DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.

MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR Message No 9

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 9 from Her Honour the Administrator notifying assent to bills passed during the October sittings. The message is dated 30 November 2017.

VISITORS

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 students from MacKillop Catholic College, accompanied by their teachers, Tom Zagami and Daisy Farnham. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Members: Hear, hear!

APPOINTMENT TO ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise the House that upon written advice received from the Member for Araluen and under Standing Order 181, the Assembly appointed the Member for Araluen to the Estimates Committee, effective from the time I received the nomination on 31 October 2017. I table a copy of the letter.

REVIEW OF SITTING DATES 2018

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been approached by the government to review the meeting days scheduled for February 2018. I have revised the schedule accordingly and I table my media release outlining the change. You can review the revised calendar for sittings dates at the Department of Legislative Assembly’s website.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE Member for Arafura

Ms FYLES (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 224, I move a leave of absence be granted to the Member for Arafura today.

Leave granted.

ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ORDER

Ms FYLES (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the Administrative Arrangements Order published in the Northern Territory Gazette No S78 dated 6 November 2017.

ICAC SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPORT

Ms AH KIT (Karama): Madam Speaker, I table the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee’s report on its inquiry into the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill 2017 and associated minutes of proceedings. Pursuant to Standing Order 200(4), this report was sent to the Speaker and made public on Wednesday, 15 November.

This is the first bill to be referred to a scrutiny committee for inquiry and report under the new committee system. While at times challenging, this proved to be an extremely informative and worthwhile process. The committee’s examination of the bill was greatly enhanced by the advice and suggestions of all those who provided submissions and appeared before the committee. All of the submissions were generally supportive of the bill. Indeed, witnesses commended the government for introducing the legislation.

The committee was particularly pleased that commissioners from Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania gave of their time and experience by making submissions and speaking to the committee. The insights of those already heading similar anti-corruption bodies were extremely helpful and further highlighted the value of opening up the parliament to the people and increasing participation in the legislative process.

On behalf of the committee, I also thank the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, in particular Ms Caroline Heske who provided comprehensive responses to the committee’s written questions. The

1

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 committee also acknowledges the considerable amount of work undertaken by the Attorney-General and her department in the development of the exposure draft, the consultation process and subsequent redrafting of the bill.

Developing an ICAC is a complex matter. It was clear, hearing from experienced commissioners elsewhere, that getting many of the polity settings and process right is an ongoing challenge. Other jurisdictions have continued to amend their legislation in response to their experience.

The committee’s inquiry has provided a valuable opportunity to use the experience and insights of others to further refine the bill. The committee notes that the bill aligns with - and largely implements - all but two of commissioner Martin’s recommendations as detailed in his May 2016 anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission inquiry report to the Administrator.

The bill also repeals the Public Interest Disclosure Act and encompasses the functions that, to date, have been undertaken by the Office of the Commissioner of Public Interest Disclosure. As such, the bill provides for an anti-corruption watchdog that is tailored to the unique circumstances of the Northern Territory.

The committee has recommended that the Assembly pass this significant legislation with the proposed amendments as set out in the schedule in chapter four of the report. The majority of these amendments go to ensuring that the bill is unambiguous and drafted in a sufficiently clear and precise manner.

Submissions to the inquiry also raise some important policy questions, most of these were resolved for the committee by the bill following the policies recommended in the Martin Report. However, there were a couple of points where the bill went beyond the recommendations of Commissioner Martin, most notably in relation to the rights and liberties of Individuals and the role of parliamentary privilege. As a consequence, the committee has recommended some changes to more closely align the bill with Commissioner Martin’s recommendations.

There are risks in creating an ICAC; there is the risk of unfairly harming reputations, interfering with the criminal justice system, undermining a person’s rights under that system or weakening our system of democratic government by interfering with the independence of the judiciary or the legislator. These are not simple or small matters; they are issues on which there is widespread agreement at the level of principle but on which there is debate on where some lines should be drawn. These issues are discussed at length in the report and submissions and were considered in the drafting of the bill. They are issues which the Martin Report gave detailed consideration to and as I have already noted, the committee supports the approaches taken in the bill as far as they follow that report’s recommendations.

Unfortunately, one such issue has been simplified and misrepresented in the media, so warrants some further clarification. The role of an ICAC investigating members of parliament is a difficult issue because it is vital that members are both publicly accountable for their conduct and that the parliament operates to represent the people free from interference.

The bill proposes that the ICAC should be able to investigate alleged corrupt conduct by an MLA and the committee agreed. The bill proposes that the ICAC should be able to investigate alleged misconduct by an MLA and the committee agreed. The bill proposes that the ICAC should be able to investigate anti-democratic conduct by an MLA and the committee agreed. The bill also proposes that the ICAC should be able to investigate alleged unsatisfactory conduct by an MLA; this includes investigating whether an MLA’s conduct falls below the appropriate standards of negligence or competence for an MLA.

In addressing the question of where to draw the line between preventing interference with the parliament and allowing investigation of serious matters, Bret Walker SC advised that allegations of criminal misconduct by members as such can reasonably be regarded as appropriate to be considered by the proposed ICAC, whereas conduct of members as such calling for censure without being criminal can reasonably be regarded as inappropriate for consideration by the proposed ICAC rather than the Legislative Assembly itself. On this matter, the committee agreed with Mr Walker that the ICAC’s power to investigate MLAs should not be extended to include conduct that is not criminal.

In closing, I commend the minister for bringing this important piece of legislation to the Assembly and to those who participated in the inquiry and made their views known to the committee. The strength of this review process is in the contributions and insights that the public bring to the committee. Finally, I thank the members of the committee for their bipartisan commitment to the legislative review process. I move that the report be noted.

2

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Ms NELSON (Katherine): I start by acknowledging and thanking the Chair of the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee and the Member for Karama, Ngaree Ah Kit, my fellow committee members, the secretary and support staff and in particular, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice staff that provided support.

The report presented today details the committee’s findings regarding its examination of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Bill 2017. This bill aligns with Commissioner Martin’s recommendations and implements all but two, as detailed in his 2016 report to the Administrator. The bill also repeals the Public Interest Disclosure Act and encompasses a set of functions that to date have been undertaken by the Office of the Commissioner of Public Interest Disclosures.

As a member of the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee, I support the recommendation that the Assembly pass this significant piece of legislation with the proposed amendments as set out in the schedule in Chapter 4. Several submissions to the inquiry raised some very important policy questions. There were a couple of points where the committee felt that the bill went beyond the recommendations of Commissioner Martin, particularly in relation to the rights and privileges of individuals and the role of parliamentary privilege. As a consequence, the committee recommended some changes to more closely align the bill with Commissioner Martin’s recommendations.

I draw the Assembly’s attention to Recommendation 10. The committee recommends that Clause 12 be amended to read as follows: Despite subsection 1, unsatisfactory conduct does not include any conduct engaged in by a judicial officer in the performance of judicial functions or by a member of the Legislative Assembly.

This recommendations was discussed at length during committee deliberation meetings. I personally sought clarification regarding this clause and the proposed amendments. The recommendation presented by the committee does not exempt MLAs from being investigated for serious matters of corruption or conduct leading to an act of corruption. The clause merely states that there are existing parliamentary protocols that we are governed by and that deal with acts of misconduct.

I reiterate the Chair’s statement. It is unfortunate that this particular clause has been misunderstood, and I must say with absolute great disappointment, by a member of our own committee.

In principle I support the committee’s recommendation to amend clause 12. As MLAs there must be provisions for us to be able to do our day-to-day business and to be governed by our existing parliamentary protocols in matters relating to misconduct. There are several examples provided by the previous CLP government that displayed misconduct no matter how distasteful or considered to be morally and ethically corrupt, which is opinion not defined by law by definition of corruption were not actual acts of corruption. In saying that though, I do agree that there must be some flexibility for the ICAC to seize an opportunity to investigate a claim when the opportunity presents itself.

I also can see that the clause proposed by the committee may have been poorly constructed and in hindsight an extension of time should have been requested which would allow the committee to properly construct the clause so that it provided clarity to every person reading it.

I commend the Attorney-General, my caucus colleagues for their support and commitment in delivering the significant legislation. It is a piece of legislation that I personally have been waiting anxiously for and lobbying for. It is important, it is vital, it is needed.

In closing, I once again commend the Chair and my committee colleagues and the Committee secretariat for their time, their candour and openness during the course of deliberation.

I commend this report to the parliament.

Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Spillett): Madam Speaker, I too wanted to speak to the report handed down by the social scrutiny committee of which I was a member and I speak as a member of that committee. It was the first time that the committee had met to scrutinise a bill so it was a very new process for all of us and the Assembly as a whole, and I think it worked very well.

I also wanted to echo the comments of the Chair and the Member for Katherine thanking everyone who was involved. Committee staff did an amazing job. We received submissions from eminent legal professionals around the country, from other ICACs and other ICAC commissioners, from members of the public, from people in local government and right across the board we had a really strong mix of submissions, and that

3

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 helped us in our deliberations and our discussions in trying to look very forensically at the ICAC bill and to make recommendations to the government to the Assembly to make that bill as robust as it could be.

I suppose many of the recommendations might be seen as technical in nature. They clarify things, tidy a few bits and pieces up. I will not speak for long because obviously we are debating the bill later today so I will save my comments for my second reading speech, but I did want to highlight probably one of the most important recommendations that the committee made, certainly in my view, and that would be recommendation 11.

It is really important this part of the ICAC process, and I know all of us in this Chamber support the institution of an ICAC and we understand how important it is that it be impartial and beyond reproach. So recommendation 11, I think, tidies that up and ensures that there is no perception at all that there is political involvement in the appointment of the ICAC commissioner.

I look forward to today’s debate on the bill. I would like to thank all the colleagues on the committee, the Chair, the public service and everyone who put in their time. It was a lengthy process because we had a very short time frame. We had to pack a lot in and we spent a lot of time together in a short amount of time but the outcome is certainly worth it and gives us food for thought here today.

Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the report tabled last week, I believe, for the benefit of Territorians looking into this new ICAC legislation. The Social Policy Scrutiny Committee, as people have said earlier, met for the first time. It really was a good process. The legislation we were presiding over was a really good piece of legislation.

It was really valuable for my part to be able to fully understand the implications of this very important legislation. Things that I thought were not entirely reasonable on the surface were given thorough explanations as to why they were crafted the way they were.

I acknowledge—I cannot remember her name—an outstanding lawyer from the Department of Attorney- General and Justice who provided an unbelievable response to every single question we asked. Her contribution was outstanding.

There has been some debate publicly, as the Member for Katherine mentioned, about recommendation 10 section 12. I remember it was explained to us why it was not a reasonable thing to exclude the unsatisfactory conduct of members of parliament. It has been picked up incorrectly by the media as the Member for Katherine alluded to.

There are some behaviours that can be dealt with internally by the department and, in this case, the Legislative Assembly. Occasionally we act disrespectfully; we are naughty; we might misbehave. Those matters can be dealt very confidently and satisfactorily internally. Those matters do not need to be referred to the independent commission against corruption. That is what this recommendation is saying. These types of minor matters do not meet the threshold of requiring an investigation by an independent commission against corruption.

That needs to be somehow corrected in the public. I heard the Attorney-General on radio this morning say that she would reject that recommendation, which rang alarm bells for me because I remember very clearly the Select Committee on Opening Parliament to the People—I was a part of that select committee which commenced late last year and tabled the report early this year. That report was not taken up by the government.

We put a lot of work into that. We went to Queensland and spoke to representatives from that parliament. We did a lot of research and work to craft the recommendations that report tables. That was not accepted, for the most part, by the government. The government decided it knew better than what we did. Most of our recommendations in that report reflected what was happening in Queensland as we speak.

I have concerns about how much legitimacy and recognition the government will give to the findings of this Social Policy Scrutiny Committee and any other committees of parliament. You need to respect the work that is undertaken. For the Select Committee on Opening Parliament to the People, we had a greater level of knowledge than anyone else in this parliament about things like how scrutiny committees could operate. To think the Attorney-General and the government decided we did not, was a real slap in the face for me. I think I can speak on behalf of other members of that select committee. We really felt that was a blow to our integrity and the enormous amount of work we put into that process.

4

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

I am interested to hear more from the Attorney-General about exactly what she will accept from our work undertaken by the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee. There has to be a level of respect to the professionalism we put into this process and the fact we interviewed experts in the field from across the country. The work we undertook was of a very high quality. I would be very disappointed if the Attorney-General and her government decide to reject recommendations without properly investigating the implications as we did through that very important process.

I thank my colleagues who were a part of this scrutiny committee. It was ground breaking.

I made a comment to the media, which has been picked up in the NT News today. It was only a matter of sentences. In relation to the tabling of this report and the discussion about committees this morning—in the latest copy of The Parliamentarian, which we are all given copies of, there is an article about Latimer House Principles. I was not aware; it was news to me—this is a set of principles that all Commonwealth countries agreed to in 2003, which look at the separation of powers.

The article, which is only three pages, talks about how government cannot scrutinise itself. It specifically mentions the fact that scrutiny committees such as the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee cannot be chaired by a member of government. I thought this was interesting because past and present governments routinely appoint government members as their chair. This contravenes the Latimer House Principles, which we have subscribed to and are meant to adhere to as a part of the Commonwealth agreement that was signed in 2003.

The government needs to look into this. I did not mean to spring it on you through the media the way it happened. We need to discuss this. I think it is reasonable and democratic to have a non-government member chair all committees that are involved in scrutinising government. It makes perfect sense and is consistent with an international Commonwealth agreement we have signed up to. I would like some clarification on that.

I will introduce a motion to discuss the implications of our involvement and our agreement to adhere to the Latimer House Principles later this week.

I thank my colleagues and look forward to hearing the government’s response as to how it embraces the recommendations from our work.

Mr PAECH (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I was not intending to talk on this, but it would be remiss of me not to following my colleagues who were on the committee.

I, too, acknowledge the tremendous work of the secretariat in putting together the committee’s report and working with honourable members over the course of our deliberations over that time. I also thank all members of the community, who were invited to put in submissions in relation to an independent commission against corruption. I also thank you, Madam Speaker, for being involved in that process.

I wholeheartedly agree with the committee report and am pleased to hear that the Attorney-General, in principle, has agreed to accept a large number of the recommendations from the committee’s report. With such a report there are always recommendations that require further discussion or, for whatever reason, may not be accepted.

I am sure the Attorney-General and executive have a variety of reasons that they would like to further discuss or look into particular recommendations of the report.

Furthermore, the committee discussed, at length, a number of those recommendations. There was very strong and robust conversation with all committee members regarding moving forward with the committee’s report and looking at the best interests of all Territorians in the establishment of a commission such as the ICAC.

I wanted to place my support and sincere thanks on the record to the secretariat for putting that together and thank the Deputy Opposition Leader, the Member for Spillett; the Chair, the Member for Karama; my colleague and comrade, the Member for Katherine; in working together in a bipartisan nature to put the best interests of Territorians first and foremost.

I thank them for the work and look forward to making sure that Territorians have a volume of work that can be delivered to ensure that we have a commission in place to restore trust, integrity and put a stop to corruption.

5

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

______

VISITORS Mary MacKillop College

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to draw your attention to another school group, the lovely students from Mary MacKillop College Year 7, accompanied by their teacher, Amy Sacagio. Welcome to Parliament House, I hope you enjoy your time here.

Members: Hear, hear!

______

Ms FYLES (Attorney-General and Justice): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too, would like to acknowledge the students in the gallery today from Mary MacKillop College. I know the Members for Brennan and Drysdale, two of our hard-working members in Palmerston might try and pop up to see you, but we are in the midst of a very important debate.

The bill we are debating today—the report back to the Assembly on the Northern Territory’s first independent commissioner against corruption, providing openness and transparency back into the Northern Territory Government.

Over the last four chaotic years—I noticed that somebody tagged you in something on social media the other day that it was not that long ago that we had midnight coups. I think that sums up the past four years and our job, as a government and parliament, is to rebuild that trust with Territorians. A significant part of that is putting in place the legislation and an independent commission against corruption.

I would sincerely like to thank the committee members for this report here today. I would like to take the time to thank the Chair, an enormous challenge, Madam Speaker, not only being the Chair of a committee that has government and non-government members looking at legislation robustly, but the Chair of the first scrutiny committee looking at a piece of legislation.

The work that has been done through the leadership of that Chair will be easier for the next scrutiny of a bill. It is very difficult to go through that first, and I would like to thank the Member for Karama for her leadership. I know it has been an enormous burden on her since the bill was introduced. The organising, looking thoroughly through this and it is something she has done showing leadership.

I would also like to acknowledge the staff of the legislative Assembly. Being a new process, I know it has been frustrating at times, but we are here today, with this report back and it has thoroughly looked at this bill. I would like to thank all of the committee members.

It was pleasing to hear the Member for Araluen comment that it is a good piece of legislation, now that she has taken the time to look through that committee process in detail.

Members of the House will know that this bill was introduced under the previous process of the parliament and did not necessarily need to be referred to a scrutiny committee, but for us, as a government under the Chief Minister’s leadership, we felt that it was very important. This bill, that is the basis of the Martin Report, has had an exposure draft piece of legislation for community consultation should go through the process so that Territorians know they have a robust bill in place. That is why, as the minister responsible; I referred that bill to the scrutiny committee.

I would like to speak in response to the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee in relation to its report titled, ‘Inquiry into the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill 2017’.

On 15 November 2017, the first report from our Assembly’s new scrutiny committees was released and copies provided to all members.

I officially place on the record my thanks to the committee members, the Members for Karama, Namatjira, Katherine, Araluen and Spillett for their work on the bill and the report we have here before us today.

Our government takes our obligation to restore trust with Territorians very seriously, so they have confidence in the processes, that taxpayer dollars are spent in the best interests of Territorians.

