an ICAC. The current processes work and recent events attest to that. Many things over the last two or three years have been investigated by this government through existing processes, through police, an Ombudsman and an Information Commissioner. There are good processes in place to deal with things like this.
In the eleven-and-a-half years of Labor I cannot recall many instances of an inquiry into its processes. Ministers on this side have detailed, openly, the pensioner travel scheme investigated under this government. We know Labor government members had a full understanding of how the system was being rorted but did not have the courage to do anything about it. That is the truth.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about integrity. There is a shady past there. The Treasurer said he now supports an ICAC. He probably supports it because it could uncover much more than the Territory knows about what the previous government did in its eleven-and-a-half years in power, including some of the deals, how they were done and who was affected.
They cast aspersions on this side of the House all the time, such as our relationship with business and those that are shady. Those accusations come this way. This government has introduced legislation to take action against people who have abused government systems. I cannot recall – I stand to be corrected – when the former Labor government investigated some of its own processes and people. They talk about integrity and being an open and accountable government, but what has come out lately shines an ugly picture on the former Labor government.
What does the member for Fannie Bay know about many of the dodgy deals undertaken by the previous government? We know he was senior adviser to a number of ministers, including the then Chief Minister. He either lacks judgment or integrity. However, he has a chance here. He wants to talk about integrity, an alternative government and be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. He says he will introduce an ICAC, and he wants Territorians to think he has integrity.
Member for Fannie Bay, here is your opportunity to talk about some of the things the former Labor government did which you were involved in that made you sick to the stomach and which you knew were wrong. To do any less means you are complicit in decisions of the former Labor government that were dodgy, shady or wrong, and against the wishes or rights of Territorians. Surely, with what we have learnt in the last few days about gas deals, unions threatening to close down work sites and other things that happened in the Territory, the information at hand tells you human intervention caused much harm and cost to the former government. Unions were involved and you knew about and were part of it.
You talk about integrity and wanting to stand up for Territorians’ rights. If you want to be a good Chief Minister here is your chance. Detail the things you know were wrong. To do any less means you are complicit and do not have the integrity a Chief Minister requires.
The Treasurer mentioned people get a bit iffy when it comes to political donations. We know unions support the Labor Party. I cannot recall the last time I saw donations from the unions to the Country Liberals. I could be wrong, and the Chief Minister might know if the unions have donated to the Country Liberals. I doubt it, but we know they donate to the Labor Party – well supported.
You always accuse the Country Liberals of being in the back pocket of business and say business supports the Country Liberals. You can clearly see that businesses in the Northern Territory support both sides of politics. I often think about this, and have recently been doorknocking in Brennan. Political donations came up. The Treasurer previously suggested there is another way forward, which is to make all political donations illegal. Whilst that would be an impost on the taxpayer, the average punter would prefer the fact that paying for an election rules out any influence a business or union may have on a political party.
I stand by that, although it would be an impost on the taxpayer. To make it illegal for any business, union or individual to donate to a political party would just about rule out, for the average punter, any perception that political parties have been influenced. That would be regardless of whether the Labor Party is influenced by unions or the Country Liberals are influenced by a business because of a donation.
I have seen evidence that some former Labor government’s decisions could have been influenced by the amount of money business provided the party. I have seen evidence of certain businesses giving far more money to the Labor Party than the Country Liberals. We cannot be accused of being in bed with big business when business in this town gives openly to both Labor and the Country Liberals.
The average punter will tell you people feel that political parties are influenced by either unions or business. One way to stop that is to make it illegal to donate to political parties. Then there is an impost on the taxpayer. The average punter would much prefer to pay for elections; they are costly, but if there was no influence whatsoever from a union or business the average punter would accept the additional impost.
The Stella Maris deal was not in the interests of the Northern Territory. Imagine if the legislation we are passing today was in place when the Stella Maris inquiry was undertaken.
What annoys me about political parties and governments and the potential for influence from business is the fact we have one party in the Territory, which I and the Chief Minister and I stand with, which supports Territory business in more ways than one and like no other.
What saddens me is the opposition is all about taking jobs away from Territorians. When they mention moratoriums on the onshore oil and gas industry, the cattle industry or reviewing water allocations, they are all taxes on jobs. The Opposition Leader, Michael Gunner, tells Territorians Labor is all about jobs, but everything I have seen recently is about crucifying jobs. How can Territorians put their trust in a party with a leader – the rest of the party is devoid of policies to create jobs and make the Territory prosper.
I would like to one day not rely on federal funding. I would love to be in a jurisdiction so well resourced because of its natural resources that it does not have to go to Canberra requesting – and in some cases playing by its rules – money for Territorians. Would you not like to be resilient and self-reliant? We would have resources in the Territory to create royalties, jobs, stimulate the economy and would not be forever putting our hand out and being a mendicant state.
If the Territory falls into the hands of a Labor government in 2016 we will continue to be a mendicant state for a long time.
I am happy this legislation will pass today. The Deputy Chief Minister spoke about confidence in the Territory economy. There is so much about the Territory that we should not only be proud of, but we should sing from the rooftops. However, you have to have good legislation, which this is. I only wish it had been in place a little earlier so the Stella Maris inquiry could have had the full benefit of it.
I will finish on confidence in the Northern Territory and how it is being eroded by the Labor Party by its lack of vision, policy and drive to find new initiatives for jobs. I spoke to the Chief Minister a few weeks ago about us being in opposition and Paul Henderson saying, ‘To have any chance of bringing INPEX to Darwin we need bipartisan support. There is no way a company will invest $35bn in the Northern Territory if it is not supported by both sides of parliament.’
What did the Country Liberals, in opposition, do as a team? We got behind the Labor government and its Chief Minister Paul Henderson, and backed them 100% to demonstrate our commitment to INPEX coming to the Territory. A change of government would not matter because INPEX would receive the same support. We had to give that assurance that no matter who was in government they were welcome.
The former opposition gave Paul Henderson that support, yet today we cannot get the same support from the member for Fannie Bay, Michael Gunner, or the Labor Party. The opposition will not provide the same support for the oil and gas industry to invest in the Northern Territory after approving permits to explore 95% of the Territory, or to undertake fracking which has gone on for nearly 50 years. The industry has provided gas for electricity not only in the Darwin and Katherine grids, but today Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and many places are running on gas wells in Central Australia. You are putting at risk a major industry and jobs. You are supposed to stand for jobs. You are putting jobs at risk for political gain.
The Country Liberals in opposition gave the Henderson government support for INPEX, and you cannot give this government the same courtesy and support an industry that could provide wonderful opportunities for the Northern Territory. Chief Minister Adam Giles said he wanted all the royalties from onshore oil and gas to go into education. As Education minister, I nearly fell off my chair because I was so excited about that. I could see positives, and how many families would benefit from royalty money from onshore oil and gas going into education.
It is all at risk. Can you not see your own children? A few in the Labor Party are much younger than me. Some have children, some may have them one day. What is the future for their children if we have an industry in the Northern Territory which provides royalties and a future for them? That is at risk because of the Labor Party and Michael Gunner and his short-term view of an industry that has been operating in the Northern Territory for nearly 50 years.
That industry is subject to far better regulations today than existed 40 and 50 years ago. In fact, people from other jurisdictions are looking at our regulations at the moment because they are world’s best practice. The industry is different here than in other places. No government can operate without good legislation, and this is good. For these amendments we went the oil and gas sectors, and nearly to the moon and back.
This government has uncovered so much of what started under the former government, yet the aspersions are that this government is bad and allegedly corrupt. Those in opposition are the ones this should focus on.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this legislation to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, all members support the legislation, as I do. You wonder why so much time has been committed to this debate by the government when everyone supports it. However, you do not have to wonder too much when you hear the tone of the debate. Clearly it is a political tactic by a desperate CLP government to start whipping up fear and loathing of a Liberal agenda that has been seen elsewhere as union bashing. You have guns being fired by the Chief Minister to the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Royal Commission outcomes of the MUA payment. They are demanding answers about what the Leader of the Opposition did or did not know. It is a continuation of beating the drums in Question Time. Instead of the government members talking about what projects they have already delivered in the Territory to help the economy, they are beating the union-bashing drum.
They are ‘laying the groundwork’, as I heard someone on the other side say to a colleague today. Is it another misuse of the powers of state? Is it another misuse of the Inquiries Act? Will the next one be into the unions and Labor? They have been beating the drum in Question Time and this drawn out debate on changes to legislation everyone agrees to.
When you do that as a government, when people see a government act in such a contemptuous way, you lose more support. You have already had a dramatic slide in the polls. The polls, on trend, are not altering but show there is no way you can win the next election. You are a desperate government, and desperate governments do dangerous and stupid things.
You have the potential to show Territorians over the next few months that you care about what is happening in their lives, about the need for resourcing schools and about the improvements to the health system people are desperate to see. During the Dry Season you could do some decent infrastructure builds. I love driving past the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication. That was funding I negotiated for with Anthony Albanese when I was Treasurer. I had direction negotiations with him, visits to Canberra and secured the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication currently under construction.
I am somewhat amazed the road construction is being built at a higher level than the adjacent carriageway. I am concerned that during the Wet Season we will have real problems using the road because of rain runoff, and I wonder how the drainage system will cope. Driving along there you can see little waterfall effects coming from the uneven duplication. It will be interesting to see how future governments cope with the haste at which this government has gone in the Labor-funded extension and duplication of Tiger Brennan.
This government is in panic mode because, three-and-a-half years later, they have worked out what Territory businesses have been trying to tell them all along: the domestic economy is in strife. The big headline economic figures have been strong as a result of the success of Labor securing the Ichthys project. The big picture economic numbers were impressive but they have nothing to do with the CLP, and I take exception to what the member for Brennan said about bipartisan support for that project. There was none.
The then Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, on his letterhead, letterboxing residents across Palmerston, described it as a 19th century project that had no place in our harbour. That is a fact. The letter exists and was being distributed by the then Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills. You can try to rewrite history, but some of us are very clear on the ranting and raving the CLP did about the project. You continued to, sadly, when you came to government. You continued to cause problems in regard to certainty going forward with major investment decisions in major projects because you started to play the blame game. Anything that went wrong must have been that project’s fault, which was ludicrous.
You took an axe to the capital works program in your mini-budget and subsequent budgets. The first attempt you had to rectify that was the last capital works budget. Anyone who understands the construction sector and the planning and design required to get a project on the ground – it is an 18-month lead time for larger capital spends. You have left it too late. You have hit the panic button now because the construction sector, which told you for a long time, is in strife and companies must now be screaming at you, hence your $100m economic boost.
The Chief Minister then said, ‘Financially we are in a black hole because of GST reductions’. Rubbish! Year on year GST growth has been returned to the Territory budget. The Chief Minister said, ‘We don’t know what we will get’. Get Treasury to call the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which always gives an indication for your budget preparation. Until the federal budget is handed down the figures are not published, but you always get an indication from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. You know in ballpark terms. Given there is economic growth nationally, my tip is GST receipts are still holding up and in growth.
Where is this black hole coming from? I suggest it is the Chief Minister’s mad dash spend to get some votes somewhere, because the polls have been consistently dire quarter on quarter, year on year, as a result of the appalling behaviour of this government.
I listened carefully to the Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim; the new Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Sanderson; the Leader of Government Business, the member for Port Darwin; the Chief Minister; and the Treasurer in Question Time, and now the Education minister, the member for Brennan, all beat the drum today on the relationship between unions, Labor and electoral funding. This is no doubt part of their desperate plan to launch an inquiry into unions and Labor in the NT.
The public is fed up with a waste of taxpayers’ dollars where you are simply going after political opponents. It is misuse of the instruments of power and you ought to be ashamed. What is wrong with going to the polls on your track record? What is wrong with saying, hand on heart, ‘This is how we’ve been for this term of government. These are the things we are proud of. This is what we have built, and these are the services we have provided. Here is the fair manner in which we have treated Territorians, and here is the way we have articulated and pursued our vision’?
You cannot because it is a fail. Reflective in that fail is exactly what people are saying in the polls. You can continue to treat Territorians as though they are fools, with contempt, and they will continue to be steadfast in their desire to see the back of this government. Instead of being bullies with the intimidation and harassment you eke out to anyone who is a voice against you, you could try to show that you understand how to be statespeople. I am not holding my breath on that change of behaviour. It has been a long three-and-a-half years watching the bullying, intimidation, harassment and misuse of the instruments of state to bludgeon your political opponents.
The great thing about our nation and Territorians is they do not think it is okay. They do not like it, irrespective of their ideology. Whether it is conservative or not, they do like it. It is un-Australian to behave in such a brutal manner with the tools of state. You wear the consequences of that when people vote. Keep banging the drums, keep steadfast in your view that you can throw some mud, whip up some hysteria and launch into an inquiry. People will see it for what it is and be disgusted. They elected a government that had a mandate to improve housing, planning, law and order and the education and health systems. They are some of the key aspects of Terry Mills’ election plan.
You have not done that. You have torn down some of the finer points of our democratic processes. People have lost faith in the decency, fairness and goodness of leadership. They see it completely lacking in this Chief Minister, and the polls are showing they are losing faith in the alternative. Your response is to be nastier, grubbier and more vicious. People ride through it.
The most beautiful aspect of my journey in the misuse of the instruments of state by this government against me is that people see through it. I cannot count the number of times I am stopped in the streets and people say to me, ‘These newcomers wouldn’t understand. They don’t understand our Stella or get that site.’ I say, ‘I’m looking forward to finding out what the financial arrangements are with the National Trust. I am deeply disappointed that the government plans to carve up the site and flog half of it off.’ People care. Every time you beat me with your political stick CLP and Labor voters in my electorate say to me, ‘You stand strong. We don’t like this. This is un-Territorian and you don’t deserve it.’ They will now see you take that political stick to the opposition and will not like it.
If you start misusing your powers again, but this time focus on the current Leader of the Opposition, you will make him more popular. People see it for what it is, a misuse of power. Territorians see it as a stench and do not want it or a government that does that. They want the government to get on with governing for the interests of the people, delivering improved services across health and education, better roads projects and improved housing.
Housing has gone so far backwards in the three-and-a-half years under this government and so many people are struggling with a crisis. Tenants cannot get maintenance done, and neighbours see places as not being appropriately cared for but their complaints go nowhere.
The government is pretending things are better and crime has dropped, but it is using Territory-wide figures. The data shows dramatic increases in crime in Darwin and Palmerston. In Karama we have worked closely and constructively with the police, and will have to pick up our activities with police in Malak because of the spate of damage and break and enters to motor vehicles parked in the car parks and buildings and organisations being broken into. We are better off than Palmerston, Casuarina or Nightcliff, but levels have increased. You can continue to deny it, Chief Minister, and every time you do people think you are not telling the truth. They see the thugs puff out their chests, do some political thuggery and they do not like it. It will be to your detriment if you treat the public as fools. People see this for what it is.
Everyone, including me, supports the changes to the Inquiries Act. You have proven in debate today – from the Inquiries Act debate and your behaviour in Question Time – that it is all about your agenda, which is to hit your political opponents as hard as you can through misuse of the instruments of state between now and the election in a desperate bid to win.
The public will see it for what it is and will wipe you out of office.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Inquiries Amendment Bill but have some comments to make.
I find the contributions from government members highly hypocritical. As everyone in this Chamber would know, I am Chair of the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Territory. This committee is designed to scrutinise government and conduct inquiries into all facets of government activity. Since I have been Chair of the Public Accounts Committee I have been horrified by the Chief Minister’s unwillingness for anyone in his government to participate on it.
The committee, as it stands, has a configuration of two government members, two Independent members and two opposition members. I am an Independent member. The opposition has provided its two members, the members for Wanguri and Nightcliff, as well as my Independent colleague, the member for Nelson. The Chief Minister has not provided two government members for that committee since it was reconfigured in September last year. We are talking almost seven months. This important parliamentary committee, which is recognised throughout the Westminster system, has not been supplied with two members from the government. I find that appalling.
Listening to this debate today about how important it is – it is important for inquiries to be undertaken under the Inquiries Act by the commissioner or other officers inquiring into government. When I listened to government members’ contributions, I thought how extremely hypocritical they were to support such a bill but not supply two members of their team to participate on the Public Accounts Committee. How tardy! More than tardy, it is an appalling lack of recognition and respect for the democratic parliamentary system we uphold in Australia, not just the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister is about to make his concluding speech about what fantastic legislation this is to amend the Inquiries Act and strengthen it and improve the efficiency and transparency of the inquiry system, yet will not provide two members of his government to participate on the Public Accounts Committee. His lack of respect for the system he is there to uphold is shameful. He is the leader of the parliament of the Northern Territory and he cannot respect an important standing committee of this parliament, the Public Accounts Committee. I find it shameful and extremely hypocritical. The fact that he has not provide two members to the Public Accounts Committee for seven months or thereabouts is reason for me to call for his resignation. How much ruder and disrespectful can you be to …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I call your attention to Standing Order 35: tedious repetition. You have made your indignation abundantly clear with regard to the Chief Minister not supplying members for the Public Accounts Committee. I ask that you come back to the subject, which is Government Business Orders of the Day No 2, Inquiries Amendment Bill 2016, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hear what you are saying and that I have been repetitive. I guess through repetition you can reinforce the point you are making. It is a respected way of debating …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is also a breach of standing orders, member for Araluen. I ask you to come back to the subject at hand, which is Government Business Orders of the Day No 2. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Chief Minister has not provided two members of the PAC. He has not given recognition to the Public Accounts Committee, which is the parliamentary inquiry system to scrutinise government. It is respected throughout the world and the Westminster system. For that reason I find the whole exercise rather hypocritical.
I will talk about other points I find inconsistent with the position of government around wanting to improve the efficiency and transparency of the inquiry system. The member for Fong Lim feels an injustice by the local media as he is not getting a good run. I got the impression that the member for Fong Lim considers himself to be a victim. His memory and recollection of history are limited. I do not see him as a victim at all. He has more than defended himself, and his bad behaviour over the last three years is coming home to roost. The fact that the media finds it difficult to support the member for Fong Lim, his antics and his bad behaviour is fully understandable …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I will not tolerate such blatant digression from the subject. This is not an opportunity for you to personally attack members in this Chamber. We are discussing Order of the Day No 2, the Inquiries Amendment Bill 2016. Would you please, again, return to the subject at hand?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am responding to debates I heard earlier today. Is there a problem with that?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I articulated my issue with your subject matter, member for Araluen. Again, in accordance with my position, I ask that you please return to the subject at hand, which is Order of the Day No 2, the Inquiries Amendment Bill 2016.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The only way I know how to debate is to reflect on what others have contributed. What I heard from the member for Fong Lim was he has had an epiphany in recent times as to the importance of an ICAC, an independent commission against corruption, in the Northern Territory. I welcome the fact the member for Fong Lim has finally seen the light. He is confusing the issue of corruption with bad behaviour. I welcome the fact that finally, after 18 months of discussing the importance of an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory, the member for Fong Lim is embracing the idea.
Mr Tollner: Reluctantly.
Mrs LAMBLEY: ‘Reluctantly’, I hear the member for Fong Lim interject.
The stimulus package announced suddenly by the Chief Minister – apparently we have a black hole in the budget – was raised as a part of this debate.
Making our system of inquiries more efficient and transparent could cast light on these unusual and concerning decisions. The public must scratch their heads and wonder what is going on.
Going back to the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Sanderson mentioned the Public Accounts Committee in his speech and I will reflect on that. He spoke about the effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise government, and how when he was on the Public Accounts Committee he was able to raise many issues of importance to the Northern Territory. He said words to the effect that some of the issues he raised through his participation in the Public Accounts Committee are still being debated today and remain relevant.
It beggars belief why the Chief Minister would not provide two government members to the Public Accounts Committee when the member for Sanderson hailed the effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee in providing efficiency and transparency to the inquiry system within this parliament.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you would prefer have me not to speak anymore. There is plenty I could say, but the point I have made will suffice. I find the government highly critical on this point. I support the intent of the bill and believe government should be scrutinised. Powers should exist to make sure there is accountability and transparency and, in the words of the member for Fong Lim, that there is integrity. Trying to minimise scrutiny of government is antidemocratic, lacks integrity, and the government has tried to minimise scrutiny of itself over the last seven months that I have been Chair of the Public Accounts Committee of this parliament.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contributions to this debate, and thank them for accepting the amendments.
Between the February and March sittings a range of briefings have been provided for non-government members. From one of those briefings recommendations were made to provide a level of imprisonment as a penalty for a certain component.
As a result of some suggestions, we have put forward some amendments. We have also identified a technical error in clause 12(b) of the bill around conduct constituting contempt of the board or commissioner requiring all of the fault elements for contempt, that is, failure to attend to give evidence, take an oath, answer questions or produce a document or thing before a person was found to be in contempt of a board or commissioner. This was not the intention, and only a single fault element needed to be satisfied for a person’s conduct to constitute contempt.
I will come back to some of the comments about the bill in a moment, but will continue going through the proposed consideration in detail amendments.
They are about inserting a definition of contempt as defined by clause 8, proposed section 12, to amend clause 8 proposed section 11(1)(b) to reflect the Parliamentary Counsel’s drafting practice and insert a penalty of six months’ imprisonment for contempt – clause 8 proposed section 11(1).
Also, to amend clause 8 proposed section 12 to make it clear that a person is guilty of conduct constituting contempt where a person is served with a summons to attend before a board or commissioner and they fail to attend to give evidence, take an oath, answer questions or produce a book, document or writing as required by the summons.
The provisions in the bill affected by the consideration in detail amendments are minor and uncontroversial. While not within the scope of Recommendation 12 of Commissioner John Lawler’s recommendations that the Inquiries Act be reviewed and amended to allow for the seizure of documents and provide for a penalty for breaches relating to obstructing or hindering a board or commissioner in the seizing of documents, the inclusion of a term of imprisonment for contempt is pragmatic and consistent with contempt provisions applying to Northern Territory tribunals and courts. It would also provide a stronger deterrent than just a financial penalty.
That is the basis of the consideration in detail amendments.
It would be wrong if I did not respond to a couple of claims and comments. I will answer the comments made by the member for Araluen. She was asking why government has not put anybody on the PAC. It would be great to have people on the PAC. Unfortunately, when you pulled the stunt in parliament and became Chair of the PAC, you lost a lot of confidence. By being the chair, you merely sought a cash grab of an extra $25 000 of taxpayers’ money in your pocket. You played a silly game and now you want people on it. It has been proposed to our parliamentary wing on a number of occasions but no one is prepared to work with you. If people want to put their hand up they are more than welcome. However, nobody is prepared to work with the member for Araluen ...
Ms Walker: Grow up!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: It is important that we point out how many of the challenges in this Chamber started …
Ms Walker: It is government responsibility.
Mr GILES: I hear the interjection from the member for Nhulunbuy saying it is government’s responsibility. Nobody on this side wants to work with the member for Araluen. That is why you do not have representatives on the PAC …
Ms Walker: You need to grow up because it is your responsibility, Adam, for God’s sake!
Mr GILES: The member for Araluen throws a lot of mud. It is important to go through some history. Yes, there have been many changes in government since we took power on 25 August 2012. It started on day one.
Most members would know I support the member for Goyder, even though she has left the Country Liberals. I always have. I consider her to be a good person and a friend, although there are challenging times in politics. However, she was the Deputy Opposition Leader until 25 August 2012.
What she, I and many others did not know was the member for Araluen had cooked up a deal to roll the member for Goyder from day one. From day one of government we had challenges caused by the member for Araluen doing a dirty deal to roll the member for Goyder, now the Speaker. That is where the trouble started. The member for Araluen was treacherous from the start. The member for Araluen became the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer, put power tariffs up by 30%, proposed a range of initiatives to drive up the cost of living in the Northern Territory, was berated for some of those decisions at the time …
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance. I remember you pulled me for relevance during my contribution, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing Order 110 relates to questions.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Sorry, Standing Order 35.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chief Minister is responding to a number of things raised by you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: He is talking about the history of the CLP, which is highly irrelevant.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down please, member for Araluen, or I will have no other option than to place you on a warning.
Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is only fair that we have a chance to respond sometimes. We wear it, we cop it, it is thrown and we wear it all the time. Nobody wanted to work on the PAC, and I am sure all my colleagues would agree to that. I cannot and nobody else wants to.
Member for Araluen, you became the Deputy Chief Minister after knifing the member for Goyder. When you became Deputy Chief and put prices up – I remember you saying, ‘Power is increasing by 30%’ – you eroded confidence in driving down the cost of living. It was not until there was a change that we reduced power tariffs. It all became too hard and you had to resign from Deputy Chief Minister’s job.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 26. If the Chief Minister is so offended by the words of the member for Araluen he may want to give a personal explanation. In the meantime, I ask you to draw him back to the business of the House, which is a bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nhulunbuy. Please have a seat.
Ms Walker: The matter he is discussing is more appropriately delivered in a personal explanation. It is most unstatesmanlike. He is embarrassing.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, thank you very much. I understand Standing Order 26. The Chief Minister is formulating his argument. He is discussing the bill and raising a number of points which were brought forward in the debate.
Chief Minister, please continue.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, we wear it all the time. People are happy to throw it but nobody wants any back. I am pointing out a few key points.
During Question Time today the member for Araluen tried to ask a racially divisive question. That leaves a sour taste in our mouths. She then asked how many Aboriginal people worked in my office. That is not relevant in this Chamber. She is trying to be racially divisive and it does not help.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Before the Chief Minister was interrupted he was explaining the career of the member for Araluen and had reached the position of Treasurer. I want him to talk about the hospital car park.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. There is no point of order.
Mr GILES: The member for Araluen did not talk about how many Indigenous staff she had in her office, or how she sacked people with disabilities from her office. She did not mention she was the architect of car parking fees at Royal Darwin Hospital. She did not mention how she delayed Palmerston hospital, which we now have back on track. She did not mention how she stopped development of the emergency department at Nhulunbuy hospital, which we are fixing, and she did not mention how she sought to cancel palliative care construction in Alice Springs.
I digress. The government would love to be on the Public Accounts Committee, but I cannot find a colleague who wants to work with her, particularly after the stunt she pulled.
The purpose of talking about this amendment bill goes to the heart of the Stella Maris inquiry. Many would be aware of the historical Stella Maris site near the waterfront, a government asset. In its dying days, the Labor government thought it would give the site to its union mates, rent free – a value of $3m for that rent-free period – as a benefit to unions. It would allow them to move in, demolish the current building and make tens of millions of dollars. This is all fact; it is not made up.
The Stella Maris inquiry was headed by Mr Lawler, who made a range of findings. We have accepted some of those findings, one being changes to the Inquiries Act to give the inquirer greater powers to stop, search for and seize documents. Some of the comments in the report are interesting. I will read from page 11 of the report under the heading Cabinet:
It makes comments about then minister, G McCarthy, also known as the member for Barkly. Quote:
We should be mindful of the context because when the inquiry was being conducted the member for Barkly – minister McCarthy at the time of the Stella Maris handover – said he was at the Cabinet meeting when the decision was made. However, during the inquiry he had to apologise for lying because when travel documents were identified he was not at that Cabinet meeting at all; he was in Tennant Creek. That was interesting.
I will quote further the report:
This stinks of the partnership between Labor and the unions. It shows Labor does not run Labor, the unions run Labor. That is why the recent newspaper article is so concerning. It showed the MUA blackmailed private companies for $1m to help do a gas contract deal with the Labor government.
The commentary in the next paragraph is damning:
When a judicial report says that about a minister of the Crown, surely that member must rethink his position in government? That decision needs to be made. The wannabe Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, needs to reflect on how anybody with such a damning report against them can remain on the front bench. I know how that can be, because the education union holds the member for Barkly on the front bench.
That is a serious question for the Leader of the Opposition. How can a member of parliament with such a damning report about his ability, coherence or professionalism, be a potential minister of the Crown in the Northern Territory? However, I digress.
I will quote a paragraph from the Stella Maris report in relation to the second of the three Leaders of the Opposition in this electoral term. This is page 12, third paragraph:
This person sought to be Chief Minister but was rolled by the third Leader of the Opposition in the last three-and-a-half years, and has now resigned from Labor. She was kicked out of Labor because they knew Stella Maris was too dirty and stinky. However, we all know Delia still runs the unions and the Labor Party, and the Leader of the Opposition is being dragged around, kicking and screaming, doing whatever the member for Karama wants. I digress slightly.
The purpose of this amendment bill is to fulfil some of the recommendations of the Stella Maris inquiry.
What has been highlighted today is the connection between unions and Labor, and taking money to run the Labor Party. That is money by force, blackmail or corruption from Saipem to the MUA back-dooring to the Labor Party. It could be coming from CSG to help get contracts for Fujitsu for the asset management system – which expanded from $14m to $70m – to go interstate.
The implications of that saw increasing amounts of diesel being used in the Northern Territory, over-purchasing of gas and wasting of money.
We have put forward a range of consideration in detail amendments. They have been largely explained. I thank all members for their support. I am not surprised the opposition supports this. They probably grit their teeth and say, ‘We have to because our corrupt activities prompted this recommendation’. That was your dodgy deal with your union buddies.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and look forward to proceeding with the consideration in detail amendments.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 49.1, inserting into clause 4(2) a definition of contempt as defined by proposed section 12. A person’s conduct constitutes contempt if they are served with a summons under section 9 of the Inquiries Act to appear before a board of inquiry or commissioner and, when required, the person does not give evidence, take an oath, answer a question or produce a book, document or writing as required by the summons.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr GILES: I move amendments 49.2, 49.3 and 49.4 to clause 8.
Amendment 49.2 omits proposed section 11(1)(b) and inserts a new proposed section 11(1)(b) providing that a person commits an offence of contempt if their conduct is reckless in relation to the circumstance. The redraft of section 11(1)(b) has been made by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to align with its drafting practices and recognise the physical element for recklessness is circumstance. This is a minor amendment and does not change the intent of the offence provision. This answers the member for Nelson’s question.
Amendment 49.3 inserts new proposed section 11(1), a penalty of six months’ imprisonment for contempt of a board of inquiry or a commissioner.
I extend my appreciation to members for pointing out the seriousness of contempt with departmental officers during the briefing on the bill, and that a financial penalty may not be a strong enough deterrent.
We agree that contempt is a serious matter. At all times a person should not intentionally obstruct or hinder a board of inquiry or commissioner in performing its functions under the act. We agree that the penalty should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. There should be a strong deterrent, and that is why we have a term of imprisonment of six months for contempt.
Amendment 49.4 omits the proposed section 12 and inserts a new section 12 to correct a technical error with the fault elements for conduct constituting contempt of a board of inquiry or commissioner. The bill, as drafted, required all the fault elements to be satisfied for contempt to be established. This was due to the omission of the word ‘or’ after each of the fault elements. This is not the intent.
The new section 12 clarifies that only a single fault element needs to be satisfied for a person’s conduct to constitute contempt in circumstances where a person is served with a summons by a board of inquiry or commissioner and they fail to appear before a board of inquiry or commissioner and, when required, the person does not give evidence, take an oath, answer a question or produce a book, document or writing as required by the summons.
The amendments are minor and do not change the intent of the bill.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table travel reports received from the members for Nhulunbuy, Barkly, Arnhem and Araluen pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the RTD.
Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct – consideration adjourned.
Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
Continued from 10 February 2016.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been a long time coming back to parliament. I am disappointed because this came to parliament as an important issue. The terms of reference say the Legislative Assembly resolved on 26 March 2014. We are in the third month of 2016 and this is the first time we have had to deal with this paper.
The difficulty with leaving it for so long is one forgets what is in it. I do not read the report every day. I thought this was one of the most – there have been plenty of important committees. The suicide committee was important, also the one dealing with petrol sniffing. This is one of the very important committees of this parliament. The terms of reference say the committee shall inquire into and report on the prevalence in the Northern Territory of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, the nature of the injuries and effects of FASD on its sufferers, and actions the government can take to reduce FASD based on evidence in consultation.
This has come back after sitting on the Notice Paper since February 2015. During that time what happened to all the recommendations? I hope the government can give us some confidence that this committee did not waste its time or that of the people it spoke to. The people who work in this difficult field, did we waste their time? More importantly, have we allowed more people to be effected by FASD by delaying …
Mr Elferink: We do not allow them.
Mr WOOD: I heard that interjection, but the guts of this committee was to make recommendations on actions the government could take to reduce FASD. We have done that. Have those actions been put in place? If this had happened earlier could it have prevented one case of FASD?
I have gone back to the committee report and recommendations to put them into some context. There are 26 recommendations in the report. Although the recommendations are mentioned at the front of the report, if you want the details start at page 119. You will see how the committee has looked at FASD and come up with good recommendations, which I hope the government has taken on board.
The first section relates to action to manage the effects of FASD. It says:
You have two recommendations relating to diagnosis and screening, and it also hones in specifically on the diagnosis of FASD. Recommendation 1 says:
Mr Elferink: No.
Mr WOOD: That is not good to hear, but is good in the sense that we have not written this report then found it to be out of date. Not only do we have to find a diagnostic tool for early intervention, but we also have to train staff to interpret it. There are important ongoing matters to be dealt with, because if we do not have a diagnostic tool we have issues dealing with this in the early stages of a child’s life.
There is a section about screening for prenatal alcohol exposure. I always wonder if I have to find a balance between human rights and the welfare of the unborn and the mother. The report mentions screening pregnant women. A quote from the Department of Health says 100% screening for alcohol consumption in antenatal visits should be the goal using a consistent approach.
Further they refer to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s National Maternity Data Development Project. There is a comment that the committee considers the implementation of screening all women for alcohol consumption during pregnancy in a manner that is culturally appropriate, therapeutically beneficial and assists with the national collection of data to be a priority.
Recommendation 3 says:
Recommendation 4 says:
I understand where that comes from, but this issue needs to be dealt with carefully, especially from a cultural perspective. The committee report mentions cultural sensitivities. In local language – shame job. We must be very careful with that. If you shame people you may not get the outcomes you want. While it might be the goal of the Department of Health and other groups, it has to be done carefully and sensitively.
In regard to screening for FASD, Recommendation 5 is:
It says that screening for FASD enables health practitioners to identify people who show symptoms of FASD, who may then be referred for diagnosis and support.
Point 8.20 on page 123 says:
That says we know certain population groups are likely to produce children with FASD, but should the Department of Health focus its attention on those groups or spend the money on the broader community? If we can screen people – in many cases early intervention is the only hope of reducing the effects of FASD. The earlier the intervention the less of a problem you will have as the child gets older.
Of course, all this needs health workforce development, education, training and resources. Some women are not comfortable being asked if they have been drinking. Clause 8.24 deals with this issue:
That says you need to skill people who can help with education, training and resources.
Clause 8.26 says NTCOSS noted that information about the dangers of alcohol used during pregnancy is often crowded out by other health messages. Quote:
They are saying their health workers are working on diet and smoking, and sometimes FASD, because it is alcohol, gets mixed up with that. The attention is not always there when dealing with these important issues.
Recommendation 6 says:
Further along:
Recommendation 7 says:
I will not go into the rest as time restricts me.
In discussions in Alice Springs it was clear there is a chance of reversing some of the damage caused to the brain by alcohol if you can deal with children at an early age. It is not easy to do without diagnostic tools or knowing the history of the child’s mother. There is hope of reducing some of the damage if you get in early. Government will have to work on that area.
The report mentions the education system interface, in other words the difficulty with children at school. It was noted that, according to the Department of Education, Territory schools only have 27 students with a formal diagnosis of FASD.
The committee – it can tell me if I am wrong – felt that was well below the realities of this world. One problem is you cannot always tell. Diagnosis is not the only means of determining whether someone is affected by FASD.
There is a recommendation about strengthening initiatives to address the needs of students with FASD, including the delivery of strategies, training and resources for teaching students with FASD and the establishment of a formal FASD reference group.
One of the most important sections is the Justice and Child Protection Interface. We need to make sure this is happening in our justice system. Recommendation 9 says:
That ensures the judicial system has knowledge of people before it who may be affected by FASD, because we know FASD affects the cognitive parts of the brain. I remember a policeman at Alice Springs giving the example of a young bloke, obviously a FASD sufferer, smashing a window in the Alice Springs mall. A policeman said, ‘You shouldn’t do that’, and took him away. The next week the same bloke smashed another window but could not understand the problem because it was a different window. It is not that the actions were bad; that window was bad and this one was okay.
People with this problem have difficulty knowing the difference between right and wrong. Their ability to work out, in a logical way, those issues makes it difficult for the justice system when they come before it. I am sure others will speak more on that as well.
We also have to deal with support for people who care for FASD sufferers. The word ‘hero’ is used a lot, but I reckon people who care for those with FASD are tough. Carers have a pretty tough job, but carers of kids with FASD, boy! That is a tough life, and you have to take your hat off to them. We met a person in Tennant Creek who looked after a child with FASD. It is no easy path, but it is terrific that people are willing to spend their time looking after these kids. Sometimes they are adults, but it is the same case.
Recommendation 11 says:
An area deals with the need for additional funding for more residential secure care facilities, and that the community-based health organisation and social service providers be funded to provide evidence-based behavioural management programs for FASD individuals.
It is interesting to note – we touch on this later – residential secure care facilities. The committee debated this type of facility. Some argue that it is better to have the family rather than the individual, because the family is not left alone and the person can still be cared for. This is more about when a woman is pregnant. The case we are talking about is caring for the person affected by FASD, but the issue of residential secure care facilities relates to whether we should have care facilities for pregnant women.
The topic of awareness of workers in the justice and child protection systems notes that we still have a fair way to go in developing resources in Australia. It quotes from some Canadian provinces regarding the different target groups that need to understand the issues FASD highlights, including police personnel, legal practitioners and court officers, judges, magistrates and corrective services personnel.
It talks about coordinating systems. We have that not only in regard to FASD, but in regard to alcohol, suicide and cross-sector coordination. I will not go into that too much because it has been discussed.
There is a quote from Jodeen Carney saying the lack of standardised diagnosis was an impediment to cooperation between agencies. She said:
Information sharing is an issue and Recommendation 14 addresses it.
An important section is Action to Prevent FASD. Reducing harmful alcohol consumption is really important. This bipartisan committee made some recommendations the government might not agree with, but they should at least be put forward. Clause 9.21 says:
He made me laugh. I do not drink and I have no problem asking for a Diet Coke, but not many people drink Diet Coke at the parties I go to. He said for many people it is difficult to be the odd one out at a party. I am too old to worry about that, but I know some people do not want to be a party pooper and not drink. Our society nearly expects it. Look at photographs in the paper of the races and other functions. What do people have in their hands? Most do not have a glass of water but will have something. It is very much part of our society.
When looking at this we have to look at societal issues as well as FASD. This issue is reflected in our society. We cannot say, ‘This will just be about FASD’; it has to be bigger than that.
Going back to clause 9.21:
There are 11, possibly 14, liquor outlets in Palmerston. If I say something about that all I hear is we are in the free enterprise world. We are battling government policies on these issues.
Clause 9.21 further says:
What would the AFL, rugby league and cricket do without that? It goes on to say:
We recommended a range of things, such as setting targets for reducing alcohol-related harm and providing a mechanism for regular publication of performance data etcetera. We looked at supply reduction strategies, taxation strategies and minimum floor price. Lo and behold, clause 9.34 of the report says:
Why are we not introducing it? The committee has recommended that the Liquor Act be amended to implement a minimum floor price, ensuring that a standard drink would cost a minimum of $1.30. Well done AHA.
We also talk about temporary beat locations. Recommendation 20 says:
That is interesting. The bipartisan committee said we should analyse the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register, which did not run long enough to see if it was effective. Nine months does not fit any statistical pattern I know of. I did stats at secondary school and know you would not have a program. Even at horticultural school I had to conduct experiments in growing crops. In nine months you would have one crop of lettuce. That would not be enough to work out if they did well. You need three or four years to say if a variety would go well. How could you make a proper analysis of the Banned Drinker Register when it only ran for nine months? The committee is not saying do not look at it.
Another important thing is the cost of enforcement. The NT Police Association said – they do not believe they should do it – the taxpayer should not pay the bill, rather the licensees. Whether it is paying police or getting other people to do the job, the onus should be on the alcohol industry. They know temporary beat locations are improving life in some communities, but taxpayers are paying for people to stand outside bottle shops. The alcohol industry should play its part.
The report talks about Alcohol Protection Orders. It will be interesting to see how affective they are. I have not seen a report on them for a while. I would like to see figures on how many people have APOs and how affective they are. They were introduced by the government as a way of reducing alcohol-related harm. Have they made a difference, and how many people have gone to prison?
Ms MANISON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask for an extension of time for the member pursuant to Standing Order 43.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Wanguri. This is important committee work and the time limit does not allow me to cover all the issues.
The report mentions residential treatment. There is no doubt this is an issue. I have one point of view and others a different one. Some Aboriginal people have a different point of view. How can we help a person when they cannot care for themselves? Where do we intervene? The report says that generally non-residential treatment is more effective than residential treatment except for clients with severe deterioration, social instability and a high risk of relapse. The report also mentions having facilities where the family is involved. Clause 9.51 says:
We need to spend money on this. If voluntary rehabilitation can be reinforced by the person knowing they can have their family with them we should look at it. We visited a number of these places, including Venndale Rehabilitation, which is mentioned in the report. At clause 9.54 Mr Casey Bishop, said:
That is something we need to look at. Recommendation 21 says:
The report talks about more awareness of sexual health. There are many issues with young people getting pregnant early. It says we need to raise awareness of this. Clause 9.66 says:
Using adolescent sexual education programs as a means of getting people to understand the problems with alcohol consumption when pregnant, as well as talking about contraception and providing the education they need in a culturally sensitive way is really important. We have to be careful not to impose our Western ways of doing things on people with a different way of looking at things. I know in my family, what I think is not the way they think on some of these issues.
Recommendation 24 says:
Before Christmas a report on ABC news said it was okay to drink some alcohol. I rang to say that was not right. All the information we have says not drinking alcohol is the only safe thing to do. There is no guarantee that one glass of wine, when pregnant, will not cause a problem. It worried me that the news item could do a lot of damage. People said to the committee, ‘No, you have to abstain. That is the safe way.’
We have to get that message out through the media, and the media has to understand as well. We mention health workers, but we have to ensure people in other areas are aware of this.
There was the issue of targeting women with alcohol dependency, the issue of criminal penalties and also mandatory treatment. I do not support criminal penalties for people who persist in drinking at dangerous levels. I support mandatory treatment because we already have alcohol mandatory treatments programs. Some people do not agree with that, some do. I do, but it has to be done in a compassionate way for the right reasons.
It was interesting discussing this. Obviously some people on the committee do not agree. That is fine and what being on a committee is all about. However, it needs discussing. Clause 9.84 says:
I am not talking about criminality, but mandatory treatment:
Clause 9.85 says:
There are two sides to that coin. I would not support that unless there was community support for the program. If a group of people in the community were willing to care for the mother and help the family – the difficult question is: does the government have a role to play in protecting the unborn child?
Clause 9.79 says:
What is in the best interest of the future child? What is the role of government? If it knows the unborn child will be damaged because it has allowed a person to keep drinking, does it have a responsibility? I believe it does. How it enforces that responsibility is difficult. However, we cannot do nothing. We have to take on board many of the recommendations because it all helps. If you have done all those things and a person continues to drink and you know it will damage the child, what is the role of government? The government has to step in, but in a compassionate and culturally sensitive way.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important, extensive body of work. I am grateful to have participated in this early in my political life.
Going back to 26 March 2014, this House debated establishing a select committee and putting forward appropriate terms of reference to ensure we had a good, strong, hard-working committee which would take a bipartisan approach to tackling a difficult issue.
At the time this issue was making national headlines and it was appropriate to appoint a select committee. We knew we would have a good, thorough look at FASD. There are many stories about FASD, but we wanted to get the hard evidence and tap into the expertise in the Territory, and nationally and internationally, and look at this problem. Many of us have seen and heard about FASD, but putting a number on FASD and where resources should go was something new.
We agreed to the terms of reference, and a lot of work was done by the committee. There were many hearings, much reading, many meetings, plenty of briefings – an extensive body of work. The committee visited Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Nhulunbuy, and tried to engage as much as possible with people living in remote areas. We tried to get from the top to the bottom and to cover many points of view on this important issue.
I was pushing to have the report completed to make the budget cycle. This report was tabled in parliament in February 2015. I pushed to ensure government could look at the recommendations and perhaps fund some of the recommendations in last year’s budget.
Two years after agreeing on the terms of reference for this committee we are debating the report. This should have been debated when the report was tabled. We should have gone through this much sooner and had an assurance from the government that it had taken the recommendations on board and was looking at funding.
The budget will be delivered by this government soon. This debate presents an opportunity for the government to look at the recommendations. It would be great to hear, whether in the pre-budget leaks or on budget day, some commitment through agencies to tackle FASD.
The committee was fortunate to have two members who are now in Cabinet. The Minister for Health was especially passionate about this issue, so it would be good to see what action the government is taking on the recommendations.
I look forward to hearing a government contribution to this debate, informing the House where the recommendations are at and what has been done. For such an extensive body of work to be done, and so many people informing the committee on FASD, it would be a shame to not hear an extensive response from the government.
I thank my committee colleagues because they put in a lot of time and effort. We worked very well together. The officers of the Legislative Assembly who work in the committee area put in a lot of work, including research and time spent going up and down the track to set up some of the best committee meetings I have attended. People were engaged in the hearings and coming to community sessions afterwards to speak with the committee and share their thoughts, which was good.
I was heartened, when looking into FASD, to see the expertise we have in the Territory. These people have been working tirelessly on FASD for many years trying to put strategies in place to deal with it, and ensure that families with alcohol issues consider the consequences of FASD. They are also working with children who may already be impacted by FASD.
We heard of some inspirational work done by Congress. We heard from Anyinginyi health, which has been involved in this for quite a long time and is undertaking an extensive body of educational material. Dr Jennifer Delima’s evidence at the hearings struck me. It was clear that we have people with a real passion for taking on FASD, and who have expertise and knowledge.
The committee acknowledged that we are not the only jurisdiction with this issue. We looked at other case studies of FASD. At the time of the committee report work had been done at the national level. An extensive body of work has also been done at Fitzroy Valley. Some shocking statistics came from that area. They dug into communities to look at formally diagnosing FASD. Some of the rates were through the roof. It was good to see them take the issue on, and they were also looking at the best way to address FASD and help children and families with FASD issues.
It was good for the committee to hear from the Foundation for Alcohol Education Research, and also from Professor Elizabeth Elliott. It was very informative, to say the least.
We have big issues in the Territory getting a real picture of how extensive FASD is. I was left feeling it is undiagnosed, and sometimes FASD is captured in other areas of disability diagnosis. As it is a nation issue as well, it is important that we use a consistent diagnostic tool. One of the report’s recommendations was to ensure the Territory implements the Australian diagnostic tool which was meant to be agreed on. We heard earlier it is still not the case.
One thing that came through loud and clear from experts who presented to the FASD committee was that early intervention is the key when it comes to tackling the problem and treating FASD as a health issue. It was clear that educating women and families about the consequences of alcohol consumption during pregnancy is a huge help. Intervention which can assist with the right support for families with alcohol issues while a woman is pregnant is important, and if a child is born with FASD there should be an early diagnosis.
It was made clear that the earlier the health intervention and right support for a child with FASD the better their long-term outcome will be. There was a clear correlation expressed by the researchers and experts who presented to the committee that a child with FASD does not have as bright outcomes as a child born without FASD. There was a strong correlation with them ending up in the criminal justice system. It was clear that early intervention is the key and to get involved.
I listened closely to my colleague, the member for Barkly, who has always been adamant that this is not just a women’s issue. This is about families. Men have to do their part as part of the family structure when it comes to alcohol abuse. That was backed up in the hearings by the experts.
Looking at the issues with alcohol in the Northern Territory was also prevalent in this body of work. It was made clear that supply and alcohol abuse correlate directly with FASD. The committee met with a range of alcohol stakeholders about what they felt needed to be looked at in relation to alcohol in the Northern Territory. Point of sale restrictions – looking at the BDR for example. There was support for temporary beat locations and restrictions on opening hours. Some work was also done on the floor price of alcohol.
It was a broad discussion around alcohol issues, but it was made abundantly clear that alcohol abuse in the Territory directly contributes to FASD. We need to do everything we can to address alcohol abuse, which includes looking at alcohol supply and restrictions. It is important to continue that effort, and the committee suggested that a future committee look at alcohol and alcohol issues across the Territory.
Education and awareness were raised so that FASD is not just seen as an issue for Indigenous women as it is far from that. FASD affects non-Indigenous women and educated women. In discussions with people I know I have been taken aback by how lax some of the attitudes are about alcohol during pregnancy, and that some people believe it is okay to have a glass or two while they are pregnant.
Clarity around a safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant was something we continued to ask experts who presented to the panel. The only clear answer we could get was that your safest bet is not to drink, full stop. That is the best approach. There needs to be more education and effort to ensure the impact of alcohol consumption during pregnancy reaches to the community.
It was clear that different agencies within the government need to be working together when a child is recognised as having FASD. They could pick them up through the health checks early on, the child development checks, or when a child has problems at school.
We need to ensure government agencies are not working as silos. We need to ensure when a child with FASD issues or a family with alcohol abuse problems needs support, agencies work together to ensure the best possible outcome. That came through, loud and clear, in the committee’s work.
Two years after we started this process we are debating it tonight. Again, I look forward to hearing the government’s views on the report recommendations. In my first year as a sitting member I felt really upbeat about the committee. I thought we had good terms of reference to look into the issue, and that we could make a positive impact. I remember at the time being warned by the member for Port Darwin, as Health minister, when he said, ‘Don’t give people unrealistic expectations’.
A year after this report was tabled we are debating it. I doubt that is what he had in mind, but I am concerned about how seriously the government took this work and the effort put in by the committee as well as those who contributed by attending hearings, making submissions, presenting at hearings and going through their research to ensure the committee was well-informed to look at this difficult issue.
There is much more work to do. Early intervention is the key. Better education and awareness is critical, and we have an opportunity to work and partner with other jurisdictions facing the same issues. Breaking through government silos and ensuring government agencies are working together is critical. We must never lose sight of the horrors of alcohol abuse in the Territory and our duty to do everything possible to put a stop to it.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this work. Others want to contribute to this debate, but I want to hear what the government has committed to and where the recommendations have gone since the report was tabled in February last year.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I know the member for Barkly wants to speak, but if he will indulge me I can answer some of the questions the member for Wanguri asked. Perhaps if I jump now, it will offer the member for Barkly an opportunity to reply, which is only fair.
Before I start, I say hello to Maureen and Lyn. It is good to see you here, guys.
This report leaves me with mixed feelings for a number of reasons. It barely attends to an issue I raised, which was not as the Health minister. Amongst my various portfolio areas one is child protection. It was in that context that I raised the issue of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
When I took on the role of minister for child protection I was confronted with the boundaries of my responsibilities. It is easy at the top end of the threshold – the age of 18. What about the other end? At what point do I become the minister for child protection? Is it the date of the child’s birth or before that? Of course, this places you on the thin ice of other areas. I want to talk about those boundaries at a philosophical level.
Let us use the example of a woman who becomes pregnant. She, by either omission or deliberate decision, determines that she will not seek or procure an abortion and therefore chooses to become a mother. The question I posed at the time – I well understand how controversial the issue was when I raised it – was does my role as minister for child protection reach to before the time of the child’s birth? If I can clearly demonstrate that the mother is engaging in behaviour which is so reckless and dangerous to the unborn child, what are the boundaries of my power?
I remember the debates establishing this committee where I said, ‘Tell me what my duties and responsibilities are’, because of the implications of that question. The obvious implication is do I seek the power to confine a woman if she engages in such reckless behaviour towards her unborn child to prevent her from drinking her child into a life of misery? Was it a controversial question? Hell, yes. Was I prepared to ask it? Yes, of course. You have to ask these questions. We do not get the opportunity – particularly as ministers – to take the leisurely way around these issues if we are serious about our roles.
I know there was an immediate response of outrage from many – particularly women’s groups – saying, ‘How dare you ask such a question. That is such a condescending thing to do.’ As the heat of that argument died down, more sober eyes, particularly women, were asking the question seriously.
Bearing in mind that I am a genuine liberal in that sense of the word, I take the confinement of a person seriously. You do not confine a person unless you have a power or warrant granted to you either by a court or this Chamber. The arbitrary incarceration of a person, even for health reasons, is not something I have or ever will take lightly.
I read this report ages ago and it barely touches on that question. The short answer from this committee is, ‘No, you don’t do that’. I wish there had been more exploration of this by the committee. There are a few paragraphs buried at about page 120, if memory serves me. That is what I tasked the committee to do. If you go to the original debates, I spoke at length about this issue.
Many people in the medical and education professions would immediately say, ‘No, don’t do that. You need an education program. You need a medical response.’ I understand that. The problem is that when this disorder manifests itself there is an imposition on the community to treat the results. That is often expensive.
Whether you like it or not – even talking from a child protection and child health view – the question of how much we can afford invariably rears its ugly head. There is no suggestion in the report or its recommendations of how things are paid for, but we have to pay for them.
I have a problem with Recommendation 1, which refers to a diagnostic tool being developed in late 2015. No such diagnostic tool has been developed. I am guessing, but I suspect they may not be able to develop one. The answer to that issue can be found in the very structure of FASD as a title – foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
The member for Wanguri noted there might be a link between alcohol and FASD. We can take that as a given.
Perhaps it is a little obvious, but the issue stands in the word ‘spectrum’. There might be difficulty creating a tool, because the spectrum is so broad and encompasses so many other maladies that perhaps it would be too clumsy to apply. Historically, various forms of mental illness were called melancholia, which was a raft of different maladies now described under the DSM-5. The DSM-5 is the psychiatric tool you apply to presentation of a number of symptoms which enables you to identify a particular mental disorder. A person might be having a psychotic episode as a result of an underlying schizophrenic condition. A person might be bipolar, as it called now, rather than manic depressive. A person may have a number of other presentations. The complexities of cognitive impairments might be thrown into the mix. All of that once was melancholia. Melancholia was the description of a spectrum of disorders. Over time, as psychiatry advanced, it has been careful to determine what those disorders under the general heading or melancholia are.
The spectrum was refined to have better treatments for specific conditions. You will not necessarily treat a person with schizophrenia with Zoloft, but previously you would treat a person for melancholia and it covered both maladies. We needed refinement for specific treatments. Similarly, a number of chest disorders were once called consumption, which could have been lung cancer, tuberculosis, which was the most common cause, or bronchial inflammation. A number of things would have been consumption, but as we refined our medical specialities we refined those diseases and made distinctions between them. There is a different treatment for lung cancer than tuberculosis. Over time we have abandoned generalisations and gone to the specifics, because the more specific we can be the more accurate and targeted our treatment can be.
With regard to foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, somewhere in the myriad of different presentations – foetal alcohol syndrome, partial foetal alcohol syndrome and neurodevelopment disorder alcohol exposed – are some of the more specific subsets with different presentations. I have looked at a diagnosis for FASD and spoken to a few people. The impression is they may struggle to create a tool.
We, as a government, continue to respond to the maladies we recognise. We do not have a diagnostic tool. The members for Nelson and Wanguri mentioned diagnoses of FASD. It cannot be done. There is no diagnosis to be had. We can, however, and do, attend to a number of issues when pregnant women present. We already do normal screening for all pregnant women, and all pregnant Indigenous women are routinely screened for alcohol as well as domestic violence. As a consequence, when you develop a response in the health domain you test for things which might be prevalent.
The truth is whilst this is not exclusively a matter for Aboriginal people it is, in a large proportion, applicable to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. We have had many a debate – if you go back to the first Hansard of this House, when it was the Legislative Council in 1974, in the first volume we talk about alcohol in our jurisdiction. If you go back to the first Parliamentary Record of this House, when it was the Legislative Council in 1974, they were talking about alcohol problems in our jurisdiction. If you go back to the parliament of Westminster in the 1600s, they were banging on about alcohol problems in their jurisdiction. Do you remember the 2 km law we had? It was based on the English 5 mile law, which is from the 1600s. It is not new.
We have an alcohol problem and a drug problem. That drug problem will go back to when Ronk was playing fullback for the Caveman First 15. That is just how it is; we have an alcohol problem. That is not to say we throw our hands up in despair and do nothing. Our Liquor Act is substantially thicker than our Criminal Code Act. The Liquor Act is at least an inch thick and deals with liquor in our community and how we allow it to go into the community. The Criminal Code Act is half as thick and deals with every other indictable offence in the Northern Territory.
We try to regulate and govern this but a balance has to be struck. What are the rights of people who do nothing wrong? What are the rights of the average punter who has a bottle of wine with dinner tonight? Their rights should be protected.
Compare that with the rights of an unborn child where the mother is so addicted to alcohol that she will forgo the rights of the unborn child to the point she will inflict upon that child, either through gross indifference or neglect, a lifetime of wretchedness. She will selfishly imbibe to get pie-eyed drunk to the point the police will pick her up in a park this afternoon.
The member for Nelson said, ‘Oh, you can’t raise that issue. You can’t embarrass people.’ Hell you can’t! From my experience, which is somewhat broad – I spent a lot of time working in the bush, as members know – shame is a fundamental social mechanism used by many people of non-European background in the Northern Territory. It is across a raft of cultures in the Territory. In Yankunytjatjara, Ngaanyatjarra and Pitjantjatjara you will find it. You will find it in Arrernte, Pintupi, Alyawarr, and all the way up to the Tiwi Islands. In fact, we use it in European culture.
I am a little jaded by this argument that we should not be using that as a vehicle for better outcomes in communities because we might offend somebody. I stridently disagree with the member for Nelson on that. We should be ensuring that young women engaging in this behaviour are ashamed of what they are doing and might change their conduct and become more responsible for themselves, but more importantly, for the child they are carrying. Why is that so wrong? Will we continue to treat Aboriginal women particularly with kid gloves and such a lack of respect that we do not have the courage to say to them, ‘You have some duties and responsibilities to yourself and the people you bring into this world’? We say it to everybody else.
For some reason we have to walk on eggshells when we, and their families, should be demanding better behaviour. If a woman in my family was engaging in such reckless and dangerous behaviour, do you reckon I would not say something and appeal to their sense of embarrassment or shame for behaving so badly that they show up drunk in a park every day and it might have some effect on their pregnancy? Of course I would. That is what we should do more broadly. We are still scared of offending people, when from time to time it might be the vehicle we need to change behaviours.
For all of the millions of dollars spent on Aboriginal health, Aboriginal education and law and order issues surrounding Aboriginal people, I see scant improvement. The argument continues to be that we need more education programs and to spend more in health. Why is it when I see a photograph of schoolchildren at Titjikala from 1950, the kids are wearing clean, white pressed shirts, a pair of shorts and have short back and sides. They had bare feet because they did not have shoes, but that is not unusual, and they were going to school. If I go into Titjikala on a school day now – or Papunya, Ntaria or wherever – half the kids are not there, or they have runny sores on their ears, snot hanging out of their noses – their ENT problems are profound – they have not had breakfast and their parents have disengaged because we have said, ‘Don’t worry about it; you are not responsible’. They have to be responsible.
The vast majority of Aboriginal people are responsible for their children, thank goodness, but that responsibility has not improved in the last 40 years. In fact, it has gone backwards. We would not let it occur in any other part of our community. We certainly would not allow it in Casuarina or Alice Springs, but because we are afraid of telling people in remote and regional areas to be responsible, we do not do it.
It is one thing to provide assistance once a person chooses to be responsible, it is another to let them off the hook and say they have no responsibilities or duties, whether it is to their children or the unborn child. That is absent from this report.
The report says there is evidence from a bunch of doctors and other experts in the field saying, ‘Just spend a bit more money; have another spend response, another health response’, and those things.
We already respond with enormous resources from our Health department. For every $1 we spend on non-Aboriginal health $2 goes into Aboriginal health, yet the health outcomes are going backwards.
Spending more money is not exclusively the answer. One third of the Territory’s budget is aimed at health outcomes. We pour more and more money into it yet do not see better outcomes. Every time we inquire into it the answer is more education, more expenditure on health.
Why is it, when bugger all was being spent in Titjikala in the 1950s, kids were going to school? When I first went to Ntaria as a police officer in the early 1980s, all the old people could read and write English. Moreover they could speak English, and their handwriting, when they filled out forms at the police station, looked like calligraphy because that was the standard applied.
I am not a huge champion of the time missions operated in remote and regional areas, but when we got rid of them we threw some babies out with the bathwater. The response was to throw some money at it and the problem would go away. We would give them a welfare system that does not bind them to anything. There is no social contract between the recipients of a welfare payment and the community in which they live. It is just sit down money, and that is what they call it.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Unfortunately the minister has run out of time.
Mr ELFERINK: Really? I had a lot more so that is a shame.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, the time signature on such an important matter for government that crosses health, education, child protection, juvenile justice and corrections remains unaddressed. It is totally inappropriate. There are no excuses other than political ones.
I have spoken about foetal alcohol syndrome many times in a privileged position in the previous government and as a member of the opposition in this House. It comes from an education from a triple certificate sister, my mother, Nora McCarthy.
I have put on the record a number of times the images I had as a child and teenager, where my mother was the first to raise a champagne glass to celebrate the bride and groom at a wedding, and the first to take the glass out of the young mother’s hand when she announced her pregnancy.
I then had the opportunity to work in Walgett in the mid-1970s, and discovered what the member for Port Darwin mentioned – the resistance of paediatricians to diagnose foetal alcohol syndrome, or as we now call it, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is classed as a spectrum of disorders. It was explained to me as a neophyte teacher by experienced staff in a red hot disadvantaged school in north western New South Wales, the reason was political because it related directly to the allocation of special education funds for those children. It was systemic resistance.
The minister talks about shame. He should take solace from a constituent we share, Dawn McCarthy. Our youngest foster daughter announced her pregnancy. About a month later the bush telegraph worked to its optimum and word came back to my wife, Dawn McCarthy, that this young woman was in Jackson’s bar surrounded by gentleman and alcohol was readily available on the table. My wife raced down to the hotel. She lectured this young woman and the young men accompanying her. She lectured the bartender, and identified this young woman as never to be served again. She got the nod and the tip of a hat from an old ceremony man, who we know well, on her way out the door. She then mentored that young woman right through her pregnancy, and William George was born about a month ago. That was in response to what you can do, not what you cannot.
I remember a circumstance where the ever eloquent member for Port Darwin was uncharacteristically hung up by a heavyweight journalist on Lateline and made the statement about incarcerating Aboriginal women. That essentially ignited the debate in this House which led to the select committee. I commended the minister then, and I commend him now.
That was how it happened, once again fitting the same MO of the 1970s and 1960s, where nobody wanted to deal with the issue. The minister said there is no diagnostic tool so we cannot start. Of course we can! The minister said the committee did not hand him what he needed, being a definition of incarceration of a mother and child in utero.
Minister, revisit the report because we offered you the Wisconsin law. We looked at a point of law where Wisconsin, in the United States, has a legislative instrument under which they incarcerate pregnant women who are causing harm to their children in utero through the use of alcohol. We presented that …
Mr Elferink: Did you recommend it?
Mr McCARTHY: The committee decided there was far more holistic information for you because the Wisconsin law was just part of the story.
I commend the committee for its courage and diligence to look at the specifics of the issue, particularly relating to the Northern Territory, because we have unacceptable levels of alcohol consumption. We are not quite sure, but if we base any of our decisions on the Fitzroy Valley research, or if we look at Indigenous communities in Canada, then we could be looking at up to 50% of Indigenous children at present affected by alcohol consumption in utero.
The time is now, minister, and time is ticking, as it has been for decades. You have had the opportunity, as a minister of the Crown and the Giles CLP government, to address this.
I acknowledge the committee and the work undertaken. The secretariat was superb, highly professional and took the committee on the road. Madam Chair led the committee and its opposition and Independent members. I am critical of government members who really did not put in and there was a definite bias. There was drive and enthusiasm from Madam Chair, the opposition members and the Independent member and that engaged the Territory community. That was circulated regionally.
I once again acknowledge the groups that turned up in Tennant Creek. That was phenomenal. When you are in your home town nervous that this might not be embraced and see one of the best turnouts on the track, it makes you walk away feeling proud as a local member. They also, as the member for Nelson quoted from the report, embraced the holistic and realistic approach to this, as well as acknowledging the Wisconsin law and that there can be incarceration. That is part of the story of the government of the day – is it serious about addressing this issue?
The committee was a professional outfit. I agree with committee members who have contributed to the debate; the time frame in acknowledging that incredible and hard work is unacceptable.
I also point to the lack of government investment. The member for Wanguri stated clearly there was a very specific agenda to make sure this reached the government benches for a budget Cabinet process but was ignored.
The Minister for Education, in a previous budget, announced $100 000 to continue a Territory-leading project with Anyinginyi Congress in Tennant Creek. That money went through education to Tennant Creek High School. The Stronger Sisters have done some incredible work – now the Stars Foundation. That was a financial commitment, although there was a lot of pressure securing it.
Since then we have not seen anything apart from cost-neutral initiatives, minister. Looking closely fiscally, there is now a $1000 less spend per student in the Northern Territory each year. We are trying to ramp up the investment in education, health, juvenile justice and corrections, and the Education minister leads with a reduction of $1000 per student in the slash-and-burn agenda and efficiency dividends. This is a disgrace and why there are no excuses from this government.
This government has a great opportunity. It is supported in a bipartisan sense, and we presented the opportunity for the budget process. However, we have seen nothing. The CLP is in the budget Cabinet process now. The Chief Minister announced $70m in infrastructure, and nobody is denying that. I do not see too much opposition.
I remember Labor’s stimulus spend that became the envy of the Western world during the global financial crisis, and the policy settings that deliver our wealth and good fortune today. The CLP has adopted exactly the same and nobody is denying that. However, a $70m infrastructure spend when foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, through this holistic approach and the recommendations tabled in the report, is completely ignored is disgraceful.
It is the wrong policy setting. Why is the infrastructure setting so urgent? Because your fiscal management has driven the economy of the Northern Territory down the drain and you have finally admitted it. You are trying to scramble to get back some credibility in an election year.
Members interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: I can hear the interjections from the other side. The truth hurts.
This $70m is one example of money gained through public asset sales. Let us stump up another 70 to look at recommendations in the report handed to this government over 12 months ago which is being debated now. The committee chair made sure it came back to parliament because of its importance.
The Chief Minister, in his shallow, political rhetoric and attacks, talks about Labor policy. He has no idea about our policy development. He has not looked at it, read it, or taken any notice other than the spin created on the fifth floor to give him his punch in media grabs and sound bites.
Michael Gunner, the Leader of the Opposition, has a very comprehensive early childhood policy. The Labor opposition will address these issues directly. We want to make sure that Territory kids are safe and have the best opportunity in their lives.
Our policy setting is already articulated. Everything Cabinet processes will be put through the lens of an early childhood analysis. That is sensible governance, particularly in the Territory where we suffer so much social and economic disadvantage. It is about education, about health, it impacts on juvenile justice, and we know a large percentage of our Correctional Services clients are affected by FASD.
This government is looking at idle excuses to deny and walk away from that. The minister tried to blame the committee, saying it did not deliver. We delivered your Wisconsin law, minister, but you do not have the courage to debate that. You threw it back to opposition benches asking if we would support it. We have provided you with a holistic package to protect Territory children.
The budget for 2016-17 is on the drawing board. There are opportunities and you have a lifeline. It is not about politics or the opposition, but Territory kids. As the member for Wanguri stated, it is not just Indigenous kids. The evidence we collected in Nhulunbuy, which was the wealthy mining town, was pertinent to this debate. It is about education, awareness and understanding from all families of their children.
In Tennant Creek we have identified about 400 children turning four in 2017-18. Last year the Tennant Creek preschool had to deny 20 placements because there was not enough infrastructure, let alone staff. Education was being slashed and burned. Those children who did not attend preschool are in a challenging position without all the prerequisites. They are in formal school Transition without the serious fundamentals.
About 400 more in the community are following. What is the government doing? We are not denying the painting, minor new works or work on air conditioning as it will stimulate the construction sector. There is no guarantee so far of local jobs, but we will hold you to account on that issue.
Where is the big money from the public asset sales, the $500m price tags of the world this Chief Minister, Adam Giles, wants to throw around like confetti when 400 four-year-olds do not have a preschool placement.
If we look at the evidence from Fitzroy Valley in WA, up to 50% could be affected by FASD. That will cause serious cognitive, behavioural, social and emotional challenges for each of those children. It will cause the system to break down. The mainstream primary school system cannot deal with these challenges.
Tonight the government has the opportunity – no more rhetoric or political point scoring. This bipartisan committee has a road map to make a difference so let us see government members react. Let us see an investment in Territory children.
I remember the CLP minister saying its best-practice alcohol policy over the next four years will appropriate $100m. We have seen one chaotic episode after another. There was $3.5m in Tennant Creek for a misguided alcohol policy that has delivered nothing and has left town. I want $5.5m to build a 100-bed family and children drug and alcohol crisis centre on freehold land 10 km east of Tennant Creek. I want to relocate BRADAAG, the accepted and acknowledged alcohol and drug rehabilitation centre, to that site. I want to then free up seven Territory houses in Staunton Street to house Territory families. When BRADAAG operates under this new facility, under statutory referrals or self-referrals, we will treat the family.
This is what the FASD report says and what Congress in Alice Springs outlined. It is about providing stimulation to the family and the child, and treating offending behaviour and drug and alcohol addictions. This can be done in Tennant Creek with an appropriation of way under $10m. Your government crowed three-and-a-half years ago that it would spend $100m. I look forward to estimates this year to see if you have gone near $100m with your chaotic alcohol policy.
Minister, thank you for the opportunity to respond. I am glad you spoke first because there has been an opportunity to see you can do something. On your way out the door, as you ride into the sunset on that beautiful American Harley-Davidson downstairs, please leave a legacy that this report will be addressed. Leave a legacy in the last budget Cabinet and show a serious appropriation to holistically addressing this issue not incarcerating young women. That is part of it. If you want to go down that road, go for it. It will get you back on Lateline.
Minister, you know what we can do. You know paediatricians have been ignoring this and that there will be no real diagnostic tool. You know these issues exist on a spectrum of autism so let us deal with them. Let them call it whatever they like, but let us see a serious investment into child protection, juvenile justice, corrections, health and education because prevention is better than cure. We know what we are up against. We know there are 400 four-year-olds on the outskirts of Tennant Creek ready to start school. We know 8000 Aboriginal kids across the Territory will turn five in 2017-18. We need to do it now, not later.
I have had my say, but am disappointed that I am again lobbying for the same thing.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members who have contributed to the debate. As the member for Nelson said, it is over 12 months since this report was tabled. That was preceded by a lot of work by the committee and the secretariat. An enormous amount of submissions were received from all manner of professionals, departments and individuals. We heard some sad stories from people brave enough to come forward with specific stories about a child or someone in their care. I also thank those people.
If this was such an emergency 12 months or two years ago, why has it taken so long to reach this point? We reached this point today because I asked the other members if they were ready to debate it. It goes to the next stage, which is to accept the recommendations. I am not sure if it was in this parliament or a media comment, but the government said it would accept all the recommendations from this report. I stand corrected if the government did not say that, but I believe it did.
I heard recently – I think it was the Chief Minister – in the media, when asked why it was not being debated, he said, ‘We’re already doing lots of things’. What things are you doing, Chief Minister? It is fine to be high on generalisation, but that was low on substance and specifics.
The report title was intended to impart a sense of hope leading to real action. Looking at FASD and the lifelong effect it has on individuals, families and the community gave the committee ample opportunity for despair. As I said, we heard some very sad stories across the Northern Territory as well as in written correspondence.
There are none more innocent than the unborn, and FASD can condemn children to a life of disability with cognitive and behavioural problems. However, the committee found two reasons for hope and action. First – we all know this and it must be paramount in whatever we say – FASD is preventable, there is no doubt about it. Reducing the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy reduces FASD. No alcohol, no FASD. Second, previous government action to address harmful drinking has resulted in a significant reduction in alcohol consumption. While we still have a long way to go in reducing harm from alcohol in the Northern Territory, we have achieved much in the past.
The per capita consumption of alcohol reduced significantly following the Living With Alcohol Program in the early 1990s, and the introduction of the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework about a decade later. In 2013 it was at its lowest since self-government. Initiatives such as temporary beat locations are also making a significant difference at specific locations, with reductions in alcohol-related violence in some locations of over 50%.
Those who spoke about the temporary beat locations may not agree with the policy or how they operate, but agreed there was a reduction in admissions to hospital and police incidents, and improved school attendance. Clearly there is a direct link between the supply of alcohol and problems arising from overconsumption.
Reducing harmful alcohol consumption reduces FASD. Properly planned and managed, government action can reduce alcohol consumption further. That is the reason the committee made 26 recommendations. All but one recommendation calls for significant change, as they should, because it is a huge problem in our community and society. They are not recommendations to continue the status quo.
While much has been achieved in some areas – and government claims it has done things, but not enough and no specifics – the committee identified a different approach is required. Clearly we are not on top of the problem, and unless we take some dramatic action and put serious resources in we will never get on top of the problem.
I will briefly outline the committee’s recommendations. They fall within two broad categories: how to manage the effects of FASD and how to prevent FASD. A disturbing fact about FASD is its effects are permanent. Once the damage is done there is no cure; however, the outcomes for a person with FASD can improve. Early intervention can change how the damage done by FASD affects a person’s life, and appropriate support can help sufferers manage their disabilities.