6

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

I do not want to go back in time, we lived through that intimately in this Chamber and they wrote a book about it. But when you have comments from members of parliament saying that money opens doors, it is not a basis of trust with your community. People need to understand we have a huge responsibility. With the decisions, laws and budget allocations we make, people need to know we are making them in the best interests of the long-term future of Territorians, not the short-term interests of a few.

Restoring that trust is the obligation our government has to every Territorian who voted for and elected us. Implementing an Independent Commission Against Corruption with strong, clear powers of investigation will be key milestone on that path to restoring that trust and integrity to the Northern Territory government. This committee’s report today assists the government in its goals. Our policy on an ICAC has been very clear from day one. Our government accepted, in principle, 50 of the 52 recommendations of the report by former Chief Justice, Commissioner Brian Martin AO QC, which was tabled in May 2016.

Since coming to government, we have worked aggressively to develop legislation as quickly as possible, also ensuring that our community of Territorians were involved along the way. In the case of an ICAC bill, draft legislation was released for public scrutiny in June 2017. Consultation meetings were held across the Northern Territory, not just in the Top End, but through Central Australia, Tennant Creek, Katherine and the rural area. Madam Speaker, you approached me about making sure there was consultation in the rural area and we happily obliged …

Madam SPEAKER: We had one.

Ms FYLES: It was pleasing to hear of the attendance at those consultations.

Comments came to the government from stakeholders, experts and individuals – everyone had their say. That process led to changes and improvement in the bill that led us to being in a position in August 2017 to introduce that bill into the Northern Territory parliament.

Subsequently, in accordance with our reforms to open parliament to the people, the bill was referred to the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee for an inquiry. The strength of the new process was there for all Territorians to see when the committee held a public hearing on 9 October 2017. At that public hearing, we heard experts from the independent integrity agencies from interstate and the Department of Attorney-General and Justice rigorously discuss the bill. The process of testing the bill, its proposed operation, its specific wording, making sure Territorians are getting legislation they can be confident in and will be fit for purpose – strong and fair.

I take this opportunity to thank a number of witnesses who appeared at the committee whose testimony was of great value. In particular, I thank on behalf of the government those anti-corruption commissioners from interstate who testified, including Hon Bruce Lander QC from South Australia, Mr Alan MacSporran QC from Queensland and Mr Richard Bingham from Tasmania. I also thank the Ombudsman, Peter Shoyer, Commissioner for Public Employment, Craig Allen, Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, Ms Brenda Monaghan, for their appearances and submissions.

I also make special mention and offer my thanks to my department staff for their work during the committee’s inquiry. The member for Araluen and members of that committee acknowledged the hard work led by Caroline Heske, senior policy lawyer with the department. This has been a huge body of work which has come at great demand on some individuals. The Department of Attorney-General and Justice has felt the burden of that. This scrutiny committee process is new. We did not have a road map of how it would work. So, there were at times questions and information requested, establishing what is the best pathway going forward. I thank the Department of Attorney-General and Justice, led by Greg Shanahan, for all the work in explaining the bill and providing information. It was a key part in the report we have heard today.

The Social Policy Scrutiny Committee has subsequently made 14 recommendations in relation to this bill. I have had a chance to review their report and those recommendations will provide this Assembly with a response to each of those recommendations. In short, the government will be accepting many of the recommendations from the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee, but there are a couple we will not be accepting. I have flagged that. Media interest has been intense since the report was published last week.

I will take the time now to speak to each individual recommendations.

Recommendation 1 recommends the Committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly pass the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill 2017 with the proposed amendments as set out in the schedule in Chapter 4.

7

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

The government welcomes the committee’s support for the bill, As I said, we will be accepting some of the recommendations but not all.

Recommendation 2 recommends that to avoid any ambiguity, clause 12 (1) (a) (i) be amended, removing the words ‘illegality or’. The government does not accept this recommendation. The government does not believe there is any ambiguity in the word illegality and I believe most Territorians would be of the same view. Both the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice and the Office of Parliamentary Council have advised the council it is a word that has well known plain and ordinary meaning, namely ‘unlawfulness’ or ‘conduct contrary to law’.

Recommendation 3 recommends that to avoid any ambiguity, the words ‘other entity’ in clauses 18 (1) (c) (iv), 18 (3) (b), 18 (4) and the clause 4 (g) of schedule 1 be removed and replaced with the words,’ referral entity’. The government accepts this recommendation and the change will be adopted. Upon receiving the full report from the committee and discussion it with my parliamentary colleagues, as well as the advice of the department. I have had amendments drafted which I will ask the Legislative Assembly to circulate as soon as possible so that members have consideration of those before their second reading speeches so as they go into debate they can understand technically exactly what the government is proposing in accepting the reports for this.

Recommendation 4 recommends that: (a) clause 22 be amended to include a corporations law displacement provision for the purpose of the Corporations Act 2001 Commonwealth section 5G in relation to the section 1317AE of that act to accommodate corporations that fall within the bill’s definition of a public body, noting that the commencement of the provision is subject to agreement by the Commonwealth states and the ACT (b) the government commence processes to enable a comprehensive corporations law displacement provision to be enacted.

The government accepts these recommendations but notes there is a technical issue with making changes to the bill. The Northern Territory is a signatory to the Corporations Agreement 2002 and so is obliged to first seek approval at an intergovernmental ministerial council for corporations’ law displacement provision. The government will now seek that approval, consequently it is anticipated that the committee’s recommendation be enacted by an amendment to the ICAC consequential and related amendments bill 2017 which at this state will be available, as I understand, for passage in the February sittings of this Assembly.

Recommendation 5 recommends that the bill be amended to give witnesses a right to apply for a direction for a private hearing or nonpublication under clause 46 and require that the ICAC advise witnesses in the notice requiring attendance and in an open session before giving evidence of (a) their right to make application before or during an open session for direction under clause 46 regarding directions for a private hearing, nonpublication and (b) their rights and clauses 83 and 84 regarding privilege against self- incrimination.

The government accepts this recommendation in principle. The government will move amendments that provide a right to make an application and have it heard in private and for witnesses to be informed of this fact. However, the drafting of this provision has also been improved as the government’s amendment will also make it clear that the ICAC has the discretion to refuse to hear a request in private where the ICAC has reason to believe that the request is vexatious or without merit. This is an important tool to control strategic obstructive use of this right.

Recommendation 6 recommends to minimise the risk of unnecessary legal challenges and clause 49 be amended to include (a) a clause equivalent to 51 (3) to include an express power to make comment on findings in an investigation and report (b) the corresponding limitations of an equivalent clause 51 (4) regarding making findings of offences and breaches of discipline. The government accepts this recommendation and it will be adopted.

Recommendation 7 recommends that (1) clauses 67 and 68 be amended by removing the words, ‘justice of the peace’, and replacing them with the words, ‘judicial officer’, (2) the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice undertake a review of processes for the issuing of search warrants in the Northern Territory. In relation to the first point, the government accepts the recommendation as we believe this will very likely reflect the process of the ICAC. However, even though the second point is a broad request for review and beyond the scope of the actual bill, the government disagrees with the committee’s views concerning warrants and the process currently used in the Northern Territory.

This government has always been very clear about giving police the tools they need to protect our community. Access to Justices of the Peace, particularly in the remote regions of the Territory is important to the

8

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Territory’s law enforcement. The government does not believe we should be making changes in one bill that essentially will make it harder for our police to keep our communities safe.

Recommendation 8 recommends that to avoid any potential of legal challenge clause 82 be amended by removing the words facing or facing criminal proceedings, for the government accepts this recommendation and thanks the committee for pointing this out.

Recommendation nine states that the committee alerts the Assembly to specifics of the privilege against self- incrimination by allowing the ICAC to pass compelled self-incriminating evidence onto a prosecuting authority as provided for in clause 81.6. It also recommends that the Assembly consider whether the removal of this fundamental right against self-incrimination is justified.

This recommendation does not involve any recommended change to the bill, however, I do wish to note that the Martin Report specifically recommended that the derivative use of evidence be exclusively permitted. I would also note that the ICAC bill restricts the ICAC from asking questions of a witness after they have been charged with an offence. It therefore protects the rights of an accused more effectively than a mere restriction on passing evidence to the prosecution after a person has been questioned post charge.

Recommendation 10 recommends that clause 12.3 be amended to add certain words so that it could read as follows:

Despite subsection one unsatisfactory conduct does not include any conduct engaged in by a judicial officer in the performance of judicial functions or by a member of the Legislative Assembly.

It is with all due respect that the government rejects this recommendation. The government has been crystal clear. The ICAC will be able to investigate everyone involved in the Northern Territory government. Every member of the Northern Territory Public Service or spending the NT public’s money including members of parliament. Politicians, judges, public servants, police, local councils and contract service providers of these public service organisations all need to be held to account. Organisations that are recipients of substantial government grants may also be investigated in relation to the expenditure of government money.

The government will not be making an amendment like this which would undermine the public’s confidence in the ICAC legislation, and it was very interesting to hear the comments from the Member for Nelson a little earlier trying to blame the media that this has been raised through the media. The media has focused on this. She made the comments that she was trying to blame the media for focussing on it.

A member: Member for Araluen; you said Member for Nelson.

Ms FYLES: Sorry. Member for Araluen. If I am going to lay blame I should do it at the correct person. I wanted to get the Member for Nelson back in here.

The Member for Araluen it was very interesting to hear her trying to lay blame for the media for focussing on it. I think, we need to make sure that the public has confidence in this ICAC. We cannot undermine that confidence. Perhaps, if she had not been off in Canada or Bangladesh or wherever she has been travelling to lately she could have been listening to Territorians about their concerns the need for this ICAC to be open, to represent Territorians and that is what this is about.

We will not be accepting that recommendation and I am critical of the Member for Araluen, not the Member for Nelson, for trying to blame the media for focussing on it. The committee has raised a point but as a government with all due respect we will not accept that because Territorians need to have confidence and there needs to be no measures in place that would undermine the public’s confidence in this ICAC legislation.

Recommendation 11 recommends that the clause 112.2 be amended such that the appointment of the ICAC by the administrator can be made only after an advisory panel chaired by a former supreme court judge including the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory and the Chief Executive of the Department of Attorney-General and Justice makes a recommendation to the Assembly committee or if there is no Assembly committee the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly committee or if there is no Assembly committee the Legislative Assembly makes a recommendation to the Administrator.

The government does not accept this recommendation. The bill already contains a range of measures to safe guard the independence of the ICAC’s appointment and eligibility including requiring the Legislative Assembly to vote on the proposed appointee.

9

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

This amendment would also create legal confusion, particularly the use of the specific words ‘the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice’. The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice is an entity which only exists by virtue of the Administrative Arrangement Orders. This process currently being followed for selection of the first ICAC is the process proposed in this first amendment anyway.

Recommendation 12 recommends that clause 136 be amended to

(a) empower the inspector to make general reports to the minister or the designated oversight committee when the inspector is of the view that the annual evaluation would be an insufficient tool to communicate concerns; and

(b) require the ICAC minister to table a copy of any such reports in the Legislative Assembly within six sitting days of receipt.

The government will adopt this recommendation in substance. The government will move amendments inserting provisions into clauses 139 and 140 rather than clause 160.

Recommendation 13 recommends that clause 160 be amended to include a provision for the transfer of all records from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures to the ICAC.

Mr KIRBY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I request an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 43.

Motion agreed to.

Ms FYLES: The government accepts this recommendation. To make that clear, we are discussing Recommendation 13.

I thank the committee for noting this issue.

Recommendation 14 recommends that the reference to section O in clause 129(1)(f) be amended to section 105, and that the numbering of subsequent clauses be corrected to remove duplication of clause 1F. This is a typographical error and we thank the committee for drawing the government’s attention to it. We accept the recommendation.

Now that I have spoken in detail, I think I have highlighted to the Assembly the value of this scrutiny committee’s work. It is not a rubber stamping process. It is important that we take a moment to take a look at that.

The committee has taken an in-depth look—I thanked the officials from interstate and the experts who have provided advice. They have come up with a number of recommendations that give us a stronger bill.

We will not change the fundamental basis of this bill; that is why we have rejected the recommendation regarding members of this Assembly. It needs to be clearly in place that the ICAC can decide if it investigates, how it investigates, whether it refers to another government entity or what decision. It is up to the ICAC to make that decision. It is not for politicians in this House to put that in place in the legislation.

In summary, in relation to the recommendations of the committee, the government has adopted the following positions. There are 14 recommendations, two of which do not seek any legislative amendments. Of the 12 legislative amendments the government accepts, in principle, nine recommendations.

As I have stated to the House, I will move amendments to implement those changed. The government does not accept three of the proposed legislative amendments.

Following on from this discussion, there is a crucial point which should be clear. The independence of the committee and examining this bill. The committee includes the Members for Spillett and Araluen, along with three government members, but they have formed their views on this bill independently. They have not been interfered or suggested changes. They have been allowed to go away and do their work.

I thank them for their time. It was a big body of work to undertake. I note that not all the members are Darwin based, so it has meant they have needed additional time away from their electorates, but their constituents should know they have undertaken an important role in establishing the Northern Territory’s first independent commissioner against corruption.

10

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

As a government we let parliamentary committees do their work. We let them work independently, report and make recommendations. As a government we look through those recommendations and seek further advice around practicality, the legal implications and if they align with what we want to implement.

We are willing, as a government to debate our policies, not just to shut down differing viewpoints or roll people in midnight coups if we do not like what they say. We are open and transparent and will continue to consult across the Northern Territory, and with members of this House, to make sure we have those views coming through.

We take seriously the development of important policies and value the input of others.

As I conclude, I would like to again thank the committee the Legislative Assembly staff and the department of Attorney-General staff for their work. Territorians can have absolute confidence in this Legislative Assembly passing this ICAC bill either today or later this week. We will have public administration in the Northern Territory that will be able to be investigated by a truly independent body with strong powers. That is what Territorians want. They want to trust that decisions are made in the long-term interests of Territorians, not the short-term interests of a select few.

I will be looking forward to the debate and the passing of the ICAC bill today or later in the week.

Motion agreed to; report noted.

INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONER AGAINST CORRUPTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND RELATED AMENDMENTS) BILL (Serial 35)

Continued from 19 October 2017

Mr McCARTHY (Housing and Community Development): Madam Speaker, that is the slowest jump in the history of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. For those that are not able to see it, the reason is that I was waiting the normal protocol of the House, for the Leader of the Opposition to jump and respond to this very important passage of legislation. The leader has chosen not to jump and I could think of some reasons why.

I am honoured to rise and support the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill 2017. I thank my colleagues and the Attorney-General for the opportunity to talk about this important matter.

This is a piece of legislation fundamentally about restoring the community’s trust in government and public institutions. During the disastrous CLP government, we saw the kind of destructive havoc that can be wrought on the hearts and minds of Territorians.

This bill is about trust. Let me tell you, nobody trusted that previous mob. We saw how a completed disregard for due process and transparency at precisely the time when the public were crying out for it, saw a government get turfed out after just one term.

We on this side of the House have long been advocates of a fully independent ICAC, something the CLP, incredibly, never supported for the Northern Territory. It is unfortunate that these are the lengths we need to go to in order to protect Territorians from corruption.

People were sick of the previous CLP government with its conga line of scandals. The fish rots from the head, the culture of the previous CLP government was poisonous and the relief for thousands of Territorians at the end of their reign was real. Nobody trusted the CLP. There was no trust even amongst themselves.

There were a series of serious and legitimate questions raised by Territorians and rather than swift action, we instead saw public meltdowns from the then treasurer on radio, about why an ICAC was not needed.

When dragged to the table to kick off the process, the CLP proposed a toothless tiger, subservient to them to investigate only matters that would benefit them politically.

We are now doing it properly. This ICAC is the real thing.

11

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Does anyone remember Foundation 51? In my opinion, plenty of Territorians still do. This has been a rough time for so many Territorians, but by passing this legislation, we are taking a significant step towards restoring trust. We have listened to Territorians and are taking action. We have been working on this legislation since before we took government, talking to Territorians and stakeholders and considering all the options.

In Australia, where we have a strong rule of law, most corruption exists outside of the law. Whether it be small favours for small gains, or corruption on such a grand scale that it defrauds the public treasury, it must be identified, stamped out and punished.

It strikes me that we are the last jurisdiction to institute an anticorruption body with comparable powers and scope, but now is the time for us to stand up and make a stronger stand against corruption at all levels of society. I am hoping the passage of this legislation will be like turning over a rock when gardening; you do not know what you will find underneath, maybe some beetles and millipedes, but you hope there is nothing bigger and more frightening.

We know the causes of corruption and we are now in the business of preventing and uncovering it. we know what is being done in Australia and around the world to combat corruption. Corruption not only hurts public trust in government, but the functions of government and operations of businesses. For some countries, corruption is institutionalised in government; it is legal corruption. We see graft, massive conflicts of interest, pay to play politics, extortion, favouritism and the squashing of whistle blowers.

This exists to certain degrees all over the world, unfortunately including Australia. Lucky for us, Transparency International ranks the nation as a whole as having relatively low levels of corruption; last year we were ranked 13th in the world, but it is an acknowledgement that corruption exists and it is visible to researches. If it is visible to researchers, it is more visible to members of the public.

This bill is important because it shows we will not tolerate corruption at all. We have seen the quite visible success of the New South Wales ICAC. I will not go into the more recent history of New South Wales, suffice to say that the widespread community anger against the figures who featured in the daily news reports justified the work put into those investigations.

There are always the cases not widely reported on that remind me of why these things are important, for example, a recent case in South Australia where two workers are now facing criminal charges for deception, dishonesty and abuse of office, or earlier this year where Victoria’s ICAC is investigating the alleged funnelling of money earmarked for public education into family-linked businesses.

This ICAC will have both the scope and power to investigate allegations and protect whistle blowers. As I have said, when we start to turn over these stones in our garden, we want to make sure we are prepared for whatever is beneath them.

Before we go on, let us look at a very famous piece of legislation from the United States of America that was used to combat corruption that stemmed from organised crim syndicates. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act, or simply RICO, was passed in 1970 and by 1972 33 states passed similar legislation to enable them to prosecute corrupt conduct.

The US federal government knew there was a serious organised crime problem; not only were they operating in what is known as low-level corruption, favouritism, racketeering, extortion and the like, but they had also infiltrated public institutions such as the government and several key trade unions. It enabled the government to prosecute racketeers for two or more offences drawn from a list of 27 federal crimes and eight state crimes, but also allowed private individuals, the victims of these crimes, to file civil suits against the alleged perpetrators.

While primarily aimed at organised crime, the architect of the legislation, G. Robert Blakey famously said:

We don’t want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels and another set for those whose collars are white and have ivy league diplomas.

This is our aim. This bill is not targeted at any specific groups, unless you want to define that groups as people who engage in corrupt behaviour. The RICO Act resulted in the prosecution of all the top mafia figures in New York and scores of their associates. They also prosecuted several high-ranking officers in the Key West Police Department of Florida, wealthy banker Michael Milken, FIFA representatives and hundreds of associates of organised crime.

12

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

RICO was even used as a civil suit against current US President, Donald Trump in relation to Trump University. The case was settled for $25m.

While we are not considering legislation as coercive in nature as Ricoh, this underscores the importance of a government recognising a problem and dispassionately discharging its duty to fix that problem. Ricoh has its Australian equivalent in the Australian Crime Commission, but the states and territories have to do their bit as well. In our case, Territorians told us they wanted stronger institutions to guard against corruption. This is what we are doing.

I will talk about some of the changes this government is making and why they are important. I also acknowledge the important work of Commissioner Brian Martin QC in informing the government’s policies on anti-corruption.

First, this bill will empower the commission to obtain warrants under the Surveillance Devices Act, the Telecommunications (Interception) Northern Territory Act and the Police (Special Investigative and Other Powers) Act. These powers are standard for equivalent anti-corruption bodies in other jurisdictions. Telecommunications interception is vital in combatting both corruption and crime. You will know this especially if you have ever seen the television show, The Wire.

This bill also protects whistleblowers against serious repercussions by making them eligible for consideration under the official witness protection program. It is vital that for any large cases, whistle blowers feel comfortable coming forward and can place their trust in government that we will protect them for their service to our community.

We are also broadening the definition of ‘public office’ so the scope of the inquiry can extend beyond people employed by the public service. Under current rules, a member of the public who is pressured into accepting a benefit can be prosecuted, but it is difficult for a prosecution to casually links bribe to an outcome. This bill updates the language to accepting a corrupting benefit. Any definition of ‘corruption’ under this bill can be investigated by ICAC. This ensures that while ICAC can kick off an investigation, they can confidently hand it over to the Department of Public Prosecution to ensure justice is served.

This bill also provides an amendment to ensure that someone prosecuted due to inability or mistakes, have consideration of whether their case should have been more appropriately handled through existing performance management, rather than it being treated as bona fide corruption. This is an important distinction to make for some people who may have inadvertently abetted the corrupt behaviour of others, but clearly did not intend to derive benefit from their actions.

I will return to this idea that corruption touches us all. This society we live in believes in a fair go that applies to everyone. Just because you are in a position of power does not elevate you above the law. That old saying ’absolute power corrupts absolutely’ is true. It is why we have a division of power at the federal, state and territory levels of government. But power can still corrupt and indeed, we have all heard of cases where it has. Whether it affects appointments or promotions at work, the awarding of contracts, dealings in shares or business or a community group missing out on funding in favour of a friend or family, corruption can affect everyone.

More importantly, when it occurs at a political level, it leaves it mark on the psyche of society. It not only hampers the development of our economy, it stunts the potential growth for those with merit. Corruption is an abuse of power perpetrated by those who have against those who have not. Stealing money or opportunities from society is not a victimless crime. The victims are all of us and some of us in particular. For every dollar the government does not see, that is a dollar we cannot spend on housing the poor or healing the sick.

This is why I am hoping that once this legislation is passed by this Assembly we will see emboldened Territorians undertaking that journey of lifting up those rocks in the garden with us. If you want Territorians to trust you, you have to trust them. It will take some courage and patience, but regardless of whether Territorians are finding millipedes, spiders or king brown snakes under those rocks they will refer them to ICAC to help restore trust.

I commend this bill to the Assembly.

I acknowledge the work of the ministerial office, who have come together to produce that. It is an eloquent statement and I hope I did justice to those great Territorians who put in the time and energy to work on it. As the minister working with the great group in suite one, it reflected the passion of Territorians who have a

13

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 close lens on government and the Legislative Assembly system. They work in this system and they understand it.

It also reflects the passion of Territorians who go home every day to families and communities, and who reflect on the importance of good practice.

I could not help but think about the personal assessments that could have been taking place, because they have a minister who was front and centre of a commission of inquiry in the Northern Territory—the Stella Maris Inquiry, which was a politically fuelled witch hunt by the CLP government. That commission of inquiry, which cost significant dollars for Northern Territory taxpayers, essentially did not find any corruption or personal interest. There was no case to answer other than, as the commissioner suggested, that Cabinet processes be looked at.

That political witch hunt which was conducted over three years had other opportunities for government politically, and the CLP milked every one of those opportunities to continually attack the previous Leader of the Opposition and me. It was an interesting time for me to participate in a commission of inquiry. I had never experienced anything of that level. It sent a very clear message that I was front and centre, that I was available and that I participated fully to the best of my ability.

The games the CLP was playing were matched from the other side of this House. We were held accountable, gave evidence and were judged accordingly.

I feel very comfortable supporting this legislation passaging through the Assembly, because I have shown the character needed as a Territorian, a member of parliament and a person who has faced that barrage of politically motivated attack. It went on relentlessly, year by year.

There are two CLP members left after the election of 2016, which wiped them out. They were not involved so much. Giles, Elferink, Styles, Chandler and Westra van Holthe were seriously the attack dogs of that government and used it tirelessly, of no benefit to anyone but their own personal egos.

Having stood and faced that barrage on a local level, where there were continual attacks in the local and regional newspapers of me, personally and professionally—at one Tennant Creek show there were leaflets produced which assassinated my character and called me a corrupt official, which were placed under windscreen wipers in the car parks.

It was interesting that that activity coincided with a number of the Chief Minister’s charters that arrived in Tennant Creek that day for the show. But nothing was proved and nothing was followed up. Essentially at the end of the day, I stood front and centre and faced the Northern Territory and the barrage of possible attacks.

For those members interested, it was quite a rewarding experience at the end of show day in Tennant Creek that year, where a lot of those leaflets were represented to me at the Labor Party stand with very irate constituents that wanted and demanded action against anybody that interfered with their cars and put that rubbish under their windscreen wipers.

There was a continual procession of people into the electorate office after that, who wanted to ask the story, ‘what the hell was this about?’ They were questioning the use of taxpayer’s money, the people who did it and so forth.

In terms of that campaign, a personal attack in the electorate, I responded with a regular classified ad that went through the details of that high-level commission of inquiry, what it was and what it found. I continually took up these attacks both personally and professionally in a very concise and clear narrative for the constituents.

Consequently, I was re-elected at the end of that term with honour and privilege and we moved on in terms of the next stage of representing the Barkly in an open, honest and transparent way.

That commission of inquiry also brought on some extra professional development for me, as I was then threatened with a referral to the privileges committee. Those same operatives from the CLP government, who used to stand in this House and deny an opportunity to initiate an independent commission to look at government actions, look at public sector and beyond, continually threatened me over the term with a referral to the privileges committee. I consider that there was a virtual waiting room somewhere that had my name on a chair.

14

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Once again, I stood and faced the barrage over that terms and used good, solid life experience to look them eye-to-eye and stare them down. There was some interesting body language throughout those encounters. From me, very simple and from them, cowering and cowardly reactions to what they knew was pure politics and game playing.

The other element that I stand here confident about accountability, as I was also referred to the Standing Orders Committee. Some members on my side might be getting the wrong idea at this stage of the speech, regarding my professional résumé in this House. Let me tell you, if you want to learn about the role of an MLA in this place, you could learn the hard way or the easy way. I chose the hard way! But at the end of the day, this was an example of professional development.

I was referred to the Standing Orders Committee about comments I made in relation to procurement principles and practices under the previous CLP government. Those practices were brought directly to me by constituents who essentially wanted to be protected as whistleblowers. I stood and faced that attack as well, in full light of judgement that was afforded by my peers and colleagues in terms of representing the Territorians in my electorate who needed to hear justice.

It was a personally challenging and professionally enhancing time for me to understand the processes within this parliament the hard way. I once again stood on the side of justice and free speech and was attacked quite bitterly by the then CLP government who tried, once again, to weave a narrative around corruption and malpractice.

Most recently I have also been called as a witness to a Royal Commission. Once again, I stood willing and able and confident to apply my life experience, my previous experience as a minister for corrections and my opportunity as a member of parliament in the Northern Territory.

I attended that Royal Commission hearing, gave evidence as a witness over about five-and-a-half hours, and was then requested to produce a submission. I am honoured to stand here today, proud of the fact a majority of the essence of my recommendations have been adopted by the Royal Commission.

I now have the opportunity to work with our Minister for Territory Families and the Attorney-General on the implementation of those recommendations, which came from personal and professional experience—a founding head teacher of a secondary alternative education program that was in partnership with a youth diversion program in Tennant Creek for five years.

The commissioners acknowledged that experience and Territory knowledge. They acknowledged the recommendations in the submission, and now I have the opportunity to be a team player to implement those recommendations and do what we need to in changing a traditional system of youth justice which has existed in the Territory for more than 60 years.

Those examples I give today are examples that as an MLA in this House I have faced front and centre. I have stood in the face of extreme attack that was thrown my way, personal and professional. On each occasion those agencies of attack, which relate to something far bigger than this place, have been hell bent on trying to drag me down.

I say this today because this bill represents a systemic approach to making sure we are all accountable for our practice. This bill has been a long time coming. I am proud to be a member of the previous Labor opportunity that started the work on crafting and consultation with community stakeholders. I now stand here, proud to be a member of the government that is delivering this for the Northern Territory.

I thank the Attorney-General and the staff of the Department of Justice. As a previous minister for that area, I know how much goes into legislation like this.

The Territory has been waiting for this and has embraced it. It will be challenging on the way forward, and there will be rocks overturned in the garden and issues to be sorted, corrected and made right.

I have been in this place a number of years and still cannot understand why a previous conservative Liberal government resisted this so fervently at every opportunity. Even in dwindling numbers, when thrown into a minority government, they did everything in their power to twist and turn and resist this legislation. The only question left for me, as someone who has laid out the heart strings about what I have been through, is what did they have to hide?

15

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

I made a comment in this House because I was more focused on personal strength, stability and solidarity— I think it will be picked up on the public record somewhere. I said that you can go down the road you believe is appropriate; you can do what you want, but somewhere down the track, if you have done wrong, that summons will find you in the mail bag. It will find you wherever you land, in whatever time it takes, and you will be held to account.

I remember a person on that side of this House I was staring down when I said that. Today is a very monumental day, not only for me but for the Territory, because justice will and should be served. Nobody who has not committed any offence or used privilege or power needs to be concerned.

Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Spillett): Madam Speaker, the opposition has consistently supported the formation of an Independent Commission Against Corruption, or ICAC, in the Northern Territory. In fact, it was the former CLP government that commissioned Hon Brian Martin AO QC to convene an inquiry and prepare the Anti-Corruption Integrity and Misconduct Commission Inquiry final report, known as the Martin report, which was handed down in May 2016.

The Martin report made many recommendations providing a comprehensive road map to the design and implementation of an independent, impartial and just commission against corruption. As the report prudently and judiciously cautioned, getting it right from the outset is of critical importance. If an ICAC in the Territory is to have any lasting impact on the way our unique form of government is administered on behalf of Territorians, we must get it right from the start. This means the ICAC is free from any political influence whatsoever, from the appointment of the commissioner through to the way the scheme is funded.

I will address those issues in a moment, but some context is helpful. Recent episodes involving alleged allegations of corruption, misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct by politicians and public servants unfortunately underscore the need for an independent investigative body to provide Territorians with the utmost confidence in those who serve on their behalf. In line with recommendations made in the Martin report, the commission will have the ability to deal with serious allegations of corruption and misconduct.

Clause 10 of the bill provides the commission with jurisdiction over investigations into corrupt conduct which, among other things, is defined as behaviour that is connected to public affairs and constitutes and offence punishable by at least two years in prison. In the case of an MLA or minister this will include a serious breach of the public trust.

Clause 11 similarly defines misconduct as any conduct that would result in an offence of any kind - in the case of an MLA or minister a breach of public trust not amounting to a serious breach.

One recent example which would likely fall under the definitions under the ICAC bill is the Stella Maris debacle, which saw a sitting minister in this Labor government ‘act without accountability, responsibility or with proper consideration of those likely to be affected’ by proposing a grant of Crown land to Unions NT without following due, proper process. Had an ICAC been in place in 2014, the inquiry into Stella Maris might not have been necessary and the ensuing legal battle that culminated in Commissioner John Lawler AM APM having to fight the law suit brought by the former Labor Party leader would not have occurred.

In this instance, the commission would have had the power to execute search warrants, seize documents, interview witnesses, render recommendations and refer matters to the Department of Public Prosecutions or the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly as appropriate. In addition, hearings may have been conducted in public, providing more openness to the processes involved in the investigation and underpinning the findings. The broad powers of the commission would have streamlined the inquiry process and led to a quicker and perhaps more thorough investigation.

As we know from recent public discussion, the commission will also have jurisdiction over allegations of unsatisfactory conduct by public servants and MLAs. Generally speaking, clause 12 of the bill defines ‘unsatisfactory conduct’ as involving illegality, impropriety, negligence or incompetence resulting in substantial mismanagement of public resources, inappropriate use of those resources or substantial detriment to public interest.

There are many recent controversies that would, if not rising to the level of corrupt conduct or misconduct, may very well be representative of unsatisfactory conduct. Perhaps the most obvious is the highly disconcerting year-long 400 square metre saga. There can be little doubt that millions of dollars of public resources have been expended attempting to justify a regulation and then legislation that was not supported

16

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 by facts or evidence and which, to many, appeared to be motivated by a political donation. At the very least, it would seem that there would be reasonable grounds for the commissioner to investigate the matter as representing incompetence under clause 12 of the bill, which is defined, in part, as actions taken without obtaining adequate information and advice.

Similarly, the failure of the Minister for Housing and Community Development and the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide transitional housing to residents whose homes were being repaired in remote communities may very well at a minimum meet the bill’s definition of conduct that can be investigated.

As was widely reported in September, residents in Minyerri and other communities in the Territory were left living in makeshift lean-tos and tents after they were removed from their homes by the department. While the minister attempted to place the blame on the department, the true story behind these and many other failings in this portfolio include deplorable conditions at the Alice Springs town camp which equally deserve an investigation and inquiry.

There is no question that the commission will be a powerful safeguard against corruption and misconduct of various forms. The Commissioner will have extremely broad investigational and coercive powers, including the ability to access a wide variety of information and things without a need for a warrant. Among other things, a warrant will not be required for the commission to inspect financial records of banks and other financial institutions, enter and search public premises, seize and retain evidence gathered during searches and issue directions to public bodies to take certain actions as part of an investigation.

The commission will also be able to apply for a warrant to take further actions including entering and searching private premises, install surveillance devices, intercept phone calls, emails and other communications and conduct covert operations. Perhaps the most significant of the coercive powers is the ability of the Commissioner to require a person to present themselves, respond to questions and produce documents and other things. During an examination by the commission, the person would generally not be entitled to the tractional common law privilege against self-incrimination and may be compelled to answer questions.

This is not a small thing as the right to remain silent dates back to the 12th century AD and was adopted into the English common law by virtue of Roman and Cannon law. As Blackstone stated in his commentaries on the law of England, the doctrine basically held that a defendant had the right not to have guilt, I quote:

Wrung out of himself, but rather to be discovered by other means and other men.

As Murphy J. described in Pyneboard Pty Ltd. and Trade Practices Commission, the privilege protects,

The innocent as well as the guilty from the indignity and invasion of privacy which occurs in compulsory self-incrimination. It is society’s acceptance of the in-viability of the human personality.

The abrogation of this long-held privilege is illustrative of the importance that the commission be truly independent and held to the highest standards of fairness and autonomy from political influence. This is particularly true considering the ability of the commission to hold hearings in public. The conduct of public hearings has the potential to jeopardise the fairness of subsequent trials, particularly in a small jurisdiction such as the Territory where news travels extremely fast. To use a colloquial analogy, once the bell is rung, it is exceptionally difficult to un-ring.

The ability to force a witness in an ICAC investigation to give self-incriminating evidence coupled with a public hearing poses a significant risk to the justice system. ICAC proceedings are not judicial; they are executive in nature and the risk of confusion on the part of the public could be very high. Accordingly, it is the opposition’s key expectation that the burden in favour of private inquiries embodied in clause 5 of schedule 1 to the bill will be adhered to faithfully and consistently.

In understanding power and theoretical potential for unintended consequences that may arise, the independence of the appointed commissioner is paramount. Unless the person that is named the first commissioner is beyond reproach and question of any kind, the entire process will lack the confidence and credibility it requires to serve the intended purpose of improving public confidence that improper conduct will be detected and dealt with appropriately.

It would be absolutely and categorically inappropriate for the Attorney-General or any other member of the government of the day to have any hand in the appointment of the ICAC. The commissioner is the keystone

17

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 and any perception of bias, predisposition or even mere inclination on the part of the ICAC would irreparably damage the integrity of the office before the first investigation was commenced or complaint received.