We heard submissions and met people who gave us good examples of this occurring with young children going into the school system. The recommendations start with improving diagnosis. At the time of reporting, a national diagnostic instrument was in the late stages of development and the committee recommended that the Department of Health prepare for the effective implementation of that instrument. I ask the government to outline, in its formal response to this report outside the Chamber, what work has been done in that regard.
We know the outcomes for FASD sufferers greatly improve with early intervention. The committee therefore recommended that the government prioritises funding for paediatric diagnosis, psychotherapy and other behavioural management measures, and early childhood support and education services.
Screening for alcohol use during pregnancy is important to help women avoid alcohol when pregnant and ensure FASD-affected babies get help as early as possible. The committee therefore recommended that the Department of Health promotes screening protocols and provides guidelines for referral to women struggling with alcohol use during pregnancy. If the government has done a lot so far, has it done this?
Screening for FASD helps identify sufferers and is another important tool for early intervention. While some witnesses argued for universal screening, it was unclear whether the benefits would outweigh the costs.
The case was compelling, but for targeted FASD screening of high-risk populations the committee recommended that the Department of Health reviews options for FASD screening in the NT. Where is that at, if anywhere at all?
The level of awareness of FASD amongst health professionals was a concern raised with the committee. It is important that professionals treating women of child-bearing age have an adequate awareness of FASD so they can provide appropriate and timely advice and assistance. The committee recommended that the Department of Health undertake and audit of current professional development needs of the workforce in relation to FASD. That important recommendation should be done straightaway.
When it came to reducing harm from FASD, a recurring theme was early childhood support. Programs with a positive impact included those equipping families to better manage the early years, such as the Families as First Teachers program, early childhood education programs such as Abecedarian daycare, and programs supporting new mothers such as the Nurse Family Partnership Program.
Recommendation 7 calls for improved support for caring for children in the first years, particularly for at-risk populations, through these programs. After early childhood come the school years. FASD sufferers can require specialised attention to enable them to effectively learn in a school environment. The cognitive and behavioural problems of some FASD children can also impact on the education of other children in the classroom. We know from other behavioural issues with children the impact it can have in the classroom and other students’ learning.
The Department of Education advised the committee that only 27 students in Northern Territory schools had a formal FASD diagnosis, but believed the number of students with FASD-related learning difficulties to be far higher. We know it is much higher. It cannot possibly be that only 27 students in all Territory schools have FASD. I note they said ‘diagnosed’ FASD. That is why it is so important for governments, professionals, researchers and scientists to get a proper diagnostic instrument to diagnose a FASD-suffering child early.
While the department had recently commenced a range of initiatives to increase staff skills, it was clear more was required to meet the education needs of FASD sufferers. Evidence shows that one advantage of early intervention is that it reduces the number of FASD sufferers who end up on the wrong end of the criminal justice system. For those who do end up in the criminal justice or child protection systems, there remains a need to identify those for whom FASD has caused cognitive and behavioural problems that cannot be adequately managed using standards approaches.
This is a real issue, as the cognitive impairment of some FASD sufferers makes them incapable of responding to the usual management practices. This is a terrible outcome for the sufferer who misses any opportunity for rehabilitation, and a bad outcome for the community as problem behaviours are not addressed.
The committee recommended establishing a multidisciplinary diagnostic service and referral pathway linked to the court, corrections and child protection systems. It also recommended that the Department of Health establish a FASD case management service similar to a model successfully implemented in Canada, where social workers help coordinate the range of services and interventions required to address offending behaviour and enable integration into the community.
The community also identified a shortage of residential secure care facilities and evidence-based behavioural management programs, and recommended that this also be addressed.
It was also evident that a lack of coordination between services already available impeded the effect of prevention and management of FASD. To address this the committee recommended a high-level FASD working group be established with representatives from the Departments of Health, Education, Children and Families, Attorney-General and Justice, Corrections and Police to develop and implement an action plan for sharing information, training and coordination of FASD services.
It was clear in the presentations and representations the committee received that government departments are not talking to each other. They have their own databases and collection of information and are not sharing. When it is as fragmented as that, there is not much hope that we are pointing in the right direction. Having a high-level working group can bring all that data together and work cohesively towards a common goal.
While we must respond appropriately to those already suffering from FASD, the greatest imperative is to prevent FASD in the first place. The committee identified three broad strategies to achieve this. The first strategy was reducing community-wide harmful alcohol consumption through supply and demand control measures. Population level reductions in alcohol consumption will mean reduced alcohol consumption by pregnant women. It will also make it easier for women who wish to reduce their alcohol consumption to do so.
The second strategy was targeting alcohol consumption by pregnant women. Every woman of childbearing age needs to be aware of the damage alcohol can do to a foetus, and pregnant women who have problems with alcohol need assistance to deal with it.
The third strategy was improving family planning. Foetuses in unplanned and unknown pregnancies can be particularly vulnerable to exposure to alcohol. There is no simple solution to harmful alcohol consumption and it has remained a problem across the world and throughout history. However, history shows that a comprehensive approach from government can make a significant difference. One of the best examples of this was the Northern Territory’s Living With Alcohol Program which resulted in a 25% reduction in alcohol consumption, a 34% reduction is alcohol-related road fatalities and savings to the economy of over $124m over four years.
The committee noted a range of current initiatives that were helping to address alcohol consumption, particularly temporary beat locations and alcohol management plans. However, there was no written alcohol policy to manage this issue and coordinate effort across the government. As the greatest gains are achieved through a planned and coordinated approach, the committee recommended that the government develops an alcohol strategic framework that sets targets for reducing alcohol-related harm; provides a mechanism for regular publication of performance data in meeting those targets; includes governance structures to ensure high-level agency coordination and effective stakeholder engagement; and provides mechanisms for the review of alcohol management programs in light of their performance.
To strengthen the Assembly’s role in promoting alcohol management, the committee also recommended that the Assembly set up a standing committee on alcohol and other substance abuse. The member for Wanguri referenced this, and it is a very important recommendation that the government and all in this Chamber should take seriously.
I turn to the supply reduction strategies the committee recommended. The committee recommended that the government continue to support the development and implementation of alcohol management plans. The committee heard support for a minimum floor price for alcohol from a wide range of people as a means of targeting harmful consumption. It was noted that the NT branch of the Australian Hotels Association was not against a minimum floor price due to its potential benefits to the NT community. The hotel industry is not against a floor price.
The committee also supported the call for restricted trading of alcohol at times when the greatest harm from alcohol consumption occurs. As noted already, the committee heard substantial evidence in support of temporary beat locations resulting in noticeable reductions in problem drinking and alcohol-related crime in the locations they were implemented.
Doubts were raised regarding the potential for extending temporary beat locations across the Territory, their cost and sustainability over time, and there were concerns about them having a discriminatory impact. The committee therefore recommended further development of personal point of sale restrictions so that a cost-effective system could be more widely implemented.
In looking at demand reduction, it was noted that there was a lack of family rehabilitation centres. Clients in family programs are more likely to complete the program, and such programs also reduce the long-term harmful effects on children. Importantly for FASD, the lack of family programs prevents some women with children from accessing help. The committee therefore recommended that the government conduct an assessment of the need for family rehabilitation centres. In addition to community-wide alcohol management strategies, the committee found that there was a need for strategies targeting women who are, or may become, pregnant.
The first step in targeting pregnant women is improving awareness of the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant. To this end the committee recommended that government supports further campaigns raising awareness of the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant, and appropriate campaigns for Aboriginal communities where considered essential. In this regard awareness is needed for more than just the risks of alcohol. Women also need an improved understanding of all aspects of sexual and reproductive health.
People spoke highly of programs such as the adolescent sexual education program and Core of Life, which provide young people with timely advice on sex and reproduction. The committee recommended that the government ensure that all children receive a culturally appropriate sexual health awareness program.
A key point for raising awareness is information given by health professionals. The committee recommended that the Department of Health ensures that all training of health professionals include information on FASD and risks of drinking while pregnant, and that protocols for antenatal visits include discussions on the risks of drinking alcohol while pregnant.
Awareness of and access to contraception options is also important to assist woman avoid unwanted pregnancies. The committee also recommended that the Department of Health provide programs to assist in this area. For the vast majority of women, awareness of the dangers of drinking while pregnant is all that is required to avoid FASD. However, for women with alcohol dependency further help may be required. The form of help required varies with individual circumstances but can include rehabilitation services, particularly those that provide for families and children, and alcohol-free and safe accommodation. The committee recommended that the Department of Health assesses the need for intervention and support services for alcohol dependent pregnant women.
A difficult issue confronting the committee was how to respond to pregnant women who continue to drink harmful levels of alcohol. The committee took the unanimous view that the government has the responsibility to protect children from harm as far as possible. The committee also agreed that drinking while pregnant should not be criminalised. Members of the committee differed on whether mandatory treatment should be imposed to reduce the harm done to the foetus.
The majority of the committee considered that imposing mandatory treatment would discourage alcohol-dependent women from seeking treatment, therefore causing greater harm than any benefit obtained through mandatory treatment. The majority also considered that the money required to maintain a mandatory treatment system, such as detention facilities and assessment and legal processes, would be better spent reducing the gap in voluntary services. However, one member took a different view and considered that mandatory treatment may be appropriate in such circumstances.
This was the only point on which members could not reconcile their differences. The whole committee agreed to the need for action on the 26 recommendations of the report.
I again thank all those who made submissions to the committee. I thank all the individuals who appeared at the hearings and public forums, and committee members for their work. I also thank the secretariat and Russell Keith for their hard work, as well as other staff who accompanied us on our travels through the Territory.
I commend the report to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Mr HIGGINS (Arts and Museums): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2014-15 annual report of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. This is the first annual report of the MAGNT as a statutory authority under the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Act 2014 and the MAGNT Regulations which commenced on 1 July 2014.
The MAGNT Act established the board of MAGNT as a body corporate entity separate to the NT government, responsible for the management of MAGNT and the venues and services it delivers as prescribed by the regulations, including: the MAGNT Bullocky Point, Darwin; the Defence of Darwin Experience, East Point; Lyons Cottage, The Esplanade, Darwin; Fannie Bay Gaol, Darwin; the Museum of Central Australia, Larapinta Drive, Alice Springs; the Strehlow Research Centre, Larapinta Drive, Alice Springs; and Alcoota Field Station, Anmatjere, Central Australia. On 14 December 2015 the Chan Art Gallery was added to this impressive list.
The act also enabled the board to directly engage with business and the wider community. The report notes that the board met eight times, seven in Darwin and one in Alice Springs. Considerable work has been undertaken to set up the MAGNT as a statutory board body, including the establishment of new financial systems, website redevelopment, and formalisation of relations with organisations within government and externally. The report also demonstrates the ongoing commitment of the MAGNT to maintain the highest standards of excellence in preserving, researching, exhibiting and communicating the record of natural history, art and peoples of the Northern Territory.
The report describes the performance of the MAGNT functions during the 2014-15 year. Its key achievements include:
collaboration with national and local institutions that saw MAGNT host 10 temporary exhibitions, seven of which were internally developed and three touring exhibitions including the 31st national Aboriginal Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander award
Cyclone Tracy 40th anniversary marked by major enhancements to the Cyclone Tracy exhibition, including interactive and research components and an 8 m railway signal tower that was bent in half by the force of the wind in that cyclone
the NT field guide application that won the Chief Minister’s Award for Excellence in the Public Sector for enhancing culture and lifestyle. This free app features information, photos and sounds of more than 600 species of creatures from across the Territory
It also notes the announcement of the repurposing of the Chan Building to a world-class visual arts gallery, for which planning commenced immediately.
The establishment of a strong, transparent and independent MAGNT board aligns with the Territory government’s Framing the Future blueprint, specifically the confident culture, strong society and prosperous economic objectives.
I congratulate and thank the MAGNT members and staff on their success in establishing a strong foundation for the MAGNT to grow. They have all done a wonderful job and there is much to look forward to as we move into the next phase of cultural investment for Territorians, providing great facilities and planning for the future for the good of the Northern Territory.
Mr HIGGINS (Arts and Museums): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Associate Professor Sue Sayers, a principal research fellow at the Menzies School of Health Research, has dedicated over 40 years of service to the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research to improve the health of Northern Territory children. I was saddened to receive news of Sue’s recent diagnosis of terminal cancer, and I am very pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Sue and her remarkable achievements.
Sue is a paediatrician who has specialised in the medical care of newborn babies, and was the only paediatrician at the Royal Darwin Hospital when Cyclone Tracy struck in 1974. In desperate conditions she supervised the care of many seriously injured children and the evacuation of newborn babies.
Concerned about the long-term health consequences of low birth weights amongst Aboriginal babies, Sue established the Aboriginal birth cohort study at Menzies School of Health Research in 1987. This is the world’s largest and longest birth cohort study of Indigenous child health. It began in Darwin and continues to attract national and international recognition.
The study has followed the growth and development of 686 Aboriginal babies born at the Royal Darwin Hospital between 1987 and 1990. Sue examined the babies within four days of their birth and interviewed their mothers about their health and lifestyle. Since then she has monitored the group through adolescence and into adulthood, and is now monitoring a second generation, the children of the original cohort.
Working as an honorary clinical researcher at the Menzies School of Health Research, Sue’s study is pivotal in understanding how low birth weights may be a factor in chronic disease amongst the adult Indigenous population, especially heart and renal disease and diabetes. Her research confirms that the risk of chronic disease amongst this cohort greatly increases if they become obese adults. In Sue’s words, ‘This provides a window of opportunity into childhood to prevent the development of chronic disease’. The research findings can assist health professionals and policy makers in deciding when to intervene to prevent adult disease.
In 2014 Sue pursued her vision to bridge the gap between research outcomes and knowledge translation through community engagement and education by establishing the Menzies HealthLAB project. Through the HealthLAB project, Sue’s legacy has been to create a permanent vehicle to increase awareness and encourage ownership of the consequences of lifestyle choices on later personal health, and make a lifelong and significant difference to the health and wellbeing of Northern Territory people.
Sue committed her time and energy mentoring young people and pioneering the HealthLAB concept in NT schools, public events, government and non-government entities. She believed that the most opportune time to instil health and lifestyle education is during early childhood.
Sue was a state finalist in the Australian of the Year Award 2012 and a state finalist in the Senior Australian of the Year Award in 2013.
I thank Sue for her significant, decades-long, tireless contribution, dedication and great service to child health in the Northern Territory through service delivery, research and leadership over the years. She has inspired and made a long-lasting and significant impression on so many people, and her legacy will continue through the Menzies HealthLAB.
I also acknowledge Dr James Scattini, a Katherine resident, who will retire after providing 50 years of health service to the people of the Katherine region. In fact, I think he already retired some time ago.
Dr Jim Scattini transferred to Katherine Hospital as a junior resident doctor in October 1966 – one year after I was born – to join Dr Peter Short who was the only doctor in Katherine at that time. Dr Scattini and his colleague looked after a 77-bed hospital, including on-call 24/7 services.
Dr Scattini’s dedication and service to the Katherine Hospital is reflected in the 1972 report of the Northern Territory Legislative Council Committee of Inquiry into Health Services. The report described Katherine Hospital as a ‘remarkably fine hospital’, providing a better service than many of a similar size interstate, and the best established in the Northern Territory due to meeting the needs of the community it served.
Dr Scattini continued to work at the Katherine Hospital until 1972 before deciding to open his own general practice, Kintore Clinic. Dr Scattini has continued to support the Katherine Hospital in a part-time, on-call basis for 45 years. Dr Scattini formally withdrew from the obstetrics service in 2011 but continued to provide anaesthetics and endoscopies at Katherine Hospital until 2012.
Over 45 years, Dr Scattini has helped deliver thousands of babies in the Katherine region, and community members affectionately refer to children delivered by Dr Scattini as ‘Scatt babies’.
Dr Scattini is notable for his ongoing and selfless service in challenging conditions and his clinical and procedural acumen, and demonstrates the epitome of rural generalist medicine.
Dr Scattini retired after 50 years of service for the Department of Health. A civic celebration service was held on 29 January 2016 to honour Dr James (Jim) Scattini.
I am also pleased to acknowledge Mrs Flora Garcia in her retirement. Flora was born, educated and married in the Philippines, where she and her husband had three children – two girls and a boy. Flora and her family moved to Darwin in the mid-1980s where the children were raised and educated in Malak.
Flora started work at the Royal Darwin Hospital stores department in December 1985 as an inventory officer. During her time at Royal Darwin Hospital, Flora played a key role in the transition from a manual stores system to an electronic system which is still used today. Flora held the role of local purchasing officer within the stores department of the Royal Darwin Hospital for the past 15 years and was very well liked by staff and local suppliers.
Flora was also an active member of the local Philippines community group.
Flora retired on 27 January 2016 after more than 30 years of service to the people of the Northern Territory. She has relocated with her husband of 45 years to Queensland. Flora will be sorely missed by all and we wish her well in her retirement. I commend and congratulate Flora for her dedicated service over 31 years.
I am also pleased tonight to acknowledge Mrs Denise Ah-Sam in her retirement. On 4 March 2016, Mrs Denise Ah-Sam retired from the Royal Darwin Hospital, Top End Health Service after more than 45 years of service.
Denise commenced her career with the Department of Health in 1969 in the sisters’ kitchen at the old Darwin Hospital at Myilly Point. Denise transferred to the laundry department in 1970 and then moved to the domestic service department in 1975.
It was in 1982 when Denise moved to the food service department that she stamped her mark. Denise was promoted to supervisor within Royal Darwin Hospital food services in 1992, where she worked diligently until her retirement.
During her career, Denise raised four children and is now a grandmother to six. Denise will remain in Darwin and hopes to do some travelling in the future.
I commend and congratulate Denise for her dedicated, long-standing and outstanding service over 45 years to the people of the Northern Territory.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I ask the government where on earth is the Power and Water Corporation’s 2014-15 annual report? It is 15 March 2016 and we are yet to see an annual report from the Power and Water Corporation, which is extremely unusual to say the least.
Most of the annual reports are produced a few months after the end of financial year, and a huge number of annual reports are deemed into this parliament on the last sitting night of the year. I remind the government that under section 44 of the Government Owned Corporations Act, there are certain expectations about annual reports of government-owned corporations. The Power and Water Corporation is one such corporation.
Last year in the Auditor-General’s opinion and report to the Treasurer on the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for the year ending 30 June 2015, there were some issues of great concern about the Power and Water Corporation and its financial information. In the Auditor-General’s opinion of the public non-financial corporation section, on the basis of disclaimer, under the heading of ‘Inability to form an opinion – Power and Water Corporation’, the Auditor-General wrote:
Later in this disclaimer of opinion, the Auditor-General went on to say:
However, Jacana Energy has produced an annual report for the 2014-15 year. When you go to the Auditor-General’s independent audit report to the Board of Directors on the power and retail corporation within that annual report, you see questions about the basis of qualified opinion. I quote directly from the letter from the Auditor-General:
We are in the March parliamentary sittings and I put the question to the Treasurer and the new Minister for Essential Services: where on earth is the annual report for the Power and Water Corporation? When the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation took place we continued to warn the government – and tried to hold it to account – that it was not ready to ram it through at that pace. It was clearly not ready for that structural separation. As a result we are now in a situation where these separated corporations and the main body, the Power and Water Corporation, cannot produce the financial information that is required. People need to understand why the corporation has not yet produced an annual report for this parliament.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like the government to tell me when we will see this annual report. What is going on? Given the commitment the government gave to the Territory about what this structural separation would achieve for the Power and Water Corporation, when will we see this annual report so we can see open and transparent financial reporting on the government-owned corporation?
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was lucky to be invited for a third year to be the emcee for the Australia Day Fun Day held at the Palmerston pool. I will speak about this and other events held in the Palmerston area for Australia Day.
The Australia Day Fun Day was held at the Palmerston pool from 9 am to midday on Australia Day and offered free and fun activities to the Palmerston community, including a sausage sizzle, water rackety, a climbing wall, jumping castle, fresh muffins and fruit, games such as thong throwing and eat your way around a SAO biscuit, refreshments and lots more.
The Palmerston Australia Day Committee organised and paid for the event. Mr Maurie Johnson, the chair of the committee, was very happy with the turnout and said a good time was had by all. He was joined in running the event by his wife, Bev Johnson; Maggie Schoenfisch, a dedicated committee member; Kath Cockroft, who prepared food for the morning tea; the lovely Jayne Porter, who worked tirelessly on the barbecue; Mary Olif, who was our dedicated Chupa Chups lady; as well as many other helpers. Mr Johnson made special mention of Gayle McQuinn, who made the beautiful Australia Day cake.
In addition to the Palmerston Australia Day Committee, other organisations made a valuable contribution to the event, including Health NT which provided the climbing wall and jumping castle, the YMCA of the Top End which ran the pool, and Spud Murphy who provided and set up the sound system.
The Lions Club of Palmerston did a fantastic job running the sausage sizzle. I thank club members Connell and Coralie Brannelly, Tynan Garrett and Sarah Watkins, who turned up to give everyone a feed.
It is the efforts of all the volunteers and organisations that make this event so popular year after year. It was extremely well attended and everyone had a wonderful time and lots of fun. It was great to see the Country Liberals candidate for Drysdale, Ben Hosking, out and about meeting Palmerston residents.
After the Fun Day I attended the City of Palmerston citizenship ceremony, joined by my colleagues Nathan Barrett, Peter Chandler, Natasha Griggs and Ben Hosking. The ceremony was held from 1 pm to 2 pm at the Palmerston Recreation Centre and was followed by an afternoon tea for all those who attended. The event included a flag-raising ceremony, a citizenship ceremony and the presentation of community awards. There was also musical entertainment by Kevin McCarthy and the Territorians, and Shellie Morris.
I congratulate the 33 conferees who became Australian citizens at that ceremony. I also congratulate all the exceptional nominees and winners of the Student Citizen Award, Citizen of the Year Award, Young Citizen of the Year Award, and Community Event of the Year Award.
My colleague Peter Chandler was invited to present the Student Citizen Award on behalf of the Chief Minister. This award recognises students who show a sense of fair play, generosity of spirit, concern for others, cultural understanding, a positive attitude and an involvement within the school and wider community. I am exceedingly proud to report to the Assembly that all the students who won the Student Citizen Award are students from schools in Drysdale and the newly-created electorate of Spillett.
Chloe Morton from Durack Primary School received the award for 2016, as did Kayleen Vanua from Gray Primary School, Alysha Pope from McKillop College, Matilda Mahony from Palmerston Christian College and Tabitha May from Palmerston Christian Middle School.
The winner of the Palmerston Citizen of the Year for 2016 was Rachel Fosdick, who has been a driving committee member of the Palmerston Power Basketball Club for six years. Rachel has been involved in organising fundraising, training and game days, along with many other things. She co-founded the Palmerston and Rural Basketball Association and has organised the Hoops program, a basketball clinic for Under 8s, and the Palmerston Power basketball school holiday clinics. Her dedication and hard work has made her an invaluable committee member and a great mentor to the young people of Palmerston. I will make a separate adjournment contribution about Rachel later this week.
The winner of the Palmerston Young Citizen of the Year for 2016 was Venaska Cheliah. Venaska is a member of the Chief Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians, a volunteer with the Down Syndrome Association of the NT, Shout Out Youth NT, the Rotary Club of Litchfield Palmerston and teaches dance to children for the Tamil Society. She does all of this while studying her second year of Medicine at Flinders Medical through Charles Darwin University, while advocating for the addition of eating disorder specialty beds at RDH. I congratulate Venaska and commend her passion for helping the community.
The winner of the Palmerston Community Event of the Year for 2016 was the Palmerston Senior Songsters. The songsters are a group of seniors ranging from 60 to 91 years of age who practice and perform in Palmerston and Darwin on a weekly basis. The group performs at nursing homes and palliative care, and at community events, while choosing and learning a new theme each month. This month’s theme is Irish music in honour of St Patrick’s Day. The Palmerston Senior Songsters’ music brings joy and happiness to many people in the community, and I thank them for their contribution, especially Marg Moore who runs the group, Kim Low Choy who provides accompaniment, Marg Lee who is in charge of programming, Margot Cox who is the group’s historian, Lucy Aylett, a dedicated member, and Rob and June Roos who provide support in the form of a sound system.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I again thank everyone who made Australia Day in Palmerston memorable. The well-run events and great turnout are an indication of the strong community spirit present in Palmerston, and our deep affection for what it is to be Australian.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to put on the record the serious concerns about the rise in alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in the Casuarina area and the northern suburbs more broadly.
This issue will not be of surprise to the CLP government, given that my colleagues and I have raised this on a number of occasions inside and outside this House, and the number of times many local members have contacted police or the frequency with which police attend to issues around our local areas and businesses.
The Casuarina police do an incredible job. I am grateful for them, as are my colleagues. Our local police are proactive and responsive to the issue we have raised.
The latest issue I raised was increasing concerns in Casuarina about antisocial behaviour and the number of people who are being moved on from retail, business and community precincts. This is often being managed by building managers, security guards and retailers themselves, who are also often bearing the cost of damage to their premises.
Antisocial behaviour has been raised by local stakeholders in Casuarina directly with the government. As has been previously raised in this House, it resulted in a media release from the now Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Sanderson and the now Minister for Young Territorians, the member for Blain, on 24 April 2015. The media release was about funding to our local youth service, The SHAK, but it also contained information about a group called the Casuarina business advisory group, which the government was apparently working very hard with and would be meeting regularly.
I understand the Casuarina business advisory group has not met again since their first meeting in July …
Mr Styles: Not true! Your information is incorrect.
Ms MOSS: If you let me finish – I pick up on the interjection. I asked in parliament last year – no response. I asked in a letter to the Minister for Business – no response. I have now submitted a written question to try to confirm whether this is the case. Hopefully we can get some information from the Minister for Business about how often that group has met. Important stakeholders have told me that has not occurred. I am interested to know what has happened and what the follow-up has been.
The antisocial behaviour is occurring in Casuarina, Nightcliff, Wanguri and Johnston. I am hearing stories from Malak as well. It is hurting people and business. The CLP has created the conditions for making this worse. Not only did it scrap the BDR, but also shut down the police shopfront inside Casuarina Square. I understand it has now shut down the police beat in the Casuarina area as well. The police beat was a paid commitment by the Labor government of four additional police to patrol the area and deal with antisocial behaviour. I understand the beat is now gone and has been absorbed into general duties. I also understand the number of police at Casuarina has been reduced as well.
The CLP also shut down the Nightcliff police beat and broke its promise of 24-hour premises there. As a direct result of all this, under the CLP we once again hear day after day about alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in reserves and around our shops and offices. Police have visited businesses in Hibiscus, and the member for Johnston sees them regularly around the Rapid Creek shops and his office.
Quite frankly, people are sick of it. It has reached a point where community groups have come to me and told me they are concerned to use my community room at night because they feel unsafe. This is outrageous. Imagine how I felt being told that by a community group. I am concerned about that. I want groups who use my community facilities to feel safe and secure. I want my staff and people who work in the government agencies and community services in our building to feel safe. It is hard not to feel that way when it is reaching fever pitch outside and we come to the office to find blood and vomit outside in a shared walkway between government agencies and community services. It is not on.
The CLP needs to restore the police beat patrol to Casuarina and to increase the police resources in the area, not decrease them. It is time for the NT to have an alcohol and other drug strategy, which was a recommendation by the ice committee of which I was a member. Surely it should not take a committee to tell this government that its lack of a strategy is driving crime upwards. There is a reference in the plan to tackle ice through a research strategy. However, the government needs to be clear and open with the public about what that means, what it will cover, what it wants to achieve and what resources will be attributed to it.
Local residents and stakeholders in Casuarina regularly refer to the Banned Drinker Register, a Territory-wide measure which police said was a powerful tool in addressing alcohol-related violence in our community.
There is a range of youth and community services which have also suffered under this CLP government. They play an incredibly important role in minimising harm and risk in our community. They have been defunded or have had their funds cut severely. They must be valued as partners.
The CLP government has also shown no interest in doing a follow-the-grog audit. I suggest doing so would be very telling about what is occurring in the northern suburbs.
There must be a thorough review of police resources. These are just a few of the things that could be done quickly, and need to be done with some urgency.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, our community needs these issues to be taken seriously.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I share with the Minister for Education and my parliamentary colleagues a letter that was copied to me. It is from a teacher I know and have had the privilege of supporting over a number of years who is separating from the Department of Education after many years of work in the bush.
The initial question they asked was, ‘Should I send this letter to Mr Ken Davies, the CEO of Education?’ My response was, ‘Yes, you should’. Ken and I have known each other for a long time and I am sure Ken will take this in good faith. However, it is a very challenging letter and I hope the Minister of Education shares this with the CEO of Education because there can be a lot of lessons learned. The opening paragraph sets the scene, ‘Working within Aboriginal communities can be tragic yet wonderful, extremely humorous and soul-searching. Working with management has sadly nearly always been soul-destroying and belittling. Attending many professional development courses, meetings and intensive workshops, never at any time did they ask, ‘What are you doing? What is working and why is it working? How can we build upon this?’
I will not read the letter in its entirety. It is essentially a cry for acknowledgment of the vast experience, talent and the expertise of our teaching sector across the Northern Territory. Those teachers who have served over decades are focused on the agenda of re-engaging the parents and significant adults in the school and education processes through relevant governance and the students through curriculum initiatives.
This teacher has an arts background and is trained and well-versed in the arts. I witnessed this teacher working in a multigrade primary school environment, a secondary environment, a special education environment and an advisory environment over many years. The example is not one of a normal curriculum program; it is of significant curriculum enhancement.
An example of that is the partnership with the Bell Shakespeare company, which delivered in Tennant Creek over a number of years major performances to audiences in excess of 500. I was privileged to support those performances, workshops and programs and can testify that this was significant engaging work. It was based on the premise of arts in education and was at a high level. When the Bell Shakespeare company includes Tennant Creek High School in its annual program over a number of years – I can remember at least five years – that is a significant partnership addressing regional and remote education.
The teacher talked about the negativity from the department. There are quotes saying, ‘Put Macbeth away, just put it away’. There is real soul searching and a cry for help in the letter. I am sure Mr Davies will understand that level of emotion and ignore the criticism but take on the meaning and substance of these recommendations.
The teacher talked about the production of literature, narrative stories, publishing stories, disadvantaged students – one Year 12 student sleeping in a car, which I know to be true and not an exaggeration – and how this arts-in-education process engaged that student who completed Year 12 that year.
There is a very powerful message in the letter which talks about relationship with community and how the bureaucracy and the department need to acknowledge that in better ways of doing and learning.
The partnership increased and developed with this teacher as she went on to become a project officer for a multilingual learners program. We are talking about a partnership interstate in Queensland and a major partnership with the Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation. I have witnessed Eric Brace’s work in Tennant Creek over a number years, and it is a powerful national community framework that has delivered many important outcomes.
Once again, this teacher is challenging this department’s view, support and acknowledgement of this rich arts-in-education approach to engagement, and articulates many of the concerns in the letter.
The teacher talked about service in a very challenging remote school which I know very well, once again seeing an approach where people did not value the opportunities or understand the what-works principle and were struggling. Knowing this school well, there is no doubt that at that time there were significant challenges that needed a new and fresh approach to be researched and acknowledged regarding what new staff, new ideas and a what-works approach could deliver.
It is not a low-level approach; it is well researched. The teacher has amazing partnerships. We can talk about the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, the University of Melbourne and data analysis at the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority. It is a teacher who knew what she was doing and tried to create that level of acknowledgement, valuing and, at the grassroots school level, support in delivery.
This teacher then outlined for Mr Davies, the CEO, the national benchmarks and how there can be new ways of doing things in the education system, and the inclusion of creative curriculum, cultural initiatives and new governance principles for engaging parents, family and significant adults.
She then outlined being undervalued. The teacher talked about being made fun of at times – soul-destroying images emerge in this extensive letter – and consequently becoming disengaged.
It documents well a journey to the end with a formal separation, as the teacher has raised her daughter in the bush in the Territory and she is now in high school and has moved interstate. She defines a bereavement process. I see this letter to Mr Davies as crying out. It should be taken in good faith.
The last part I want to talk about is work at a small, one-teacher school in the Barkly, and a narrative the teacher has documented. It was an arts-in-education project around developing narratives. Here is a very brief quote from a student’s work, 'Slowly everyone walks home past the basketball court, the old clothesline and the little blue tin shed. Lonely dogs in the distance cry to the moon. Cockatoo, Ninka, wake up the morning with a big meeting, saying, “This land gotta get right”.’
Minister, I hope you have the opportunity to share that correspondence from a person who provided great service to NT education, who operated at an extremely high level and had an amazing array of national contacts and brought them to the NT. I hope the department takes this in good faith and that the CEO and the minister understand this letter is reflecting a significant bereavement process.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I hope we get that teacher back one day. I hope we pick up on a lot of that good advice. I thank her sincerely for her great service to the Northern Territory and wish her all the best in the new chapter of her life down south.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about a day during the year when we recognise the wonderful cultural and religious diversity we have in Australia, especially in the Northern Territory.
Harmony Day is acknowledged on 21 March. This day has been celebrated in Australia since 1999. On this day we remember and celebrate the cultural and religious diversity within our great country. Our diversity includes around 44% of people who were either born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas. Wonderfully, more than 270 ancestries are identified in this country.
Inclusiveness, respect and sense of belonging for everyone is not only a strong characteristic of our nation, but also for us living in the NT. This is a day for all of us to embrace cultural diversity and share what we have in common.
The timing of Harmony Day is scheduled to coincide with the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The United Nations General Assembly decided to nominate this day to remember what happened in Sharpeville, South Africa, on 21 March 1960. Sadly, 69 people were killed and 180 injured when the police fired on a peaceful demonstration of people who were protesting against the apartheid laws of South Africa at that time. This action of the then South African government was internationally criticised.
In Australia we have federal and state laws which have been enacted for the elimination of discrimination. In the Northern Territory we have a particularly rich, diverse and inclusive multicultural community that we can all be proud of. Our cultural and linguistic diversity has been strengthened and our society enriched through the members of many multicultural groups which call the Northern Territory their home.
In the Territory we encourage and value the principles of tolerance and respect. We recognise and value the social, cultural, political and economic contributions of our established and newly-emerging multicultural communities. We are committed to continuing to support initiatives that strengthen these communities and maintain social cohesion. We condemn and negate any forms of racism that we become aware of.
Nominating and having an annual Harmony Day is an opportunity to remember, promote and celebrate our multicultural country. The central message for all of us on this day is that everyone belongs, reinforcing the importance of inclusiveness to all Australians.
As the Minister for Multicultural Affairs in the Northern Territory, I am especially proud to hold this portfolio and to meet members of many multicultural communities at Harmony Day events organised by many different community and government organisations.
In the Northern Territory, apart from functions held around Harmony Day in March, our multicultural groups also come together for big events in May that are held in Darwin and Alice Springs. In Alice Springs, there is the Big Day Out, a Harmony Day event held on Saturday 14 May. In Darwin on Saturday 28 May the Harmony Soiree celebrates our cultural diversity and encourages cultural inclusion by bringing together many different cultures and traditions in the one location at the Darwin waterfront for our community to enjoy. These events are a showcase of the vibrant and diverse multicultural communities we have both in Alice Springs and in Darwin.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all of these multicultural communities who share and celebrate these cultures with Territorians.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I provide an update of some of the things that have been occurring in my local schools, particularly with regard to the announcement of students in leadership roles.
I will start with Nhulunbuy Christian College and its student leadership team. It acknowledged its elected 2016 student leadership team at a school assembly which I was very privileged to be a part of on Wednesday 2 March. I thank the principal, Lara Hvala, who does a wonderful job, for extending a kind invitation to me to attend and make some of the presentations.
I offer my congratulations to each student on their successful election, and very best wishes for the year to come. I place those students’ names on the record.
At Nhulunbuy Christian College, the middle school captains are Shae Dentith and Oliver Veale. The primary school captains are Emma Pickford and Timothy Bowden. The student representative for Year 10 is Lara Stimson; Year 9 is Tahlia Gronn; Year 8 is Hayden Pickford; Year 7 is Eva Hvala; and for Year 6 are Joey Holmes and Tia Hutton.
Their house captain for Shadrach is Pauline Lamboa and vice captain is Ciara Arkcoll. The Meshach captain is Isabel Blundell and vice captains Jordan Tavares-Williams and Hannah Fourie. The Abednego captain is Abbe Ayres and vice captain is Olivia Marchesi.
Congratulations to those students at Nhulunbuy Christian College.
Nhulunbuy High School recently announced its SRC and captains for 2016. I congratulate each student and wish to place their names on the record, noting that the captains and vice captains are yet to be announced.
Congratulations to the following SRC representatives: Year 7A, Noah Canobie and Amy Hughes; Year 7B, Kai Mooney and Bridie Stott; Year 8A, Claire Harris and Quade Te Oka; Year 8B, La Mon Forbes and Denzel Shine; Year 9A, Ella Graham and Will Smith; Year 9B, Matewai Campbell, Harry Parfitt, Harry Pitkin and Siena Stubbs; Year 10, Serina O’Conner and Wally Willis; Year 11A, Mollie Graham and Joel Morris; Year 11A VET, Dannii Tawhi and Josh Winderlich; Year 12, Elise Anderson and Callum Brett; and the Annexe, Jaylin Perry-Maymuru. The school captains are Savanne Canobie and Riley Neenen, who I know will do a fabulous job as Year 12 student leaders.