It was highly disappointing that the exposure draft of this legislation and explanatory materials were extremely vague as to the appointment of the commissioner, the single most important part of the entire enterprise. Instead, the explanatory notes to the exposure draft states it was anticipated that the appointment of the ICAC would follow the same protocol as the appointment of a judicial officer.

At that time the judicial appointments protocol was in the process of being changed but under either iteration it would mean that the panel would review potential candidates recommend no less than two candidates to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is then to communicate the recommended appointee to Cabinet. Cabinet is no bound to accept the recommendation but if it rejects the recommendation or chooses another person the chosen candidate is then referred back to the panel or the chief justice for comment.

This procedure is acceptable when you are appointing a judicial officer whose independence and impartiality is guaranteed by convention, statute and the separation of powers doctorate. The appointment of the ICAC is a different matter. No least because the primary function of the commissioner is to investigate corruption and misconduct in political and public office.

Accordingly, there is a clear and inappropriate conflict of interest in having the Attorney-General or the Cabinet involved in the appointment process. The potential for a flawed appointment process is to undermine the integrity of the independent nature of the commission from the outset, which was cautioned by the Martin Report, which stated that the judicial appointment protocol:

..is not appropriate in respect at the appointment of the ICAC commissioner.

Instead the report recommended:

An advisory panel make a recommendation to a bipartisan standing committee of the Assembly.

The Opposition advocated for this augmented procedure in its submission to the Department of Attorney- General and Justice in consideration of the exposure draft of the bill and at the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee. This is also discussed and formed, obviously recommendation 11, which was rejected by the government today.

It recommends that the Attorney-General and Cabinet be removed from the appointment process and that a recommendation be made to an appropriate Assembly committee or the Assembly itself, and this recommendation should be adopted by government.

It is incredibly disappointing that the Attorney-General, the person that will be responsible, if the bill is passed today for directly appointing the ICAC commissioner—has chosen to go down this road when she is conflicted being the person that gets to appoint the commissioner, being the person who takes that to Cabinet—and given that Cabinet will be able to have the ultimate say on who the commissioner is and either accept the recommendations put forward by that panel or reject them and pick someone else that they see suitable.

The reality is that the Territory is a very small jurisdiction and the common saying that we all only have two degrees of separation is incredibly accurate. That being the case, the Martin Report suggested that:

...an unimpeachable person without extensive business or personal ties to the Territory be appointed as the first commissioner.

The Martin Report suggested that:

...the Honourable Bruce Lander QC be appointed the first commissioner specifically to remove any perception of lack of independence particularly from the influence of familiar and personal connections that often arise in the Territory.

The suggestion of Mr Lander as the first NT corruption commissioner was rejected by the Attorney-General but the principles remain the same. The ICAC must be unimpeachable. The ICAC should not have extensive business or personal ties here in the Territory. The commissioner should have and enjoy bipartisan and public support and confidence.

18

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

The same is true with regard to the appointment of the inspector who has the responsibility of overseeing the activities of the commission. Section 131 of the ICAC bill provides for the appointment of an inspector by the Administrator but like the commissioner provisions have asked to specify the procedure for the appointment of the inspector. The appointment of the inspector should follow what was recommended in the Martin Report just as the appointment of the commissioner should follow what was recommended in the Martin Report.

It is a very sad day to see this government at a time when Territorians want us to get on with this, they welcome the ICAC, all of us in here want an ICAC and we want it to be impartial, we want it to give Territorians that confidence that they so desperately need and now there will forever in a day be a question around that because of the process.

What is really important to reiterate in my comments around the appointment of the commissioner is that the exposure draft said it is not even crystallised that this is how the commissioner will be appointed. It just said it was anticipated. The government itself is not really sure how it is going to do this, but it thinks it will follow the appointment of appointing a judge, which at the end of the day, means the Attorney-General will receive advice and then take it to cabinet. Cabinet will then either agree with the person or will reject the panel’s recommendations and pick their own person.

The bill also departs from the Martin Report’s recommendation in other important respects, which revolve around the provision of adequate funding and that needed to also be free from political influence of any kind. Adequate funding commensurate with the administrative and operational needs of the commission is essential to ensure independence and freedom from either perceived or real bias.

If the commissioner is routinely and perpetually required to seek additional funds from the government of the day, the impartiality of the ICAC will be justifiably questioned. The conflict of interest that will arise from total financial reliance on the very public servants and politicians it is charged with investigating with necessarily create dependence, rather than fostering independence.

The potential conflict of interest resulting from inadequate or conditional funding of the commission was comprehensively considered by Justice Martin. The Martin Report concluded that tethering commission funding to any government was unacceptable. The report recommended that for at least the first two years, the ICAC be given:

… a discretion to exceed its budget if the circumstances require that it do so in order to carry out its role and respond adequately to reports made to it.

This would not be a blank cheque, but would be overseen by a bipartisan committee that could consider requests for additional funding and evaluate the request. This recommendation has not been followed. As it stands, the Labor government have pledge $3m per year for the operation of the commission.

In public comment, government representatives have stated that if the amount is not sufficient, the commissioner will be forced to petition the government for a Treasurer’s advance. This is a cap-in-hand approach and is precisely the lack of budgetary independence that Justice Martin was concerned about. Forcing the ICAC to seek favour with the Territory government in order to cover its own expenses is an untenable position for an independent statutory authority charged with investigating public corruption.

This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the ICAC will serve as a dual role as the CEO of the investigative body and the commissioner itself. Splitting these positions would have gone a long way toward limiting the funding conflict. A deputy commissioner or a CEO would have allowed the ICAC to delegate funding decisions to another officer. This was another of the recommendations of the Martin inquiry that was not followed. ______

VISITORS Milkwood Steiner Shool

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Milkwood Steiner School, accompanied by their teacher, Tara Vann. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Members: Hear, hear!

19

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Milkwood Steiner School is in the wonderful electorate of Spillett, and it is wonderful to see you here. I hope you really enjoy your time at Parliament House today. ______

Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A funding shortfall is not improbably or even unlikely. It is estimated that the cost of the commission’s operations will likely exceed $5m or 40% more than has been budgeted by the Labor Government.

Nonetheless the true cost may be much higher. For instance, Queensland pays about $54m for their ICAC and Western Australia spends over $31m. There is nothing cheap about running an anti-corruption commission. Lawyers, skilled IT investigators forensic accountants are not cheap. And that is to say nothing of the electronic and technological infrastructure necessary to fully discharge the duties of the ICAC.

Under-funding the commission potentially by 40% or more, will fundamentally undermine the independence of the commission, particularly in the critical first two years. A perception of dependence may be created that will considerably detract from the integrity and public trust that should be the hallmark of the ICAC. Accordingly, the Labor Government must commit to a structure that allows the ICAC to access additional funding if needed, not from the government, but either from a bipartisan committee or guaranteed surplus funding that does not require a treasurer’s advance.

Another concering departure from the recommendations made by Justice Martin is the decision to abrogate the legal professional privilege. As the High Court has consistently held:

Legal professional privilege is not merely a rule of substantive law. It is an important common law right …

It is only rarely and under exceptional circumstances that it is appropriate to abrogate that right.

There is no compelling reason to overturn over 400 years of common law and the contrary recommendations of the Martin Report as part of the institution of an anti-corruption commission in the Territory.

Justice Martin agreed, saying:

Legal professional privilege is an important protection for individuals and entities which enables them to obtain legal advice without fear that their communications with their legal adviser will subsequently be disclosed to other persons.

It is true that the ICAC Bill abrogates the privilege only as it applies to public bodies owned by the Territory.

The Social Policy Scrutiny Committee report concluded that in practice it would be unlikely that privileged information would be divulged in an open session.

In closing, the opportunity supports an ICAC. This has been a long process. We had the Martin report in 2016; then there was the exposure draft, which was subject to consultation through the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice; next, the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee looked at the bill; and now we are debating it here today. That process has moved us the pointy end of the sphere, so to speak.

It is my expectation that the Attorney-General will address the concerns the opposition has raised in her wrap-up of this bill and explain why all the Martin report’s recommendations were accepted, with the exception of the ones I have identified today.

I thank, on behalf of the opposition, all the public servants, departmental staff, consultants, witnesses, people who took the time to make submissions and anyone who took time to be involved in this process in one way or another. Thank you for your learned input.

I thank Hon Brian Martin AO, QC, and Hon Bruce Lander QC, who have each made valuable contributions to the process that has led to this bill being debated today. Without their guidance, along with many others, it is unlikely we would be as far down the road as we are today.

Nonetheless, as Justice Martin made clear, it is vital that we get it right from the outset. Putting in place and ICAC that leaves important questions regarding independence and freedom from political influence unanswered will detract from public confidence in the commission’s function. This is not a political concern; it is one of fairness, justice and practicality.

20

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Territorians deserve an ICAC that is beyond reproach and whose independence is beyond question. If we are truly serious about changing the way government does business in the Territory for the better, we should all support a commission that has the structural integrity to carry out its functions without any possible perception of bias or favour.

It is only with impeccable independence and the highest possible standards for justice that the ICAC will make a lasting difference in the Territory and ensure that in future the Territory is seen as a beacon for good governance and a fair go for all Territorians.

Ms LAWLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I support the Independent Commissioner against Corruption Bill, brought to the Assembly by the Attorney-General. I believe in open, transparent government and have values of honesty and integrity.

Labor went to the election on a platform of restoring trust, promoting transparency and openness in government processes, so that public confidence in government and its decision-makers could be restored.

The Member for Spillett seems to have amnesia about the last four years, because that is not what Territorians experienced when the CLP was in government for four years. It was the complete opposite of an open, transparent and trustworthy government.

This commitment resonated with Territorians. It is one of the many reasons we are in government today. Territorians very clearly said they wanted an open, transparent and accountable government. The CLP government lost the trust of the community through its actions and decisions. That was well documented in the award-winning book Crocs in the Cabinet.

They appointed their mates, husbands, wives and family members to boards and public service roles. They ignored selection processes, and those were well documented in the NT News.

Rather than looking for the right people to take the Territory forward, people were appointed to very highly paid public service roles they did not deserve and that they were not the best candidate for. They did not involve merit selection.

They did not fool anybody. The average public servant, who were involved in those panels, were able to talk widely throughout the public service. When you have a strong public service that keeps the Territory moving over four years because the ministers are so dysfunctional—it was a credit to those top-level public servants who kept things moving and held things together. People were appointed to roles that they never had the qualifications to fulfil.

They also cut funding to essential services like health and education. They made major decisions without consultation- decisions that were a shock to the community. They increased electricity, water and sewerage costs by 20%, 30% and 15% respectively. And they sold TIO. Let us not even talk about the port.

These decisions were not part of their election commitments. They did not ask Territorians or give us a chance to have a say on whether these decisions were appropriate. These are just a few of the questionable behaviours and decisions of the previous CLP government. Weak governance processes and reducing important community services such as education and health erode trust in government. That is what we saw under the previous government.

This government is working hard to ensure that trust and accountability is restored in all levels of government. We know that to restore trust we must government openly and transparently and with integrity. We have already implemented a number of measures that increase the openness and transparency of this government. These include:

 Changing legislation so that public money is not spent on political advertising

 Establishing an inquiry into political donations going back 10 years

 Establishing a select committee to investigate how we can make parliament more accessible and transparent; establishing not one but two scrutiny committees – the Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee. Both these committees have met and will provide important oversight of key legislation and policy initiatives, including this bill

21

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

 Members of this government making the actual cost of official overseas travel publicly available through media releases.

Madam Speaker, it is about the individual members and every decision they make. It is about those decisions made every single day when they meet with people, sign a ministerial brief and are out in the community and having conversations. It is all of those small decisions that sometimes add up to a big decision that make who you are and what you stand for.

It is vital that the community has confidence in our processes and institutions. If we are to truly restore trust in government, all of us – elected officials, public servants and government agencies – must act with honesty and integrity. Corruption by public officials involves a breach of public trust and can result in waste of misused resources, including public money, reputational damage and inequity.

The role of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, ICAC, is to protect the community from the misuse of power and authority and to restore faith and trust in the government and the Northern Territory Public Sector. The ICAC has been designed to prevent corruption, improve public confidence that corruption will be dealt with appropriately, encourage the reporting of corruption and protect whistleblowers. The bill implements, in principle, 50 of the 52 recommendations of the Anti-Corruption Integrity and Misconduct Inquiry report by the Commission Martin AO QC and is an important step in creating open and accountable government.

We know the vast majority of public servants are honest, hard-working, passionate and committed employees who carry out incredible work. The ICAC is not about them. I emphasise that point. The ICAC is not targeting public servants who act in good faith and do their work. After working for over 32 years in the public sector, I know it is all about their hard work supporting the government of the day and that they work to the very best of their ability.

The ICAC will be focused on addressing serious corruption in the Northern Territory Public Sector – that is, conduct which would warrant termination of services or corrupt behaviour that is punishable by a term of imprisonment. The ICAC will not only apply to public servants but also to ministers, members of parliament, judges, statutory office holders, ministerial advisers, electorate officers, as well as any member or employee of a public body.

As the Attorney-General explained, elected officials such as members in the Legislative Assembly can be investigated by ICAC for a serious breach of public trust – that is, conduct that is intentionally or recklessly inconsistent with the duty of acting in the public interest or other functions of the public body or officer.

The ICAC will also be able to investigate concerns of corruption in organisations that receive NT government funding or deliver NT government services, and individuals for certain offences such as bribing a public officer or abuse of public office.

Territorians deserve a mechanism to ensure their government and public agencies are open, accountable and operate with integrity. They deserve the same oversight of mechanisms as all other states and territories in Australia. For example, the New South Wales ICAC was established almost 30 years ago to protect the public interest, prevent breaches of public trust and guide the conduct of public officials in the New South Wales public sector.

In Victoria they have the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission. IBAC receives complaints and notifications of public sector corruption and police misconduct, investigates and exposes corruption and police misconduct and informs the public sector and communities about the risks and impacts of police misconduct and ways it can be prevented.

The South Australian ICAC passed parliament in 2012, the South Australian ICAC Act creates two offices; the Office for Public Integrity, the OPI, and the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the ICAC. Both these entities were designed to safeguard and enhance confidence in the integrity of the public administration in South Australia.

These are just some examples from other jurisdictions. It is about time Territorians had a system of integrity on par with out southern neighbours. This government, unlike the previous CLP government will not be self- serving or act in a manner that directly or indirectly benefits us. We are personally invested in the Territory. I and my colleagues the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and the Attorney-General were all born in the Territory, as well as many others, and this is our home. We are Territorians and we are working to support the growth and prosperity of the NT now and into the future.

22

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

The ICAC will maintain and build trust and will ensure that officials in positions of power are not left unchecked and will be accountable to the public for their actions and decisions. Individuals who are not public officers can be investigated by the ICAC, but only if that person is alleged to have conspired with a public officer to engage in corrupt conduct.

The ICAC will also have an educative role. As the Attorney-General said, an effective anti-corruption strategy does not just try to identify wrong-doers, investigate and then punish them after the fact; the ICAC will encourage and support organisations to address poor or inappropriate practice to minimise their risk of improper or corrupt behaviour by providing information and advice.

The culture of a workplace or organisation plays an important role in minimising the risk of improper or corrupt behaviour. The ICAC will be able to investigate a public body where the corporate culture encourages, supports or does not prevent improper practice.

Importantly, the bill includes protections for whistleblowers. Whistleblowers have an inside view of a workplace and play an important role in calling attention to wrongdoing and protecting other staff or clients of an organisation, sometimes at great risk to themselves. The bill outlines that public bodies have a responsibility for protecting and supporting whistleblowers. The ICAC will provide public bodies with guidance on how to do this and will investigate a public body if a whistle-blower is not being adequately protected.

These provisions are very important because whistle-blowers are very important in identifying and uncovering corrupt behaviour. They often take great risk to ensure criminal or corrupt behaviours and practices are investigated and dealt with appropriately. As the Attorney-General said, development of this legislation has been an open and consultative process. The draft legislation was the first legislation to be released to the public for comment before it was introduced into the parliament.

When the bill passed through the Assembly and the Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it was further scrutinised by the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee. This was important because the bill deals with complex and serious matters that deserve close scrutiny. We are serious about this bill and about public consultation. Our government remains open and willing to work on implementing the best reforms. We have listened to Territorians and we will continue to do so.

Trust and integrity in government is also built by doing what you say you will do and by involving the community in those important decisions. As well as meeting our commitments to establish an ICAC, we are meeting our other election commitments. As the Education minister I am very proud to say we are delivering on our commitments to invest in education to improve the academic outcomes of our children and young people in the Territory.

We said we would deliver $124m over four years in Education and that is exactly what we are doing. We have put an additional $20m directly into government schools and as a results we have seen an increase of about 178 teachers. It is about making sure governments follow those election commitments, consult, walk the walk and talk the talk. We have doubled our investment in support for students with disabilities and we talked about that before the election. In July 2017 we awarded 20 disability teaching scholarships to teachers from government schools.

It is about making sure that governments of the day are committed to the reasons they were elected. We what the people of the Territory wanted to see in government and followed through on those.

It is about all of the things we continue to see as important and all of our portfolios are focused on that.

At home and at school, we learn that there are consequences for deliberately doing the wrong things and breaking rules. This should be the same for us as adults. As a government, we understand our responsibilities to Territorians. We understand and are responsible for using public funds in the best interests of the Territory and not to serve our own interests.

We can all remember, for the last four years there were so many examples of ministers using funds inappropriately and some of those have been well documented.

This government was elected on a platform of trust, accountability and integrity. I am working hard to deliver on my election commitments and to build and maintain trust with the community, schools, families and our key partners in education. We do that by open and transparent communication, meeting with stakeholders, getting out into the community.

23

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

The Territory Labor government promised Territorians to rebuild their trust by creating an ICAC and we are delivering on that. I congratulate the Attorney-General and her staff for the bill. I would like to thank all public servants involved in the work that has been done to get the bill to this position.

I commend this bill to the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I say we suspend until 2 pm. A meeting of the Privilege Committee will take place in the Litchfield Room at 12 noon.

The Assembly suspended.

VISITORS

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Charles Darwin University VET students studying Certificate of Business Administration, accompanied by their lecturers, Jane McLoughlin and Felicity Ledek. Welcome to Parliament House.

Members: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT Platinum Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, on Monday, 20 November, Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh celebrated their platinum wedding anniversary.

Members: Hear, hear!

Madam SPEAKER That is remarkable. Some of you have so much to go through.

A young Princess Elizabeth married Prince Philip at Westminster Abbey in 1947, aged 21. Since then, the now 91-year-old monarch has become the first British royal to reach a sapphire jubilee after 65 years on the throne and has seen 14 Prime Ministers come and go. The couple have four children, eight grandchildren and five great-grandchildren.

Prince Philip once remarked, ‘My job first, second and last, is never to let the Queen down.’

On behalf of the Assembly, I congratulate the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh for their 70 years marriage and service to the Commonwealth.

I wonder who sends her a letter to say, ‘Well done’?

Mrs Finocchiaro: We will.

Mr Higgins: We will. The Opposition Leader will do that.

Madam SPEAKER: You will send the letter? Okay. Congratulations to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. If anyone else wants to send a letter to the Queen to congratulate her on her service and her 70 platinum years, please feel free to do so. It is a remarkable achievement in many ways.

INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONER AGAINST CORRUPTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND RELATED AMENDMENTS) BILL (Serial 35)

Continued from earlier this day

Mr GUNNER (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today we take another leap in our journey to a more mature Northern Territory, a safer place for the private sector to invest its money, a more transparent and accountable place for families to put down roots, raise their children and start new businesses. This bill says to the people of Australia and the world that the Northern Territory is fair, we play by the rules and we are accountable.

24

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

It says to the people of the Northern Territory that their government exists for them, that we will open our dark places to the light and put machinery in place so they never fall dark again. It says we are serious about integrity and that we value transparency over secrecy.

The Territory has come so far. Capital has grown from frontier backwater to a modern, vibrant and multicultural 21st century city. The economic and cultural capital of northern Australia. The Northern Territory plains and regional centres, rich with the culture and languages of first Australians are now also rich with agriculture, cattle, mineral and tourism ventures.

Today we take another step in pulling our public offices into the modern era. There is no question as to the immense future of this place, but we cannot grasp it unless both people at home and investors abroad have faith in our governance. We cannot hope to implement our reform agenda—jobs, kids and community, unless people trust we are working in their interests. This bill is about restoring trust in our political system and it is a historic moment.

Regardless of what may or may not hide in the old dark places, the fact is four years of CLP shade and its former operatives still here have cast an almighty, untenable pall over the Northern Territory. In politics, perception is reality. The perceptions borne of those CLP years, 2012–2016, is that decisions cannot be trusted. The perception of those years is that politics was not about the public good, but about egos, advancement and smiles upon mates in high and low places.

Today, we set out legislation for the end of the road for this brand of politics. We have a long way to go to win back the trust of Territorians. We must continue to listen, consult and engage but we know this is not the beginning. This bill is another in a long list of reforms to restore trust in Northern Territory governance because if Territorians cannot trust the people who make decisions on their behalf, we may as well all pack up and go south. No one wants to do that; we all want to live here in the north.

This bill is another step in restoring perceptions and restoring our reputation in the eyes of the Territory people, the Commonwealth, the states and our regional partners.

There will always be disagreement over government decisions and actions, this is natural, I think it is healthy. People who put their faith in us as their representatives, pay the wages and budgets of our public offices must know we arrive out our decisions in the interests of the many and not the special few.

An independent commissioner against corruption will loom large over Northern Territory politics. Larger than the old boys of the CLP ever could. The Territory should have an ICAC already. In many ways we are late to the party. We pushed for this in opposition and surprisingly met only howls of CLP protest. Now in government, with this legislation we can make it happen.

I thank and congratulate the Attorney-General and her team who have worked tirelessly and diligently to get us to this moment.

As honourable members would be aware, the Martin inquiry delivered 52 recommendations to government about the establishment of an ICAC. We are moving on his recommendations with a stronger integrity framework to prioritise investigation of the most serious and systemic corrupt conduct of public bodies and officers.

These broad terms will cover all aspects of public administration, including public servants, agencies, police, statutory authorities, ministerial officers and members of this Assembly. The ICAC will hold the most extensive powers of any Northern Territory integrity body ever, to ensure its independence and capacity to thoroughly investigate any matter of corruption referred to it.

It will have the power to investigate breaches of electoral offences to ensure we keep our democracy strong. It will have powers to enter government premises without warrants, to compel any person to attend and give evidence.

At its heart, the ICAC is about good governance. It will not be limited to identifying and investigating corruption alone, but also providing education. Educations programs may focus of fraud and corruption, risk management, ethics and culture. They will be directed at and available for public officers, authorities, inquiry agencies and the general public. In this way the commissioner will be able to raise awareness of the ICAC’s role and functions and in doing so, not only add layers of deterrence, but also remind Territorians again and again that there is an independent body out there, watching their backs.

25

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Education also means continual improvement. We want our agencies and decision-makers constantly getting better, so the bill will also enable the commissioner to look into procedures and policies, so that systems for preventing misconduct are contemporary, efficient and effective.

In many cases, exposing corruption and misconduct requires someone with the guts to speak out. But guts are not always enough. We must foster an environment in which whistleblowers feel protected against unwanted identification or retaliation. We are improving our existing whistleblower protection scheme which will also become the responsibility of the ICAC.

The ICAC will have broad powers, including the ability to look into lower level allegations of misconduct. We anticipate that these will typically be referred to existing Northern Territory oversight bodies where appropriate. They have the ability to look and if need be, if someone can always do that work they will refer it to them, so it is important that we are not putting any boundaries around what the ICAC can do.

My government has consulted extensively on this bill, because we have to get it right. The community has to be on board, because after all, the ICAC is for them. It is for restoring their trust in government.

The first draft of the bill was put to public scrutiny in stakeholder meetings in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. More than 30 written submissions were received on the first draft which I think is a great level of engagement for a very detailed aspect of the bill and after there had already been extensive consultation through things like the Martin inquiry. It shows there is an appetite out there for a better way.

Upon introduction to this Assembly, the bill was referred to the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee for further analysis and consultation. The committee invited submissions and held public meetings and had the benefit of input from a wide range of stakeholders, including the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, the Tasmanian Integrity Commission, the South Australian ICAC, the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission and the Public Health Associations of Australia.

The approach has been vigorous, consultative and far reaching. The committee published its report last week, recommending this Assembly pass this bill with amendments. We have already begun a national expression of interest process to recruit the position of the Northern Territory’s inaugural commissioner.

An advisory panel, similar to the judicial appointments panel will consider the expressions of interest. It is anticipated that this Assembly will consider a recommendation for a person as the commissioner in early 2018 and the ICAC is expected to be fully operational by mid-2018.

Restoring trust does not begin and end with the establishment of an ICAC, it is one component. A significant component, but one only.

From day one of government, we have been overhauling the old way of doing things to make the Northern Territory more transparent and more accountable. We have opened up Members’ Interests online, finally bringing into line with other states and the Commonwealth. Anyone with access to the Internet can now see Members’ Interests. We are publishing our travel costs, so that Territorians know how much of their money public officers are spending as they travel Australia and the region to unlock jobs opportunity.

We have opened up parliamentary Question Time to give the opposition and Independents more time to scrutinise our decisions, and we have established a long, overdue inquiry into political donations going back 10 years.

The public can again have faith in the political system of the Northern Territory, as can investors. The Commonwealth, the states and trading partners can have faith in the Northern Territory.

We came to government with a massive reform agenda. We were elected to create jobs, opportunity and pathways for our kids; to restore faith in Territory government; to empower the bush and lift its people into prosperity; for stability and certainty; to listen and plan for the long term, beyond election cycles and above egos and spin.

It has been more than a year and we have taken massive strides. Yesterday I had the pleasure of addressing investors in Cairns at the Northern Australia Investment Forum. I could tell them about how we are investing in the most transformational set of major projects the Territory has ever seen; our $100m investment in the Darwin CBD our capital as more than a place of work, as an attraction, a home, a destination and an economic driver in its own right; how we are shifting the perception of Darwin from being a service centre for the Top End to a service centre for the region.

26

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

I could tell them about our $90m on the table for Alice Springs to make it an even more compelling destination for tourists and families; Katherine as an inland port of national and international significance via the logistics and agribusiness hub; Tennant Creek as the Territory face of mining and mineral services.

I could talk about our major projects and private sector investment such as the Arnhem Land space opportunity and the $1.45bn, 10 000 hectare Project Sea Dragon.

I have been up and down the track talking about our record $1.1bn remote housing spend. We are building and upgrading hundreds of homes in the bush over the next year.

We are handing back local decision-making to Aboriginal communities, as they are leading the solutions to the Territory’s entrenched disadvantage.

We are investing in our kids, police and schools. We are investing in the traditional economic drivers of mining, Defence, oil and gas, international education, and agribusiness. We are investing in new, emerging industries such as tropical health and research, creative industries, renewable energy, environmental services, and human services.

I could not talk about any of these things without the buy-in of the people. The Northern Territory to be developed properly for the future has to be done by a government that is working with the full confidence of Territorians. We are doing everything we can to achieve that.

This bill goes a large way towards Territorians knowing that all parliamentarians serve honestly for them. Unless we serve the public interest and not the interests of a lucky few, we cannot have their faith and confidence in us.

Unless the private sector knows it can do business in the Territory and the government will be fair and transparent, we cannot develop the north. We cannot achieve any of our reform unless we take Territorians along for the journey and Territorians take us. This bill provides faith in our public bodies and our politicians to serve honestly and for the public good. That is fundamental to democracy.

This bill is about trust, listening and doing things better.

I thank the Attorney-General and the officers of her department for all their work to get us here today. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will speak on this bill from the good and the bad perspective. If you go back to December 2015, I moved a motion to establish an anti-corruption, integrity and misconduct commission. Believe it or not, that was passed by all members of parliament. It was not put up by the Labor Party or the CLP.

As much as it is nice to brag about something, that was not the issue at the time. The issue was that people of the Northern Territory wanted something to happen, and the best way of that was to get this parliament to work as one, and they did. They all worked in the room behind us. They say down and nutted out a compromise between both motions being put out by the CLP and the ALP at the time, and they both had the common sense to say, ‘We need to do something about this’.

From those discussions we got an anti-discrimination inquiry set up, which allowed the ability to look at setting up an ICAC. We have had that inquiry, and I support the concept of the ICAC being established in the Northern Territory.

I hear members of the government go on about the bad days of the CLP, and how wonderful they are on that side. I understand all that, but there is danger with throwing mud around this place when you have an ICAC. If you have some mud and you think it is really mud, then go to ICAC and do not use this place to throw it around. There has been plenty of mud thrown around this parliament year in, year out during my time here. Some of it might be truthful, some might be purely political. There is much political mud thrown which does not always have a basis in truth.

If people have a real issue with the previous governments – because ICAC does not have any limitations on how far it looks back – then take it up with ICAC and do not use this place to say, ‘I am better than you’. There is a lot of history in this place when it comes to whether people have done the right thing or not.

27

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

I say support the ICAC, do not use this forum today to throw mud at people because, to some extent, you blemish the idea of what you are doing. You say we will have an ICAC and there have been issues. But if you highlight those issues, then highlight them in the ICAC, then we will see if those issues are really fair dinkum. That is exactly why we wanted to set this commission up.

The good side is, yes, I am very pleased we will have an ICAC. The bad side is, the committee’s report was handed down last week. I have been trying to read it, amongst other things. The Attorney-General rang me and said, ‘I thought there would be a couple of amendments’. I am extremely disappointed that I got seven pages of amendments stuck on my desk today. I also have a report which has 14 recommendations and a page full of proposed amendments.

This scrutiny committee has issued this report. It also has a page highlighting all the amendments. It has on pages 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 a schedule of proposed amendments. How many of those amendments have been taken up by this government? This is its own scrutiny committee. I read this the other night and expected to find these amendments today. Half of these amendments have not gone through. What kind of government does not support its own scrutiny committee?

This is not good enough. This bill should not go before this parliament today or this week ...

Ms Nelson: It is not a government scrutiny committee; it is an independent committee.

Mr WOOD: It should not go before this parliament. We are bringing this back to debate. I am here to support a scrutiny committee’s amendments. I have thought, ‘Oh, well, bipartisan. I have not heard any members on the other side say this is not good enough.’ I now have this document which has the government’s amendments, not matching this document. There are a heap of amendments the scrutiny committee asked for that are not in here. They have not been changed. One of the most important ones must be the appointment of the ICAC commissioner.

This scrutiny committee said in its comments:

The Committee is of the view that Clause 112 should be amended to provide for a more robust process of appointment of the ICAC which more accurately reflects Commissioner Martin’s recommendation and accepted best practice concerning appointments of this nature elsewhere in Australia.

Will someone tell me whether Commissioner Martin’s recommendation was one of the two the government rejected?

The scrutiny committee said:

The Committee recommends that clause 112(2) be amended such that the appointment of the ICAC by the Administrator can be made only after:

(a) an advisory panel chaired by a former Supreme Court Judge and including the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory and the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Attorney- General and Justice makes a recommendation to the Assembly Committee, or if there is no Assembly Committee the Legislative Assembly; and

(b) the Assembly Committee, or if there is no Assembly Committee the Legislative Assembly, makes a recommendation to the Administrator.

The scrutiny committee has recommended to the government, to make this more in keeping with Commissioner Martin’s recommendation – the inquiry this government set up and supported – and trying to reflect exactly what that commissioner was saying, to amend the new bill. Is it here? No.

Someone on that side needs to ask what is going on. Do you support your own scrutiny committee? I do not think so. That is so bleeding obvious. I do not know how the Labor Party people on the scrutiny committee must feel—they have the majority on this committee. They sit down and put through these well-thought- through recommendations, and some of them are very hard. This is not easy-going legislation. When you work through some of this stuff you find that it is quite legal, not easy to understand. I have been working through it—I have my notes from reading it.

I feel like asking what the point is in debating something that will not even happen.

28

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Let us debate this if you want to—fine. But let us not vote on it. Take it back to the scrutiny committee and let it look at it. What is the point in introducing these changes and not running them through the scrutiny committee first? Let the committee look at the amendments, not this last-minute sitting it on my desk.

We have one of the most important bills—it has taken a lot of time, money and effort by the department as well as Commissioner Martin and many others who have supported this to come here today with a bill I thought would be passed using the amendments the scrutiny had recommended. But do I come here and find that?

Do not worry, Member for Katherine—this is what was put on my desk. This is what the committee has given me to look at and try to read. I tried to support it. Then I come in here and find that your recommendations have not even been supported by your own government. What kind of parliamentary process is this?

Ms Nelson interjecting.

Mr WOOD: It is your scrutiny committee and your government. Look at the process!

The process is that you have a scrutiny committee—this is the new system—which looks at the bill and comes back with recommendations. What does your government do? It chucks them out and puts in a new one. What is the point in the scrutiny committee?

At least the committee has given good reason as to why each recommendation was made and why it wants to amend the bill. Do I have that with this seven pages of amendments? Some I can understand which are minor, and some are more than minor. One of the major ones is at section 112, which this scrutiny committee said should be changed so it reflects Commissioner Martin’s recommendations about the appointment of the ICAC commissioner. That must be one of the most important recommendations in this bill.

If we are talking about independence, we need to make sure the person elected to that position is not only independent but seen to be. If it is to be elected by the Cabinet and we rubber stamp it, then I am not sure that is independent. Here we have a chance to clarify what Commissioner Martin said by bringing in the amendments from the scrutiny committee, and the government says no.

I am extremely suspicious. If that is not included in this, I will not be supporting this piece of legislation, but I do not want to go down that path. I want to support this piece of legislation as a member of parliament, but I do not want to be rushed into having to read a report that came in on Wednesday.

Would you believe that my research officers, which the government has given me, have not seen that report? They could not find it. I had a copy in my office. I said, ‘Have you looked at this? I would like some advice on it.’ They are the people you are paying to help me give a concise answer about the material. But they had not seen it.

On top of that I was working on the weekend, trying to work my way through the recommendations, and I got a phone call from the Attorney-General yesterday saying there would be some changed. I said I would possibly agree with that. But I did not expect seven pages of changes, nor did I expect when it was said the scrutiny committee would put them forward, that most of them would be scrapped—or at least a good percentage of them. That was never said to me.

I have come here today thinking I would be debating something you all support. I am happy to support the scrutiny committee. That is not to say that I have to agree with everything in it, but I would have expected the government to be agreeing with a fair bit of it, because they have the majority on the scrutiny committee and the inside information.

I have been on lots of committees where the government has the majority of people on the committees and they come to those committee meetings after having a little chat up on level 5, and you know that is where we are heading. I would have thought that this was something similar, that they had gone on advice, heard what their own department said.

Member for Katherine, you can carry on like a half-cooked chook, but the point is, there is a really serious issue here. The serious issue is that your government, which I supported in this matter, set up scrutiny committees. I have supported scrutiny committees from way back, I raised it with the previous government, telling them to look at the way that Queensland operates with a unicameral system. This is the way that Northern Territory should be operated.

29

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

You set up a committee to look at that, you went to Queensland, came back and set them up. I think it is a great idea, I am all supportive of it. Then the first time we come back into the House with a decent piece of legislation the scrutiny committee has looked at, you basically have a government that snubs the scrutiny committee, puts in its own recommendations, forgets half of the ones the scrutiny committee put forward and says nothing. It does not even explain why these recommendations have not been put in.