These students are clearly held in high regard by their peers, school community and teachers to have been elected into these roles. With it comes important responsibility. I wish them well with those duties and with the year ahead in 2016.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, Nhulunbuy Primary School will be holding an assembly very soon to announce and recognise its elected Student Representative Council members as well as house captains. I hope when that date comes around I am available to attend.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 6 classes from Leanyer Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Leanne Avery and Ms Claire Rowat. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 31 – Assent to Bills Passed in February
Message No 31 – Assent to Bills Passed in February
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 167, I advise that I have received Message No 31 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to bills passed at the February 2016 sittings. The message is dated 8 March 2016.
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ORDER
Minister for Sport and Recreation
Minister for Sport and Recreation
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the Administrative Arrangements Order published in Northern Territory Government Gazette No S9 dated 15 February 2016. I advise the Assembly that on 15 February 2016 His Honour the Administrator made the additional appointment of a minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Nathan Barrett, as Minister for Sport and Recreation. I congratulate Nathan Barrett on his promotion.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) LEGISLATION
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 141)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 141)
Continued from 11 February 2016.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, this bill was adjourned at the consideration in detail stage during the last sittings. The Deputy Speaker will assume the Chair to facilitate debate. I understand the minister will seek leave to withdraw the amendments schedule circulated in February for a replacement schedule to be considered.
Consideration in Detail
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to withdraw the remainder of Amendment Schedule No 46 as circulated during the February sittings and replace it with a newly circulated Amendment Schedule No 49.
Leave granted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Assembly has before it the new amendment schedule, which replaces the previously proposed amendment to clause 7 of the bill, which was not moved before the matter was adjourned last sittings. The Assembly has agreed that clauses 1 to 6 stand as printed.
Clause 7.
Clause 7 defeated.
New clause 7.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the amendment be agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: We are still waiting for the amendments to be circulated, which may …
Mr ELFERINK: That was circulated yesterday. You should have received an e-mail. Attached to the e-mail was a letter from the Chief Minister, as well as a letter from the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to its recommendations and the proposed amendment. Concerns raised about the last amendment have been addressed by withdrawing the last amendment and replacing it with the new amendment, which should have been circulated to you last night.
Essentially, the change to the amendment is that the Chief Minister must refer to the Remuneration Tribunal to exercise the power. This gives greater comfort to members regarding the issues they raised last time.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! We received a letter from the Chief Minister dated 10 March, but I did not receive an e-mail yesterday.
Mr ELFERINK: It is the same letter. Does it have the letter from the Remuneration Tribunal attached to it?
Ms LAWRIE: No.
Ms FYLES: I received a letter from the Chief Minister which had an attachment from the RTD. That was dated 10 March, not yesterday.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, 10 March. I have had so much paperwork going through my office that I cannot remember exactly when I signed off on it, but I am sure they have been circulated. It was deliberately designed to attend to all the issues that were dealt with last time.
Ms LAWRIE: In regard to the amendments before us, (2A) has been inserted which says:
- Before determining an entitlement under subsection (1), the Minister must seek written advice in relation to the entitlement from the Tribunal.
- Section 5(3), after “subsection (1)”
insert
- , and the written advice from the Tribunal in relation to the entitlement,
Could you explain? I understand that the Chief Minister has new discretionary powers …
Mr ELFERINK: No, they are not new. Anyway, go on, sorry.
Ms LAWRIE: Broader discretionary powers. A step is now being inserted to receive advice from the tribunal before exercising those powers. Is that advice binding?
Mr ELFERINK: No, it cannot be, as you well know. Let us go back to the first assertion you made. The power has always existed. The effect of this amendment will limit that power.
The concern raised was that the bill originally brought before the House to amend the legislation had the effect of repealing that power which had always existed. The last amendment sought to restore the power which had always existed. However, members raised questions about that so the new amendment places a greater limitation on that. Bear in mind, of course, that if the power is sought to be exercised by the Chief Minister when he seeks information from the Remuneration Tribunal it must be tabled. That is the comfort there.
However, in binding the Chief Minister necessarily to the Remuneration Tribunal I am not sure, in the hierarchy of things, if that would be appropriate. Certainly, he must seek advice which has to be tabled. It is then up to the public to determine the appropriateness of the Chief Minister’s actions.
Ms LAWRIE: My understanding of the powers of the Chief Minister is they are not just contained to severance pay. Going to the letter of 10 March, is it the intention of this government to exercise those powers in relation to severance pay only?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, with the exception that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also be properly remunerated for her role as well. Those are the two recommendations from the Remuneration Tribunal, and what we will limit ourselves to.
Ms LAWRIE: Sadly the Attorney-General moved away from the microphone during the last statement, but that is the statement I am seeking.
Mr ELFERINK: As per the letter from the Chief Minister, I give a cast iron guarantee – as cast iron as it can be – that the intent is to only apply the recommendations from the Remuneration Tribunal.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
INQUIRIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 151)
(Serial 151)
Continued from 10 February 2016.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Territory Labor supports these amendments. Last week the Department of the Chief Minister briefed my office and me on the amendments. I thank the public servants who took the time to do that. The amendments will strengthen the operation of the Inquiries Act and the authority of the board, commissioner or authorised person acting in an official capacity conducting an inquiry. These amendments bring the power to the board or commissioner under the act in line with similar provisions in other jurisdictions. The amendments strengthen the provisions for witnesses to cooperate with an inquiry, with the creation of offences for contempt and obstruction of a commissioner. They strengthen the confidentiality provisions by inserting a penalty for a breach.
Labor supports amendments to legislation which strengthen government accountability and transparency. Last year we released our discussion paper outlining options for reform, both in parliament and electorally, for the improvement of public disclosure laws, the establishment of an integrity framework and that an ICAC will be a part of the Northern Territory. That is the important bit for debate today. There needs to be a framework and an ICAC should be a part of it.
Labor had a good track record of improving transparency when last in government. Labor introduced freedom of information laws, provision of information about government services to the public and whistle-blower laws for the protection of individuals, and improved the administration of government services. Labor established the Estimates Committee process for public scrutiny of the government’s budget. Labor established a ministerial code of conduct and limited government advertising through the Public Information Act.
I do not believe you can look at this bill today in isolation of what is happening in the Northern Territory. There is a case for urgent comprehensive reform and action in the Northern Territory to restore trust and integrity to government. Over the last three-and-a-half years Territorians have witnessed a series of events which have seen trust and confidence in public officials and the Northern Territory government hit an all-time low.
The behaviour of the CLP has cost the trust of Territorians. The actions of the CLP government show a complete disregard for the rights of Territorians to an open and transparent government. There is a desire for comprehensive reform to restore trust and integrity, but nobody trusts the CLP government to do it. The CLP cannot be trusted to bring forward that reform, and this bill serves as an example of why. Sadly, the CLP’s motivation for this bill is not reform, but a vehicle to have another political kick at several politicians and that is a shame. At a time when the public wants comprehensive reform, all the CLP has done is look for a cheap vehicle for political kicks. We have seen that in the way they approached this in the media.
Territorians need more than that. The desire for petty politics or self-interest as motivation over meaningful reform or the best interests of Territorians is another reason Territorians do not trust this government to deliver comprehensive reform to restore trust and integrity to government. They do not trust the Chief Minister, Cabinet or the CLP.
Labor believes a new public integrity framework needs to be created to restore integrity and trust in the Northern Territory political process. This is a critical step in the Northern Territory’s evolution as a stable and mature democracy. If you are not trusted you cannot deliver government. If you are not trusted you struggle to deliver reform or make big decisions and have them carried through. A lack of trust in this government has seen repercussions everywhere.
Recent events, in particular the multiple investigations into allegations of improper conduct by the former Northern Territory Police Commissioner, demonstrate the need for a clear, efficient and transparent integrity framework which must include an ICAC. We made a submission to the inquiry – it is happening right now – into an ICAC in the Northern Territory. An ICAC must be established in the Northern Territory and should exist within an integrity framework.
The Northern Territory has existing statutory authorities with significant powers to investigate matters in an independent manner within their legislative purview. Territory Labor outlined in its submission and reform paper a desire to add an ICAC and an integrity commissioner or committee – that is important – to this framework so all the pieces fit together. As already stated, the recent multiple investigations into the alleged misconduct of the former NT Police Commissioner show the need for an holistic framework to investigate all matters raised in a way that maintains public confidence, exists separate to government and fits together in way that ensures people can have trust in the system.
This bill focuses on one thing, and Territorians are demanding comprehensive reform. We see the role of an integrity commissioner or committee as providing advice and assistance to government agencies and other statutory officers to actively prevent corruption, as well as providing education to the Northern Territory community and public sector about corruption and its effects.
This was a recommendation in the Ombudsman’s report into Matters arising from allegations of inappropriate conduct by the former Commissioner of Police and another police officer. He said:
- Another option that may bear consideration does not relate to reporting and investigation as such but rather to the potential to seek confidential advice in relation to integrity issues. It should not be seen as a replacement for a robust reporting and investigation regime but as a potential adjunct to executive management of integrity issues.
- An alternative model, in a Territory context, might be to have a separate, independent integrity Commissioner whose sole role is to give advice to senior public officials on integrity issues.
Given the likely limited demand for advice in a jurisdiction the size of the Territory, the role could potentially be undertaken by a retired judicial officer, auditor-general, senior lawyer or other respected community figure, on a sessional basis as required.
An office of this kind might provide useful advice on ethics and integrity issues to senior public officials in the Territory.
It might also act as a circuit breaker in cases where concerns are raised about a potential issue or proposed course of action by a public official. The official could, either on their own initiative or following prompting from by a colleague, refer the issue to the Integrity Commissioner for advice, which would hopefully resolve the issue.
Perhaps they do not want the advice. It is alarming to us, and there are constant examples of how this government goes head first into things without thinking them through or considering the integrity of how it should conduct itself. If we had an integrity commissioner in the Territory there is every chance the former Deputy Chief Minister could have received advice about proper conduct of a minister. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister’s and Deputy Chief Minister’s actions over the last month have shown a complete lack of understanding of the responsibilities of Cabinet ministers. Territorians understand why the former Deputy Chief Minister should not have had parallel conversations about personal and Territory interests.
The Chief Minister’s decision to welcome the former Deputy Chief Minister back to Cabinet post-election if the CLP wins shows no lessons have been learnt and the CLP accepts this conduct. It is no wonder the CLP consistently fails community standards, and no one trusts it to restore trust and integrity to government.
This bill is an example of why Territorians do not trust this government. It is not motivation for reform, but a vehicle to kick a few politicians – we saw the way they handled the media on this – and in ignorance of reforms recommended by the Ombudsman which could lead to meaningful reform about how ministers conduct themselves. The CLP has not gone down the path of comprehensive reform, restoring integrity and trust to government or repairing the trust deficit it created in the Territory. It is taking this piecemeal approach in the absence of a proper framework and approach.
This bill is another reason for the cynicism of Territorians and why they do not trust this government or how it conducts itself. There are constant examples of how this government fails the community test.
We support the bill and the amendments, but recognise they are in the context of a complete lack of trust in this government and its plan to deal with that. I acknowledge the government can do it anyway. No one trusts this government to bring forward the reforms or implement them meaningfully, or conduct them in a way that will work for Territorians.
The only way it can sell this is at the next Territory election. There will be a clear choice between the CLP and how it has conducted itself during this term of government, and a Labor government which will bring forward a comprehensive plan to restore trust and integrity to government – to have an ICAC, an integrity commissioner – and deal with the issues which have emerged through this term in a proper, comprehensive way.
Madam Speaker, we support this amendment and lament the inability of this government to bring forward a comprehensive reform package.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the amendments to the Inquiries Act. Why has it taken so long? The Stella Maris inquiry was completed a long time ago. Also, why was the clause I raised in debate at the last sittings, where one of the recommendations was the information commissioner also be the integrity commissioner – if you look at the Stella Maris inquiry recommendations you need to say up front that you agree with this many, there should have been a time frame for implementation, and there needs to be clear reasons for not having an integrity commissioner.
I said during the last sittings, when dealing with the minister for Primary Industry’s matter, that it showed we should have an integrity commissioner in the Northern Territory. Be that as it may, the Inquiries Act is an important one. I do not know if any recommendations will be made in relation to this act by Mr Brian Martin QC, who is looking at proposals for setting up an ICAC. Will the structure of the NT Inquiries Act be investigated by Mr Brian Martin? We will see when he delivers his report.
In the meantime the Inquiries Act should not have any holes in it. It is obvious from the second reading – the minister said the bill arose from recommendation 12 of the Stella Maris inquiry conducted by Commissioner Lawler. He found the act was deficient. The documents identified as relevant to the inquiry were unable to be seized because the act did not provide for seizure. There are also no penalty provisions for anyone hindering or preventing access to places, premises, buildings or documents. The current process provided in section 8 of the act does not provide a power to seize documents or compel production of documents or goods.
You would hope someone conducting an inquiry had that power, otherwise documents important to the inquiry technically could not be seized. That would make any inquiry unable to find the truth, which inquiries are all about.
I thank the minister for my briefing. There are some definition changes – powers of entry, inspection and seizure as mentioned previously, and obstructing a board member, commissioner or an authorised person. There is a definition of contempt, and there have been some changes since the briefing, which are last night’s amendments. I have been working through those and can ask some questions of the minister now or wait for the consideration in detail stage.
I thank the government for noting my concern in relation to the penalties for contempt. At the briefing I raised that under the previous amendments the maximum penalty for a person who committed contempt was 100 penalty units. That, in itself, seemed strange because a rich person could pay the fine, keep paying it and so be it. You are in contempt of the board or the commissioner if you do not take an oath, do not answer a question or do not produce a document or thing, although that has been changed slightly.
If someone refused to answer a question under the previous amendment it was only 100 penalty units. Someone with a lot of money could keep paying the fine. I am pleased to see a six-month imprisonment penalty now. That is good because you do not want people getting away with keeping quiet and making the inquiry, in theory, end if you could not get the answers you wanted. That could also make the inquiry reach a conclusion that might not be satisfactory because they could not get the answers they needed to make sure the inquiry made important findings.
I support this bill. There was a famous day where this parliament asked for an inquiry into Foundation 51 and the legislation regarding political donations, something I will hopefully bring forward before the election. I am sad that did not succeed. I understand the politics and why we had half an inquiry. Regardless of the politics or the issue, governments should be willing to stand up to the scrutiny of this House and an inquiry.
If there is nothing wrong the inquiry will show it. If you support an independent inquiry what do you have to fear? The government did itself a disservice because it supported that foundation, and has every right to. Others believe that body was perhaps doing something it should not have under the Electoral Act. The way to clear the air so people can make a judgment is through the inquiries system. After all, that is what it is for.
I am glad, Chief Minister, that you have introduced these amendments to the Inquiries Act. They strengthen it, and that is good. This is an important part of our democracy. The danger for majority governments is they could use it for political point scoring. I have faith that whoever is appointed to undertake the inquiry would step away from the partisan background of this parliament and look at the issues in a neutral way so the public sees the results as fair and proper.
In summary, to save us going to consideration in detail, minister, could your response include why clause 11, Contempt, 11(1)(b) has changed from:
- the person is reckless as to the conduct constituting contempt of a Board or Commissioner.
To:
- the conduct constitutes contempt of a Board or Commissioner and the person was reckless in relation to that circumstance.
Perhaps you could explain the difference. It does not seem to make any difference to me. I am sure someone in your department could explain the difference.
There was another slight change in relation to new section 12(b)(iv) which was:
- produce a document or thing.
And has been changed to:
- produce a book, document or writing as required by the summons.
What are the technical reasons for the change to include a book, document or writing as required by the summons? I thought in ‘produce a document or thing’, that ‘thing’ would cover the world because it is such a broad word.
I am not criticising those changes, Chief Minister, but would like an explanation of why the changes have occurred. I am happy to raise them, if you want, in the …
Mr Giles: It is a drafting change.
Mr WOOD: I am trying to understand the reason for the drafting change. When people change things you ask what was wrong with the existing amendment. It is no big deal, Chief Minister, but perhaps you could answer those queries in your response.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for introducing this bill. In the past I have been opposed to setting up an ICAC or a Royal Commission in the Northern Territory for a number of reasons. One is that I believe such a commission, as shown elsewhere in the country, does nothing to improve perceptions of the institutions we have.
It is overwhelmingly important that people have faith in their institutions. ICACs can undermine that faith because they are not courts of law, do not necessarily deal in facts – they do, but they then have to go to a court of law to be proven. They do an enormous amount of damage to the perception of our institutions.
As Treasurer of the Northern Territory, I am acutely aware of the cost of Royal Commissions and ICACs. At a time when we are trying to clean up Labor debt and reduce deficit, spending somewhere between $20m and $80m on an ICAC or Royal Commission seems an excess, especially when there are many other worthwhile things government should be funding.
Since having voiced those views some time ago I have changed my mind. The perception of this place has been undermined to such an extent that the only way to clear it up is through a Royal Commission or an ICAC. It is fundamentally an issue of dealing with perceptions.
I have struggled with this since the start of this term of government. People may recall I was the original Health minister when we won government in 2012. I initiated the police investigation into the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme travel. I saw the inconsistencies following a fairly rigorous inquiry of the scheme by the Health department.
The system was being rorted. Perhaps that is too strong a word, but people were being very liberal with the way the concession was being treated. I initiated changes to the scheme in my first budget, changing the way pension and concession holders could access the scheme. It was originally calculated on a trip to Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne, and a person could qualify for a trip every four years and half a ticket every two years.
We changed that to a flat dollar amount, fundamentally to address the issue of people fooling the system. That was done to bring integrity back to the system. You would swear, by picking up a newspaper or listening to media reports, that this government is corrupt and had a problem with the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. An average reader would believe it is the government’s problem and we did not fix it. That is arrant nonsense. It has been interesting to see the way public perception has been changed by those opposite, and the media, to take aim at this government for having the audacity to inquire into what was happening with the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme.
This government made moves to rectify the situation. We had an inquiry. We also had an inquiry into Stella Maris. Unfortunately for those opposite, it did not appear the way they wanted it to, ‘There’s nothing wrong in giving a rent-free building to the unions for 10 years. That’s okay.’ That inquiry found something different. Interestingly enough, it found what they would consider no criminality.
It seems to have developed a life of its own because the former Leader of the Opposition has decided to take matters further. Containing things to that inquiry, it showed there was a dodgy deal that should not have taken place, but there was no criminal activity. That was our step into inquiries, commissions, court proceedings or whatever you want to call it.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the former Police Commissioner should be investigated by an ICAC. The former Police Commissioner is not only being investigated by Territory police, but by federal police and others. I have a high regard for the integrity of the organisations conducting those inquiries. Sooner or later we will see what the former Police Commissioner was involved in.
The member for Nelson said he is not happy with the outcomes of the inquiries into Foundation 51, irrespective of the fact the allegations were investigated by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, the Australian Electoral Commission, the Northern Territory Police and the federal police, and all have said there is no case to answer.
That is not good enough for the other side. They want an ICAC. If that is what it will take to lay these matters to rest, maybe that is what we need. I will be lobbying the Chief Minister for an ICAC. We need to take a serious look at the perceptions of this place because when you have the media focus, and a focus from the opposition that twists things the way it has and suggests we are somehow responsible for the rorting of the pensioner concession scheme and are rorting the system through Foundation 51, it is abysmal.
We recently saw a front page newspaper story about a deal done by the MUA some years ago in relation to the Blacktip gas field development. That deal was highlighted in the Royal Commission into trade unions. Reams of paper 10 boxes high came out of that Royal Commission. Contained in those findings was that the MUA and the Northern Territory extracted $1m from Saipem, a company doing barge work for the Blacktip field.
People need to remember that at the time that deal was occurring, the Power and Water Corporation – taxpayers, tariff payers and electricity users – was paying millions of dollars for road trains of diesel to go to Channel Island Power Station. Every day of delay in the Blacktip project cost electricity customers and taxpayers millions of dollars in extra diesel costs.
What did the Opposition Leader know of it? The Opposition Leader was chief of staff for the energy minister, Kon Vatskalis, at that time. He also later became chief of staff to the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson. The Leader of the Opposition was paid to know these things.
We all know of the close relationship between Labor and the unions. In fact, we also know that the MUA has formed a sub-branch of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory and is boasting it controls 10% of NT Labor Party membership. That is a big boast! It does that on its website.
Given the closeness of the MUA to the Labor Party, what did the Labor Party at the time, and in particular the now Opposition Leader, know about this effort to extort money from Saipem? Ultimately, that is what this debate is about. It goes to the integrity of every member. Until the Leader of the Opposition explains exactly what he knew, how the deal went down and whether he supported it or not, he has no right to question other members of parliament about their involvement in other things.
It is wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to make allegations of corruption. That is fundamentally what an ICAC is about. Maybe we should have an ICAC. Maybe we should look into the MUA deal that saw $1m extracted from Saipem and the gas pipeline deal the former Labor government made. That saw a 1500 km pipeline sold for $65m, and a gas transportation agreement put in place that did not recognise the fact that we provided the capital to maintain and operate the pipeline for 25 years plus completely amortise the loan.
Maybe we should have a Royal Commission into the 2009 Casuarina substation explosion to find out exactly what caused it and what Labor members knew about it. These are issues of public interest. The public has a right to know where billions of dollars have gone and what deals former and current Labor members were involved in or knew of.
If this is the way the Labor Party wants to go, well bring it on. We on this side have been inquired into death in the last three-and-a-half years. We have had to answer questions about decades of pensioner concession deals that had been done. We have inquired into ourselves. We have seen a former staff member charged with corruption. If we were trying to hide something, surely we would hide that.
No, it is out there. We have looked at ministerial travel back to 2012. The Chief Minister had the Chief Minister’s department go through ministerial travel bookings back to 2012 looking for anomalies. Any Royal Commission or ICAC should be able to troll through records in Labor’s term as well …
Ms Fyles: We welcome that.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nightcliff welcomes that. Let us see how it pans out, member for Nightcliff. This government has been in for three-and-a-half years, the previous government was in for almost 13 years. You cannot tell me in that time there were not more deals like the MUA and Saipem or Stella Maris, where Labor and the unions were in bed together.
I well remember those 13 years of hard labour. You could not get a gig here unless you were tied up with the union in some way. Unions were placed on every government board in the Territory and held in high esteem. A union would never be investigated or looked at. We never looked at what election funding goes into unions and is then paid out to Labor. We all know that Labor has a big washing machine called the union movement, where donors put money into unions for all types of things – training etcetera – and the unions pay it to Labor. Labor has a washing machine to clean up all the money it receives from business donations, but who is under fire?
In my view the Electoral Commission erred when it said Foundation 51 was an associated body. I cannot see how that is possible because Foundation 51 was set up at arm’s length from the Country Liberal Party as a business organisation to promote conservative political values. There is nothing wrong with that, and nothing to suggest it has to be associated with the CLP. However, the NT Electoral Commission determined it was an associated body.
The NT Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission have gone through all their records and the Northern Territory Police and the federal police have both gone through all their records, but that is still not good enough for members on the other side, including the member for Nelson. They will only be satisfied by a Royal Commission.
If we are to have a Royal Commission or an ICAC, yes, drag Foundation 51 to it. However, let us also drag in the union movement. Let us find out exactly what donations are going to unions from businesses in the Northern Territory to fund the Labor Party coffers. That is what I want to know.
My view has not changed; an ICAC is an expense. In the case of the Northern Territory, where this parliament has been maligned by those opposite and the media, it is high time to bite the bullet and allocate $50m to a Royal Commission and get this place cleaned out.
The member for Karama is smiling. She is having her day in court, but she will not be the only one. Others will be caught out and called up. The member for Barkly had his day in front of a judicial inquiry. I imagine it would not have been a pleasant experience. I never want to front one – touch wood. It seems that is the way we are going. I can hold my head up high and say in the last 15 years of parliamentary representation I have never been involved in those types of dealings, and have been fastidious to ensure I have not.
This is not about reality but perception. Those on the other side have done that so well. They have created a perception that we are all crooked and corrupt, and we all need to be thrown in gaol or something like it. You put the perception out and now this Treasurer is saying, ‘Let’s have one’, and calling on the Chief Minister to do the same. Let us get to the bottom of the MUA affair and a few others that have occurred.
I was the minister at the time in charge of the failed AMS system, the Minister for Corporate and Information Services. I saw firsthand the money the former government flushed down the toilet – $70m. You may as well have put a pile of cash on the front steps of Parliament House and lit it. We would have had more entertainment than we did from the $70m Labor wasted on the AMS.
There were reports that the companies involved in the dodgy dealings in Victoria are the same as those here. Maybe an ICAC could investigate those arrangements. The company referred to in the newspaper headlines now has the former Labor Secretary working for it. There are questions about all these things. One would get the impression that this side of parliament is dodgy and those on that side are fine. The media can peddle that, but once an ICAC starts it will have to report reality, which is that this government has nothing to hide and never did. We have had to ferret out these problems. I ferretted out the health problems and the PenCon scheme. I referred it to police and instigated the investigation in 2013.
It is funny how things are twisted. If you read the peddler of smut, Chris Walsh, you would swear this government is on the nose. I heard a bizarre radio interview on the ABC recently where he said, ‘We all know you can’t trust this government; it does not have any transparency. The only question is whether we can trust the Labor opposition’ …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance, and Standing Order 32: offensive. Perhaps you could remind the minister his comments …
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The issues to which the member is referring were raised by the Leader of the Opposition when he was talking about ICACs. If the Leader of the Opposition raises those points of debate the government has the right to rebut.
Madam SPEAKER: I agree, Leader of Government Business. The Opposition Leader mentioned ICAC and things of that nature in his commentary, so it is okay for the minister to do the same.
Minister, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the member for Nightcliff for demonstrating that they want to gag this debate because it is not going their way. The Treasure has had the audacity to call out the chief political journalist from the NT News, who is a smut-monger …
Ms Lawrie: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr TOLLNER: … a peddler of smear …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I would prefer it if you withdrew those comments regarding a member of the public outside this building.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, but the point is made. The chief political correspondent for the NT News sees it as his job to bring this government down and is ably assisted by those sitting opposite. It is in his DNA. He said it on ABC radio last Friday. I am trying to think of the show they have on the ABC. He said, ‘You can’t trust this government, they are all crooked. There is no accountability. They are not transparent.’ That is just arrant nonsense. He says that because I refuse to talk to him. I will never speak to that journalist again. I know what he is like, his DNA, and know that he cannot be trusted. He still writes stories about me even though I do not talk to him. He is part and parcel of the Labor machine calling for an ICAC.
Mr Walsh and Leader of the Opposition, you now have me on board. I agree with you and will look for $50m for a Royal Commission or ICAC so we can get to the bottom of these things. Let us get to the bottom of the PenCon scheme and ministerial travel going back 25 years through an ICAC. If that is what will satisfy people on that side, that is what you just might get. As they say, be careful what you wish for because you might end up with it.
That is where we are going. There is a range of areas we can start investigating immediately, such as the MUA deal, the gas pipeline deal, the 2009 substation explosion, PWC and the fact there are very few records on any of this. I have made inquiries into these things and have run into brick walls. I do not run make allegations left, right and centre. It seems that is the order of the day for those opposite.
I have not been a supporter of ICACs, Royal Commissions or judicial inquiries in the past because I believe they undermine the perceptions of the most important institution in this country, the parliament. To recap so members can understand, this is the only institution where all members are publicly elected. No one elects judges, Royal Commissioners, judicial officers of inquiries, or anyone anywhere apart from this parliament. Territorians elect people to represent them. That is why this parliament is the most important institution we have, why it should be respected and why we should be doing everything we can within our power to improve the perception of this important institution rather than undermine it.
It seems the only way to do that is through an ICAC or Royal Commission. This is a slippery pole we are heading down, but I cannot see any other way.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Leanyer Primary School, accompanied by Mrs Fran Selvadurai, and also middle school students from Katherine School of the Air, accompanied by Sarah Dohl. You have come a long way. Welcome to Parliament House, and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition on several things, one being trust and integrity. I also heard the member for Fong Lim give a range of examples. Most of the things being investigated now started when the opposition was in government. I do not know what allegations they are making in relation to the current government, but it has got on with the job.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned trust and integrity and said the CLP, Cabinet and this government cannot be trusted. However, we are trying to build the Northern Territory with jobs and other things. The Leader of the Opposition is making contradictory statements about many things. He says he will have a moratorium on many things then backpedals. We then introduce sovereign risk. This comes down to the core question of who to trust. Sovereign risk is about what is happening in the Territory at the moment.
We have plans. We inherited a massive debt from the Labor Party with no plans to reduce it. We all saw what happened in Greece when they continued to live on borrowed money. I reference Margaret Thatcher’s great statement: socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money to spend. That is fine if it is what they want to do. If they want to run the Territory into debt and continue to borrow money to fund things we will end up in a bad place. That is what we inherited when we came to government.
We have made some tough decisions and tough calls. We saw many issues and, as the member for Fong Lim pointed out, we have brought a number of rorts to light. When we came to government we promised Territorians we would look into corruption. The first person we found was someone from our side, which was a shame, but we are finding numerous problems from the previous government’s time which need looking into.
Sovereign risk – a number of projects have already been put on hold. It comes down to trust and integrity. In the Labor government, when the current Leader of the Opposition was an adviser and chief of staff to the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, exploration permits were issued to about 94% or 96% of the Northern Territory. Here is the picture: bring your investment dollars in for exploration and bring in the jobs and wealth that is created. They did not say then that in a couple of years’ time they would have a moratorium and put a ban on gas.
People have spent their money. There is a precedent in this country for when you do things like that. You say you can do one thing one year then several years later change your mind. Companies and private enterprise spend their money in good faith. What happens in between? What pressure has been put on the Leader of the Opposition to change what the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, and Kon Vatskalis – which I agree with – did so well, and that is encourage people to invest in the Northern Territory.
Leader of the Opposition, what has changed? What has happened? Who has spoken to you? Who has put pressure on you? You are now telling people they cannot do this and that, and you will look at water licences. What will happen with water licences? TFS plans to build a $500m plant in Katherine. That is on hold at the moment, and I understand it is seriously looking at investing in the Territory. You see a big cross on the Territory map from all these companies. You cannot do business in the Northern Territory because things change. What changed? Given the Leader of the Opposition was working in the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson’s office, what has changed from when these things were done? Did he not agree with it? The question needs to be answered. I ask people listening to this to ask that question of the Opposition Leader. Who has put pressure on him?
Let us talk about the ban on gas. Who has put pressure on him to change his mind? Jay Weatherill, Labor Premier of South Australia, has a policy which says, ‘Bring your money from the Northern Territory. Bring your investment dollars and work to South Australia. We have shale gas here. We have the jobs and investment.’
Across the border, Annastacia Palaszczuk, the Labor Premier of Queensland, is saying, ‘Bring those investment dollars and jobs to Queensland’. Last Tuesday she said on radio that she will not let anyone get in the way of creating jobs in Queensland.
The sad thing is it appears not only state and federal Labor high profile figures are criticising the Opposition Leader for his stand on gas. For those listening, we are talking about shale gas not coal seam gas. Coal seam gas and shale gas are two different animals and cannot be compared. It is like comparing apples to oranges. There is one process for getting coal seam gas out of the ground, and a different process for shale gas. Coal seam gas is close to the surface, and shale gas is between 12 000 and 14 000 feet, roughly 4 km, below the Earth’s surface. I would also like listeners to understand that in the Northern Territory we have been getting shale gas out of the ground for over 50 years. The Mereenie fields around Alice Springs have been providing the gas we started Channel Island Power Station with in the mid-1980s.
I was here as a young bloke and remember a cleaner gas was the future. We would burn coal at Channel Island Power Station. However, half way through the construction the deal was done with gas, and we now have gas powering Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Yulara. Gas from the Alice Springs fields powered Darwin until 2007. You have something that is already happening.
I was on the phone to a constituent this morning about something else and we got to this gas business. She said, ‘I thought this was new’. I informed her that the shale gas we get out of the ground is not new and we have been doing it for 50 years.
I recall the member for Barkly, when in government, on radio espousing the virtues of gas and shale gas, saying it was a great idea. The former Chief Minister, ministers and minister Vatskalis all espoused the virtues of shale gas.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5 classes from Wanguri Primary School, accompanied by Julie Fraser and Rebecca Reyneke. I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
___________________________
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, it is timely that these young people visit the Chamber to hear the debate. We are talking about trust, integrity and how you trust people. I am talking about things that are happening now. This is about your future. It is our job to make sure that you have a bright future.
With regard to gas, there has been a change of attitude from when the opposition was in government to now. When in government it issued exploration licences to private companies who invested hundreds of millions of dollars in exploration. They take expensive drill rigs and a lot of equipment out and drill for gas. In the Territory we do not have coal seam gas, and no coal seam gas exploration is occurring. It is all about shale gas which …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance. You allow a degree of latitude, but we are off track from the bill before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: I tend to agree.
Minister, if you could bring your comments back to the Inquiries Amendment Bill and not mining industry dialogue.
Mr STYLES: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will try to do that. This comes down to the pressure put on the Leader of the Opposition. When we ask that question of the Opposition Leader people need to understand in what context. When you ask a question you can get one of a million different answers.
This is about a change. Something has happened on the other side of the House. The opposition makes a decision then makes another one. What has happened? This is about Labor governments in Queensland and South Australia saying, ‘Bring your investment dollars to us’.
The Leader of the Opposition is out of step with everyone else in the country and Labor Party figures like Martin Ferguson. He is highly respected and I hold him in high esteem. He worked for Australia. Sure, he had different philosophical beliefs, but he believed in Australia. He too has asked what is going on. In fact, in his statement he said you would destroy the future economy of the Northern Territory for no environmental gain. This is the future of our kids and grandkids.
Leader of the Opposition, what pressure has been put on you to say to exploration companies, ‘Don’t worry about the billions of dollars you spent because we won’t let you take the gas from the ground’?
Speaking of integrity, you worked for the previous Chief Minister then suddenly you have a different opinion and are out of step with the rest of the country. This goes to trust. The Leader of the Opposition raised trust, and he has a lot to answer in regard to what he is doing for the future of the Northern Territory.
When you look at the pressure unions may have put on people, who are they working for? Are they working for Queensland and South Australia or the Northern Territory? When you are the only one with a certain point of view on particular issues, who is putting pressure on the current opposition to change what it set out to do a couple of years ago? People in the opposition have been on radio espousing the virtues of gas. I ask those people to look into it.
The Opposition Leader made statements about self-interest, which is about looking after the Territory. We are interested first in the Territory then in Australia. Our first self-interest is for Territory families and jobs. As the member for Fong Lim said, in relation to any corruption we need to ask what deals were done then. What is going on and what deal is happening to change everything? You cannot trust the opposition because they change their policies.
Let us talk about trust in water policies. What deals have been done behind the scenes in regard to water?
Mr Vowles: What about deals with water licences?
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection. You have put a $500bn development in Katherine at risk.
Queensland is saying, ‘Come to Queensland and we’ll give you as much water as you want’. Anna Palaszczuk said, ‘We won’t let anything get in the way of creating jobs for Queenslanders’. I assume they will do it the same way we have. It would have to go through a Water Controller, and they will not give licences away. We have a robust process in the Northern Territory and water licences have gone through it.
I understand 90 water licences were applied for when the current opposition was in government and nothing was issued. The best they did was nothing. They had applications for developing the Northern Territory and northern Australia and did nothing. Why did people on that side, when in government, almost stifle development?
We have the gas plant, and I give former Chief Minister Paul Henderson, and Clare Martin before him, credit for getting the INPEX project to the Northern Territory.
Since then people in the leadership of the opposition have had inquiries about their involvement in various corruption allegations. What was the involvement of the Leader of the Opposition, who worked for the then Chief Minister and gave him advice? Suddenly we have a different story. Why? Because someone, it would appear, said, ‘We want investment in other places in Australia’.
These are things the member for Fong Lim mentioned and any inquiry should ask. That is why I support the amendments to the bill. One has to make sure, when dealing with these issues, people take it seriously when they are summonsed; they need to produce the documents and records mentioned in the summons.
The value government places on the respect those in the service of Territorians should hold, and the responsibility to deal honestly and openly with a commissioner or board of inquiry performing its functions under the act, is made clear in this amendment. We need to ensure allegations are investigated and people are held accountable for any corruption, misleading information given to Territorians, or anything that has been done which is not in accordance with the law or spirit of what we do in this House.
Stella Maris is a classic example of an investigation that has revealed several things in relation to trust and integrity. What is the Opposition Leader doing about that? We have not seen too much. All he says is, ‘This is simply about having a cheap shot at several people in this House’. This goes to the core of what the Opposition Leader is about and whether you can trust him. What is he doing about people on his side?