All I am saying is that I want this piece of legislation to go through. I want it to be the best piece of legislation. I do not want a commissioner that is going to have people questioning the independence of that commissioner. This scrutiny committee said this is the changes you need to make sure that does not happen and it has been ignored.

I am saying to the Chief Minister, let us debate this if you want to, as a general discussion, but scrap any amendments. Let us not take it to the committee stage, because I will be asking for this not to go ahead, but to go back to the scrutiny committee, which it can do. It is what I think should happen. We have come all this way and in the last 24 hours I get this change to something that has taken months to come to this point?

I hear the Chief Minister thanking all the staff and the Attorney-General for all the hard work they have done. Fantastic. What are you going to do now? Are you going to change the act in the last five minutes?

We have a committee which gives a report. We are not sure whether it was advertised. How many people in the broader transparent government know about that committee report which should have been advertised, I presume it has been. Does the public know that report has come down? How many of the public have had a chance to read this report? I do not know.

I have been on many committees and most of them bring down a report and the public have a chance, through, possibly the media, to comment on whether they think some of these changes are good or bad.

Be that as it may, this is too rushed. It does not need to be rushed if we have taken this long. We have not appointed an ICAC commissioner—if you want, to some extent, you could start asking for expressions, but how that person is appointed is very important.

Where do I get a chance to discuss these changes carefully? I do not mind amendments that pop up quickly, sometimes they have to. Clause 40 is completely new. It may be minor, I do not know. I would prefer not to be debating this issue without a thorough knowledge of what those amendments mean. The same as what the scrutiny committee did. It gave us a good set of reasons why they should amend this bill.

It has left me in a position of feeling down-hearted. We have come this far and it is not going to get my support in this state unfortunately.

I would be happy for this to go back the scrutiny committee. They can look at the amendments the government has put and perhaps ask reasons why their amendments have been rejected. I think that would be fair to a scrutiny committee. If I was on the scrutiny committee, I would like to know why the government has rejected my recommendations and the purpose behind the government’s changes. Why were these amendments not put to the scrutiny committee?

Sad. Good, because I think a long time ago we got this off the ground by a good parliament working together, but unfortunately you do not have my support for this one. This is getting sloppy right at the end where it should be professional.

Ms MANISON (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of what is a monumental piece of legislation for this parliament and delivering on a key commitment of this government to establish the first Independent Commission Against Corruption in the Northern Territory. I have listened to the Member for Nelson’s contribution and this has probably been one of the most scrutinised pieces of legislation we have ever seen in the history of the Northern Territory.

This has started from a process where, although it took the previous government a long time to get them to support the establishment of an ICAC, there was a thorough process that had already been conducted by Brian Martin. There was a huge body of work that had been done there. In opposition this government did a huge amount of work consulting with Territorians about what an ICAC should be, what it should look like and we took those consultations right across the Northern Territory.

In regards to this piece of legislation, it has been very carefully drafted. It has been released for people to give their feedback for some time now. It has gone through the committee processes as well. We have had

30

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 the resources of government focused on this since we were put in government in August 2016. This is possibly one of the most scrutinised pieces of legislation we have ever seen. There has been a lot to do; this is a big bill. We are very satisfied with where we have been to so far. We welcome the debate but there has been a huge amount of work done here.

Back in May 2016 I used to hold the position of shadow minister for government accountability; in that time is issued a press release and it said only Labor will deliver and Independent Commission Against Corruption. That was as true then as it is now. We have managed to get this off the ground. It has taken a huge amount of lobbying in the previous parliament but we have arrived at this point.

There is no doubt that we saw a lot of debate around whether or not an ICAC should be established in the last term of government. The previous government initially fought against an inquiry into political donations, for example, after they had accidently supported establishing one and then they had to come back into the parliament immediately after a by-election to through that previous inquiry out the window. That is an example as to when had some pretty serious questions about what on earth they were hiding. They pushed back hard against establishing an ICAC.

The sad reality was that we simply had too many questions around silver circles, travel reports, ministerial staff and conduct and the four year reign of that CLP government delivered a major blow to the trust Territorians had in the conduct of their government. Towards the end of that government at the last minute under pressure from opposition and Independents, the previous CLP government agreed to hold a properly constituted inquiry which was headed by the former NT chief justice, Brian Martin QC.

In saying this, I acknowledge that there was a lot of lobbying done from our side and it was wonderful to see we finally got the previous government to agree to the need for an establishment of an ICAC.

Debate today will support a public commitment that was made by this government when we were in opposition, and we are now in government, to work towards restoring trust in government. It was one of our key election commitments. We took this elections commitment to establish an ICAC to Territorians at key public forums as well before the 2016 election. Territorians now demanded an ICAC to be established.

It has been a huge body of work in this first year of government and I have to commend the Attorney-General, Chief Minister and their departments for all their work on this. Many prominent Territorians participated in these discussions—not in a political party way, but in genuine concern for the direction the Territory was heading in under the previous government. Today we intend to explore some of this history as well as look at this bill and what we have before us.

Why did it come to the point where we had to establish an ICAC in the Northern Territory? In the first instance, it is fair to say that as a jurisdiction we are maturing and it is a sense that it is important for the Territory to continue to develop some of these important bodies and an ICAC is one of them.

All of the states already have some form of ICAC and it is only the Northern Territory and the ACT who currently do not so it is good that we are developing our public policy more broadly. The unavoidable reality is that the behaviour of the previous government was really one of the main catalyst for the high levels of the public support for the establishment of an ICAC.

The previous CLP government was one of the most scandal plagued governments in the history of the Territory and in the four years we saw four MLAs leave the former CLP government to become independents. They had 16 ministerial, sorry I thought it was 18 ministerial reshuffles, and eight deputy chief ministers. Ministerial staff had gone through the court processes and we have seen that happen and we saw some very questionable ministerial behaviour as well at that time.

We know that many of the actions of the previous government really undermined the confidence in our public institutions. It was in fact the actions of some of those previous members and more significantly some of them who were minister who fundamentally established in both the public and the oppositions view that there was a need for an independent body like an ICAC.

Under this legislation the ability for public officials to attempt to cover up decisions that could see a personal benefit will be severely curtailed. This bill then is a further demonstration on how this government is working with Territorians to restore trust and integrity in government. We know Territorians want the government to continue to demonstrate that it is committed to major public policy reform.

31

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

We have held this belief about establishing an ICAC for some time and it was something that the Chief Minister now, and when he was formally the Opposition Leader, had said in part of his budget reply in 2016 that he had set out the priorities of what Labor would do if elected. To quote from the Chief Minister he said at that time:

This lends me to the third job of a Labor government restoring trust and integrity to govern the Northern Territory. It is sad that restoring trust is on the to-do list for the next Northern Territory government. No one needs to be told of the scandals that they have beset this CLP government. Four years of the CLPs dodgy deals, jobs for mates and an arrogant disdain for transparency and accountability has seen Territorians trust in government hit rock bottom. Never before has a staff member of any Territory government been charged with corruption. Never before have we seen a Chief Minister accusing the police of plotting a coup against them.

Labor will introduce the Northern Territory Independent Commission Against Corruption. It will be independent from government and have broad ranging self-referral powers, it will have the power to compel witnesses and documentation and investigate matters which took place prior to its establishment. Labor understands that the creation of a Territory ICAC involves complex, legal and administrative issues and we look forward to considering the recommendations of an anti-corruption integrity and misconduct commission inquiry being conducted by Mr Brian Martin QC.

That was a defining moment for us in opposition. Our leader had laid out plans for rebuilding the trust and integrity we plainly needed. We have now arrived at this significant delivery point here today. Before I turn to the substance of the bill, I want to thank the members of the public, the media, the lawyers, the long-time Territorians, the members of this parliament, the staff who have worked all through this who have contributed to the Martin Inquiry and then the subsequent consultative forums held around the Northern Territory and this is one area where as I said earlier that there has been real and genuine engagement with Territorians during the development of this legislation and very thorough scrutiny.

I want to thank the hard working public servants and all those who worked on the process that led to drafting of this legislation and I also acknowledge the work and the effort of Mr Brian Martin QC, and his careful consideration of issues produced a report that has truly helped guide our way.

Because this is of quite a technical nature, this bill I do acknowledge I am drawing a lot of direct reference from the Attorney-General’s second reading speech and explanatory memorandum. From that we saw that it stated that the key purpose of this bill was to create an independent commission against corruption more commonly known as an ICAC. Primarily it creates an ICAC with comprehensive powers to investigate improper conduct. The ICACs key role is to investigate and deal with most serious, sensitive, systematic corruption conduct by public officers and bodies. This bill also repeals a Public Interest Disclosures Act and transitions to a whistle blower protection functions to an ICAC.

It is important that Territorians are very clear about the powers of an ICAC. Upon establishment of the ICAC, it will give Territorians a greater confidence that public officials, in particular, will be held accountable for their decisions. The bill is one of the steps towards delivering on the government’s commitment to implement in principle 50 of the 52 recommendations of the report by Commissioner Martin AO QC as a result of the anti- corruption and integrity misconduct inquiry.

As the Attorney-General said, the bill contains the following features. it provides for the appointment of an Independent Commission Against Corruption and the ICAC to be assisted by staff. It is important that within our first budget, we delivered the budget support for the establishment of an ICAC. It is not an insignificant amount of money. It needs to be done properly, so it requires the resourcing. This will be an important body in the Northern Territory and it is important that we ensured we gave it the right support to get it off the ground and up and running.

It gives the ICAC the power to investigate a wide range of improper conduct in the broader public sector. The broader public sector includes not only agencies and statutory authorities, but local government, contract service providers and recipients of NTG funding. Some conduct and offences which are inherently detrimental to operations of public sector can also be investigated by the ICAC. We needed to ensure there were broad investigative powers. It is about ensuring that people feel they have the confidence that the ICAC can go about doing its job in sorting out and looking into questions of improper conduct or corruption.

It gives the ICAC the power to investigate electoral offences relating to Territory and local government elections. This is important in upholding and maintaining public confidence in our electoral system. Territorians must have confidence about the integrity of that.

32

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

It went to tasking the ICAC with focusing on the most serious, sensitive and systemic conduct. Matters that are less serious are to be referred to other existing bodies, unless there is good reason not to refer, and the ICAC should be investigating the most serious of matters. Other less serious matters have other existing avenues for referral, which is another important part.

This bill allows the ICAC to have the flexibility to deal with improper conduct using a wide range of methods, including audits, investigations, joint investigations, referrals - with or without control of referral - making recommendations for change and providing briefs on evidence for prosecution or disciplinary action. The bill contains the presumption that investigations are carried out in private, but public inquiries are possible if the ICAC deems this to be in the public interest.

It gives the ICAC the investigative powers it needs. For example, it looks at the ICAC and the very broad discretion to determine how a matter should be dealt with and whether any action is required and protects the ICAC from external interference with exercising that discretion. The ICAC must exercise that discretion in public interest. Schedule 1 sets out a broad framework of public interest factors that may be relevant, although relevance will vary on a case-by-case basis. Again, that is looking at protecting the public interest as a foundation matter for an ICAC. It enables the public to have confidence that matters will be properly dealt with.

In referring back to the second reading as well, it allows an ICAC to investigate wrongful conduct that has occurred before the bill commences. There is no time limit as to how far back the ICAC can go. Schedule 1 provides guiding principles for the ICAC when prioritising resources which include whether the matter has present relevance, whether relevant, reliable evidence is available, whether statutory time frames for prosecution or disciplinary action have expired, and whether the matter has already been investigated. None of these factors bind an ICAC to make a decision and the weight they have will vary on a case-by-case basis.

That was a really important factor – that there are broad time frames for investigations that ICAC may consider. One of the main question we were asked repeatedly was whether the ICAC would have the power to go back and look retrospectively. That has been an important factor, because it is important to understand that if there has been wrong that can be explored and looked at to give the public confidence that if this type of thing is able to happen—something that was improper or corrupt—it is dealt with. That way there can be more work done to ensure this type of conduct would happen again.

It gives the ICAC comprehensive investigation powers, including powers to enter public sector premises without a warrant and private premises with a warrant, and requires witnesses to attend witnesses to attend and give evidence on oath. You would expect to see that in this type of body because it is important that people know it has power to find the information and get to the source of truth.

This bill is not intended to contain all the ICAC’s powers as some are intended to be provided by some way of a separate bill that makes consequential amendments to other legislation key powers will provide by amending the Surveillance Devices Act, the Police (Special Investigative and Other Powers) Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Northern Territory Act.

It goes on to say there are other pieces of legislation that would be required to be looked at to continue to highlight the scope of reforms necessary to maintain the integrity of public policy.

Going back to the second reading again, it gives the ICAC the power to create a mandatory reporting scheme and the power to impose varying requirements for mandatory reporting, hence the ICAC may decide to place higher mandatory reporting requirements on persons in senior classifications or certain agencies. It will ensure appropriate reporting mechanisms are in place to enable ongoing scrutiny of agencies where necessary.

It repeals the Public Interest Disclosure Act to provide for any outstanding investigations and disclosures to transfer to the ICAC. Whistleblowers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act continue to be provided with protection, and it continues the whistleblower protection scheme from the Public Interest Disclosure Act with some changes to strengthen the scheme and clarify lines of responsibility.

The ICAC will take over from the Commissioner of Public Interest Disclosures’ responsibility of oversighting and administering the whistleblower protection scheme.

These three sections maintain ongoing investigations under the Public Interest Disclosure Act to reinforce the government’s view that whistleblowers should be properly protected. It is very important that people have

33

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 the confidence that if they see wrongdoing and what they believe is corruption, they have the confidence to report it knowing they will be protected. That is an important principle of this type of work.

This has been a very extensive body of work. A great of detail has gone into it. As I said at the outset, this is one of the most scrutinised pieces of legislation to ever come to this House. We saw a great deal of work done under the previous government along with Mr Brian Martin QC. We had a range of consultation across the Territory to fully understand and appreciate what Territory felt was important. They believed we had an ICAC that had the capacity to give Territorians the trust they wanted to have in the government and their public officials, knowing that it has the powers to investigate and, if they find there has been misconduct and corruption, be able to deal with it.

It is sad that we have gotten to that point, in many ways, that there is a need for this type of body to restore trust in the processes of government, making it more accountable, but that is the reality we are working with. That is why this is such an important bill, and why an incredible amount of resources, time, effort and detail has gone into it.

From the moment we started our time in government, in August 2016, we were very clear that this is one of our essential election commitments, the delivery of which was vital. It was Territorians’ expectation. This has been one of the biggest pieces of work this government has embarked on, and we are very proud to deliver it. It is time to establish an ICAC in the Northern Territory.

A tremendous amount of work has gone on not only in the public sector, but across the community—speaking to Territorians about what they expected to see, to the legal community, to professionals to understand the experiences in other places and the resourcing required for this. It has been one of the biggest, most detailed bodies of work and, by far, one of the most scrutinised pieces of legislation we have ever seen in this parliament.

This will be a monumental and important time in history for this parliament to see the establishment of an ICAC. This will be a body tasked to serve Territorians to ensure that Territorians have the confidence that, if somebody does not conduct themselves in the best interests of the Northern Territory, use their position to their benefit not in line with the expectations of the Territory in doing something corrupt that they will be investigated. They will be found out. There are mechanisms to deal with them. People should not dare go down that path.

This is about upholding the integrity of not just this parliament, but our public sector, to know that Territorians have trust that there are more teeth to deal with these serious questions. Unfortunately, we have seen too many questions over the previous term of government. There is now a need for an ICAC.

I have to thank the people for their tireless work into this bill. We have seen many members of this government work tirelessly on this bill and I thank them for their hard work. I also thank the opposition and Independents as they are a key part of this and have done a tremendous amount of work as well.

This is an important day for the Northern Territory, a historic day, with the passage of this legislation after a tremendous amount of work. Territorians need to see an ICAC, that is the sad reality of the situation now. We are delivering upon this commitment to Territorians, it has been a huge body of work and I commend the bill to the House. We will see an ICAC established in the Northern Territory, it is something that Territorians have the expectations on this government to deliver and we are glad to be delivering it.

Ms WAKEFIELD (Territory Families): I would like to echo the Deputy Chief Minister’s words on the importance of this day, it is a historic day in Territory politics and in this parliament. The Territory Labor government promised Territorians to rebuild trust in government by creating an ICAC and today we are delivering on that promise.

One of our core election commitments was to restore trust after four years of CLP chaos. This is a government that listens and then takes action.

Having an ICAC is an important and I would go as far as to say an essential part of the ongoing maturing of the Northern Territory’s political system.

As a government, we are committed to strong and mature governance. I am sure that many in this House will remember the Chips Mackinolty cartoon a couple of decades ago with the caption:

Betty wants a cowboy outfit for Christmas … buy her the Northern Territory Government.

34

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

We cannot allow the Territory to ever again have cowboy outfits in government. A modern economy and society requires a government that will willingly be transparent and accountable. This is essential for the ongoing development of the Northern Territory. If we are going to meet our full potential, we need this type of governance and oversight.

The Northern Territory needs an ICAC in order to be trusted by other jurisdictions and external bodies as well as our own community. As a new minister, I have had some uncomfortable moments at national table where people have raised the behaviour of previous governments and we know, with discussion with our counterparts across jurisdictions and federally, that over the last four years, the Northern Territory’s reputation took a hit. It is impacting on our relationship with those jurisdictions and our ongoing development as a mature voice at the national table.

The importance of such a mechanism was highlighted last night to those of us who watch Four Corners around the Lionel Murphy issue. I had vague memories but they certainly came flooding back. We need to ensure that governments, politicians and other in senior office do not abuse power entrusted in them by the community.

The ICAC is a specialist investigator with a focus on government corruption. It will investigate certain kinds of criminal offences that relate to government corruption and can also investigate serious breaches of public trust that are technically not offences. In addition to the kind of powers police have, the ICAC has the powers to enter government premises without warrants and to compel any person to attend and give evidence.

The ICAC will also administer a whistle-blower protection scheme which will allow for protection of important sources of information and I echo the Deputy Chief Minister’s point that this is an essential part of any ICAC process to make sure that people are confident they can give evidence and will be protected, particularly in a small jurisdiction like the Northern Territory.

I am also proud that this Labor government has accepted 50 of the 52 recommendations from the report delivered by Brian Martin QC in May and are allocating $3m per annum for its operation. That money is on the table and is an important piece of resourcing and it needs to be done properly. That commitment shows we are serious about having a functioning and well-resourced ICAC that can deliver on its intent.

It is really important to be clear that the ICAC does not replace existing investigation bodies such as the Ombudsman, police, all the specialist bodies such as the children’s commissioner or the anti-discrimination commission. This is about investigating the bits between those organisations that can be missed and are important to the integrity of our system.

Territorians have a right to understand that this is really important and highly complex draft legislation that sets up the ICAC. I commend the Attorney-General for taking the step of putting out draft legislation for Territorians to look at; that has been a really important process. In my community in Alice Springs people participated and welcomed the opportunity to participate in the consultation and have extensive knowledge of what we were proposing through that exposure draft and to have input. That has really set the tone for this process about it being transparent, independent and about all Territorians having a say within this process which is really a reflection of our commitment to transparency in government.

There has to be tough consequences and penalties for corruption, Territorians expect nothing less. In my portfolio of Territory families there have been significant conversations as a community about accountability of young people taking responsibility for their behaviour. We agree and that is one of the reasons we are reforming the youth justice centre with a focus on accountability and rehabilitation. If we expect that of some of our most vulnerable Territorians, we must demand it of our most powerful.

The Territory Labor government has zero tolerance for criminality and corruption in government. People need to have faith that government decisions are being made for the good of all Territorians and not just for a special few. The CLP completely eroded that public faith in the institutions to government and we must now act to start to restore that faith in the people of the processes of government.

When I first became a politician from being a social worker it was quite shocking to me how many people have absolutely no faith in our process, how concerned they were. They even asked me why I was taking this step and becoming a parliamentarian.

35

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

When you have people asking those basic questions of you, I think it shows that we have a lot of work to do, as a government, to restore that trust and faith in the institution that is this place. As the Deputy Chief Minister said, it is sad that we have to have this process, but it is clear that we do.

In our commitment to accountability, we have made key changes to parliament including a members’ register of interest and new rules about disclosing details of overseas travels before every trip.

I have been happy to be part of restoring trust in my own portfolio. Our government was quick to act on all levels of abuse, neglect and harm in our youth detention centres. In November last year, we introduced amendments to the Youth Justice Act, so that never again, will we see the use of restraint chairs and spit hoods that were exposed in the Four Corners program and led to the Royal Commission.

As part of instilling trust, we were quick to introduce major reforms into youth justice and in February last year, doubled the amount of funding for youth diversion aimed at keeping kids on track and preventing reoffending.

We have also introduced major changes to the youth detention culture with a review of all policies and procedures, levels of training and the recruitment of the new youth justice officer positions focused on the needs of young people and trained in therapeutic (inaudible) and de-escalating incidents rather than force.

We have also done immediate works to make Don Dale and the Alice Springs youth detention centres safer and better environments for young people to be detained in.

All of these things have been put in place to restore trust in our youth justice system while waiting for the release of the Royal Commission report. The Royal Commission in to protection and detention of children brought down its report last week. Its wide-ranging findings and recommendations circle the themes of trust and accountability.

There are a number of significant findings against management and leadership, with all levels of leadership needing to be held to account. What happened in detention centres, especially over the last four years, highlights why we need strong oversight bodies with teeth, such as the ICAC, that can keep politicians and those in leadership positions honest and accountable to ensure such neglect and harm against young people that we saw in the Four Corners program never happens again.

Governments need to be accountable as the carers of children in protection and detention. Families of children in care need to trust that government will do the very best they can for their kids, aiming at all times to take action that is in the very best chance of making their future stronger.

Aboriginal families need reassurance that cultural safety is considered alongside physical and emotional safety and that the capacity of original kin to provide all three be the first port of call.

Communities need to trust that government is committed to community safety. Clearly, the current system has not worked to improve community safety and doing more of the same will not make things better.

The non-government sector also expects us, as holders of important office and as partners to be open, transparent and held to account.

The NGO sector needs relationships built on trust so that they can be sure the basis of the service they deliver and the service system they work in is operating on a sound foundation, is safe and meets the needs of their clients, families and communities they work with.

Through our contractual relationships with NGOs, we expect high level of accountabilities from NGOs as we should. But in turn, they should expect the same level of assurance and accountability from government and nothing less.

We have inherited a broken system where policies and procedures have been ignored and systems for rehabilitation simply did not exist. One of the key recommendations of the Royal Commission is to strengthen independent oversight of the child protection and detention centres. Specifically, they recommend the establishment of a commission for children and young people which will have two commissioners of whom one will be Aboriginal.

This government is considering this, along with the other 265 recommendations. To maintain the trust of Territorians we need to methodically work through the implications of all recommendations. We have set up

36

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 a reform management office, working across the government and directly to CEOs in government departments with a stake in reforming the youth justice and child protection system and outcomes for young people.

This office will ensure that a large number of recommendations are implemented and monitored, and that efforts of each department are coordinated and collaboratively worked on. The most accountable systems are needed to ensure we implements effectively the intent of the Royal Commission report, and that we never again have to be part of a Royal Commission and inquiry in this area.

We will also set up a tripartite body involving both levels of government, as well as the Aboriginal and non- government sectors to guide and oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission and our reform agenda.

This is all about restoring trust, transparency and accountability in government and our youth justice and child protection systems. We have an appetite for ensuring independent oversight is given the status it deserves as a key part of an accountable and robust system.

The NT pension and concession scheme we inherited is another example of the need to restore trust and good governance. It was open to exploitation and fraud. Its complexity, lack of systems and poor governance resulted in the infamous travel agent rorts under the previous government. Its poor design also resulted in exploitation, where a number of people gained unfair benefits from a scheme that did not prevent them from doing so or call them to account.

This government was prepared to fix the system so seniors and others could have trust in it. After all, it delivers up to $37m worth of concessions per year to more than 27 000 members. An appropriate level of administrative oversight is essential if the community is to have any confidence that the schemes are effective.

We have sought independent advice from Deloitte and the NT Ombudsman, who undertook his own independent review of the administrative processes and made very detailed recommendations which will inform our reforms to the system.

A reformed administrative and governance system that Territory Families is introducing will achieve two outcomes: as much money as possible will go to seniors benefits rather than administration; and the processes and strict internal controls will be rigorous enough to ensure compliance by all parties involved in the scheme.

Introducing caps to all the concessions, including power and water, will ensure a much fairer distribution of concession accounts to all members. Without caps it is administratively difficult to monitor improper use.

We have improved checks for service providers with clearly documented roles and responsibilities and regular checks and reporting requirements. We will be incorporating point of sale compliance checking through automated systems and routine, and independent audit processes. We will utilise technology to ensure compliance and improve reporting. Membership will have to be validated annually.

The NT’s concession unit will be restructured to ensure a greater level of transparency and reduce the opportunity for conflict of interest. The key will be a separation of the assessment of applications from the payments, ensuring an increased level of scrutiny to both.

As a government, we cannot just ask children, families and the community to trust us. We have to put in place the systems, legislation, policies and procedures, training and monitoring to ensure we can be trusted.

The two examples I have given from my portfolio of the pieces of work we have done over the last 14 months show this government’s commitment to transparency and good governance. Unfortunately, we have many recent examples of other governments that have not had that same commitment. This ICAC is an important body to ensure that we have that confidence that governments are doing the right thing, that our most vulnerable have the support they need and the hard-earned taxpayer dollars go to the right place. The ICAC is a critical part of this structure of trust.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this important legislation. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering it. I see it as critical in ensuring trust by Territorians in government.

37

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Mr SIEVERS (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is great to be here to talk about ICAC. I could not be happier. It is great to see you here too, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I fully support the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill. I support that politicians should be held accountable in the bill, as any other person in the bill - importantly, politicians from the past, the here and now and the future. Let me make this clear: there are no exceptions. I believe politicians should lead by example. If they are found to be engaged in any corrupt activity, then they should be held fully accountable and prosecuted accordingly. I believe this should happen in whatever government you are in.

If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear. This is another great point about bringing the ICAC in. I continue to work in my electorate on a weekly basis. I have many conversations with people at the shops, the parks or even in the street. The number one item on their list is to have an ICAC, and open to transparent government. I fully support my constituents’ requests and will advocate their voice very loudly on this issue.

I understand the need for an Independent Commission Against Corruption that will have the ability to investigate and look at any items that raise concerns of corruption in the NT. It is a position and a system well overdue for the Northern Territory. I thank all of my colleagues here today who support this bill.

However, I understand that the ICAC was not supported in the previous CLP government. This was and is very disappointing to note, as a community member and public servant during this time, especially when the public wanted it to occur. They wanted the government of the day to investigate a number of matters involving their own CLP government.

I recall one resident saying to me – these are his words, ‘Tony, we need to keep the bastards honest.’ This shows how passionate people were over many CLP issues. There was not a thing that could be done. As we know, the internal reviews, audits and investigations were all conducted with the common line being reported as ‘it is not in the public best interests’. Well, many were thinking, ‘What the hell does this mean? What the hell does ‘not in the public’s best interest’ mean?

Of course it is in the public’s best interest. We are the taxpayers and we have the right know and know that any corruption should be dealt with appropriately like any other person.

I am very pleased to pick up on the points made by the minister referring to the powers the ICAC will have, knowing they will be very comprehensive powers—more powers than anyone, to fully investigate matters whether they are sensitive, systemic, of the most serious nature or any corruption by public officers and their organisations. This bill fully demonstrates this government’s commitment to restoring trust and integrity to all Territorians who work hard themselves and many Territorians work bloody hard and they deserve an ICAC.

They want an ICAC and a government that is working hard for them and is held accountable to the people and the justice system. As I understand it, members of the House can also be investigated under the breach of public trust section, whereas if a member intentionally or recklessly conducts themselves not in line with their duties to act in the public interest, then this can be investigated by ICAC as a serious breach, noting that the definition of a public officer clearly refers to public servants; ministers; members of parliament; statutory officials; ministerial staff; electoral officers and a member, officer or employee of a public body.

This basically includes everyone from the members of parliament to a CEO or trainee; police to health department; local, rural and remote services and their associated organisations. It will leave no one out and it will leave no stone unturned to investigate corruption and work towards stamping it out.

This is a first for the Territory and although many tried to stop it happening and undermine it, coming to the NT, this Labor government are bringing it here and we are adamant to not have a reoccurrence of the four year CLP debacle. I applaud everyone involved in bringing it here. The powers of the ICAC do not stop there, as the minister has mentioned. Further amendments to the bill will allow ICAC to access a range of tools to look further into matters of corruption with the help from surveillance and telecommunications devices, plus conduct covert operations on any unlawful activities that may be occurring.

As a member of parliament I was very pleased to attend the ICAC consultations. These consultations were held in Palmerston, the rural area and many others some months ago. I thank the minister for ensuring Territorians were given the opportunity to attend these public forums and ask the difficult questions. They wanted to know the answers to these difficult questions.

38

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

The Palmerston meeting was very informative about ICAC and what they can do. Many of the questions from the public about ICAC were focused on the previous CLP government’s conduct. They asked, could ICAC investigate the CLP retrospectively? What a great question; it is one everyone has been asking. The answer is of course that anything referred to the ICAC will be looked at and it will be the ICAC’s decision whether to proceed or not on matters retrospectively, current or in the future. That was the answer to the question. A question that much of the public are seeking the answer to.

The ICAC was a Labor government platform, an election promise to the Northern Territory people. I am very pleased to say that this is another promise this government and minister is keeping to its people and working very hard to implement with a bill now before the House this government is delivering on its promises.

This Labor government has been in parliament for a little over 12 months and we keep delivering on our election promises and I know it pains the Opposition to see what a great government can do when they work as a team. We work as a team and we get on with the job. This is what great governments do. A government that is very progressive and works better for all Territorians for the future not only for now but in the long term.

Territorians wanted the ICAC and this Labor government are delivering the ICAC to them. This government supports an open and transparent government now and in the future. This government is consulting—that is a word probably not in the CLP dictionary. We are listening and this is another word that is probably not in the dictionary of the CLP. We want to work with Territorians and we continue to work with Territorians to get the job done.

This Labor government are taking on the big issues and delivering. I fully support the bill and I commend the minister and all the department staff for their hard work and I thank all of my colleagues for their part in getting the ICAC in the Territory. It will be another history making bill delivered by a Labor Gunner government.

Ms NELSON (Katherine): In an ideal world there would be no need for an independent commission against corruption but the world we live in today is quite obviously imperfect and not ideal. I am going to start off by responding to the Member for Nelson’s comments. It saddens me that because of the actions of some previous members of this parliament I am being judged today based on actions from previous members.

On March 30 of this year, I had the privilege of representing the Australian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the CPA and the Northern Territory Government as a delegate at the 2017 OECD Global Anti-Corruption Integrity Forum held in Paris. As a newly elected member of the NT Legislative Assembly to listen and learn from government representatives of countries that have successfully established and implemented independent commission against corruption was truly an honour and it was a privilege.

The information presented at the forum, whether it was through the sessional speakers, moderators, participants or from the experiences of my fellow CPA delegates was extremely valuable and further reinforced my long held belief that an independent commission against corruption, a corruption watch dog, is well overdue in the Northern Territory.

As such I was delighted at the announcement on 28 April made by my colleague the Attorney-General, Natasha Fyles, that $3m per year was committed in the 2017 budget. It is committed to aiding the establishment and implementation of an ICAC.

During my campaign and throughout my inaugural speech that I delivered on 18 October 2016, I spoke consistently and passionately about trust, transparency and honesty. In that speech I said that I believe trust is a vital part of leadership and community engagement, which is why I am implementing processes that will improve the transparency and accountability of the representation that I am giving to the people of Katherine.

I will pick up on the statements made by the Member for Nelson in regards to consultation. The Deputy Chief Minister touched on this in her statement delivered a few minutes ago. Public consultation was widely advertised by social media, newspaper and a lot of the local members talked about it and encouraged their constituents to participate. It was held in Katherine and all the other electorates as well.

The release of the report was also advertised on social media, in the newspaper, each local member spoke about it and members of the committee promoted the release of the report. I found it astonishing and was dumbfounded to hear the Member for Nelson say, in this Chamber, that his research person, or electorate officer was unable to find the report, when it had been publicly stated where to find it. The link to that report was provided.

39

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

I dare say that the problem of not being able to find the report has nothing to do with the committee or the Department of Legislative Assembly’s secretariat support, it might have something to do with his research officer, or the fact that he does not know how to use a computer.

This message of trust, integrity and honesty was reiterated has been reiterated throughout all of the campaigns led by my Labor colleagues prior to the 2016 Northern Territory election. It is still a consistent message that we deliver with everything we do.

It gives me great pride to say today that it is this Labor government that has embraced the same sentiment of trust, integrity and honesty and is providing the leadership needed to establish and independent commission against corruption for the Northern Territory. Creating an ICAC is not only about ensuring a better government, but also about repairing the broken relationship between Territorians and their government.

Evidence of this broken relationship was provided in abundance throughout the previous four years of CLP government, especially so in their crushing election defeat. When Territorians strongly displayed their loss of trust in the Country Liberal Party and their government.

I am not somebody that likes to dwell on the past, but it is because of the actions of those in the previous CLP government that we are in the position we are today where we have to fight, constantly trying to prove and restore the trusts the Territorians lost.

The relationship between Territorians and the previous government was damaged by false promises, misogynistic behaviour, dodgy water dealings, shameful ‘jobs for the boys’ behaviours and decisions, all of which played out, day-in day-out in the media, locally, nationally and internationally to the embarrassment of all Territorians.

As we know, and as we saw throughout the previous four years, corruption undermines trust in our institutions, in our businesses and our markets. It is a divisive and destructible force which, at its worst, reduces faith in the rule of law. All of this has significant impact on any economic and social development, making it harder for people to prosper and for any community to support its most vulnerable. That is why we are all here, to support our communities.

Corruption does not happen everywhere, instead it is concentrated in certain pockets of industry, government bureaucracy and society.

For example, nationally and internationally, water resource extraction has long been seen as prone to corruption. There is a Timorese saying, a mantra if you will, in my maternal language of Tetum, that I live my life both personally and professionally. It is a mantra that I believe encompasses the principles of someone who aspires to politics. In Tetum that saying is [speaking in Tetum]. In English it means, ‘From people, for people, with people’.

The concept of working for the people and with the people was sorely lacking in the last CLP government. Where that shambolic government fought tooth and nail against the introduction of an ICAC, this Labor government is making it happen.

I pick up on a statement made by the Member for Nelson during his tirade, where he alluded to the fact that we talk in this Chamber about how wonderful we are and are constantly pointing the finger at the previous government. What else will you do with the previous government? It is because of it that we are having this debate. It is because of its behaviour, decisions and actions that we are all judged every single day we step out of our doors.

Territorians want and deserve a government they can trust. It is with great pride that I stand with my Labor colleagues in delivering this election commitment to establish and operate an Independent Commission Against Corruption which will most certainly help restore the lack of trust in government felt by Territorians. This major election commitment has seen the unprecedented step of draft legislation being released for public comment, with community consultation sessions that were held throughout the Northern Territory.

As such, this bill currently before the parliament has been rigorously scrutinised by the public, ensuring we have struck the right balance between power, protections and accountability for anyone involved in the NT government, public service or spending of NT public money. This has ensured the best possible model for the NT Independent Commission Against Corruption, a model built for the people, with the people.