The member for Fong Lim raised the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. I recall when the Country Liberal Party came to government and looked into it. I was a parliamentary secretary and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. A lot of information came to me, which I passed on. I understand some of that information is still being investigated. It is a long haul to find out where some of the corruption is.
One thing I came across in relation to alleged corruption caused the suicide of a person involved in the investigation. That was really sad. This person had worked hard all their life and was trying to run a business. They had been put out of business by people who did not get things right and – I will not talk about the case – it is still being investigated. When information comes to hand relating to some of the tenders dealt with, if there has been corruption someone might be held accountable.
Information also came from the Power and Water Corporation. Power and Water had become a basket case in relation to its finances, all under the leadership of the former ALP government. I will not use any names, but can advise of a case we started to investigate which has been passed on from the Public Accounts Committee. I assume there is insufficient evidence. I had information relating to a $28 000 valve job which turned into a $1.2m job. This spiralled out of control.
I had other people give me information, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, in relation to overruns. Things were out of control. They were part of a process and removed themselves from it saying, ‘I can’t stand this. This is not right.’
With regard to Power and Water and the ongoing investigations into what happened, look at what we did to prevent cost shifting in Power and Water. We separated transmission – poles and wires – from generation and from water and sewerage. When you separate those you get an idea of what may have been happening in Power and Water.
These things are ongoing. I hope we are proved wrong about corruption allegations in any organisation. However, the sad reality is some allegations need to be looked at. People, when summonsed, need to understand they have to turn up and answer questions. If they do not there are serious penalties.
Without these amendments people may not want to appear or, in some cases, may move to another country. Serious questions need to be asked, and these amendments – if anything needs to be tweaked in this legislation we will do it.
The easiest thing – we hear a lot about what Labor will and will not do – is to do nothing. I will reiterate this for those who read the end of speeches as well as the beginning; when there are issues of corruption they need to be investigated fully.
When I became Minister for Infrastructure we looked at the asset management system. One of the first questions, as a former fraud squad detective seeing how much money had been spent, was where had it gone. We tracked where it had gone. This was all under the former Labor government. There was a $70m overrun in one project which was supposed to cost $7m. It ended up costing over $70, heading towards $76m. If you have something that is supposed to run at $7m and it is running at $70m – a 1000% overspend – who authorised that money and where did it go? People were spending money hand over fist. Where were the controls?
We inherited a $5.6bn projected debt, which was a 98% debt to income ratio, when we came to government. You have to ask where the money has gone. Perhaps we should look at that as well as the cost overruns in Power and Water. As the member for Fong Lim pointed out, we need to look at this. There is a need for these amendments to ensure people are required to front up and produce documentation. If they cannot then they are in contempt.
These are great amendments to a great bill. I look forward to contributing in any way I can to ensure those who may have done the wrong thing are held to account.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I want to address some of the issues and nonsense peddled by, predictably, the Leader of the Opposition in his contribution.
Once again he could not help but continue doing what he has been with success over the last few years, which is peddling dishonest reflections of members on this side of the House. He does it on radio, dishonourably, and in ways which I consider little better than wicked.
Let us talk about the idea he has been espousing in this House regarding how this government conducts itself. We heard on radio this morning that he wants to develop for the people of the Northern Territory, should he become Chief Minister, a boring government. He wants to create a government which will be, essentially, boring. That is a euphemism for do nothing. We can already see it writ large in their policies because so many of them say they will review, reflect and place moratoriums in place, along with other things that are code for doing nothing until they decide what they want to do. ‘We will not govern. We will do it all by some form of committee process.’
How long will that take? Will it take a year, 18 months or two years to go through these fairly comprehensive reviews? One thing they will review is water licences. Really?
Ms Walker: You bet.
Mr ELFERINK: Hear, hear! I pick up on the interjection. What will happen under the next Labor government, should it be elected, when someone wants to spend $100m and needs a water licence? ‘You cannot have a water licence because we are currently reviewing that.’ That will be the answer. There will be a moratorium, no doubt, on that as well.
A moratorium on gas is another example. Pangaea is stepping away from the Northern Territory largely because the Labor Party is threatening the future of gas supplies in the Territory. We intend to build a pipeline and have locked in to that, but you have to put gas down that pipeline. At the moment the gas supply we want to put down the pipeline is being shut down. The Labor opposition says nothing about that. The unions should be screaming about that because it is a threat to jobs.
The Labor leader said on radio today that the retail sector is suffering. How will the retail system do better in this jurisdiction if people do not have jobs that generate the money to buy retail products? It is fanciful nonsense, and all about being a small target opposition throwing as much mud as they like.
We also know they struggle with the fundamentals of getting policy settings right. The release of the health policy, which suddenly decayed into a health discussion paper, described anomalous and self-exclusive policy positions. ‘We’ll spend $10m building a new car park …’ – you will not get a very big car park for $10m – ‘… in a hospital we want to wind up.’ That is the rationale and logic. What will you pay for this $10m car park with? What will you shut down? You still have to balance the books, something we have been struggling with for a number of years. The last government that had it good in the Northern Territory was the Labor government, which was able to get GST revenues much greater than anticipated in any forward estimate, and they still managed to rack up debt.
Labor’s Geoff Gallop, from Western Australia, managed to get rid of Labor’s debt before he chose to give away his premiership. If Labor in Western Australia could manage it surely Labor here, which was being swamped in rivers of gold, could. No. We ended up inheriting a $5.5bn projected debt from the former government.
The member spoke about a trust deficit. How far back do you want to go in relation to the trust deficit? What is the ICAC allowed to look into? Will there be some form of restraint on how far back it can go? If it goes back 10 years, I would invite the ICAC to look at the circumstances surrounding Bob Collins’ suicide. One interesting fact many people seem to have missed in that process is that the then Police minister, Paul Henderson, and then Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, were briefed by the then Police Commissioner, Paul White, two days before Bob Collins attempted to commit suicide in relation to the inevitable charges that would flow in relation to paedophilic conduct.
There has never been an inquiry into what information was passed. That investigation, for all intents and purposes, seems to have gone on for some time. It was not the first time, if rumours are correct, that Mr Bob Collins had been investigated. The big difference on the occasion when Messrs Toyne and Henderson were briefed by the then Police Commissioner is that the Police Commissioner made a very important note to the effect that it did not matter what Mr Collins said, he would be charged. Two days later he got wind of that and tried to commit suicide. He eventually succeeded. There was not a word about that from the member opposite.
Will there be a boundary for how far the ICAC can go back and what it looks at? I bet under a Labor government there will be. ‘We’re not going to look at that.’
I invite members to look at the recent newspaper article, something I find utterly disturbing. It pertains to the MUA and its conduct around Saipem, which is a substantially-owned subsidiary of Eni. Saipem was part of the project to bring gas from the Blacktip field to Darwin. Saipem was supposed to participate in supplying the gas and building the pipeline. The MUA, as noted in the Royal Commission into union corruption, muscled Saipem for $1m, according to the newspaper article. That muscling process occurred when the now Leader of the Opposition, Michael Gunner, was chief of staff to the then Chief Minister, if not chief of staff to the then Mines minister of the day, Kon Vatskalis.
That position means you get to know pretty much everything that comes across your minister’s desk. The MUA was muscling, to the detriment of the Northern Territory, a company trying to provide gas to Territorians at a time when we were buying bulk diesel to pay for electricity generation. The MUA was not called to account in any way other than getting a mention in the Royal Commission into union corruption. What does the Leader of the Opposition know about the extortion by the MUA against Saipem and ENI at the risk of Territory jobs, whilst we saw power prices creeping up ever so inexorably to pay for the diesel to make sure the lights stayed on?
There was not a word from the Leader of the Opposition. He was asked but would not talk about it. Why not? Why would you not talk about what you know, Leader of the Opposition, in relation to the MUA’s muscling tactics? Leader of the Opposition, does the MUA donate money to the NT Labor Party …
Mr Barrett: Campaigned against me.
Mr Styles: It is 10% of their membership.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear answers but not from the Leader of the Opposition. Ten percent of their membership campaigned against the member for Blain. Obviously the MUA, which extorts money from businesses trying to deliver services to Territorians, is a donor to the Labor Party to run against the CLP, and the Leader of the Opposition is happy to take the donation. Leader of the Opposition, will you now reject any funding from the MUA whatsoever on the grounds that it threatened the energy supplies of the Northern Territory in pursuit of its own interests? I would like to hear an answer from the Leader of the Opposition.
It is all too easy to not answer the question. It gets several paragraphs in a newspaper article and is supposed to go away. It should not go away. These questions need to be asked. The opposition has been relentless in the way it has besmirched the reputations of people on this side of the House with the most tenuous links when you have real and defined links between the Leader of the Opposition, the MUA, the former government and the Blacktip arrangement in the Territory. He thinks he does not have any questions to answer in relation to that. He does and he should. He should condemn the conduct of the MUA in relation to how it conducted itself with Saipem, and make it clear that he will not take money from a union which has extracted money, by threats, from businesses operating in the Northern Territory. He says he is the champion of small business in the Territory because the retail sector is suffering a bit.
Some sectors of the Northern Territory economy have been challenged recently, but overall the economy is in good health. You cannot say you will be the champion of business when you have, either by omission or act of conduct, supported the conduct of a union which says to companies, ‘You do what we want you to. You give us $1m or we will make it impossible for you to deliver results in your workplace.’ Would Territorians have paid for that?
Is there another example of sweet deals with unions in the Territory? Let me think – that’s right! Stella Maris. That inquiry led to the amendment in this bill because the Stella Maris inquiry was not fully capable of uncovering documents which clearly demonstrated a conspiracy between the then Labor government of the NT and Unions NT to provide, rent free for the next 10 years, a government-owned building. That is a shocking and embarrassing arrangement.
It is all too clever for the Labor Party to say, ‘We are all sweet shining lights’. Shine a light on yourselves and what happened with the Stella Maris arrangement. The other component which is completely ignored by members opposite is how the sweet deal would work. Unions NT was in partnership with Harold Nelson Holdings, which was the Labor front company for storing its money. That is lawful; there are no problems with that. However, the deal was that Unions NT and the Labor Party shared the same building, which they no longer wanted because they wanted to redevelop the block.
Unions NT got a sweet deal and moved into a building the Territory taxpayer owns rent free for 10 years. They could then redevelop the block in Woods Street, along with Harold Nelson Holdings, and as a result the unions and the Labor Party would have been beneficiaries to millions of dollars. Yet, the people sitting opposite have the audacity to allege corruption by members on this side of the House. That is a lot less tenuous than some of the links they have tried to make about people on this side of the House.
It appears, under a future Labor government in the Northern Territory, if you have ever had anything to do with a political party which is not Labor – namely the CLP – you will not get a water licence because of your membership of the CLP or any other political party other than Labor. That is the angle they have run. They produced no evidence whatsoever relating to the unlawful or improper issue of water licences in the Territory. In fact, when they make that allegation without foundation, they do not attack the Northern Territory government but the integrity of the Northern Territory Water Controller …
_____________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause so I can welcome some students. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, accompanied by Courtney Morgan, Belinda Hicks and Nicky Farrell. Welcome to Parliament House, and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________________
Mr ELFERINK: Labor is more than happy to attack the integrity of the Water Controller of the Northern Territory, who sits at arm’s length from government. The Labor Party holds a curious world view, being that government should not govern but farm everything out to non-elected officials, and government should not make any decisions whatsoever because non-elected officials appointed by government should do that. In fact, they should be two steps removed. Under the Labor model of governance – small wonder they will be a boring government – they will not do anything because they will farm it out to a bunch of unelected people. Boards advise governments, not the other way around. Water Controllers and others advise government, not the other way around.
In this jurisdiction we want to make certain that government can govern. However, we have not been good at engaging in the trench warfare the members opposite have so relished since the get-go.
The most classic example of that is the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. PenCon has, as part of the scheme, allowances enabling pensioners to travel. That money is placed into the system. When we came to government we were aware of some issues with the PenCon scheme.
In December 2012, in this House, I said I would go after corruption where I found it inside government. A number of criminal matters were discovered, not pertaining to any member of parliament but officers inside the executive, both within government and some areas outside government, and either separations or criminal sanctions were brought against those people.
In early 2013 the Health minister advised Cabinet that he had become aware of potential rorting in the PenCon scheme. We are talking four months after forming government. As a consequence of that he referred those matters to police.
As early as 2012 the then Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, God rest his soul, reported to the then government that there were problems with the administration of the PenCon scheme and something needed to be done. They did nothing; they let it operate. It was not until early 2013 that the then Health minister said, ‘Go in and investigate’. Fraud investigations flowed from that. We are aware of how that flowed through the system. Fraud investigations, by their nature, tend to be complex and difficult things, particularly if you are uncertain whether criminality exists of if they are of a lesser standard, such as a breach of contract.
The most obvious matter investigated was Latitude Travel. We know where that landed. The model used by Latitude Travel was criminal in its nature. That is now supported by a subsequent guilty plea from the Katherine-based travel agent who pleaded guilty. A number of other matters are also under investigation.
We have lost sight of the fact that the Northern Territory CLP government blew the whistle. The former government did not blow the whistle despite the fact the then Auditor-General was saying, ‘Be aware, there are problems here’. That report was laid on the table and they did nothing; they did not want to look. That is the difference between the boring government the Leader of the Opposition would like to form and a government that does stuff.
We did not necessarily like, when we shook the tree, where some of the nuts fell. There are matters before the court now that I will not reflect on because they are matters for the court. However, because we have been brave and consistent with the message that we would respond to corrupt and criminal behaviour, that is what we have done. The Leader of the Opposition is now decrying he has discovered corruption and it is somehow magically our fault. Now he wants an ICAC. He says an ICAC will root out all the corruption. I say that the protocols in place, when effectively and properly applied, discovered this corrupt activity. If the Leader of the Opposition is aware of any further corrupt activity he should report it to the existing institutions.
Those institutions have been successful in their pursuit. Nevertheless, we will look at an ICAC and are waiting for Justice Martin to recommend a model we have committed to adopting sight unseen. The system has worked when government has told it to. We have not had last minute Cabinet meetings to shuffle land deals sideways to unions.
I opened the newspaper recently and saw the NT Prison Officers Association up in arms about what a Labor candidate is attempting to do. Let us talk about the fund associated with the NT Prison Officers Association. When I was a member of the police force I was in a similar fund, and fees were paid into it for a number of reasons. Those dues ran the police association, which then provided legal services if needed, bereavement services or sick days for people who had run out of sick leave. It was a trust account like any other.
The NT Prison Officers Association runs exactly the same type of account, to which prison officers regularly contribute a small amount from their pay. Along comes the annual general meeting of the NT Prison Officers Association and the Labor candidate says, ‘It’s got nothing to do with me; I’ll step out of the room.’ Magically, off the floor of that meeting attended by about one tenth of eligible members, somebody suggests putting $5000 into Phil Tilbrook’s election campaign. Why was that not on the agenda? It it because most prison officers do not want their trust account money spent on political campaigns? You would think, after the debacle in the teachers’ union a few years ago during the Blain by-election, the union movement would have figured that out. That has not happened and Phil Tilbrook, or his associates, is attempting to raid the trust account to fund his campaign after he uses the government e-mail system to canvass for votes and promote the Labor Party.
What would be the response of the Australian Labor Party if John Elferink, member for Port Darwin, started sending e-mails to the Health, Child Protection and Attorney-General departments saying, ‘Vote CLP in the next election’? It would be a screaming front page headline, an outrage. Corruption would be alleged by the members opposite. If one of their candidates does it – silence. It is disgraceful conduct. Why was this matter highlighted? When did this become a problem? Members of the NT Prison Officers Association in Alice Springs said, ‘Hang on, that is not right. That is our trust account for bereaved widows and members who are sick or who need legal representation.’
Subsequent to that I have received information about the operation of that trust account which concerns me. I have referred it to the appropriate authority, in this case the Director-General of Licensing, who oversights the Associations Act under which this trust account is formed.
I will be interested to see what the management of these trust accounts looks like, but they are not there for political parties to raid to support political candidates.
Leader of the Opposition, what will you do about that? What will you do about your candidate raiding a benevolent trust account for the purposes of funding his election campaign? What have we heard from the Leader of the Opposition so far? Nothing, nada. He could not be less interested in engaging in that type of controversy.
I find it astonishing that members of the Prison Officers Association say, ‘Goodness gracious, minister, what do we do? We have heard other information.’ If it is true, I am astonished at what I have heard ...
Ms Walker: What about the CLP raiding $500 000 of taxpayers’ funds for your On Track campaign?
Mr ELFERINK: What part of ‘trust account raid’ is the shadow Attorney-General struggling with? Trust accounts are generally run as benevolent accounts because there is a beneficiary at the end of it. When a person settles property in a trust account they understand the gift is conditional. In this case it is conditional on the terms of the account, which can be found in the second schedule of the association’s constitution. It is about bereavement payments.
The alternative Attorney-General does not care about that. It has to be a political cheap shot interjection. Seriously? Will the unions be given carte blanche that the alternative Attorney-General would turn a blind eye to trust accounts being raided? That is embarrassing. That is the alternative government of the Northern Territory. Whilst they think it is a popularity contest, as long as they can muddy the names of people on this side of the House successfully they will.
It is already clear that union trust accounts will not be safe. The education union raided membership funds to run political campaigns for Independents in an attempt to deliberately undermine an EBA negotiation. The Stella Maris debacle was an attempt to move hundreds of thousands of dollars of free rent into the pockets of unions. The MUA has extorted money from NT businesses. That successful attempt at extortion led to money going directly into the coffers of the political party of the members opposite. They say and do nothing about it.
All they want to do is accuse this side of the House of corruption. Really? The worst they pointed to was Foundation 51, an organisation which was ultimately determined – whether you like it or not, or the Treasurer agrees with it or not – to be an associated entity of the CLP. When that determination was made I immediately made the full declaration we are required to. The fine for failing to do so is $200. The police thought it was so unimportant they decided not to prosecute because it was not worth the effort – a $200 fine.
That is the worst they have been able to throw at us, despite the shocking revelations about how unions conduct themselves. The frustration I feel is that the Opposition Leader, the alternative Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, will turn the same blind eye in the same way Labor traditionally has.
Labor turned a blind eye to the Collins stuff because he was a Labor senator. They turned a blind eye to the MUA stuff, the Northern Territory Prison Officers Association, windows being punched out by a candidate, PenCon when they were warned, and for some reason that is the CLP’s fault. Perhaps a great way to win an election is to drag everything down. What about the vision for the future, the belief that we can build a gas industry which will employ thousands of people or a pipeline worth $1bn. All that is under threat because these guys are officially saying their policy is to do nothing.
I am frustrated that this Labor opposition may well come to government on a policy platform of: do nothing, be boring, have a bunch of committees to look into stuff and whatever you do, do not question the union movement in the Northern Territory. It is a sad government that pursues governance in that fashion.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
Petition No 51 – Access to Swimming and Water Safety Lessons as Part of Primary School Program
Petition No 51 – Access to Swimming and Water Safety Lessons as Part of Primary School Program
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 123, I inform honourable members that a response to Petition No 51 has been received and circulated to members.
- Petition No 51
Access to Swimming and Water Safety Lessons as part of Primary School Program
Date presented: 15 September 2015
Presented by: Mrs Finocchiaro
Referred to: Minister for Education
Date response due: 16 March 2016
Date response received: 7 March 2016
Date response presented: 15 March 2016
Government and non-government schools taking part in the Swim and Survive program fund participation through their school budgets and/or parental contributions. The Department of Education acknowledges the importance of this program and provides an annual $33 000 grant to RLSSNT for Swim and Survive program certification for students and collection of swimming achievement level data for reporting purposes.
The Department of Education has identified water safety lessons that can be delivered by classroom teachers in a classroom to address curriculum outcomes. A range of water safety education lessons are available to classroom teachers on the RLSSNT website and through the Department of Education's online learning resources.
The Northern Territory government offers parents, through the sport vouchers scheme, support to participate in sporting and cultural activities. Parents in urban locations can use this voucher to purchase extracurricular swimming and water safety programs. Further, a Learn to Swim Voucher has been introduced this year by the government for children aged five years and under. The Department of Education is exploring partnerships with other government agencies to improve access to swimming and water safety programs for Northern Territory children. Once it concludes consultations the department will provide me with further advice and options for my consideration.
LEAVE TO GIVE NOTICE OF MOTION
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to give notice of a motion.
Leave not granted.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Give Notice of Motion
Give Notice of Motion
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would enable the minister to give notice of a motion.
Ms Lawrie: Madam Speaker, is this a standing order debate?
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is a debate about the suspension of standing orders to allow the minister to give notice of a motion.
Ms Lawrie: Madam Speaker, can we debate whether or not we suspend standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms Lawrie: Madam Speaker, I would like to contribute to that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided.
- Ayes 14 Noes 8
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Ms Moss
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Ms Lee
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that standing orders be suspended.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Condemn Territory Labor
Condemn Territory Labor
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I will move that this House condemns Territory Labor and its leader for creating a crisis in confidence, caused by its anti-jobs stance for short-term political expediency that has resulted in companies laying off Territory workers. In doing so it has sent a serious message internationally that the Northern Territory under a potential Labor government is too high a risk for investment.
INQUIRIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 151)
(Serial 151)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Inquiries Act to allow a member of the board of inquiry, a commissioner or any other person to have power to seize any item, books, documents or paper they reasonably believe to be related to the inquiry.
Recommendation 12 of the inquiry into Stella Maris recommended the Inquiries Act be amended to allow for the seizure of documents and provide a penalty for breaches of the act for obstruction or hindrance of a board of inquiry or commissioner by a person.
The reason the Country Liberals government introduced the Inquiries Amendment Bill 2016 is quite clear: Labor cannot be trusted to maintain transparent relationships with its union mates. Territorians need to look at the dodgy eleventh-hour Stella Maris deal to remember that NT unions will always be in Labor’s favoured circle. Labor always has been, and will be, nothing more than a union puppet.
I can recall when that file came over my desk because I was then Lands and Planning minister. The file asked to sign over the Stella Maris site to Unions NT. As soon as I saw the damn thing my guts churned. I felt sick. I thought there was something wrong. I did not know whether it was technically right, legal or illegal, but something about that file made me feel sick.
Only the Country Liberals government can be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to the future of the Territory. You only have to look at the history of this government. I doubt there has been a more accountable or open government. Everything is either on the front page of the NT News or mentioned in this House. We hide from nothing. In fact, recent inquiries have all come under the watch of this government.
I do not recall the Labor government conducting inquiries into themselves, their government processes and so forth. I do not see any of them front court.
The processes of this government have worked. This bill and the amendments further strengthen them and that is why we are here today. The bill has arisen as a result of Recommendation 12 of the Stella Maris inquiry by Commissioner Lawler, who found the act was deficient in that documents identified as relevant to the inquiry were unable to be seized because the act did not provide for seizure. There was also no penalty provision for anyone hindering or preventing access to places, premises, buildings or documents. One can only imagine, if this law had been in place when the investigation was occurring, what the inquiry may have brought to the surface, giving Territorians a clear insight into the Labor government and its relationship to unions.
These situations are considered when there is a reasonable possibility that documents or goods such as computers might be concealed, lost, mutilated, destroyed or disposed of. Had this law been in place when that investigation was being undertaken, the outcome could have been far worse than it has been. During a briefing on the bill with the member Nelson, which occurred after the bill was introduced last month, the member expressed the view that given the seriousness of an offence of contempt the maximum penalty of 100 penalty units, or $15 300, was not a strong enough deterrent and that including a period of imprisonment would be a stronger deterrent.
The member for Nelson recognises the seriousness of the offence. The Country Liberals government also recognises the seriousness and agrees that the penalty should be equal. There should be a strong deterrent. Therefore we have included a term of imprisonment of six months for contempt.
The Territory’s Labor government formally decided to lease the Stella Maris building to Unions NT before the department had seen the proposal. The department had no record that a proper application form had been submitted. Given the privilege of being the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment and having access to quite a bit of information, it became clear to me that at no time had this been a recommendation of the Department of Lands and Planning. Decisions made by the former Labor government were in no way a recommendation of the department.
The whole thing stunk and was dodgy. It was typical of the way the previous Labor government worked. It was not in the public interest, we know that. The process undertaken by the Country Liberals government means that a well-respected body has taken charge of the site. There are now many opportunities for the community as a whole to benefit from – certainly not what it was intended to provide for if I had signed off as the relevant minister giving the site to Unions NT. We know what it would have been used for and how they would have capitalised on it.
It was a simple plan by the former Labor government. On its last day in power the former Labor government gave Unions NT a 10-year rent-free lease to a $300m Darwin property for a cost of $442, GST included, despite objections from the Lands department, which wanted to site put out to tender. It was not just the former Labor leader who was involved in this smelly deal. The member for Barkly was found not to have acted with accountability, responsibility or proper consideration of those likely to be affected by the decision.
Instead of copping it the former Labor leader protested to the NT Supreme Court, as has already been discussed today, that she has been denied fair process. The former Labor leader lost that one as well. I believe she is appealing that decision at the moment.
The Stella Maris inquiry came to the right conclusion: the secretive lease deal was dodgy. Where was the honesty and integrity when the deal was done? Was the greater good of the wider community considered when the deal was being done behind closed doors? When was the average punter considered in that deal – the wider community? How would they benefit from this deal which was no doubt put together to ensure a long association with unions and a slush fund of money to line the pockets of Territory Labor?
This government made improvements to the system so that kind of deal cannot happen again. This has a broad positive effect with the potential to save taxpaying Territorians millions of dollars.
Any future member of a board of inquiry, a commission or authorised person will benefit from the legislation because it will allow the necessary powers to effectively conduct an inquiry under the act.
The general public will benefit from this legislation because any future inquiries conducted pursuant to the act will have improved transparency and efficiency. The dodgy deal shows Labor cannot be trusted. I hope Territorians are listening to this today. They should also understand that this Country Liberals government can be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to the future of Territorians. We have introduced this act because of the shady past of the Labor Party.
The member for Fannie Bay, Michael Gunner, has often called for an ICAC. The current processes work and recent events attest to that. Many things over the last two or three years have been investigated by this government through existing processes, through police, an Ombudsman and an Information Commissioner. There are good processes in place to deal with things like this.
In the eleven-and-a-half years of Labor I cannot recall many instances of an inquiry into its processes. Ministers on this side have detailed, openly, the pensioner travel scheme investigated under this government. We know Labor government members had a full understanding of how the system was being rorted but did not have the courage to do anything about it. That is the truth.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about integrity. There is a shady past there. The Treasurer said he now supports an ICAC. He probably supports it because it could uncover much more than the Territory knows about what the previous government did in its eleven-and-a-half years in power, including some of the deals, how they were done and who was affected.
They cast aspersions on this side of the House all the time, such as our relationship with business and those that are shady. Those accusations come this way. This government has introduced legislation to take action against people who have abused government systems. I cannot recall – I stand to be corrected – when the former Labor government investigated some of its own processes and people. They talk about integrity and being an open and accountable government, but what has come out lately shines an ugly picture on the former Labor government.
What does the member for Fannie Bay know about many of the dodgy deals undertaken by the previous government? We know he was senior adviser to a number of ministers, including the then Chief Minister. He either lacks judgment or integrity. However, he has a chance here. He wants to talk about integrity, an alternative government and be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. He says he will introduce an ICAC, and he wants Territorians to think he has integrity.
Member for Fannie Bay, here is your opportunity to talk about some of the things the former Labor government did which you were involved in that made you sick to the stomach and which you knew were wrong. To do any less means you are complicit in decisions of the former Labor government that were dodgy, shady or wrong, and against the wishes or rights of Territorians. Surely, with what we have learnt in the last few days about gas deals, unions threatening to close down work sites and other things that happened in the Territory, the information at hand tells you human intervention caused much harm and cost to the former government. Unions were involved and you knew about and were part of it.
You talk about integrity and wanting to stand up for Territorians’ rights. If you want to be a good Chief Minister here is your chance. Detail the things you know were wrong. To do any less means you are complicit and do not have the integrity a Chief Minister requires.
The Treasurer mentioned people get a bit iffy when it comes to political donations. We know unions support the Labor Party. I cannot recall the last time I saw donations from the unions to the Country Liberals. I could be wrong, and the Chief Minister might know if the unions have donated to the Country Liberals. I doubt it, but we know they donate to the Labor Party – well supported.
You always accuse the Country Liberals of being in the back pocket of business and say business supports the Country Liberals. You can clearly see that businesses in the Northern Territory support both sides of politics. I often think about this, and have recently been doorknocking in Brennan. Political donations came up. The Treasurer previously suggested there is another way forward, which is to make all political donations illegal. Whilst that would be an impost on the taxpayer, the average punter would prefer the fact that paying for an election rules out any influence a business or union may have on a political party.
I stand by that, although it would be an impost on the taxpayer. To make it illegal for any business, union or individual to donate to a political party would just about rule out, for the average punter, any perception that political parties have been influenced. That would be regardless of whether the Labor Party is influenced by unions or the Country Liberals are influenced by a business because of a donation.
I have seen evidence that some former Labor government’s decisions could have been influenced by the amount of money business provided the party. I have seen evidence of certain businesses giving far more money to the Labor Party than the Country Liberals. We cannot be accused of being in bed with big business when business in this town gives openly to both Labor and the Country Liberals.
The average punter will tell you people feel that political parties are influenced by either unions or business. One way to stop that is to make it illegal to donate to political parties. Then there is an impost on the taxpayer. The average punter would much prefer to pay for elections; they are costly, but if there was no influence whatsoever from a union or business the average punter would accept the additional impost.
The Stella Maris deal was not in the interests of the Northern Territory. Imagine if the legislation we are passing today was in place when the Stella Maris inquiry was undertaken.
What annoys me about political parties and governments and the potential for influence from business is the fact we have one party in the Territory, which I and the Chief Minister and I stand with, which supports Territory business in more ways than one and like no other.
What saddens me is the opposition is all about taking jobs away from Territorians. When they mention moratoriums on the onshore oil and gas industry, the cattle industry or reviewing water allocations, they are all taxes on jobs. The Opposition Leader, Michael Gunner, tells Territorians Labor is all about jobs, but everything I have seen recently is about crucifying jobs. How can Territorians put their trust in a party with a leader – the rest of the party is devoid of policies to create jobs and make the Territory prosper.
I would like to one day not rely on federal funding. I would love to be in a jurisdiction so well resourced because of its natural resources that it does not have to go to Canberra requesting – and in some cases playing by its rules – money for Territorians. Would you not like to be resilient and self-reliant? We would have resources in the Territory to create royalties, jobs, stimulate the economy and would not be forever putting our hand out and being a mendicant state.
If the Territory falls into the hands of a Labor government in 2016 we will continue to be a mendicant state for a long time.
I am happy this legislation will pass today. The Deputy Chief Minister spoke about confidence in the Territory economy. There is so much about the Territory that we should not only be proud of, but we should sing from the rooftops. However, you have to have good legislation, which this is. I only wish it had been in place a little earlier so the Stella Maris inquiry could have had the full benefit of it.
I will finish on confidence in the Northern Territory and how it is being eroded by the Labor Party by its lack of vision, policy and drive to find new initiatives for jobs. I spoke to the Chief Minister a few weeks ago about us being in opposition and Paul Henderson saying, ‘To have any chance of bringing INPEX to Darwin we need bipartisan support. There is no way a company will invest $35bn in the Northern Territory if it is not supported by both sides of parliament.’
What did the Country Liberals, in opposition, do as a team? We got behind the Labor government and its Chief Minister Paul Henderson, and backed them 100% to demonstrate our commitment to INPEX coming to the Territory. A change of government would not matter because INPEX would receive the same support. We had to give that assurance that no matter who was in government they were welcome.
The former opposition gave Paul Henderson that support, yet today we cannot get the same support from the member for Fannie Bay, Michael Gunner, or the Labor Party. The opposition will not provide the same support for the oil and gas industry to invest in the Northern Territory after approving permits to explore 95% of the Territory, or to undertake fracking which has gone on for nearly 50 years. The industry has provided gas for electricity not only in the Darwin and Katherine grids, but today Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and many places are running on gas wells in Central Australia. You are putting at risk a major industry and jobs. You are supposed to stand for jobs. You are putting jobs at risk for political gain.
The Country Liberals in opposition gave the Henderson government support for INPEX, and you cannot give this government the same courtesy and support an industry that could provide wonderful opportunities for the Northern Territory. Chief Minister Adam Giles said he wanted all the royalties from onshore oil and gas to go into education. As Education minister, I nearly fell off my chair because I was so excited about that. I could see positives, and how many families would benefit from royalty money from onshore oil and gas going into education.
It is all at risk. Can you not see your own children? A few in the Labor Party are much younger than me. Some have children, some may have them one day. What is the future for their children if we have an industry in the Northern Territory which provides royalties and a future for them? That is at risk because of the Labor Party and Michael Gunner and his short-term view of an industry that has been operating in the Northern Territory for nearly 50 years.
That industry is subject to far better regulations today than existed 40 and 50 years ago. In fact, people from other jurisdictions are looking at our regulations at the moment because they are world’s best practice. The industry is different here than in other places. No government can operate without good legislation, and this is good. For these amendments we went the oil and gas sectors, and nearly to the moon and back.
This government has uncovered so much of what started under the former government, yet the aspersions are that this government is bad and allegedly corrupt. Those in opposition are the ones this should focus on.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this legislation to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, all members support the legislation, as I do. You wonder why so much time has been committed to this debate by the government when everyone supports it. However, you do not have to wonder too much when you hear the tone of the debate. Clearly it is a political tactic by a desperate CLP government to start whipping up fear and loathing of a Liberal agenda that has been seen elsewhere as union bashing. You have guns being fired by the Chief Minister to the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Royal Commission outcomes of the MUA payment. They are demanding answers about what the Leader of the Opposition did or did not know. It is a continuation of beating the drums in Question Time. Instead of the government members talking about what projects they have already delivered in the Territory to help the economy, they are beating the union-bashing drum.
They are ‘laying the groundwork’, as I heard someone on the other side say to a colleague today. Is it another misuse of the powers of state? Is it another misuse of the Inquiries Act? Will the next one be into the unions and Labor? They have been beating the drum in Question Time and this drawn out debate on changes to legislation everyone agrees to.
When you do that as a government, when people see a government act in such a contemptuous way, you lose more support. You have already had a dramatic slide in the polls. The polls, on trend, are not altering but show there is no way you can win the next election. You are a desperate government, and desperate governments do dangerous and stupid things.
You have the potential to show Territorians over the next few months that you care about what is happening in their lives, about the need for resourcing schools and about the improvements to the health system people are desperate to see. During the Dry Season you could do some decent infrastructure builds. I love driving past the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication. That was funding I negotiated for with Anthony Albanese when I was Treasurer. I had direction negotiations with him, visits to Canberra and secured the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication currently under construction.
I am somewhat amazed the road construction is being built at a higher level than the adjacent carriageway. I am concerned that during the Wet Season we will have real problems using the road because of rain runoff, and I wonder how the drainage system will cope. Driving along there you can see little waterfall effects coming from the uneven duplication. It will be interesting to see how future governments cope with the haste at which this government has gone in the Labor-funded extension and duplication of Tiger Brennan.
This government is in panic mode because, three-and-a-half years later, they have worked out what Territory businesses have been trying to tell them all along: the domestic economy is in strife. The big headline economic figures have been strong as a result of the success of Labor securing the Ichthys project. The big picture economic numbers were impressive but they have nothing to do with the CLP, and I take exception to what the member for Brennan said about bipartisan support for that project. There was none.
The then Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, on his letterhead, letterboxing residents across Palmerston, described it as a 19th century project that had no place in our harbour. That is a fact. The letter exists and was being distributed by the then Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills. You can try to rewrite history, but some of us are very clear on the ranting and raving the CLP did about the project. You continued to, sadly, when you came to government. You continued to cause problems in regard to certainty going forward with major investment decisions in major projects because you started to play the blame game. Anything that went wrong must have been that project’s fault, which was ludicrous.
You took an axe to the capital works program in your mini-budget and subsequent budgets. The first attempt you had to rectify that was the last capital works budget. Anyone who understands the construction sector and the planning and design required to get a project on the ground – it is an 18-month lead time for larger capital spends. You have left it too late. You have hit the panic button now because the construction sector, which told you for a long time, is in strife and companies must now be screaming at you, hence your $100m economic boost.
The Chief Minister then said, ‘Financially we are in a black hole because of GST reductions’. Rubbish! Year on year GST growth has been returned to the Territory budget. The Chief Minister said, ‘We don’t know what we will get’. Get Treasury to call the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which always gives an indication for your budget preparation. Until the federal budget is handed down the figures are not published, but you always get an indication from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. You know in ballpark terms. Given there is economic growth nationally, my tip is GST receipts are still holding up and in growth.
Where is this black hole coming from? I suggest it is the Chief Minister’s mad dash spend to get some votes somewhere, because the polls have been consistently dire quarter on quarter, year on year, as a result of the appalling behaviour of this government.
I listened carefully to the Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim; the new Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Sanderson; the Leader of Government Business, the member for Port Darwin; the Chief Minister; and the Treasurer in Question Time, and now the Education minister, the member for Brennan, all beat the drum today on the relationship between unions, Labor and electoral funding. This is no doubt part of their desperate plan to launch an inquiry into unions and Labor in the NT.
The public is fed up with a waste of taxpayers’ dollars where you are simply going after political opponents. It is misuse of the instruments of power and you ought to be ashamed. What is wrong with going to the polls on your track record? What is wrong with saying, hand on heart, ‘This is how we’ve been for this term of government. These are the things we are proud of. This is what we have built, and these are the services we have provided. Here is the fair manner in which we have treated Territorians, and here is the way we have articulated and pursued our vision’?
You cannot because it is a fail. Reflective in that fail is exactly what people are saying in the polls. You can continue to treat Territorians as though they are fools, with contempt, and they will continue to be steadfast in their desire to see the back of this government. Instead of being bullies with the intimidation and harassment you eke out to anyone who is a voice against you, you could try to show that you understand how to be statespeople. I am not holding my breath on that change of behaviour. It has been a long three-and-a-half years watching the bullying, intimidation, harassment and misuse of the instruments of state to bludgeon your political opponents.
The great thing about our nation and Territorians is they do not think it is okay. They do not like it, irrespective of their ideology. Whether it is conservative or not, they do like it. It is un-Australian to behave in such a brutal manner with the tools of state. You wear the consequences of that when people vote. Keep banging the drums, keep steadfast in your view that you can throw some mud, whip up some hysteria and launch into an inquiry. People will see it for what it is and be disgusted. They elected a government that had a mandate to improve housing, planning, law and order and the education and health systems. They are some of the key aspects of Terry Mills’ election plan.
You have not done that. You have torn down some of the finer points of our democratic processes. People have lost faith in the decency, fairness and goodness of leadership. They see it completely lacking in this Chief Minister, and the polls are showing they are losing faith in the alternative. Your response is to be nastier, grubbier and more vicious. People ride through it.
The most beautiful aspect of my journey in the misuse of the instruments of state by this government against me is that people see through it. I cannot count the number of times I am stopped in the streets and people say to me, ‘These newcomers wouldn’t understand. They don’t understand our Stella or get that site.’ I say, ‘I’m looking forward to finding out what the financial arrangements are with the National Trust. I am deeply disappointed that the government plans to carve up the site and flog half of it off.’ People care. Every time you beat me with your political stick CLP and Labor voters in my electorate say to me, ‘You stand strong. We don’t like this. This is un-Territorian and you don’t deserve it.’ They will now see you take that political stick to the opposition and will not like it.
If you start misusing your powers again, but this time focus on the current Leader of the Opposition, you will make him more popular. People see it for what it is, a misuse of power. Territorians see it as a stench and do not want it or a government that does that. They want the government to get on with governing for the interests of the people, delivering improved services across health and education, better roads projects and improved housing.
Housing has gone so far backwards in the three-and-a-half years under this government and so many people are struggling with a crisis. Tenants cannot get maintenance done, and neighbours see places as not being appropriately cared for but their complaints go nowhere.
The government is pretending things are better and crime has dropped, but it is using Territory-wide figures. The data shows dramatic increases in crime in Darwin and Palmerston. In Karama we have worked closely and constructively with the police, and will have to pick up our activities with police in Malak because of the spate of damage and break and enters to motor vehicles parked in the car parks and buildings and organisations being broken into. We are better off than Palmerston, Casuarina or Nightcliff, but levels have increased. You can continue to deny it, Chief Minister, and every time you do people think you are not telling the truth. They see the thugs puff out their chests, do some political thuggery and they do not like it. It will be to your detriment if you treat the public as fools. People see this for what it is.
Everyone, including me, supports the changes to the Inquiries Act. You have proven in debate today – from the Inquiries Act debate and your behaviour in Question Time – that it is all about your agenda, which is to hit your political opponents as hard as you can through misuse of the instruments of state between now and the election in a desperate bid to win.
The public will see it for what it is and will wipe you out of office.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Inquiries Amendment Bill but have some comments to make.
I find the contributions from government members highly hypocritical. As everyone in this Chamber would know, I am Chair of the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Territory. This committee is designed to scrutinise government and conduct inquiries into all facets of government activity. Since I have been Chair of the Public Accounts Committee I have been horrified by the Chief Minister’s unwillingness for anyone in his government to participate on it.
The committee, as it stands, has a configuration of two government members, two Independent members and two opposition members. I am an Independent member. The opposition has provided its two members, the members for Wanguri and Nightcliff, as well as my Independent colleague, the member for Nelson. The Chief Minister has not provided two government members for that committee since it was reconfigured in September last year. We are talking almost seven months. This important parliamentary committee, which is recognised throughout the Westminster system, has not been supplied with two members from the government. I find that appalling.
Listening to this debate today about how important it is – it is important for inquiries to be undertaken under the Inquiries Act by the commissioner or other officers inquiring into government. When I listened to government members’ contributions, I thought how extremely hypocritical they were to support such a bill but not supply two members of their team to participate on the Public Accounts Committee. How tardy! More than tardy, it is an appalling lack of recognition and respect for the democratic parliamentary system we uphold in Australia, not just the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister is about to make his concluding speech about what fantastic legislation this is to amend the Inquiries Act and strengthen it and improve the efficiency and transparency of the inquiry system, yet will not provide two members of his government to participate on the Public Accounts Committee. His lack of respect for the system he is there to uphold is shameful. He is the leader of the parliament of the Northern Territory and he cannot respect an important standing committee of this parliament, the Public Accounts Committee. I find it shameful and extremely hypocritical. The fact that he has not provide two members to the Public Accounts Committee for seven months or thereabouts is reason for me to call for his resignation. How much ruder and disrespectful can you be to …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I call your attention to Standing Order 35: tedious repetition. You have made your indignation abundantly clear with regard to the Chief Minister not supplying members for the Public Accounts Committee. I ask that you come back to the subject, which is Government Business Orders of the Day No 2, Inquiries Amendment Bill 2016, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hear what you are saying and that I have been repetitive. I guess through repetition you can reinforce the point you are making. It is a respected way of debating …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is also a breach of standing orders, member for Araluen. I ask you to come back to the subject at hand, which is Government Business Orders of the Day No 2. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Chief Minister has not provided two members of the PAC. He has not given recognition to the Public Accounts Committee, which is the parliamentary inquiry system to scrutinise government. It is respected throughout the world and the Westminster system. For that reason I find the whole exercise rather hypocritical.
I will talk about other points I find inconsistent with the position of government around wanting to improve the efficiency and transparency of the inquiry system. The member for Fong Lim feels an injustice by the local media as he is not getting a good run. I got the impression that the member for Fong Lim considers himself to be a victim. His memory and recollection of history are limited. I do not see him as a victim at all. He has more than defended himself, and his bad behaviour over the last three years is coming home to roost. The fact that the media finds it difficult to support the member for Fong Lim, his antics and his bad behaviour is fully understandable …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I will not tolerate such blatant digression from the subject. This is not an opportunity for you to personally attack members in this Chamber. We are discussing Order of the Day No 2, the Inquiries Amendment Bill 2016. Would you please, again, return to the subject at hand?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am responding to debates I heard earlier today. Is there a problem with that?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I articulated my issue with your subject matter, member for Araluen. Again, in accordance with my position, I ask that you please return to the subject at hand, which is Order of the Day No 2, the Inquiries Amendment Bill 2016.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The only way I know how to debate is to reflect on what others have contributed. What I heard from the member for Fong Lim was he has had an epiphany in recent times as to the importance of an ICAC, an independent commission against corruption, in the Northern Territory. I welcome the fact the member for Fong Lim has finally seen the light. He is confusing the issue of corruption with bad behaviour. I welcome the fact that finally, after 18 months of discussing the importance of an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory, the member for Fong Lim is embracing the idea.
Mr Tollner: Reluctantly.
Mrs LAMBLEY: ‘Reluctantly’, I hear the member for Fong Lim interject.
The stimulus package announced suddenly by the Chief Minister – apparently we have a black hole in the budget – was raised as a part of this debate.
Making our system of inquiries more efficient and transparent could cast light on these unusual and concerning decisions. The public must scratch their heads and wonder what is going on.
Going back to the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Sanderson mentioned the Public Accounts Committee in his speech and I will reflect on that. He spoke about the effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise government, and how when he was on the Public Accounts Committee he was able to raise many issues of importance to the Northern Territory. He said words to the effect that some of the issues he raised through his participation in the Public Accounts Committee are still being debated today and remain relevant.
It beggars belief why the Chief Minister would not provide two government members to the Public Accounts Committee when the member for Sanderson hailed the effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee in providing efficiency and transparency to the inquiry system within this parliament.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you would prefer have me not to speak anymore. There is plenty I could say, but the point I have made will suffice. I find the government highly critical on this point. I support the intent of the bill and believe government should be scrutinised. Powers should exist to make sure there is accountability and transparency and, in the words of the member for Fong Lim, that there is integrity. Trying to minimise scrutiny of government is antidemocratic, lacks integrity, and the government has tried to minimise scrutiny of itself over the last seven months that I have been Chair of the Public Accounts Committee of this parliament.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contributions to this debate, and thank them for accepting the amendments.
Between the February and March sittings a range of briefings have been provided for non-government members. From one of those briefings recommendations were made to provide a level of imprisonment as a penalty for a certain component.
As a result of some suggestions, we have put forward some amendments. We have also identified a technical error in clause 12(b) of the bill around conduct constituting contempt of the board or commissioner requiring all of the fault elements for contempt, that is, failure to attend to give evidence, take an oath, answer questions or produce a document or thing before a person was found to be in contempt of a board or commissioner. This was not the intention, and only a single fault element needed to be satisfied for a person’s conduct to constitute contempt.
I will come back to some of the comments about the bill in a moment, but will continue going through the proposed consideration in detail amendments.
They are about inserting a definition of contempt as defined by clause 8, proposed section 12, to amend clause 8 proposed section 11(1)(b) to reflect the Parliamentary Counsel’s drafting practice and insert a penalty of six months’ imprisonment for contempt – clause 8 proposed section 11(1).
Also, to amend clause 8 proposed section 12 to make it clear that a person is guilty of conduct constituting contempt where a person is served with a summons to attend before a board or commissioner and they fail to attend to give evidence, take an oath, answer questions or produce a book, document or writing as required by the summons.
The provisions in the bill affected by the consideration in detail amendments are minor and uncontroversial. While not within the scope of Recommendation 12 of Commissioner John Lawler’s recommendations that the Inquiries Act be reviewed and amended to allow for the seizure of documents and provide for a penalty for breaches relating to obstructing or hindering a board or commissioner in the seizing of documents, the inclusion of a term of imprisonment for contempt is pragmatic and consistent with contempt provisions applying to Northern Territory tribunals and courts. It would also provide a stronger deterrent than just a financial penalty.
That is the basis of the consideration in detail amendments.
It would be wrong if I did not respond to a couple of claims and comments. I will answer the comments made by the member for Araluen. She was asking why government has not put anybody on the PAC. It would be great to have people on the PAC. Unfortunately, when you pulled the stunt in parliament and became Chair of the PAC, you lost a lot of confidence. By being the chair, you merely sought a cash grab of an extra $25 000 of taxpayers’ money in your pocket. You played a silly game and now you want people on it. It has been proposed to our parliamentary wing on a number of occasions but no one is prepared to work with you. If people want to put their hand up they are more than welcome. However, nobody is prepared to work with the member for Araluen ...
Ms Walker: Grow up!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: It is important that we point out how many of the challenges in this Chamber started …
Ms Walker: It is government responsibility.
Mr GILES: I hear the interjection from the member for Nhulunbuy saying it is government’s responsibility. Nobody on this side wants to work with the member for Araluen. That is why you do not have representatives on the PAC …
Ms Walker: You need to grow up because it is your responsibility, Adam, for God’s sake!
Mr GILES: The member for Araluen throws a lot of mud. It is important to go through some history. Yes, there have been many changes in government since we took power on 25 August 2012. It started on day one.
Most members would know I support the member for Goyder, even though she has left the Country Liberals. I always have. I consider her to be a good person and a friend, although there are challenging times in politics. However, she was the Deputy Opposition Leader until 25 August 2012.
What she, I and many others did not know was the member for Araluen had cooked up a deal to roll the member for Goyder from day one. From day one of government we had challenges caused by the member for Araluen doing a dirty deal to roll the member for Goyder, now the Speaker. That is where the trouble started. The member for Araluen was treacherous from the start. The member for Araluen became the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer, put power tariffs up by 30%, proposed a range of initiatives to drive up the cost of living in the Northern Territory, was berated for some of those decisions at the time …
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance. I remember you pulled me for relevance during my contribution, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing Order 110 relates to questions.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Sorry, Standing Order 35.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chief Minister is responding to a number of things raised by you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: He is talking about the history of the CLP, which is highly irrelevant.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down please, member for Araluen, or I will have no other option than to place you on a warning.
Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is only fair that we have a chance to respond sometimes. We wear it, we cop it, it is thrown and we wear it all the time. Nobody wanted to work on the PAC, and I am sure all my colleagues would agree to that. I cannot and nobody else wants to.
Member for Araluen, you became the Deputy Chief Minister after knifing the member for Goyder. When you became Deputy Chief and put prices up – I remember you saying, ‘Power is increasing by 30%’ – you eroded confidence in driving down the cost of living. It was not until there was a change that we reduced power tariffs. It all became too hard and you had to resign from Deputy Chief Minister’s job.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 26. If the Chief Minister is so offended by the words of the member for Araluen he may want to give a personal explanation. In the meantime, I ask you to draw him back to the business of the House, which is a bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nhulunbuy. Please have a seat.
Ms Walker: The matter he is discussing is more appropriately delivered in a personal explanation. It is most unstatesmanlike. He is embarrassing.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, thank you very much. I understand Standing Order 26. The Chief Minister is formulating his argument. He is discussing the bill and raising a number of points which were brought forward in the debate.
Chief Minister, please continue.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, we wear it all the time. People are happy to throw it but nobody wants any back. I am pointing out a few key points.
During Question Time today the member for Araluen tried to ask a racially divisive question. That leaves a sour taste in our mouths. She then asked how many Aboriginal people worked in my office. That is not relevant in this Chamber. She is trying to be racially divisive and it does not help.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Before the Chief Minister was interrupted he was explaining the career of the member for Araluen and had reached the position of Treasurer. I want him to talk about the hospital car park.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. There is no point of order.
Mr GILES: The member for Araluen did not talk about how many Indigenous staff she had in her office, or how she sacked people with disabilities from her office. She did not mention she was the architect of car parking fees at Royal Darwin Hospital. She did not mention how she delayed Palmerston hospital, which we now have back on track. She did not mention how she stopped development of the emergency department at Nhulunbuy hospital, which we are fixing, and she did not mention how she sought to cancel palliative care construction in Alice Springs.
I digress. The government would love to be on the Public Accounts Committee, but I cannot find a colleague who wants to work with her, particularly after the stunt she pulled.
The purpose of talking about this amendment bill goes to the heart of the Stella Maris inquiry. Many would be aware of the historical Stella Maris site near the waterfront, a government asset. In its dying days, the Labor government thought it would give the site to its union mates, rent free – a value of $3m for that rent-free period – as a benefit to unions. It would allow them to move in, demolish the current building and make tens of millions of dollars. This is all fact; it is not made up.
The Stella Maris inquiry was headed by Mr Lawler, who made a range of findings. We have accepted some of those findings, one being changes to the Inquiries Act to give the inquirer greater powers to stop, search for and seize documents. Some of the comments in the report are interesting. I will read from page 11 of the report under the heading Cabinet:
It is difficult to understand how the Cabinet ministers could have reasonably rejected the advice in the Cabinet Submission to have an open and transparent expression of interest process, and proceed to approve the proposal to grant a Crown lease exclusively to Unions NT based on one paragraph in the submission which included a warning about potential criticism in pursuing that option.
The Cabinet ministers should have been aware that such a decision, particularly in the lead up to the election, would have attracted considerable public criticism – as the submission warned was likely.
As a result, the starting point should have been a process that called for more transparency, not less, and complete adherence to the long-standing community land grant process. Unfortunately, the opposite occurred.
It makes comments about then minister, G McCarthy, also known as the member for Barkly. Quote:
- In a strict legal sense, Minister G McCarthy, not Cabinet, made the decision to propose the grant of the site exclusively to Unions NT, and he was the only person with the power to do so under the Crown Lands Act. As such, it was his responsibility to ensure that the decision he made was informed and followed due and proper process.
We should be mindful of the context because when the inquiry was being conducted the member for Barkly – minister McCarthy at the time of the Stella Maris handover – said he was at the Cabinet meeting when the decision was made. However, during the inquiry he had to apologise for lying because when travel documents were identified he was not at that Cabinet meeting at all; he was in Tennant Creek. That was interesting.
I will quote further the report:
- Minister G McCarthy’s decision was arguably unreasonable and, if challenged in a court, would be susceptible to being overturned. It was unreasonable because he did not have the necessary information to justify selectively choosing Unions NT over any other group. He should have sought this information and confirmed it before making the decision.
This lack of information was further compounded by Minister G McCarthy’s absence at the 10 July 2012 Cabinet meeting and the fact that his own submission strongly advised against granting the site to Unions NT …
This stinks of the partnership between Labor and the unions. It shows Labor does not run Labor, the unions run Labor. That is why the recent newspaper article is so concerning. It showed the MUA blackmailed private companies for $1m to help do a gas contract deal with the Labor government.
The commentary in the next paragraph is damning:
- In making his decision, Minister G McCarthy did not act with accountability, responsibility or with proper consideration ...
When a judicial report says that about a minister of the Crown, surely that member must rethink his position in government? That decision needs to be made. The wannabe Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, needs to reflect on how anybody with such a damning report against them can remain on the front bench. I know how that can be, because the education union holds the member for Barkly on the front bench.
That is a serious question for the Leader of the Opposition. How can a member of parliament with such a damning report about his ability, coherence or professionalism, be a potential minister of the Crown in the Northern Territory? However, I digress.
I will quote a paragraph from the Stella Maris report in relation to the second of the three Leaders of the Opposition in this electoral term. This is page 12, third paragraph:
- Minister Lawrie acted with bias over many years …
This person sought to be Chief Minister but was rolled by the third Leader of the Opposition in the last three-and-a-half years, and has now resigned from Labor. She was kicked out of Labor because they knew Stella Maris was too dirty and stinky. However, we all know Delia still runs the unions and the Labor Party, and the Leader of the Opposition is being dragged around, kicking and screaming, doing whatever the member for Karama wants. I digress slightly.
The purpose of this amendment bill is to fulfil some of the recommendations of the Stella Maris inquiry.
What has been highlighted today is the connection between unions and Labor, and taking money to run the Labor Party. That is money by force, blackmail or corruption from Saipem to the MUA back-dooring to the Labor Party. It could be coming from CSG to help get contracts for Fujitsu for the asset management system – which expanded from $14m to $70m – to go interstate.
The implications of that saw increasing amounts of diesel being used in the Northern Territory, over-purchasing of gas and wasting of money.
We have put forward a range of consideration in detail amendments. They have been largely explained. I thank all members for their support. I am not surprised the opposition supports this. They probably grit their teeth and say, ‘We have to because our corrupt activities prompted this recommendation’. That was your dodgy deal with your union buddies.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and look forward to proceeding with the consideration in detail amendments.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 49.1, inserting into clause 4(2) a definition of contempt as defined by proposed section 12. A person’s conduct constitutes contempt if they are served with a summons under section 9 of the Inquiries Act to appear before a board of inquiry or commissioner and, when required, the person does not give evidence, take an oath, answer a question or produce a book, document or writing as required by the summons.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr GILES: I move amendments 49.2, 49.3 and 49.4 to clause 8.
Amendment 49.2 omits proposed section 11(1)(b) and inserts a new proposed section 11(1)(b) providing that a person commits an offence of contempt if their conduct is reckless in relation to the circumstance. The redraft of section 11(1)(b) has been made by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to align with its drafting practices and recognise the physical element for recklessness is circumstance. This is a minor amendment and does not change the intent of the offence provision. This answers the member for Nelson’s question.
Amendment 49.3 inserts new proposed section 11(1), a penalty of six months’ imprisonment for contempt of a board of inquiry or a commissioner.
I extend my appreciation to members for pointing out the seriousness of contempt with departmental officers during the briefing on the bill, and that a financial penalty may not be a strong enough deterrent.
We agree that contempt is a serious matter. At all times a person should not intentionally obstruct or hinder a board of inquiry or commissioner in performing its functions under the act. We agree that the penalty should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. There should be a strong deterrent, and that is why we have a term of imprisonment of six months for contempt.
Amendment 49.4 omits the proposed section 12 and inserts a new section 12 to correct a technical error with the fault elements for conduct constituting contempt of a board of inquiry or commissioner. The bill, as drafted, required all the fault elements to be satisfied for contempt to be established. This was due to the omission of the word ‘or’ after each of the fault elements. This is not the intent.
The new section 12 clarifies that only a single fault element needs to be satisfied for a person’s conduct to constitute contempt in circumstances where a person is served with a summons by a board of inquiry or commissioner and they fail to appear before a board of inquiry or commissioner and, when required, the person does not give evidence, take an oath, answer a question or produce a book, document or writing as required by the summons.
The amendments are minor and do not change the intent of the bill.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports from Members for Nhulunbuy,
Barkly, Arnhem and Araluen
Travel Reports from Members for Nhulunbuy,
Barkly, Arnhem and Araluen
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table travel reports received from the members for Nhulunbuy, Barkly, Arnhem and Araluen pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the RTD.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct – consideration adjourned.
Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper – Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Report – The Preventable Disability
Note Paper – Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Report – The Preventable Disability
Continued from 10 February 2016.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been a long time coming back to parliament. I am disappointed because this came to parliament as an important issue. The terms of reference say the Legislative Assembly resolved on 26 March 2014. We are in the third month of 2016 and this is the first time we have had to deal with this paper.
The difficulty with leaving it for so long is one forgets what is in it. I do not read the report every day. I thought this was one of the most – there have been plenty of important committees. The suicide committee was important, also the one dealing with petrol sniffing. This is one of the very important committees of this parliament. The terms of reference say the committee shall inquire into and report on the prevalence in the Northern Territory of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, the nature of the injuries and effects of FASD on its sufferers, and actions the government can take to reduce FASD based on evidence in consultation.
This has come back after sitting on the Notice Paper since February 2015. During that time what happened to all the recommendations? I hope the government can give us some confidence that this committee did not waste its time or that of the people it spoke to. The people who work in this difficult field, did we waste their time? More importantly, have we allowed more people to be effected by FASD by delaying …
Mr Elferink: We do not allow them.
Mr WOOD: I heard that interjection, but the guts of this committee was to make recommendations on actions the government could take to reduce FASD. We have done that. Have those actions been put in place? If this had happened earlier could it have prevented one case of FASD?
I have gone back to the committee report and recommendations to put them into some context. There are 26 recommendations in the report. Although the recommendations are mentioned at the front of the report, if you want the details start at page 119. You will see how the committee has looked at FASD and come up with good recommendations, which I hope the government has taken on board.
The first section relates to action to manage the effects of FASD. It says:
- The starting point for an effective response is a means of diagnosis. Understanding the cause of the range of disabilities and impairments that can manifest as FASD can inform how best to respond to them.
You have two recommendations relating to diagnosis and screening, and it also hones in specifically on the diagnosis of FASD. Recommendation 1 says:
- The Committee recommends that the Department of Health develop a strategy for implementing the Australian FASD Diagnostic instrument, expected to be finalised in 2015. As part of that strategy development, the Committee recommends that the Department consider the cost effectiveness of multi-disciplinary paediatric teams.
The Committee recommends that the Government prioritise funding for early intervention services for FASD, including paediatric diagnosis, psychotherapy and other behavioural management measures, and early childhood support and education services.
Mr Elferink: No.
Mr WOOD: That is not good to hear, but is good in the sense that we have not written this report then found it to be out of date. Not only do we have to find a diagnostic tool for early intervention, but we also have to train staff to interpret it. There are important ongoing matters to be dealt with, because if we do not have a diagnostic tool we have issues dealing with this in the early stages of a child’s life.
There is a section about screening for prenatal alcohol exposure. I always wonder if I have to find a balance between human rights and the welfare of the unborn and the mother. The report mentions screening pregnant women. A quote from the Department of Health says 100% screening for alcohol consumption in antenatal visits should be the goal using a consistent approach.
Further they refer to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s National Maternity Data Development Project. There is a comment that the committee considers the implementation of screening all women for alcohol consumption during pregnancy in a manner that is culturally appropriate, therapeutically beneficial and assists with the national collection of data to be a priority.
Recommendation 3 says:
- The Committee recommends that the Department of Health promote protocols for screening alcohol use during pregnancy with a view to raising awareness of the risks or alcohol, assisting expectant mothers with any alcohol issues, and collecting data in accordance with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s National Maternity Data Development Project.
Recommendation 4 says:
- The Committee recommends that protocols for screening alcohol use during pregnancy include guidelines for support and referral for women struggling with alcohol use during pregnancy, including information on relevant local support services.
I understand where that comes from, but this issue needs to be dealt with carefully, especially from a cultural perspective. The committee report mentions cultural sensitivities. In local language – shame job. We must be very careful with that. If you shame people you may not get the outcomes you want. While it might be the goal of the Department of Health and other groups, it has to be done carefully and sensitively.
In regard to screening for FASD, Recommendation 5 is:
- The Committee recommends the Department of Health review options for screening for FASD, particularly targeted screening of high risk populations, having regard to the possible development of a national FASD screening instrument.
It says that screening for FASD enables health practitioners to identify people who show symptoms of FASD, who may then be referred for diagnosis and support.
Point 8.20 on page 123 says:
- Given the importance of early intervention for minimising the effect of FASD, the Committee considers that the screening of high risk populations for FASD to be a priority. The Committee is also of the view that DoH should assess whether the benefits of universal screening of FASD would outweigh the costs.
That says we know certain population groups are likely to produce children with FASD, but should the Department of Health focus its attention on those groups or spend the money on the broader community? If we can screen people – in many cases early intervention is the only hope of reducing the effects of FASD. The earlier the intervention the less of a problem you will have as the child gets older.
Of course, all this needs health workforce development, education, training and resources. Some women are not comfortable being asked if they have been drinking. Clause 8.24 deals with this issue:
- … it is clear that many health workers are not comfortable with asking pregnant women about alcohol use, have insufficient knowledge of the NHMRC Guidelines on Alcohol Use, and have little knowledge of FASD or of strategies for its prevention and management.
That says you need to skill people who can help with education, training and resources.
Clause 8.26 says NTCOSS noted that information about the dangers of alcohol used during pregnancy is often crowded out by other health messages. Quote:
- … it is important that the FASD prevention message is not lost in amongst other issues such as smoking, nutrition and hygiene.
They are saying their health workers are working on diet and smoking, and sometimes FASD, because it is alcohol, gets mixed up with that. The attention is not always there when dealing with these important issues.
Recommendation 6 says:
The Committee recommends that the Department of Health undertake an audit of current professional development needs of the health workforce in relation to FASD and develop a plan for ensuring an adequate level of awareness of FASD.
- Early childhood programs such as the Nurse Family Partnership Program and the Abecedarian model of educational day care, are a ‘best buy’ because they have the potential to address health and social inequity and break the cycle of harmful alcohol use over the long term.
Further along:
- harmful alcohol use by parents and carers is known to be associated with lack of responsive care and stimulation in early childhood; children brought up in these environments are more likely to lack self-control and self-regulation as they grow to adulthood themselves, and will therefore be more susceptible to addictions, including to alcohol; they will be, in turn, less likely to provide their own children with the care and nurture they need. This cycle is reinforced by emerging evidence that every generation born to parents with an alcohol addiction is more genetically predisposed to an addiction.
Recommendation 7 says:
- The Committee recommends that the Government improve support for caring for children in the first years, particularly for at risk populations …
I will not go into the rest as time restricts me.
In discussions in Alice Springs it was clear there is a chance of reversing some of the damage caused to the brain by alcohol if you can deal with children at an early age. It is not easy to do without diagnostic tools or knowing the history of the child’s mother. There is hope of reducing some of the damage if you get in early. Government will have to work on that area.
The report mentions the education system interface, in other words the difficulty with children at school. It was noted that, according to the Department of Education, Territory schools only have 27 students with a formal diagnosis of FASD.
The committee – it can tell me if I am wrong – felt that was well below the realities of this world. One problem is you cannot always tell. Diagnosis is not the only means of determining whether someone is affected by FASD.
There is a recommendation about strengthening initiatives to address the needs of students with FASD, including the delivery of strategies, training and resources for teaching students with FASD and the establishment of a formal FASD reference group.
One of the most important sections is the Justice and Child Protection Interface. We need to make sure this is happening in our justice system. Recommendation 9 says:
- The Committee recommends that a multi-disciplinary diagnostic service is established to which child protection workers, legal practitioners, judicial officers and correctional staff may refer individuals suspected of having a cognitive impairment such as FASD. The service should be linked to government and community based treatment programs.
The Committee recommends that the multi-disciplinary diagnostic service maintain data on the prevalence of FASD individuals in contact with the criminal justice and child protection systems.
That ensures the judicial system has knowledge of people before it who may be affected by FASD, because we know FASD affects the cognitive parts of the brain. I remember a policeman at Alice Springs giving the example of a young bloke, obviously a FASD sufferer, smashing a window in the Alice Springs mall. A policeman said, ‘You shouldn’t do that’, and took him away. The next week the same bloke smashed another window but could not understand the problem because it was a different window. It is not that the actions were bad; that window was bad and this one was okay.
People with this problem have difficulty knowing the difference between right and wrong. Their ability to work out, in a logical way, those issues makes it difficult for the justice system when they come before it. I am sure others will speak more on that as well.
We also have to deal with support for people who care for FASD sufferers. The word ‘hero’ is used a lot, but I reckon people who care for those with FASD are tough. Carers have a pretty tough job, but carers of kids with FASD, boy! That is a tough life, and you have to take your hat off to them. We met a person in Tennant Creek who looked after a child with FASD. It is no easy path, but it is terrific that people are willing to spend their time looking after these kids. Sometimes they are adults, but it is the same case.
Recommendation 11 says:
- The Committee recommends that a FASD Support Service be established within the Department of Health to provide case management for FASD individuals and their carers through an appointed social worker.
An area deals with the need for additional funding for more residential secure care facilities, and that the community-based health organisation and social service providers be funded to provide evidence-based behavioural management programs for FASD individuals.
It is interesting to note – we touch on this later – residential secure care facilities. The committee debated this type of facility. Some argue that it is better to have the family rather than the individual, because the family is not left alone and the person can still be cared for. This is more about when a woman is pregnant. The case we are talking about is caring for the person affected by FASD, but the issue of residential secure care facilities relates to whether we should have care facilities for pregnant women.
The topic of awareness of workers in the justice and child protection systems notes that we still have a fair way to go in developing resources in Australia. It quotes from some Canadian provinces regarding the different target groups that need to understand the issues FASD highlights, including police personnel, legal practitioners and court officers, judges, magistrates and corrective services personnel.
It talks about coordinating systems. We have that not only in regard to FASD, but in regard to alcohol, suicide and cross-sector coordination. I will not go into that too much because it has been discussed.
There is a quote from Jodeen Carney saying the lack of standardised diagnosis was an impediment to cooperation between agencies. She said:
- I think the sharing of information is there. It is always obviously harder in reality than it is in theory, but it is there. I think it comes back to the problem of there not being a standardised definition. Anecdotally, a lot of people, either in our agency, others or in some NGO services – you would have heard this yourself, in people saying, ‘Oh, that child has got FASD’. It may not be based on anything except instinctively knowing or an educated guess, but if we had a better starting point of a better diagnostic tool, I think we probably would assist the information sharing.
Information sharing is an issue and Recommendation 14 addresses it.
An important section is Action to Prevent FASD. Reducing harmful alcohol consumption is really important. This bipartisan committee made some recommendations the government might not agree with, but they should at least be put forward. Clause 9.21 says:
- There was a general consensus that a multi-faceted strategy should incorporate supply, demand and harm reduction strategies, with specific examples of the types of initiatives to be included under these domains set out below.
He made me laugh. I do not drink and I have no problem asking for a Diet Coke, but not many people drink Diet Coke at the parties I go to. He said for many people it is difficult to be the odd one out at a party. I am too old to worry about that, but I know some people do not want to be a party pooper and not drink. Our society nearly expects it. Look at photographs in the paper of the races and other functions. What do people have in their hands? Most do not have a glass of water but will have something. It is very much part of our society.
When looking at this we have to look at societal issues as well as FASD. This issue is reflected in our society. We cannot say, ‘This will just be about FASD’; it has to be bigger than that.
Going back to clause 9.21:
Supply Reduction Measures:
- Minimum floor price;
- TBLs;
- Photo ID scanning at point of sale;
- Reduction in trading hours; and
- Reduction in number of liquor outlets.
There are 11, possibly 14, liquor outlets in Palmerston. If I say something about that all I hear is we are in the free enterprise world. We are battling government policies on these issues.
Clause 9.21 further says:
- Demand reduction measures:
- o Targeted interventions, including voluntary and mandatory alcohol treatment;
o Specialised drug and alcohol treatment services; and
o Early childhood programs to support healthy development.
- o Social marketing;
o School education;
o Brief interventions in primary and allied health settings;
o Health warnings labels on alcohol products;
o Regulation of alcohol advertising; …
What would the AFL, rugby league and cricket do without that? It goes on to say:
- Sobering up shelters; and
- Night patrols.
We recommended a range of things, such as setting targets for reducing alcohol-related harm and providing a mechanism for regular publication of performance data etcetera. We looked at supply reduction strategies, taxation strategies and minimum floor price. Lo and behold, clause 9.34 of the report says:
- The NT branch of the Australian Hotels Association also considered that a minimum floor price had merit in the Northern Territory:
- from a Territory perspective, which is not necessarily reflected from a national perspective, we do not have any issue with a floor price.
Why are we not introducing it? The committee has recommended that the Liquor Act be amended to implement a minimum floor price, ensuring that a standard drink would cost a minimum of $1.30. Well done AHA.
We also talk about temporary beat locations. Recommendation 20 says:
- The Committee recommends that the Government:
a) Conduct further analysis on the effectiveness of personal point of sale restrictions on purchasing alcohol such as the Temporary Beat Locations and the former Banned Drinker Register;
b) Develop options for reducing the cost of enforcement of such restrictions, such as only considering sales over a certain value; and
That is interesting. The bipartisan committee said we should analyse the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register, which did not run long enough to see if it was effective. Nine months does not fit any statistical pattern I know of. I did stats at secondary school and know you would not have a program. Even at horticultural school I had to conduct experiments in growing crops. In nine months you would have one crop of lettuce. That would not be enough to work out if they did well. You need three or four years to say if a variety would go well. How could you make a proper analysis of the Banned Drinker Register when it only ran for nine months? The committee is not saying do not look at it.
Another important thing is the cost of enforcement. The NT Police Association said – they do not believe they should do it – the taxpayer should not pay the bill, rather the licensees. Whether it is paying police or getting other people to do the job, the onus should be on the alcohol industry. They know temporary beat locations are improving life in some communities, but taxpayers are paying for people to stand outside bottle shops. The alcohol industry should play its part.
The report talks about Alcohol Protection Orders. It will be interesting to see how affective they are. I have not seen a report on them for a while. I would like to see figures on how many people have APOs and how affective they are. They were introduced by the government as a way of reducing alcohol-related harm. Have they made a difference, and how many people have gone to prison?
Ms MANISON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask for an extension of time for the member pursuant to Standing Order 43.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Wanguri. This is important committee work and the time limit does not allow me to cover all the issues.
The report mentions residential treatment. There is no doubt this is an issue. I have one point of view and others a different one. Some Aboriginal people have a different point of view. How can we help a person when they cannot care for themselves? Where do we intervene? The report says that generally non-residential treatment is more effective than residential treatment except for clients with severe deterioration, social instability and a high risk of relapse. The report also mentions having facilities where the family is involved. Clause 9.51 says:
- The Committee heard that while residential treatment has the potential to be effective over the long term, many clients find it difficult to access such treatment due to a lack of available facilities and other barriers. This is particularly likely to be the case for women with families. For example, Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group (BRADAAG) has only six beds for women and only one out of five houses is used for a family program, with this accommodating either one family or two single women with their children. Ms Bracken from Tennant Creek Women’s Refuge spoke strongly on the need for more family rehabilitation facilities, as women who would voluntarily go into rehabilitation are discouraged from doing so because they do not want to leave their family with dysfunctional family members.
We need to spend money on this. If voluntary rehabilitation can be reinforced by the person knowing they can have their family with them we should look at it. We visited a number of these places, including Venndale Rehabilitation, which is mentioned in the report. At clause 9.54 Mr Casey Bishop, said:
- If your children are a part of it as well – and for lack of better terms – monkey see, monkey do is eliminated as well. So, you are helping the adults to support each other, but you are also showing the kids that is not normal behaviour. From what we have seen and what our clients say to us, is they want to change their ways so their kids do not think what they do is appropriate, normal, or acceptable. I guess, without a doubt, combining and having a family approach is going to fit.
That is something we need to look at. Recommendation 21 says:
- The Committee recommends that the Government conducts a needs assessment for family rehabilitation facilities.
The report talks about more awareness of sexual health. There are many issues with young people getting pregnant early. It says we need to raise awareness of this. Clause 9.66 says:
- This is an important opportunity to both ensure the woman is aware of the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant and to determine whether the woman requires any assistance with issues relating to alcohol.
Using adolescent sexual education programs as a means of getting people to understand the problems with alcohol consumption when pregnant, as well as talking about contraception and providing the education they need in a culturally sensitive way is really important. We have to be careful not to impose our Western ways of doing things on people with a different way of looking at things. I know in my family, what I think is not the way they think on some of these issues.
Recommendation 24 says:
- The Committee recommends that the Department of Health ensures that all training of health professionals includes information on FASD and the risks of drinking while pregnant, and that protocols for antenatal visits include discussion of the risks of alcohol and whether the woman is consuming alcohol.
Before Christmas a report on ABC news said it was okay to drink some alcohol. I rang to say that was not right. All the information we have says not drinking alcohol is the only safe thing to do. There is no guarantee that one glass of wine, when pregnant, will not cause a problem. It worried me that the news item could do a lot of damage. People said to the committee, ‘No, you have to abstain. That is the safe way.’
We have to get that message out through the media, and the media has to understand as well. We mention health workers, but we have to ensure people in other areas are aware of this.
There was the issue of targeting women with alcohol dependency, the issue of criminal penalties and also mandatory treatment. I do not support criminal penalties for people who persist in drinking at dangerous levels. I support mandatory treatment because we already have alcohol mandatory treatments programs. Some people do not agree with that, some do. I do, but it has to be done in a compassionate way for the right reasons.
It was interesting discussing this. Obviously some people on the committee do not agree. That is fine and what being on a committee is all about. However, it needs discussing. Clause 9.84 says:
- Whether there might be a benefit in mandatory treatment in extreme cases was seen as a more open question.
I am not talking about criminality, but mandatory treatment:
- Some witnesses considered there could be benefits in prohibiting pregnant women from consuming alcohol or placing persistent pregnant drinkers in mandatory treatment. The President of the Barkly Regional Council and Chair of the Tennant Creek Alcohol Reference Group, Ms Barb Shaw, when asked if she was in favour of banning the serving of alcohol to pregnant women, and of making the consumption of alcohol by pregnant women illegal, made the following comments:
- I personally would go that far. The problem that you would have with that then is how you control and monitor that, but the fact is while you may not be able to control and monitor it you have got the message there loud and clear saying you can’t drink and there would be – and I have thought about this – there would be criticisms about the rights of an individual allowed to do whatever. But I think sometimes, again, when it particularly comes to Indigenous people, that becomes a block from Indigenous people making a difference for themselves and being accountable for themselves to make those changes.
Clause 9.85 says:
- Ms Shaw felt that it was important to open up the debate with respect to mandatory rehabilitation for pregnant women who consumed alcohol, as this would facilitate an exploration of the most appropriate models to support pregnant women with alcohol problems:
- I do not think, because it might be contentious, we have to stay away from having the conversation; it still needs to be had because if you allow the conversation to go ahead then you could look at models to deal with supporting the young person without it being set up as a big stick thing from the government. We could have some really good discussions about how that can be modelled, but modelled on compassionate grounds. You would run a whole lot of education and family support. You would put in the Piliyintinji-Ki’s Stronger Families program from Anyinginyi, which would work the way it is working with families. There has to be support from government.
There are two sides to that coin. I would not support that unless there was community support for the program. If a group of people in the community were willing to care for the mother and help the family – the difficult question is: does the government have a role to play in protecting the unborn child?
Clause 9.79 says:
- … regardless of views of the rights or humanity of a foetus, the Government has a responsibility to protect future children from harm as far as is possible.
What is in the best interest of the future child? What is the role of government? If it knows the unborn child will be damaged because it has allowed a person to keep drinking, does it have a responsibility? I believe it does. How it enforces that responsibility is difficult. However, we cannot do nothing. We have to take on board many of the recommendations because it all helps. If you have done all those things and a person continues to drink and you know it will damage the child, what is the role of government? The government has to step in, but in a compassionate and culturally sensitive way.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important, extensive body of work. I am grateful to have participated in this early in my political life.
Going back to 26 March 2014, this House debated establishing a select committee and putting forward appropriate terms of reference to ensure we had a good, strong, hard-working committee which would take a bipartisan approach to tackling a difficult issue.
At the time this issue was making national headlines and it was appropriate to appoint a select committee. We knew we would have a good, thorough look at FASD. There are many stories about FASD, but we wanted to get the hard evidence and tap into the expertise in the Territory, and nationally and internationally, and look at this problem. Many of us have seen and heard about FASD, but putting a number on FASD and where resources should go was something new.
We agreed to the terms of reference, and a lot of work was done by the committee. There were many hearings, much reading, many meetings, plenty of briefings – an extensive body of work. The committee visited Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Nhulunbuy, and tried to engage as much as possible with people living in remote areas. We tried to get from the top to the bottom and to cover many points of view on this important issue.
I was pushing to have the report completed to make the budget cycle. This report was tabled in parliament in February 2015. I pushed to ensure government could look at the recommendations and perhaps fund some of the recommendations in last year’s budget.
Two years after agreeing on the terms of reference for this committee we are debating the report. This should have been debated when the report was tabled. We should have gone through this much sooner and had an assurance from the government that it had taken the recommendations on board and was looking at funding.
The budget will be delivered by this government soon. This debate presents an opportunity for the government to look at the recommendations. It would be great to hear, whether in the pre-budget leaks or on budget day, some commitment through agencies to tackle FASD.
The committee was fortunate to have two members who are now in Cabinet. The Minister for Health was especially passionate about this issue, so it would be good to see what action the government is taking on the recommendations.
I look forward to hearing a government contribution to this debate, informing the House where the recommendations are at and what has been done. For such an extensive body of work to be done, and so many people informing the committee on FASD, it would be a shame to not hear an extensive response from the government.
I thank my committee colleagues because they put in a lot of time and effort. We worked very well together. The officers of the Legislative Assembly who work in the committee area put in a lot of work, including research and time spent going up and down the track to set up some of the best committee meetings I have attended. People were engaged in the hearings and coming to community sessions afterwards to speak with the committee and share their thoughts, which was good.
I was heartened, when looking into FASD, to see the expertise we have in the Territory. These people have been working tirelessly on FASD for many years trying to put strategies in place to deal with it, and ensure that families with alcohol issues consider the consequences of FASD. They are also working with children who may already be impacted by FASD.
We heard of some inspirational work done by Congress. We heard from Anyinginyi health, which has been involved in this for quite a long time and is undertaking an extensive body of educational material. Dr Jennifer Delima’s evidence at the hearings struck me. It was clear that we have people with a real passion for taking on FASD, and who have expertise and knowledge.
The committee acknowledged that we are not the only jurisdiction with this issue. We looked at other case studies of FASD. At the time of the committee report work had been done at the national level. An extensive body of work has also been done at Fitzroy Valley. Some shocking statistics came from that area. They dug into communities to look at formally diagnosing FASD. Some of the rates were through the roof. It was good to see them take the issue on, and they were also looking at the best way to address FASD and help children and families with FASD issues.
It was good for the committee to hear from the Foundation for Alcohol Education Research, and also from Professor Elizabeth Elliott. It was very informative, to say the least.
We have big issues in the Territory getting a real picture of how extensive FASD is. I was left feeling it is undiagnosed, and sometimes FASD is captured in other areas of disability diagnosis. As it is a nation issue as well, it is important that we use a consistent diagnostic tool. One of the report’s recommendations was to ensure the Territory implements the Australian diagnostic tool which was meant to be agreed on. We heard earlier it is still not the case.
One thing that came through loud and clear from experts who presented to the FASD committee was that early intervention is the key when it comes to tackling the problem and treating FASD as a health issue. It was clear that educating women and families about the consequences of alcohol consumption during pregnancy is a huge help. Intervention which can assist with the right support for families with alcohol issues while a woman is pregnant is important, and if a child is born with FASD there should be an early diagnosis.
It was made clear that the earlier the health intervention and right support for a child with FASD the better their long-term outcome will be. There was a clear correlation expressed by the researchers and experts who presented to the committee that a child with FASD does not have as bright outcomes as a child born without FASD. There was a strong correlation with them ending up in the criminal justice system. It was clear that early intervention is the key and to get involved.
I listened closely to my colleague, the member for Barkly, who has always been adamant that this is not just a women’s issue. This is about families. Men have to do their part as part of the family structure when it comes to alcohol abuse. That was backed up in the hearings by the experts.
Looking at the issues with alcohol in the Northern Territory was also prevalent in this body of work. It was made clear that supply and alcohol abuse correlate directly with FASD. The committee met with a range of alcohol stakeholders about what they felt needed to be looked at in relation to alcohol in the Northern Territory. Point of sale restrictions – looking at the BDR for example. There was support for temporary beat locations and restrictions on opening hours. Some work was also done on the floor price of alcohol.
It was a broad discussion around alcohol issues, but it was made abundantly clear that alcohol abuse in the Territory directly contributes to FASD. We need to do everything we can to address alcohol abuse, which includes looking at alcohol supply and restrictions. It is important to continue that effort, and the committee suggested that a future committee look at alcohol and alcohol issues across the Territory.
Education and awareness were raised so that FASD is not just seen as an issue for Indigenous women as it is far from that. FASD affects non-Indigenous women and educated women. In discussions with people I know I have been taken aback by how lax some of the attitudes are about alcohol during pregnancy, and that some people believe it is okay to have a glass or two while they are pregnant.
Clarity around a safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant was something we continued to ask experts who presented to the panel. The only clear answer we could get was that your safest bet is not to drink, full stop. That is the best approach. There needs to be more education and effort to ensure the impact of alcohol consumption during pregnancy reaches to the community.
It was clear that different agencies within the government need to be working together when a child is recognised as having FASD. They could pick them up through the health checks early on, the child development checks, or when a child has problems at school.
We need to ensure government agencies are not working as silos. We need to ensure when a child with FASD issues or a family with alcohol abuse problems needs support, agencies work together to ensure the best possible outcome. That came through, loud and clear, in the committee’s work.
Two years after we started this process we are debating it tonight. Again, I look forward to hearing the government’s views on the report recommendations. In my first year as a sitting member I felt really upbeat about the committee. I thought we had good terms of reference to look into the issue, and that we could make a positive impact. I remember at the time being warned by the member for Port Darwin, as Health minister, when he said, ‘Don’t give people unrealistic expectations’.
A year after this report was tabled we are debating it. I doubt that is what he had in mind, but I am concerned about how seriously the government took this work and the effort put in by the committee as well as those who contributed by attending hearings, making submissions, presenting at hearings and going through their research to ensure the committee was well-informed to look at this difficult issue.
There is much more work to do. Early intervention is the key. Better education and awareness is critical, and we have an opportunity to work and partner with other jurisdictions facing the same issues. Breaking through government silos and ensuring government agencies are working together is critical. We must never lose sight of the horrors of alcohol abuse in the Territory and our duty to do everything possible to put a stop to it.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this work. Others want to contribute to this debate, but I want to hear what the government has committed to and where the recommendations have gone since the report was tabled in February last year.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I know the member for Barkly wants to speak, but if he will indulge me I can answer some of the questions the member for Wanguri asked. Perhaps if I jump now, it will offer the member for Barkly an opportunity to reply, which is only fair.
Before I start, I say hello to Maureen and Lyn. It is good to see you here, guys.
This report leaves me with mixed feelings for a number of reasons. It barely attends to an issue I raised, which was not as the Health minister. Amongst my various portfolio areas one is child protection. It was in that context that I raised the issue of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
When I took on the role of minister for child protection I was confronted with the boundaries of my responsibilities. It is easy at the top end of the threshold – the age of 18. What about the other end? At what point do I become the minister for child protection? Is it the date of the child’s birth or before that? Of course, this places you on the thin ice of other areas. I want to talk about those boundaries at a philosophical level.
Let us use the example of a woman who becomes pregnant. She, by either omission or deliberate decision, determines that she will not seek or procure an abortion and therefore chooses to become a mother. The question I posed at the time – I well understand how controversial the issue was when I raised it – was does my role as minister for child protection reach to before the time of the child’s birth? If I can clearly demonstrate that the mother is engaging in behaviour which is so reckless and dangerous to the unborn child, what are the boundaries of my power?
I remember the debates establishing this committee where I said, ‘Tell me what my duties and responsibilities are’, because of the implications of that question. The obvious implication is do I seek the power to confine a woman if she engages in such reckless behaviour towards her unborn child to prevent her from drinking her child into a life of misery? Was it a controversial question? Hell, yes. Was I prepared to ask it? Yes, of course. You have to ask these questions. We do not get the opportunity – particularly as ministers – to take the leisurely way around these issues if we are serious about our roles.
I know there was an immediate response of outrage from many – particularly women’s groups – saying, ‘How dare you ask such a question. That is such a condescending thing to do.’ As the heat of that argument died down, more sober eyes, particularly women, were asking the question seriously.
Bearing in mind that I am a genuine liberal in that sense of the word, I take the confinement of a person seriously. You do not confine a person unless you have a power or warrant granted to you either by a court or this Chamber. The arbitrary incarceration of a person, even for health reasons, is not something I have or ever will take lightly.
I read this report ages ago and it barely touches on that question. The short answer from this committee is, ‘No, you don’t do that’. I wish there had been more exploration of this by the committee. There are a few paragraphs buried at about page 120, if memory serves me. That is what I tasked the committee to do. If you go to the original debates, I spoke at length about this issue.
Many people in the medical and education professions would immediately say, ‘No, don’t do that. You need an education program. You need a medical response.’ I understand that. The problem is that when this disorder manifests itself there is an imposition on the community to treat the results. That is often expensive.
Whether you like it or not – even talking from a child protection and child health view – the question of how much we can afford invariably rears its ugly head. There is no suggestion in the report or its recommendations of how things are paid for, but we have to pay for them.
I have a problem with Recommendation 1, which refers to a diagnostic tool being developed in late 2015. No such diagnostic tool has been developed. I am guessing, but I suspect they may not be able to develop one. The answer to that issue can be found in the very structure of FASD as a title – foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
The member for Wanguri noted there might be a link between alcohol and FASD. We can take that as a given.
Perhaps it is a little obvious, but the issue stands in the word ‘spectrum’. There might be difficulty creating a tool, because the spectrum is so broad and encompasses so many other maladies that perhaps it would be too clumsy to apply. Historically, various forms of mental illness were called melancholia, which was a raft of different maladies now described under the DSM-5. The DSM-5 is the psychiatric tool you apply to presentation of a number of symptoms which enables you to identify a particular mental disorder. A person might be having a psychotic episode as a result of an underlying schizophrenic condition. A person might be bipolar, as it called now, rather than manic depressive. A person may have a number of other presentations. The complexities of cognitive impairments might be thrown into the mix. All of that once was melancholia. Melancholia was the description of a spectrum of disorders. Over time, as psychiatry advanced, it has been careful to determine what those disorders under the general heading or melancholia are.
The spectrum was refined to have better treatments for specific conditions. You will not necessarily treat a person with schizophrenia with Zoloft, but previously you would treat a person for melancholia and it covered both maladies. We needed refinement for specific treatments. Similarly, a number of chest disorders were once called consumption, which could have been lung cancer, tuberculosis, which was the most common cause, or bronchial inflammation. A number of things would have been consumption, but as we refined our medical specialities we refined those diseases and made distinctions between them. There is a different treatment for lung cancer than tuberculosis. Over time we have abandoned generalisations and gone to the specifics, because the more specific we can be the more accurate and targeted our treatment can be.
With regard to foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, somewhere in the myriad of different presentations – foetal alcohol syndrome, partial foetal alcohol syndrome and neurodevelopment disorder alcohol exposed – are some of the more specific subsets with different presentations. I have looked at a diagnosis for FASD and spoken to a few people. The impression is they may struggle to create a tool.
We, as a government, continue to respond to the maladies we recognise. We do not have a diagnostic tool. The members for Nelson and Wanguri mentioned diagnoses of FASD. It cannot be done. There is no diagnosis to be had. We can, however, and do, attend to a number of issues when pregnant women present. We already do normal screening for all pregnant women, and all pregnant Indigenous women are routinely screened for alcohol as well as domestic violence. As a consequence, when you develop a response in the health domain you test for things which might be prevalent.
The truth is whilst this is not exclusively a matter for Aboriginal people it is, in a large proportion, applicable to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. We have had many a debate – if you go back to the first Hansard of this House, when it was the Legislative Council in 1974, in the first volume we talk about alcohol in our jurisdiction. If you go back to the first Parliamentary Record of this House, when it was the Legislative Council in 1974, they were talking about alcohol problems in our jurisdiction. If you go back to the parliament of Westminster in the 1600s, they were banging on about alcohol problems in their jurisdiction. Do you remember the 2 km law we had? It was based on the English 5 mile law, which is from the 1600s. It is not new.
We have an alcohol problem and a drug problem. That drug problem will go back to when Ronk was playing fullback for the Caveman First 15. That is just how it is; we have an alcohol problem. That is not to say we throw our hands up in despair and do nothing. Our Liquor Act is substantially thicker than our Criminal Code Act. The Liquor Act is at least an inch thick and deals with liquor in our community and how we allow it to go into the community. The Criminal Code Act is half as thick and deals with every other indictable offence in the Northern Territory.
We try to regulate and govern this but a balance has to be struck. What are the rights of people who do nothing wrong? What are the rights of the average punter who has a bottle of wine with dinner tonight? Their rights should be protected.
Compare that with the rights of an unborn child where the mother is so addicted to alcohol that she will forgo the rights of the unborn child to the point she will inflict upon that child, either through gross indifference or neglect, a lifetime of wretchedness. She will selfishly imbibe to get pie-eyed drunk to the point the police will pick her up in a park this afternoon.
The member for Nelson said, ‘Oh, you can’t raise that issue. You can’t embarrass people.’ Hell you can’t! From my experience, which is somewhat broad – I spent a lot of time working in the bush, as members know – shame is a fundamental social mechanism used by many people of non-European background in the Northern Territory. It is across a raft of cultures in the Territory. In Yankunytjatjara, Ngaanyatjarra and Pitjantjatjara you will find it. You will find it in Arrernte, Pintupi, Alyawarr, and all the way up to the Tiwi Islands. In fact, we use it in European culture.
I am a little jaded by this argument that we should not be using that as a vehicle for better outcomes in communities because we might offend somebody. I stridently disagree with the member for Nelson on that. We should be ensuring that young women engaging in this behaviour are ashamed of what they are doing and might change their conduct and become more responsible for themselves, but more importantly, for the child they are carrying. Why is that so wrong? Will we continue to treat Aboriginal women particularly with kid gloves and such a lack of respect that we do not have the courage to say to them, ‘You have some duties and responsibilities to yourself and the people you bring into this world’? We say it to everybody else.
For some reason we have to walk on eggshells when we, and their families, should be demanding better behaviour. If a woman in my family was engaging in such reckless and dangerous behaviour, do you reckon I would not say something and appeal to their sense of embarrassment or shame for behaving so badly that they show up drunk in a park every day and it might have some effect on their pregnancy? Of course I would. That is what we should do more broadly. We are still scared of offending people, when from time to time it might be the vehicle we need to change behaviours.
For all of the millions of dollars spent on Aboriginal health, Aboriginal education and law and order issues surrounding Aboriginal people, I see scant improvement. The argument continues to be that we need more education programs and to spend more in health. Why is it when I see a photograph of schoolchildren at Titjikala from 1950, the kids are wearing clean, white pressed shirts, a pair of shorts and have short back and sides. They had bare feet because they did not have shoes, but that is not unusual, and they were going to school. If I go into Titjikala on a school day now – or Papunya, Ntaria or wherever – half the kids are not there, or they have runny sores on their ears, snot hanging out of their noses – their ENT problems are profound – they have not had breakfast and their parents have disengaged because we have said, ‘Don’t worry about it; you are not responsible’. They have to be responsible.
The vast majority of Aboriginal people are responsible for their children, thank goodness, but that responsibility has not improved in the last 40 years. In fact, it has gone backwards. We would not let it occur in any other part of our community. We certainly would not allow it in Casuarina or Alice Springs, but because we are afraid of telling people in remote and regional areas to be responsible, we do not do it.
It is one thing to provide assistance once a person chooses to be responsible, it is another to let them off the hook and say they have no responsibilities or duties, whether it is to their children or the unborn child. That is absent from this report.
The report says there is evidence from a bunch of doctors and other experts in the field saying, ‘Just spend a bit more money; have another spend response, another health response’, and those things.
We already respond with enormous resources from our Health department. For every $1 we spend on non-Aboriginal health $2 goes into Aboriginal health, yet the health outcomes are going backwards.
Spending more money is not exclusively the answer. One third of the Territory’s budget is aimed at health outcomes. We pour more and more money into it yet do not see better outcomes. Every time we inquire into it the answer is more education, more expenditure on health.
Why is it, when bugger all was being spent in Titjikala in the 1950s, kids were going to school? When I first went to Ntaria as a police officer in the early 1980s, all the old people could read and write English. Moreover they could speak English, and their handwriting, when they filled out forms at the police station, looked like calligraphy because that was the standard applied.
I am not a huge champion of the time missions operated in remote and regional areas, but when we got rid of them we threw some babies out with the bathwater. The response was to throw some money at it and the problem would go away. We would give them a welfare system that does not bind them to anything. There is no social contract between the recipients of a welfare payment and the community in which they live. It is just sit down money, and that is what they call it.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Unfortunately the minister has run out of time.
Mr ELFERINK: Really? I had a lot more so that is a shame.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, the time signature on such an important matter for government that crosses health, education, child protection, juvenile justice and corrections remains unaddressed. It is totally inappropriate. There are no excuses other than political ones.
I have spoken about foetal alcohol syndrome many times in a privileged position in the previous government and as a member of the opposition in this House. It comes from an education from a triple certificate sister, my mother, Nora McCarthy.
I have put on the record a number of times the images I had as a child and teenager, where my mother was the first to raise a champagne glass to celebrate the bride and groom at a wedding, and the first to take the glass out of the young mother’s hand when she announced her pregnancy.
I then had the opportunity to work in Walgett in the mid-1970s, and discovered what the member for Port Darwin mentioned – the resistance of paediatricians to diagnose foetal alcohol syndrome, or as we now call it, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is classed as a spectrum of disorders. It was explained to me as a neophyte teacher by experienced staff in a red hot disadvantaged school in north western New South Wales, the reason was political because it related directly to the allocation of special education funds for those children. It was systemic resistance.
The minister talks about shame. He should take solace from a constituent we share, Dawn McCarthy. Our youngest foster daughter announced her pregnancy. About a month later the bush telegraph worked to its optimum and word came back to my wife, Dawn McCarthy, that this young woman was in Jackson’s bar surrounded by gentleman and alcohol was readily available on the table. My wife raced down to the hotel. She lectured this young woman and the young men accompanying her. She lectured the bartender, and identified this young woman as never to be served again. She got the nod and the tip of a hat from an old ceremony man, who we know well, on her way out the door. She then mentored that young woman right through her pregnancy, and William George was born about a month ago. That was in response to what you can do, not what you cannot.
I remember a circumstance where the ever eloquent member for Port Darwin was uncharacteristically hung up by a heavyweight journalist on Lateline and made the statement about incarcerating Aboriginal women. That essentially ignited the debate in this House which led to the select committee. I commended the minister then, and I commend him now.
That was how it happened, once again fitting the same MO of the 1970s and 1960s, where nobody wanted to deal with the issue. The minister said there is no diagnostic tool so we cannot start. Of course we can! The minister said the committee did not hand him what he needed, being a definition of incarceration of a mother and child in utero.
Minister, revisit the report because we offered you the Wisconsin law. We looked at a point of law where Wisconsin, in the United States, has a legislative instrument under which they incarcerate pregnant women who are causing harm to their children in utero through the use of alcohol. We presented that …
Mr Elferink: Did you recommend it?
Mr McCARTHY: The committee decided there was far more holistic information for you because the Wisconsin law was just part of the story.
I commend the committee for its courage and diligence to look at the specifics of the issue, particularly relating to the Northern Territory, because we have unacceptable levels of alcohol consumption. We are not quite sure, but if we base any of our decisions on the Fitzroy Valley research, or if we look at Indigenous communities in Canada, then we could be looking at up to 50% of Indigenous children at present affected by alcohol consumption in utero.
The time is now, minister, and time is ticking, as it has been for decades. You have had the opportunity, as a minister of the Crown and the Giles CLP government, to address this.
I acknowledge the committee and the work undertaken. The secretariat was superb, highly professional and took the committee on the road. Madam Chair led the committee and its opposition and Independent members. I am critical of government members who really did not put in and there was a definite bias. There was drive and enthusiasm from Madam Chair, the opposition members and the Independent member and that engaged the Territory community. That was circulated regionally.
I once again acknowledge the groups that turned up in Tennant Creek. That was phenomenal. When you are in your home town nervous that this might not be embraced and see one of the best turnouts on the track, it makes you walk away feeling proud as a local member. They also, as the member for Nelson quoted from the report, embraced the holistic and realistic approach to this, as well as acknowledging the Wisconsin law and that there can be incarceration. That is part of the story of the government of the day – is it serious about addressing this issue?
The committee was a professional outfit. I agree with committee members who have contributed to the debate; the time frame in acknowledging that incredible and hard work is unacceptable.
I also point to the lack of government investment. The member for Wanguri stated clearly there was a very specific agenda to make sure this reached the government benches for a budget Cabinet process but was ignored.
The Minister for Education, in a previous budget, announced $100 000 to continue a Territory-leading project with Anyinginyi Congress in Tennant Creek. That money went through education to Tennant Creek High School. The Stronger Sisters have done some incredible work – now the Stars Foundation. That was a financial commitment, although there was a lot of pressure securing it.
Since then we have not seen anything apart from cost-neutral initiatives, minister. Looking closely fiscally, there is now a $1000 less spend per student in the Northern Territory each year. We are trying to ramp up the investment in education, health, juvenile justice and corrections, and the Education minister leads with a reduction of $1000 per student in the slash-and-burn agenda and efficiency dividends. This is a disgrace and why there are no excuses from this government.
This government has a great opportunity. It is supported in a bipartisan sense, and we presented the opportunity for the budget process. However, we have seen nothing. The CLP is in the budget Cabinet process now. The Chief Minister announced $70m in infrastructure, and nobody is denying that. I do not see too much opposition.
I remember Labor’s stimulus spend that became the envy of the Western world during the global financial crisis, and the policy settings that deliver our wealth and good fortune today. The CLP has adopted exactly the same and nobody is denying that. However, a $70m infrastructure spend when foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, through this holistic approach and the recommendations tabled in the report, is completely ignored is disgraceful.
It is the wrong policy setting. Why is the infrastructure setting so urgent? Because your fiscal management has driven the economy of the Northern Territory down the drain and you have finally admitted it. You are trying to scramble to get back some credibility in an election year.
Members interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: I can hear the interjections from the other side. The truth hurts.
This $70m is one example of money gained through public asset sales. Let us stump up another 70 to look at recommendations in the report handed to this government over 12 months ago which is being debated now. The committee chair made sure it came back to parliament because of its importance.
The Chief Minister, in his shallow, political rhetoric and attacks, talks about Labor policy. He has no idea about our policy development. He has not looked at it, read it, or taken any notice other than the spin created on the fifth floor to give him his punch in media grabs and sound bites.
Michael Gunner, the Leader of the Opposition, has a very comprehensive early childhood policy. The Labor opposition will address these issues directly. We want to make sure that Territory kids are safe and have the best opportunity in their lives.
Our policy setting is already articulated. Everything Cabinet processes will be put through the lens of an early childhood analysis. That is sensible governance, particularly in the Territory where we suffer so much social and economic disadvantage. It is about education, about health, it impacts on juvenile justice, and we know a large percentage of our Correctional Services clients are affected by FASD.
This government is looking at idle excuses to deny and walk away from that. The minister tried to blame the committee, saying it did not deliver. We delivered your Wisconsin law, minister, but you do not have the courage to debate that. You threw it back to opposition benches asking if we would support it. We have provided you with a holistic package to protect Territory children.
The budget for 2016-17 is on the drawing board. There are opportunities and you have a lifeline. It is not about politics or the opposition, but Territory kids. As the member for Wanguri stated, it is not just Indigenous kids. The evidence we collected in Nhulunbuy, which was the wealthy mining town, was pertinent to this debate. It is about education, awareness and understanding from all families of their children.
In Tennant Creek we have identified about 400 children turning four in 2017-18. Last year the Tennant Creek preschool had to deny 20 placements because there was not enough infrastructure, let alone staff. Education was being slashed and burned. Those children who did not attend preschool are in a challenging position without all the prerequisites. They are in formal school Transition without the serious fundamentals.
About 400 more in the community are following. What is the government doing? We are not denying the painting, minor new works or work on air conditioning as it will stimulate the construction sector. There is no guarantee so far of local jobs, but we will hold you to account on that issue.
Where is the big money from the public asset sales, the $500m price tags of the world this Chief Minister, Adam Giles, wants to throw around like confetti when 400 four-year-olds do not have a preschool placement.
If we look at the evidence from Fitzroy Valley in WA, up to 50% could be affected by FASD. That will cause serious cognitive, behavioural, social and emotional challenges for each of those children. It will cause the system to break down. The mainstream primary school system cannot deal with these challenges.
Tonight the government has the opportunity – no more rhetoric or political point scoring. This bipartisan committee has a road map to make a difference so let us see government members react. Let us see an investment in Territory children.
I remember the CLP minister saying its best-practice alcohol policy over the next four years will appropriate $100m. We have seen one chaotic episode after another. There was $3.5m in Tennant Creek for a misguided alcohol policy that has delivered nothing and has left town. I want $5.5m to build a 100-bed family and children drug and alcohol crisis centre on freehold land 10 km east of Tennant Creek. I want to relocate BRADAAG, the accepted and acknowledged alcohol and drug rehabilitation centre, to that site. I want to then free up seven Territory houses in Staunton Street to house Territory families. When BRADAAG operates under this new facility, under statutory referrals or self-referrals, we will treat the family.
This is what the FASD report says and what Congress in Alice Springs outlined. It is about providing stimulation to the family and the child, and treating offending behaviour and drug and alcohol addictions. This can be done in Tennant Creek with an appropriation of way under $10m. Your government crowed three-and-a-half years ago that it would spend $100m. I look forward to estimates this year to see if you have gone near $100m with your chaotic alcohol policy.
Minister, thank you for the opportunity to respond. I am glad you spoke first because there has been an opportunity to see you can do something. On your way out the door, as you ride into the sunset on that beautiful American Harley-Davidson downstairs, please leave a legacy that this report will be addressed. Leave a legacy in the last budget Cabinet and show a serious appropriation to holistically addressing this issue not incarcerating young women. That is part of it. If you want to go down that road, go for it. It will get you back on Lateline.
Minister, you know what we can do. You know paediatricians have been ignoring this and that there will be no real diagnostic tool. You know these issues exist on a spectrum of autism so let us deal with them. Let them call it whatever they like, but let us see a serious investment into child protection, juvenile justice, corrections, health and education because prevention is better than cure. We know what we are up against. We know there are 400 four-year-olds on the outskirts of Tennant Creek ready to start school. We know 8000 Aboriginal kids across the Territory will turn five in 2017-18. We need to do it now, not later.
I have had my say, but am disappointed that I am again lobbying for the same thing.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members who have contributed to the debate. As the member for Nelson said, it is over 12 months since this report was tabled. That was preceded by a lot of work by the committee and the secretariat. An enormous amount of submissions were received from all manner of professionals, departments and individuals. We heard some sad stories from people brave enough to come forward with specific stories about a child or someone in their care. I also thank those people.
If this was such an emergency 12 months or two years ago, why has it taken so long to reach this point? We reached this point today because I asked the other members if they were ready to debate it. It goes to the next stage, which is to accept the recommendations. I am not sure if it was in this parliament or a media comment, but the government said it would accept all the recommendations from this report. I stand corrected if the government did not say that, but I believe it did.
I heard recently – I think it was the Chief Minister – in the media, when asked why it was not being debated, he said, ‘We’re already doing lots of things’. What things are you doing, Chief Minister? It is fine to be high on generalisation, but that was low on substance and specifics.
The report title was intended to impart a sense of hope leading to real action. Looking at FASD and the lifelong effect it has on individuals, families and the community gave the committee ample opportunity for despair. As I said, we heard some very sad stories across the Northern Territory as well as in written correspondence.
There are none more innocent than the unborn, and FASD can condemn children to a life of disability with cognitive and behavioural problems. However, the committee found two reasons for hope and action. First – we all know this and it must be paramount in whatever we say – FASD is preventable, there is no doubt about it. Reducing the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy reduces FASD. No alcohol, no FASD. Second, previous government action to address harmful drinking has resulted in a significant reduction in alcohol consumption. While we still have a long way to go in reducing harm from alcohol in the Northern Territory, we have achieved much in the past.
The per capita consumption of alcohol reduced significantly following the Living With Alcohol Program in the early 1990s, and the introduction of the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework about a decade later. In 2013 it was at its lowest since self-government. Initiatives such as temporary beat locations are also making a significant difference at specific locations, with reductions in alcohol-related violence in some locations of over 50%.
Those who spoke about the temporary beat locations may not agree with the policy or how they operate, but agreed there was a reduction in admissions to hospital and police incidents, and improved school attendance. Clearly there is a direct link between the supply of alcohol and problems arising from overconsumption.
Reducing harmful alcohol consumption reduces FASD. Properly planned and managed, government action can reduce alcohol consumption further. That is the reason the committee made 26 recommendations. All but one recommendation calls for significant change, as they should, because it is a huge problem in our community and society. They are not recommendations to continue the status quo.
While much has been achieved in some areas – and government claims it has done things, but not enough and no specifics – the committee identified a different approach is required. Clearly we are not on top of the problem, and unless we take some dramatic action and put serious resources in we will never get on top of the problem.
I will briefly outline the committee’s recommendations. They fall within two broad categories: how to manage the effects of FASD and how to prevent FASD. A disturbing fact about FASD is its effects are permanent. Once the damage is done there is no cure; however, the outcomes for a person with FASD can improve. Early intervention can change how the damage done by FASD affects a person’s life, and appropriate support can help sufferers manage their disabilities.
We heard submissions and met people who gave us good examples of this occurring with young children going into the school system. The recommendations start with improving diagnosis. At the time of reporting, a national diagnostic instrument was in the late stages of development and the committee recommended that the Department of Health prepare for the effective implementation of that instrument. I ask the government to outline, in its formal response to this report outside the Chamber, what work has been done in that regard.
We know the outcomes for FASD sufferers greatly improve with early intervention. The committee therefore recommended that the government prioritises funding for paediatric diagnosis, psychotherapy and other behavioural management measures, and early childhood support and education services.
Screening for alcohol use during pregnancy is important to help women avoid alcohol when pregnant and ensure FASD-affected babies get help as early as possible. The committee therefore recommended that the Department of Health promotes screening protocols and provides guidelines for referral to women struggling with alcohol use during pregnancy. If the government has done a lot so far, has it done this?
Screening for FASD helps identify sufferers and is another important tool for early intervention. While some witnesses argued for universal screening, it was unclear whether the benefits would outweigh the costs.
The case was compelling, but for targeted FASD screening of high-risk populations the committee recommended that the Department of Health reviews options for FASD screening in the NT. Where is that at, if anywhere at all?
The level of awareness of FASD amongst health professionals was a concern raised with the committee. It is important that professionals treating women of child-bearing age have an adequate awareness of FASD so they can provide appropriate and timely advice and assistance. The committee recommended that the Department of Health undertake and audit of current professional development needs of the workforce in relation to FASD. That important recommendation should be done straightaway.
When it came to reducing harm from FASD, a recurring theme was early childhood support. Programs with a positive impact included those equipping families to better manage the early years, such as the Families as First Teachers program, early childhood education programs such as Abecedarian daycare, and programs supporting new mothers such as the Nurse Family Partnership Program.
Recommendation 7 calls for improved support for caring for children in the first years, particularly for at-risk populations, through these programs. After early childhood come the school years. FASD sufferers can require specialised attention to enable them to effectively learn in a school environment. The cognitive and behavioural problems of some FASD children can also impact on the education of other children in the classroom. We know from other behavioural issues with children the impact it can have in the classroom and other students’ learning.
The Department of Education advised the committee that only 27 students in Northern Territory schools had a formal FASD diagnosis, but believed the number of students with FASD-related learning difficulties to be far higher. We know it is much higher. It cannot possibly be that only 27 students in all Territory schools have FASD. I note they said ‘diagnosed’ FASD. That is why it is so important for governments, professionals, researchers and scientists to get a proper diagnostic instrument to diagnose a FASD-suffering child early.
While the department had recently commenced a range of initiatives to increase staff skills, it was clear more was required to meet the education needs of FASD sufferers. Evidence shows that one advantage of early intervention is that it reduces the number of FASD sufferers who end up on the wrong end of the criminal justice system. For those who do end up in the criminal justice or child protection systems, there remains a need to identify those for whom FASD has caused cognitive and behavioural problems that cannot be adequately managed using standards approaches.
This is a real issue, as the cognitive impairment of some FASD sufferers makes them incapable of responding to the usual management practices. This is a terrible outcome for the sufferer who misses any opportunity for rehabilitation, and a bad outcome for the community as problem behaviours are not addressed.
The committee recommended establishing a multidisciplinary diagnostic service and referral pathway linked to the court, corrections and child protection systems. It also recommended that the Department of Health establish a FASD case management service similar to a model successfully implemented in Canada, where social workers help coordinate the range of services and interventions required to address offending behaviour and enable integration into the community.
The community also identified a shortage of residential secure care facilities and evidence-based behavioural management programs, and recommended that this also be addressed.
It was also evident that a lack of coordination between services already available impeded the effect of prevention and management of FASD. To address this the committee recommended a high-level FASD working group be established with representatives from the Departments of Health, Education, Children and Families, Attorney-General and Justice, Corrections and Police to develop and implement an action plan for sharing information, training and coordination of FASD services.
It was clear in the presentations and representations the committee received that government departments are not talking to each other. They have their own databases and collection of information and are not sharing. When it is as fragmented as that, there is not much hope that we are pointing in the right direction. Having a high-level working group can bring all that data together and work cohesively towards a common goal.
While we must respond appropriately to those already suffering from FASD, the greatest imperative is to prevent FASD in the first place. The committee identified three broad strategies to achieve this. The first strategy was reducing community-wide harmful alcohol consumption through supply and demand control measures. Population level reductions in alcohol consumption will mean reduced alcohol consumption by pregnant women. It will also make it easier for women who wish to reduce their alcohol consumption to do so.
The second strategy was targeting alcohol consumption by pregnant women. Every woman of childbearing age needs to be aware of the damage alcohol can do to a foetus, and pregnant women who have problems with alcohol need assistance to deal with it.
The third strategy was improving family planning. Foetuses in unplanned and unknown pregnancies can be particularly vulnerable to exposure to alcohol. There is no simple solution to harmful alcohol consumption and it has remained a problem across the world and throughout history. However, history shows that a comprehensive approach from government can make a significant difference. One of the best examples of this was the Northern Territory’s Living With Alcohol Program which resulted in a 25% reduction in alcohol consumption, a 34% reduction is alcohol-related road fatalities and savings to the economy of over $124m over four years.
The committee noted a range of current initiatives that were helping to address alcohol consumption, particularly temporary beat locations and alcohol management plans. However, there was no written alcohol policy to manage this issue and coordinate effort across the government. As the greatest gains are achieved through a planned and coordinated approach, the committee recommended that the government develops an alcohol strategic framework that sets targets for reducing alcohol-related harm; provides a mechanism for regular publication of performance data in meeting those targets; includes governance structures to ensure high-level agency coordination and effective stakeholder engagement; and provides mechanisms for the review of alcohol management programs in light of their performance.
To strengthen the Assembly’s role in promoting alcohol management, the committee also recommended that the Assembly set up a standing committee on alcohol and other substance abuse. The member for Wanguri referenced this, and it is a very important recommendation that the government and all in this Chamber should take seriously.
I turn to the supply reduction strategies the committee recommended. The committee recommended that the government continue to support the development and implementation of alcohol management plans. The committee heard support for a minimum floor price for alcohol from a wide range of people as a means of targeting harmful consumption. It was noted that the NT branch of the Australian Hotels Association was not against a minimum floor price due to its potential benefits to the NT community. The hotel industry is not against a floor price.
The committee also supported the call for restricted trading of alcohol at times when the greatest harm from alcohol consumption occurs. As noted already, the committee heard substantial evidence in support of temporary beat locations resulting in noticeable reductions in problem drinking and alcohol-related crime in the locations they were implemented.
Doubts were raised regarding the potential for extending temporary beat locations across the Territory, their cost and sustainability over time, and there were concerns about them having a discriminatory impact. The committee therefore recommended further development of personal point of sale restrictions so that a cost-effective system could be more widely implemented.
In looking at demand reduction, it was noted that there was a lack of family rehabilitation centres. Clients in family programs are more likely to complete the program, and such programs also reduce the long-term harmful effects on children. Importantly for FASD, the lack of family programs prevents some women with children from accessing help. The committee therefore recommended that the government conduct an assessment of the need for family rehabilitation centres. In addition to community-wide alcohol management strategies, the committee found that there was a need for strategies targeting women who are, or may become, pregnant.
The first step in targeting pregnant women is improving awareness of the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant. To this end the committee recommended that government supports further campaigns raising awareness of the dangers of drinking alcohol while pregnant, and appropriate campaigns for Aboriginal communities where considered essential. In this regard awareness is needed for more than just the risks of alcohol. Women also need an improved understanding of all aspects of sexual and reproductive health.
People spoke highly of programs such as the adolescent sexual education program and Core of Life, which provide young people with timely advice on sex and reproduction. The committee recommended that the government ensure that all children receive a culturally appropriate sexual health awareness program.
A key point for raising awareness is information given by health professionals. The committee recommended that the Department of Health ensures that all training of health professionals include information on FASD and risks of drinking while pregnant, and that protocols for antenatal visits include discussions on the risks of drinking alcohol while pregnant.
Awareness of and access to contraception options is also important to assist woman avoid unwanted pregnancies. The committee also recommended that the Department of Health provide programs to assist in this area. For the vast majority of women, awareness of the dangers of drinking while pregnant is all that is required to avoid FASD. However, for women with alcohol dependency further help may be required. The form of help required varies with individual circumstances but can include rehabilitation services, particularly those that provide for families and children, and alcohol-free and safe accommodation. The committee recommended that the Department of Health assesses the need for intervention and support services for alcohol dependent pregnant women.
A difficult issue confronting the committee was how to respond to pregnant women who continue to drink harmful levels of alcohol. The committee took the unanimous view that the government has the responsibility to protect children from harm as far as possible. The committee also agreed that drinking while pregnant should not be criminalised. Members of the committee differed on whether mandatory treatment should be imposed to reduce the harm done to the foetus.
The majority of the committee considered that imposing mandatory treatment would discourage alcohol-dependent women from seeking treatment, therefore causing greater harm than any benefit obtained through mandatory treatment. The majority also considered that the money required to maintain a mandatory treatment system, such as detention facilities and assessment and legal processes, would be better spent reducing the gap in voluntary services. However, one member took a different view and considered that mandatory treatment may be appropriate in such circumstances.
This was the only point on which members could not reconcile their differences. The whole committee agreed to the need for action on the 26 recommendations of the report.
I again thank all those who made submissions to the committee. I thank all the individuals who appeared at the hearings and public forums, and committee members for their work. I also thank the secretariat and Russell Keith for their hard work, as well as other staff who accompanied us on our travels through the Territory.
I commend the report to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
TABLED PAPER
Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Annual Report 2014-15
Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Annual Report 2014-15
Mr HIGGINS (Arts and Museums): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2014-15 annual report of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. This is the first annual report of the MAGNT as a statutory authority under the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Act 2014 and the MAGNT Regulations which commenced on 1 July 2014.
The MAGNT Act established the board of MAGNT as a body corporate entity separate to the NT government, responsible for the management of MAGNT and the venues and services it delivers as prescribed by the regulations, including: the MAGNT Bullocky Point, Darwin; the Defence of Darwin Experience, East Point; Lyons Cottage, The Esplanade, Darwin; Fannie Bay Gaol, Darwin; the Museum of Central Australia, Larapinta Drive, Alice Springs; the Strehlow Research Centre, Larapinta Drive, Alice Springs; and Alcoota Field Station, Anmatjere, Central Australia. On 14 December 2015 the Chan Art Gallery was added to this impressive list.
The act also enabled the board to directly engage with business and the wider community. The report notes that the board met eight times, seven in Darwin and one in Alice Springs. Considerable work has been undertaken to set up the MAGNT as a statutory board body, including the establishment of new financial systems, website redevelopment, and formalisation of relations with organisations within government and externally. The report also demonstrates the ongoing commitment of the MAGNT to maintain the highest standards of excellence in preserving, researching, exhibiting and communicating the record of natural history, art and peoples of the Northern Territory.
The report describes the performance of the MAGNT functions during the 2014-15 year. Its key achievements include:
collaboration with national and local institutions that saw MAGNT host 10 temporary exhibitions, seven of which were internally developed and three touring exhibitions including the 31st national Aboriginal Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander award
Cyclone Tracy 40th anniversary marked by major enhancements to the Cyclone Tracy exhibition, including interactive and research components and an 8 m railway signal tower that was bent in half by the force of the wind in that cyclone
the NT field guide application that won the Chief Minister’s Award for Excellence in the Public Sector for enhancing culture and lifestyle. This free app features information, photos and sounds of more than 600 species of creatures from across the Territory
It also notes the announcement of the repurposing of the Chan Building to a world-class visual arts gallery, for which planning commenced immediately.
The establishment of a strong, transparent and independent MAGNT board aligns with the Territory government’s Framing the Future blueprint, specifically the confident culture, strong society and prosperous economic objectives.
I congratulate and thank the MAGNT members and staff on their success in establishing a strong foundation for the MAGNT to grow. They have all done a wonderful job and there is much to look forward to as we move into the next phase of cultural investment for Territorians, providing great facilities and planning for the future for the good of the Northern Territory.
MOTION
Note Paper – Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Annual Report 2014-15
Note Paper – Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory Annual Report 2014-15
Mr HIGGINS (Arts and Museums): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Associate Professor Sue Sayers, a principal research fellow at the Menzies School of Health Research, has dedicated over 40 years of service to the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research to improve the health of Northern Territory children. I was saddened to receive news of Sue’s recent diagnosis of terminal cancer, and I am very pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Sue and her remarkable achievements.
Sue is a paediatrician who has specialised in the medical care of newborn babies, and was the only paediatrician at the Royal Darwin Hospital when Cyclone Tracy struck in 1974. In desperate conditions she supervised the care of many seriously injured children and the evacuation of newborn babies.
Concerned about the long-term health consequences of low birth weights amongst Aboriginal babies, Sue established the Aboriginal birth cohort study at Menzies School of Health Research in 1987. This is the world’s largest and longest birth cohort study of Indigenous child health. It began in Darwin and continues to attract national and international recognition.
The study has followed the growth and development of 686 Aboriginal babies born at the Royal Darwin Hospital between 1987 and 1990. Sue examined the babies within four days of their birth and interviewed their mothers about their health and lifestyle. Since then she has monitored the group through adolescence and into adulthood, and is now monitoring a second generation, the children of the original cohort.
Working as an honorary clinical researcher at the Menzies School of Health Research, Sue’s study is pivotal in understanding how low birth weights may be a factor in chronic disease amongst the adult Indigenous population, especially heart and renal disease and diabetes. Her research confirms that the risk of chronic disease amongst this cohort greatly increases if they become obese adults. In Sue’s words, ‘This provides a window of opportunity into childhood to prevent the development of chronic disease’. The research findings can assist health professionals and policy makers in deciding when to intervene to prevent adult disease.
In 2014 Sue pursued her vision to bridge the gap between research outcomes and knowledge translation through community engagement and education by establishing the Menzies HealthLAB project. Through the HealthLAB project, Sue’s legacy has been to create a permanent vehicle to increase awareness and encourage ownership of the consequences of lifestyle choices on later personal health, and make a lifelong and significant difference to the health and wellbeing of Northern Territory people.
Sue committed her time and energy mentoring young people and pioneering the HealthLAB concept in NT schools, public events, government and non-government entities. She believed that the most opportune time to instil health and lifestyle education is during early childhood.
Sue was a state finalist in the Australian of the Year Award 2012 and a state finalist in the Senior Australian of the Year Award in 2013.
I thank Sue for her significant, decades-long, tireless contribution, dedication and great service to child health in the Northern Territory through service delivery, research and leadership over the years. She has inspired and made a long-lasting and significant impression on so many people, and her legacy will continue through the Menzies HealthLAB.
I also acknowledge Dr James Scattini, a Katherine resident, who will retire after providing 50 years of health service to the people of the Katherine region. In fact, I think he already retired some time ago.
Dr Jim Scattini transferred to Katherine Hospital as a junior resident doctor in October 1966 – one year after I was born – to join Dr Peter Short who was the only doctor in Katherine at that time. Dr Scattini and his colleague looked after a 77-bed hospital, including on-call 24/7 services.
Dr Scattini’s dedication and service to the Katherine Hospital is reflected in the 1972 report of the Northern Territory Legislative Council Committee of Inquiry into Health Services. The report described Katherine Hospital as a ‘remarkably fine hospital’, providing a better service than many of a similar size interstate, and the best established in the Northern Territory due to meeting the needs of the community it served.
Dr Scattini continued to work at the Katherine Hospital until 1972 before deciding to open his own general practice, Kintore Clinic. Dr Scattini has continued to support the Katherine Hospital in a part-time, on-call basis for 45 years. Dr Scattini formally withdrew from the obstetrics service in 2011 but continued to provide anaesthetics and endoscopies at Katherine Hospital until 2012.
Over 45 years, Dr Scattini has helped deliver thousands of babies in the Katherine region, and community members affectionately refer to children delivered by Dr Scattini as ‘Scatt babies’.
Dr Scattini is notable for his ongoing and selfless service in challenging conditions and his clinical and procedural acumen, and demonstrates the epitome of rural generalist medicine.
Dr Scattini retired after 50 years of service for the Department of Health. A civic celebration service was held on 29 January 2016 to honour Dr James (Jim) Scattini.
I am also pleased to acknowledge Mrs Flora Garcia in her retirement. Flora was born, educated and married in the Philippines, where she and her husband had three children – two girls and a boy. Flora and her family moved to Darwin in the mid-1980s where the children were raised and educated in Malak.
Flora started work at the Royal Darwin Hospital stores department in December 1985 as an inventory officer. During her time at Royal Darwin Hospital, Flora played a key role in the transition from a manual stores system to an electronic system which is still used today. Flora held the role of local purchasing officer within the stores department of the Royal Darwin Hospital for the past 15 years and was very well liked by staff and local suppliers.
Flora was also an active member of the local Philippines community group.
Flora retired on 27 January 2016 after more than 30 years of service to the people of the Northern Territory. She has relocated with her husband of 45 years to Queensland. Flora will be sorely missed by all and we wish her well in her retirement. I commend and congratulate Flora for her dedicated service over 31 years.
I am also pleased tonight to acknowledge Mrs Denise Ah-Sam in her retirement. On 4 March 2016, Mrs Denise Ah-Sam retired from the Royal Darwin Hospital, Top End Health Service after more than 45 years of service.
Denise commenced her career with the Department of Health in 1969 in the sisters’ kitchen at the old Darwin Hospital at Myilly Point. Denise transferred to the laundry department in 1970 and then moved to the domestic service department in 1975.
It was in 1982 when Denise moved to the food service department that she stamped her mark. Denise was promoted to supervisor within Royal Darwin Hospital food services in 1992, where she worked diligently until her retirement.
During her career, Denise raised four children and is now a grandmother to six. Denise will remain in Darwin and hopes to do some travelling in the future.
I commend and congratulate Denise for her dedicated, long-standing and outstanding service over 45 years to the people of the Northern Territory.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I ask the government where on earth is the Power and Water Corporation’s 2014-15 annual report? It is 15 March 2016 and we are yet to see an annual report from the Power and Water Corporation, which is extremely unusual to say the least.
Most of the annual reports are produced a few months after the end of financial year, and a huge number of annual reports are deemed into this parliament on the last sitting night of the year. I remind the government that under section 44 of the Government Owned Corporations Act, there are certain expectations about annual reports of government-owned corporations. The Power and Water Corporation is one such corporation.
Last year in the Auditor-General’s opinion and report to the Treasurer on the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for the year ending 30 June 2015, there were some issues of great concern about the Power and Water Corporation and its financial information. In the Auditor-General’s opinion of the public non-financial corporation section, on the basis of disclaimer, under the heading of ‘Inability to form an opinion – Power and Water Corporation’, the Auditor-General wrote:
… I had not received financial statements for Power and Water Corporation and its controlled entities that were sufficiently complete to enable me to form an audit opinion on the financial statements of Power and Water Corporation, its controlled entity, Indigenous and Essential Services Pty Ltd or the consolidated group.
Later in this disclaimer of opinion, the Auditor-General went on to say:
- … because of the significance of the matters described …
- I was not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the financial information attributable to the Power and Water Corporation to provide a basis for an audit opinion on the balance sheet as at 30 June 2015, the comprehensive operating statement, the statement of changes in equity and the cash flow statement for the year ended for the Public Non-Financial Corporation Sector.
However, Jacana Energy has produced an annual report for the 2014-15 year. When you go to the Auditor-General’s independent audit report to the Board of Directors on the power and retail corporation within that annual report, you see questions about the basis of qualified opinion. I quote directly from the letter from the Auditor-General:
- A loan balance of $21,491,000 to Power and Water Corporation is disclosed within the total trade and payables balance of $88,311,000 recorded on the Statement of Financial Position as at 30 June 2015. Of the amount payable to Power and Water Corporation, I was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the completeness, existence or validity of $8,700,000 as management did not have the financial information to substantiate the elements comprising the amount. Consequently, I am unable to determine whether any adjustments to these amounts were necessary.
We are in the March parliamentary sittings and I put the question to the Treasurer and the new Minister for Essential Services: where on earth is the annual report for the Power and Water Corporation? When the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation took place we continued to warn the government – and tried to hold it to account – that it was not ready to ram it through at that pace. It was clearly not ready for that structural separation. As a result we are now in a situation where these separated corporations and the main body, the Power and Water Corporation, cannot produce the financial information that is required. People need to understand why the corporation has not yet produced an annual report for this parliament.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like the government to tell me when we will see this annual report. What is going on? Given the commitment the government gave to the Territory about what this structural separation would achieve for the Power and Water Corporation, when will we see this annual report so we can see open and transparent financial reporting on the government-owned corporation?
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was lucky to be invited for a third year to be the emcee for the Australia Day Fun Day held at the Palmerston pool. I will speak about this and other events held in the Palmerston area for Australia Day.
The Australia Day Fun Day was held at the Palmerston pool from 9 am to midday on Australia Day and offered free and fun activities to the Palmerston community, including a sausage sizzle, water rackety, a climbing wall, jumping castle, fresh muffins and fruit, games such as thong throwing and eat your way around a SAO biscuit, refreshments and lots more.
The Palmerston Australia Day Committee organised and paid for the event. Mr Maurie Johnson, the chair of the committee, was very happy with the turnout and said a good time was had by all. He was joined in running the event by his wife, Bev Johnson; Maggie Schoenfisch, a dedicated committee member; Kath Cockroft, who prepared food for the morning tea; the lovely Jayne Porter, who worked tirelessly on the barbecue; Mary Olif, who was our dedicated Chupa Chups lady; as well as many other helpers. Mr Johnson made special mention of Gayle McQuinn, who made the beautiful Australia Day cake.
In addition to the Palmerston Australia Day Committee, other organisations made a valuable contribution to the event, including Health NT which provided the climbing wall and jumping castle, the YMCA of the Top End which ran the pool, and Spud Murphy who provided and set up the sound system.
The Lions Club of Palmerston did a fantastic job running the sausage sizzle. I thank club members Connell and Coralie Brannelly, Tynan Garrett and Sarah Watkins, who turned up to give everyone a feed.
It is the efforts of all the volunteers and organisations that make this event so popular year after year. It was extremely well attended and everyone had a wonderful time and lots of fun. It was great to see the Country Liberals candidate for Drysdale, Ben Hosking, out and about meeting Palmerston residents.
After the Fun Day I attended the City of Palmerston citizenship ceremony, joined by my colleagues Nathan Barrett, Peter Chandler, Natasha Griggs and Ben Hosking. The ceremony was held from 1 pm to 2 pm at the Palmerston Recreation Centre and was followed by an afternoon tea for all those who attended. The event included a flag-raising ceremony, a citizenship ceremony and the presentation of community awards. There was also musical entertainment by Kevin McCarthy and the Territorians, and Shellie Morris.
I congratulate the 33 conferees who became Australian citizens at that ceremony. I also congratulate all the exceptional nominees and winners of the Student Citizen Award, Citizen of the Year Award, Young Citizen of the Year Award, and Community Event of the Year Award.
My colleague Peter Chandler was invited to present the Student Citizen Award on behalf of the Chief Minister. This award recognises students who show a sense of fair play, generosity of spirit, concern for others, cultural understanding, a positive attitude and an involvement within the school and wider community. I am exceedingly proud to report to the Assembly that all the students who won the Student Citizen Award are students from schools in Drysdale and the newly-created electorate of Spillett.
Chloe Morton from Durack Primary School received the award for 2016, as did Kayleen Vanua from Gray Primary School, Alysha Pope from McKillop College, Matilda Mahony from Palmerston Christian College and Tabitha May from Palmerston Christian Middle School.
The winner of the Palmerston Citizen of the Year for 2016 was Rachel Fosdick, who has been a driving committee member of the Palmerston Power Basketball Club for six years. Rachel has been involved in organising fundraising, training and game days, along with many other things. She co-founded the Palmerston and Rural Basketball Association and has organised the Hoops program, a basketball clinic for Under 8s, and the Palmerston Power basketball school holiday clinics. Her dedication and hard work has made her an invaluable committee member and a great mentor to the young people of Palmerston. I will make a separate adjournment contribution about Rachel later this week.
The winner of the Palmerston Young Citizen of the Year for 2016 was Venaska Cheliah. Venaska is a member of the Chief Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians, a volunteer with the Down Syndrome Association of the NT, Shout Out Youth NT, the Rotary Club of Litchfield Palmerston and teaches dance to children for the Tamil Society. She does all of this while studying her second year of Medicine at Flinders Medical through Charles Darwin University, while advocating for the addition of eating disorder specialty beds at RDH. I congratulate Venaska and commend her passion for helping the community.
The winner of the Palmerston Community Event of the Year for 2016 was the Palmerston Senior Songsters. The songsters are a group of seniors ranging from 60 to 91 years of age who practice and perform in Palmerston and Darwin on a weekly basis. The group performs at nursing homes and palliative care, and at community events, while choosing and learning a new theme each month. This month’s theme is Irish music in honour of St Patrick’s Day. The Palmerston Senior Songsters’ music brings joy and happiness to many people in the community, and I thank them for their contribution, especially Marg Moore who runs the group, Kim Low Choy who provides accompaniment, Marg Lee who is in charge of programming, Margot Cox who is the group’s historian, Lucy Aylett, a dedicated member, and Rob and June Roos who provide support in the form of a sound system.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I again thank everyone who made Australia Day in Palmerston memorable. The well-run events and great turnout are an indication of the strong community spirit present in Palmerston, and our deep affection for what it is to be Australian.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to put on the record the serious concerns about the rise in alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in the Casuarina area and the northern suburbs more broadly.
This issue will not be of surprise to the CLP government, given that my colleagues and I have raised this on a number of occasions inside and outside this House, and the number of times many local members have contacted police or the frequency with which police attend to issues around our local areas and businesses.
The Casuarina police do an incredible job. I am grateful for them, as are my colleagues. Our local police are proactive and responsive to the issue we have raised.
The latest issue I raised was increasing concerns in Casuarina about antisocial behaviour and the number of people who are being moved on from retail, business and community precincts. This is often being managed by building managers, security guards and retailers themselves, who are also often bearing the cost of damage to their premises.
Antisocial behaviour has been raised by local stakeholders in Casuarina directly with the government. As has been previously raised in this House, it resulted in a media release from the now Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Sanderson and the now Minister for Young Territorians, the member for Blain, on 24 April 2015. The media release was about funding to our local youth service, The SHAK, but it also contained information about a group called the Casuarina business advisory group, which the government was apparently working very hard with and would be meeting regularly.
I understand the Casuarina business advisory group has not met again since their first meeting in July …
Mr Styles: Not true! Your information is incorrect.
Ms MOSS: If you let me finish – I pick up on the interjection. I asked in parliament last year – no response. I asked in a letter to the Minister for Business – no response. I have now submitted a written question to try to confirm whether this is the case. Hopefully we can get some information from the Minister for Business about how often that group has met. Important stakeholders have told me that has not occurred. I am interested to know what has happened and what the follow-up has been.
The antisocial behaviour is occurring in Casuarina, Nightcliff, Wanguri and Johnston. I am hearing stories from Malak as well. It is hurting people and business. The CLP has created the conditions for making this worse. Not only did it scrap the BDR, but also shut down the police shopfront inside Casuarina Square. I understand it has now shut down the police beat in the Casuarina area as well. The police beat was a paid commitment by the Labor government of four additional police to patrol the area and deal with antisocial behaviour. I understand the beat is now gone and has been absorbed into general duties. I also understand the number of police at Casuarina has been reduced as well.
The CLP also shut down the Nightcliff police beat and broke its promise of 24-hour premises there. As a direct result of all this, under the CLP we once again hear day after day about alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in reserves and around our shops and offices. Police have visited businesses in Hibiscus, and the member for Johnston sees them regularly around the Rapid Creek shops and his office.
Quite frankly, people are sick of it. It has reached a point where community groups have come to me and told me they are concerned to use my community room at night because they feel unsafe. This is outrageous. Imagine how I felt being told that by a community group. I am concerned about that. I want groups who use my community facilities to feel safe and secure. I want my staff and people who work in the government agencies and community services in our building to feel safe. It is hard not to feel that way when it is reaching fever pitch outside and we come to the office to find blood and vomit outside in a shared walkway between government agencies and community services. It is not on.
The CLP needs to restore the police beat patrol to Casuarina and to increase the police resources in the area, not decrease them. It is time for the NT to have an alcohol and other drug strategy, which was a recommendation by the ice committee of which I was a member. Surely it should not take a committee to tell this government that its lack of a strategy is driving crime upwards. There is a reference in the plan to tackle ice through a research strategy. However, the government needs to be clear and open with the public about what that means, what it will cover, what it wants to achieve and what resources will be attributed to it.
Local residents and stakeholders in Casuarina regularly refer to the Banned Drinker Register, a Territory-wide measure which police said was a powerful tool in addressing alcohol-related violence in our community.
There is a range of youth and community services which have also suffered under this CLP government. They play an incredibly important role in minimising harm and risk in our community. They have been defunded or have had their funds cut severely. They must be valued as partners.
The CLP government has also shown no interest in doing a follow-the-grog audit. I suggest doing so would be very telling about what is occurring in the northern suburbs.
There must be a thorough review of police resources. These are just a few of the things that could be done quickly, and need to be done with some urgency.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, our community needs these issues to be taken seriously.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I share with the Minister for Education and my parliamentary colleagues a letter that was copied to me. It is from a teacher I know and have had the privilege of supporting over a number of years who is separating from the Department of Education after many years of work in the bush.
The initial question they asked was, ‘Should I send this letter to Mr Ken Davies, the CEO of Education?’ My response was, ‘Yes, you should’. Ken and I have known each other for a long time and I am sure Ken will take this in good faith. However, it is a very challenging letter and I hope the Minister of Education shares this with the CEO of Education because there can be a lot of lessons learned. The opening paragraph sets the scene, ‘Working within Aboriginal communities can be tragic yet wonderful, extremely humorous and soul-searching. Working with management has sadly nearly always been soul-destroying and belittling. Attending many professional development courses, meetings and intensive workshops, never at any time did they ask, ‘What are you doing? What is working and why is it working? How can we build upon this?’
I will not read the letter in its entirety. It is essentially a cry for acknowledgment of the vast experience, talent and the expertise of our teaching sector across the Northern Territory. Those teachers who have served over decades are focused on the agenda of re-engaging the parents and significant adults in the school and education processes through relevant governance and the students through curriculum initiatives.
This teacher has an arts background and is trained and well-versed in the arts. I witnessed this teacher working in a multigrade primary school environment, a secondary environment, a special education environment and an advisory environment over many years. The example is not one of a normal curriculum program; it is of significant curriculum enhancement.
An example of that is the partnership with the Bell Shakespeare company, which delivered in Tennant Creek over a number of years major performances to audiences in excess of 500. I was privileged to support those performances, workshops and programs and can testify that this was significant engaging work. It was based on the premise of arts in education and was at a high level. When the Bell Shakespeare company includes Tennant Creek High School in its annual program over a number of years – I can remember at least five years – that is a significant partnership addressing regional and remote education.
The teacher talked about the negativity from the department. There are quotes saying, ‘Put Macbeth away, just put it away’. There is real soul searching and a cry for help in the letter. I am sure Mr Davies will understand that level of emotion and ignore the criticism but take on the meaning and substance of these recommendations.
The teacher talked about the production of literature, narrative stories, publishing stories, disadvantaged students – one Year 12 student sleeping in a car, which I know to be true and not an exaggeration – and how this arts-in-education process engaged that student who completed Year 12 that year.
There is a very powerful message in the letter which talks about relationship with community and how the bureaucracy and the department need to acknowledge that in better ways of doing and learning.
The partnership increased and developed with this teacher as she went on to become a project officer for a multilingual learners program. We are talking about a partnership interstate in Queensland and a major partnership with the Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation. I have witnessed Eric Brace’s work in Tennant Creek over a number years, and it is a powerful national community framework that has delivered many important outcomes.
Once again, this teacher is challenging this department’s view, support and acknowledgement of this rich arts-in-education approach to engagement, and articulates many of the concerns in the letter.
The teacher talked about service in a very challenging remote school which I know very well, once again seeing an approach where people did not value the opportunities or understand the what-works principle and were struggling. Knowing this school well, there is no doubt that at that time there were significant challenges that needed a new and fresh approach to be researched and acknowledged regarding what new staff, new ideas and a what-works approach could deliver.
It is not a low-level approach; it is well researched. The teacher has amazing partnerships. We can talk about the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, the University of Melbourne and data analysis at the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority. It is a teacher who knew what she was doing and tried to create that level of acknowledgement, valuing and, at the grassroots school level, support in delivery.
This teacher then outlined for Mr Davies, the CEO, the national benchmarks and how there can be new ways of doing things in the education system, and the inclusion of creative curriculum, cultural initiatives and new governance principles for engaging parents, family and significant adults.
She then outlined being undervalued. The teacher talked about being made fun of at times – soul-destroying images emerge in this extensive letter – and consequently becoming disengaged.
It documents well a journey to the end with a formal separation, as the teacher has raised her daughter in the bush in the Territory and she is now in high school and has moved interstate. She defines a bereavement process. I see this letter to Mr Davies as crying out. It should be taken in good faith.
The last part I want to talk about is work at a small, one-teacher school in the Barkly, and a narrative the teacher has documented. It was an arts-in-education project around developing narratives. Here is a very brief quote from a student’s work, 'Slowly everyone walks home past the basketball court, the old clothesline and the little blue tin shed. Lonely dogs in the distance cry to the moon. Cockatoo, Ninka, wake up the morning with a big meeting, saying, “This land gotta get right”.’
Minister, I hope you have the opportunity to share that correspondence from a person who provided great service to NT education, who operated at an extremely high level and had an amazing array of national contacts and brought them to the NT. I hope the department takes this in good faith and that the CEO and the minister understand this letter is reflecting a significant bereavement process.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I hope we get that teacher back one day. I hope we pick up on a lot of that good advice. I thank her sincerely for her great service to the Northern Territory and wish her all the best in the new chapter of her life down south.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about a day during the year when we recognise the wonderful cultural and religious diversity we have in Australia, especially in the Northern Territory.
Harmony Day is acknowledged on 21 March. This day has been celebrated in Australia since 1999. On this day we remember and celebrate the cultural and religious diversity within our great country. Our diversity includes around 44% of people who were either born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas. Wonderfully, more than 270 ancestries are identified in this country.
Inclusiveness, respect and sense of belonging for everyone is not only a strong characteristic of our nation, but also for us living in the NT. This is a day for all of us to embrace cultural diversity and share what we have in common.
The timing of Harmony Day is scheduled to coincide with the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The United Nations General Assembly decided to nominate this day to remember what happened in Sharpeville, South Africa, on 21 March 1960. Sadly, 69 people were killed and 180 injured when the police fired on a peaceful demonstration of people who were protesting against the apartheid laws of South Africa at that time. This action of the then South African government was internationally criticised.
In Australia we have federal and state laws which have been enacted for the elimination of discrimination. In the Northern Territory we have a particularly rich, diverse and inclusive multicultural community that we can all be proud of. Our cultural and linguistic diversity has been strengthened and our society enriched through the members of many multicultural groups which call the Northern Territory their home.
In the Territory we encourage and value the principles of tolerance and respect. We recognise and value the social, cultural, political and economic contributions of our established and newly-emerging multicultural communities. We are committed to continuing to support initiatives that strengthen these communities and maintain social cohesion. We condemn and negate any forms of racism that we become aware of.
Nominating and having an annual Harmony Day is an opportunity to remember, promote and celebrate our multicultural country. The central message for all of us on this day is that everyone belongs, reinforcing the importance of inclusiveness to all Australians.
As the Minister for Multicultural Affairs in the Northern Territory, I am especially proud to hold this portfolio and to meet members of many multicultural communities at Harmony Day events organised by many different community and government organisations.
In the Northern Territory, apart from functions held around Harmony Day in March, our multicultural groups also come together for big events in May that are held in Darwin and Alice Springs. In Alice Springs, there is the Big Day Out, a Harmony Day event held on Saturday 14 May. In Darwin on Saturday 28 May the Harmony Soiree celebrates our cultural diversity and encourages cultural inclusion by bringing together many different cultures and traditions in the one location at the Darwin waterfront for our community to enjoy. These events are a showcase of the vibrant and diverse multicultural communities we have both in Alice Springs and in Darwin.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all of these multicultural communities who share and celebrate these cultures with Territorians.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I provide an update of some of the things that have been occurring in my local schools, particularly with regard to the announcement of students in leadership roles.
I will start with Nhulunbuy Christian College and its student leadership team. It acknowledged its elected 2016 student leadership team at a school assembly which I was very privileged to be a part of on Wednesday 2 March. I thank the principal, Lara Hvala, who does a wonderful job, for extending a kind invitation to me to attend and make some of the presentations.
I offer my congratulations to each student on their successful election, and very best wishes for the year to come. I place those students’ names on the record.
At Nhulunbuy Christian College, the middle school captains are Shae Dentith and Oliver Veale. The primary school captains are Emma Pickford and Timothy Bowden. The student representative for Year 10 is Lara Stimson; Year 9 is Tahlia Gronn; Year 8 is Hayden Pickford; Year 7 is Eva Hvala; and for Year 6 are Joey Holmes and Tia Hutton.
Their house captain for Shadrach is Pauline Lamboa and vice captain is Ciara Arkcoll. The Meshach captain is Isabel Blundell and vice captains Jordan Tavares-Williams and Hannah Fourie. The Abednego captain is Abbe Ayres and vice captain is Olivia Marchesi.
Congratulations to those students at Nhulunbuy Christian College.
Nhulunbuy High School recently announced its SRC and captains for 2016. I congratulate each student and wish to place their names on the record, noting that the captains and vice captains are yet to be announced.
Congratulations to the following SRC representatives: Year 7A, Noah Canobie and Amy Hughes; Year 7B, Kai Mooney and Bridie Stott; Year 8A, Claire Harris and Quade Te Oka; Year 8B, La Mon Forbes and Denzel Shine; Year 9A, Ella Graham and Will Smith; Year 9B, Matewai Campbell, Harry Parfitt, Harry Pitkin and Siena Stubbs; Year 10, Serina O’Conner and Wally Willis; Year 11A, Mollie Graham and Joel Morris; Year 11A VET, Dannii Tawhi and Josh Winderlich; Year 12, Elise Anderson and Callum Brett; and the Annexe, Jaylin Perry-Maymuru. The school captains are Savanne Canobie and Riley Neenen, who I know will do a fabulous job as Year 12 student leaders.
These students are clearly held in high regard by their peers, school community and teachers to have been elected into these roles. With it comes important responsibility. I wish them well with those duties and with the year ahead in 2016.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, Nhulunbuy Primary School will be holding an assembly very soon to announce and recognise its elected Student Representative Council members as well as house captains. I hope when that date comes around I am available to attend.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016