40

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

I pick up again on the Member for Nelson’s comments. First of all, I cannot state enough that of all the legislation we have introduced this year and has gone through this parliament, this is one of the two that has been widely and robustly scrutinised by members of the public and the scrutiny committee. I took umbrage at his comments about the committee.

We are a government in the majority. We have 18 members in this parliament. We have three members of the government in that committee. I remind everyone that a committee is independent. Even though we are a majority government, we have independent thought. I would have thought he would celebrate the amendments and recommendations that were proposed by the committee were all accepted bar two. To put it in layman terms, that is how the cookie crumbles. Just because we are in government and there are three members of that committee, it does not necessarily mean that everything will be agreed to. That is the beauty of democracy and of being a member of a committee.

I have to state again that the actions and decisions of individuals in positions of power in the previous government provided us with examples of why an ICAC is not only sorely needed, but extremely long overdue. Had there been an ICAC in place under the previous government, I would hazard a guess that possibly we would have seen one or two by-elections in those four years. I put it to the members of this Chamber – including the Independent members and the opposition – that now is the time for leadership to support this government that is establishing an ICAC and also initiating a judicial inquiry into political donations and reforms of our electoral system.

Mr COLLINS (Fong Lim): Mr Deputy Speaker, my comments might be a little short and off the cuff. I commend the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee for doing its job in a manner that was envisaged by the opening of parliament to the people committee.

I appreciate the recommendations it made, but I take issue with the Member for Nelson—the Member for Katherine made some comments in that regard. The Member for Nelson commented on the rejection of certain amendments by the government and the fact the committee was government dominated. The purpose of setting up those committees was for independent review of legislation before it comes back to the Chamber. From what I can see, that committee undertook its work completely in accordance with that.

Some recommendations were made and some were not accepted by government. The Member for Nelson should have understood that as he was a member of the opening parliament to the people committee and would have been aware that in our work of looking at other jurisdictions that have adopted these types of committees the experience was that only 75% of recommendations are taken up by government.

That is a process of the committee, and it is to be expected. I appreciate some of the recommendations that were made, having spoken to committee members. I have some reservations about how they were interpreted and whether they were placed in the appropriate place given my background and my understanding of legal drafting.

In saying that, well done. This is now a better piece of legislation for the work that was undertaken. It is great legislation for the Northern Territory. We may be late to the table with this legislation. The last four years may have highlighted the need for a piece of legislation like this. I suggest that the political witch hunt that was undertaken at the commencement of the last term was a great example of why this legislation is necessary.

Those kinds of decisions should be taken out of a majority government and should be a completely independent process. I came to the Territory from New South Wales. Most of you would be aware that New South Wales was the first jurisdiction to introduce an ICAC. The Member for Braitling’s comments about Four Corners last night—my recollections of that period are still a little fuzzy with age, but I remember that period and those events. That was what led to the first ICAC being set up. The New South Wales ICAC has been operating effectively now for about 26 years.

Member for Brennan, I might not necessarily agree with your argument that you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing. That is not always the case. That is part of what the committee was looking at in the sense of some of the proposed recommendations and sometimes as public figures you can be subject to false allegations and that can have a devastating effect on your personal life. We face a lot of criticism in this position, but in saying that it is something that needs to be brought in.

Thinking along those lines, Nick Greiner who was the premier of New South Wales who brought in the ICAC, perhaps felt the independence of it perhaps more than anyone else. I feel a little sorry for Nick, he was a very effective conservative leader in this country. He set up the ICAC and the general feeling was that it was set

41

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 up as a bit of a political witch hunt to try to chase down the former Labor government and the various things that were mentioned in the Four Corners report last night, among others.

As we are probably all aware, the first victim of the New South Wales ICAC was in fact Nick Greiner. I feel sorry for him because I think he did the honourable thing in terms of resigning over the issues that were brought up at the time, but it was his Education minister, Terry Metherell, who was the member undertaking the conduct which was seen as potentially corrupt.

It is disappointing to see there are still some queries from the other side and the other comments that have been made. It is painfully obvious that we cannot necessarily have serious conversations about issues, even today. An indication of that is the conversation we are trying to have as a government with regards to revenue in the Territory.

We all know the effect that the change to the GTST calculations has had on our budget. The Treasurer is trying to do the responsible thing and have a serious discussion about our revenue issues and how we as a Territory can continue to fund the services that Territorians are entitled to in circumstances where we have significant difficulties and costs associated with the provision of those services, particularly in our rural and remote areas.

This is now to the point where this legislation is ready to be passed; the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee have done their work and provided their recommendations; the government has considered those recommendations and it is now well past time that this type of legislation becomes law in the Territory so that we can stay in step with the rest of the country and Territorians can have some confidence that their elected representatives are in fact conducting their deliberations and making decisions in their best interest and not those of someone else.

I commend the bill to the Assembly and it has my full support.

Mrs WORDEN (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am also rising to speak on the Independent Commission Against Corruption Bill, or as we are all using colloquially, the ICAC bill. It is a bill where the sole purpose is the act of restoring trust and integrity to government after a sad few years where the trust has been eroded. I will leave that more to other members because I am sure they will talk about that sad time of our history. I have no doubt in my mind that history will reflect that period very poorly, and probably quite rightly so.

I do not think that I am alone in often lamenting, when switching on the television, the real lack of good news stories that are provided by the media into our lounge rooms on a semi-daily basis. I know that I often comment with other members of my family that there does seem to be a real shortage of good stuff going on in the world today. I am not sure whether that is just because that is the news or that is what the media thinks we want to see. Through that barrage of what I call ‘world misery’ and bad news, it is clear that there is always going to be some people, businesses, organisations, government or institution that will willingly do the wrong thing. It just seems to be a prevailing, very sad fact of our time.

Australia obviously is a lucky country but we not immune to such problems. History will tell us that we have had our share of bad apples and will continue to have our share of bad apples. You really do not need to look very far for those tales of people (inaudible) organisations or people in positions of leadership; people in positions of power–particularly where decision-making is being made–that they are doing the wrong thing. We have had some very extreme cases where it has been explicit; basically unconcealed and blatant corruption just like we have seen in other countries.

While I was looking at the reasons, particularly for what we are doing in the House today, I looked a bit more globally. For the second time, I came across a body called the Transparency International. I note my learned colleague, the Member for Barkly, also spoke of the work that they do; and I spoke about Transparency International in this place during a debate late last year about political donations.

Transparency International state that they give a voice to victims and witnesses of corruption on a global scale. They have a very simple mission of stopping the abuse of power, bribery and secret deals. Reading through their very comprehensive website, I did remember again just how sad it is in 2017 that there is even a need for such an organisation on a global scale: Comforting that we are not alone but not comforting that there is such a need.

Transparency International has chapters in more than 100 countries and provides a corruption perception ranking. The Member for Barkly talked about a country such as Australia and that we rank thirteen out of a 176. One could look at that and say that this is not bad as it only reflects a score of 76/100. Tragically the

42

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 global average only sits at 43. Countries we sit behind are Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, The Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.

Transparency International’s latest figures were in 2016 and I found this really interesting that the results highlighted a real connection between corruption and inequality. For good reason because I guess that they feed off each other to create a vicious circle between corruption, unequal distribution of power in society and unequal distribution of wealth. I think that everyone in this place know this without it being stated but we can actually see it being played out right now in places like Zimbabwe, which is the most current example of where that is happening.

While we are ranked one of the least corrupt countries in the world, we have had our fair share of scandal and we can do better. Unfortunately, corruption happens across many organisations and where individuals are concerned. It even happens in places like sport – I really like this analogy: Who can forget the Essendon football saga? Or the match-fixing associated with elite junior tennis players earlier this year in Victoria? My colleague, the Member for Johnston, will know many of these.

It can take the form of anything from match-fixing using insider information for betting purposes through to the use of performance and image-enhancing drugs. Who could forget the Tour de France saga? Or the Fine Cotton horse racing substitution at Eagle Farm? Or the Australian cricket team’s claims of bribery by Pakistan, asking them to under-perform, back in 1995? Then there was the 2000 para Olympic scandal that discovered that 10 out of the 12 players in the Spanish wheelchair basketball team were in fact not even disabled.

These examples just demonstrate the lengths that some people or organisations will go to to get that edge or that upper hand or attain a certain prize. I guess that means that human nature is just a constantly surprising thing.

In sports, it has led to over time, the development and endorsement of national policies on match fixing and doping and the establishment of sports integrity units, the inclusion of specialist intelligence units and law enforcement and the creation of new match fixing offences. Sport has taken it very seriously just like we are here today.

In the political arena corruption can take many forms from straight up bribery through to secret deals where particular parties get treated in a more favourable way and some of my colleagues have spoken about that today. More favourable ways during a tender process. All of a sudden you can see where opportunities could occur and now more than ever I am aware of the situations that could arise should you be so inclined, I should add that. I would like to note that I am not so inclined.

Much has been said, and no doubt for years to come, will continue to be said about Foundation 51. A bit of research shows that the Territory is not the only place that such funds have been put in place to avoid scrutiny by the Liberal party. Only late last year there were findings of a corruption inquiry into alleged illegal political donations that saw 10 New South Wales Liberal MPs resign or go to the cross bench.

The independent commission exposed prohibited donations, fund channelling and non-disclosures in the New South Wales Liberal Party 2011 state election campaign. Operation Spicer as it was called began as an investigation into a Liberal Party slush fund, sounds so familiar, entitled in this case Eight By Five—they have a thing with numbers.

Their ICAC heard that the fund was also allegedly designed to wash donations from developers who were not allowed to directly donate in the lead up to the 2011 elections—just sounds so familiar. Their ICAC held nine weeks of public hearings and expanded to cover alleged illegal donations that allegedly bank rolled Liberal Party campaigns across the central coast and Hunter regions—interesting.

The Canberra based Free Enterprise Foundation also emerged as a way to disguise donations to the New South Wales’s Liberal Party campaign. Explosive evidence was provided about the lengths some party figures went to to get around a ban on developer donations as the party tried to win government. Unsurprisingly those allegations were all upheld. There were allegations and admissions of cash payments and lying under oath and questions were rightly asked about how much senior party figures knew about the scheme. The findings were surprise, surprise delayed by a series of court challenges.

The disclosure of donations is an important part of our political landscape. It serves to ensure public transparency and we have spoken about it time and time again, is a clear community expectation. When

43

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 slush funds such as this one or Foundation 51 are set up there is no reason not to suspect that they are designed specifically with the intention of evading scrutiny—and it leaves a really bad taste.

Another case in which public trust was eroded by politicians occurred again in New South Wales where a $60m government bus contract was awarded to a client of a Liberal Party power broker lobbying firm, without going to tender, when the premier was also the transport minister. The clients at the time of the negotiations included two other bus companies that were successfully awarded three year contracts through open tender processes netting them combined total of $2.216m of public monies. Fortunately in that case the party member resigned his senior party position but the incident has rightly left public questioning who is running the state government—members of the parliament or power brokers?

In the 1970s and 80s, who can forget the Bjelkemander? That was the term given to a system of malapportionment in the Australian state of Queensland. Who can forget that period in our history? I remember coming to Australia and wondering what the heck they were talking about.

Under that system, electorates were allocated to zones, such as a rural or metropolitan electoral boundaries were drawn so that rural electorates had about half as many voters as metropolitan ones. The Country Party, which became the National Party later, a rural-based party led by Joh Bjelke-Peterson, was able to govern uninhibited during his period, due to the Bjelkemander.

Not to pick on Western Australia again, but if you go back a little further into political history in the 1980s where the state government led for much of the period by Premier Brian Burke, engaged in business dealings with several prominent businessmen including people like Alan Bond, Laurie Connell and Warren Anderson. These dealings resulted in loss of public money, estimated at a minimum of $600m and the insolvency of several large corporations. A Royal Commission was established in 1990 by the Labor Premier, Carmen Lawrence, to examine the dealings.

The public has a rightful expectation that these sorts of things do not happen, or if they do, that they do not go unchecked.

What it does mean also, is that as political figure, become more cautious, it makes you look for possible motives in new friends and makes you alert to the prospects and have plans and how to avoid for potential pitfalls. I know that is what people expect, for us to hold ourselves up to a higher level of scrutiny and ensure we avoid situations that could give rise to questions and even perceptions of corruption.

It comes back to what we were all talking about: trust and integrity. The two things this bill starts to address to restore this facet of our political system with Territorians and restore their trust in our government through an independent ICAC.

As we have heard from the Attorney-General, the ICAC will have the power to investigate allegations of improper conduct. It will have to look at serious, sensitive and systemic conduct by all public officials and bodies. None of us here will be above it, nor those in the public arena where the expenditure of public monies is concerned.

None of us will be above it and nor should we be. Ministers, MLAs, judges, statutory office holders, advisors, electorate officers, members, offices of employees of a public body. We can all be referred and need to be vigilant to ensure the actions we take, the decisions we make, meet the expectations of our community.

This is much more than the commonly referred to, ‘pub test’. A term used often in the world of politics that describes a test that seeks to evaluate the thoughts and opinions of ordinary Australians and apply them in judging potentially dubious activities by public figures, most often politicians.

Whilst pub tests can include some dubious and quirky characters, with often lowered inhibitions, providing some very entertaining media, it is not always accurate nor a fair test of a person’s actions.

ICAC is that test of fairness. I hope it will also be an expedient way of dealing with matters that are unfounded witch hunts based on misinformation or mischievous in nature.

I look forward to this being up and running in the middle of next year. I very much welcome it. I thank the commissioner, Brian Martin, for his inquiry and the staff that have been involved. It is great to be delivering on our election commitment.

44

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

I welcome this, we have nothing to fear. It is a part of doing business in a modern world and a way to meet rising community expectations within the public service realm, including that of politicians.

I commend the bill to the House.

Ms MOSS (Environment and Natural Resources): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to speak today in support of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill. As my colleagues have articulated throughout the day, this is a really important commitment we made to Territorians and it is fantastic to be standing here alongside government members and the Attorney-General in making this a reality.

We went to the election promising Territorians that we would establish an ICAC. This is an important historical day in terms of meeting the commitment that we made to Territorians and it has been a long journey to get here.

I hope we hear from the Leader of the Opposition and independents during the debate for this Bill because of how significant it is. It is important that it has the support of this parliament going forward because holding a position of public office is a privilege and it can never be taken lightly. To hold public office is to be put in a position of trust where you have been given the ability of upholding and furthering the needs and wishes of your community.

Sadly, Australian public life is littered with examples where individuals and institutions have failed to honour this pact with the community. In the course of their duties they have failed to represent their community without fear or favour, they have failed to be transparent and accountable in their dealings and have used their position for personal advantage or misused public funds. Establishing an Independent Commission Against Corruption is one way in which we can restore the communities trust in public bodies and those holding public office because it puts those checks and balances into the system.

The Minister for Territory Families encapsulated perfectly an experience that I had—and many other members would have—of travelling interstate and working with our interstate jurisdictional colleagues and the reputation we have for some of the conduct we have seen over some of the preceding years. It has had a reputational impact on the Territory and we have seen trust destroyed between Territorians and our public institutions. It is important that we acknowledge this as it is something we deal with. Meeting the selection commitments sends a message that it is important to this government to put people first.

Members: Hear, hear!

Ms MOSS: It sends a message that corrupt conduct and breaching the communities trust will not be tolerated and we, as public officials, expect to be judged by the highest of standards. The Bill before the House today follows on from an Anti-Corruption Integrity Misconduct Commission inquiry overseen by Commissioner Brian Martin AO, QC and I thank him for his work.

It aligns with 50 of the 52 recommendations made by Commissioner Martin in his report. Under the model adopted in this Bill and informed by Commissioner Martin’s inquiry, ICAC’s primary role will be to investigate and deal with the most serious, sensitive, systemic, corrupt conduct by public officers and bodies.

The Bill clearly defines what is meant by corruption; it is conduct that must be sufficiently serious that it either carries a maximum prison term of two years or would warrant a termination of services. A number of my colleagues have broached this point but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to work they had done in government in terms of the ICAC and we know – those of us who were in opposition at the time – they were dragged there kicking and screaming.

For elected officials, including members of this House, there is an additional test that will see officials investigated for serious breach of public trust; this is conduct that is intentionally or recklessly inconsistent with the duty to act in the public interest or other functions of the public body or officer.

This Bill is about restoring trust and integrity in our public institutions. It is about saying to the community that public officers and bodies are obliged to keep the faith of Territorians and anything less will not be tolerated. Legislation of this kind is long overdue in the Northern Territory; we are one of the last Australian jurisdictions without some form of anti-corruption watchdog. Under this Bill, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption will have comprehensive powers to do their job; they will be a watchdog with teeth.

The ICAC will have extensive powers to search, seize and compel evidence before starting a formal investigation and will have the power to make preliminary inquiries and conduct random audits and reviews

45

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 of public bodies. Once an investigation gets under way, the ICAC will have a range of coercive powers, including the ability to inspect financial records, require a person to answer questions or produce documents, enter and search public premises with or without a warrant and seize and retain evidence.

In addition to corrupt conduct, the ICAC will have the power to investigate anti-democratic conduct; conduct that is aimed at undermining the democratic process in a significant way. This includes offences relating to the improper handling of political donations or attempting, more broadly, to influence the outcome of an election. Under the legislation before the House, the powers of ICAC will extend beyond government; they will have the power to investigate any public officer or body.

The definition of public officer is comprehensive and refers to public servants, ministers, members of parliament, judges, statutory office holders, ministerial advisors, electorate officers and any member, officer or employee of a public body. Public bodies will extend to government agencies, statutory authorities, courts, tribunals, local government organisations and government-owned organisations. In effect, an individual or organisation responsible for acting on behalf of or spending money on behalf of the community.

The Commissioner will be the community’s eyes and ears, ensuring that those in public office are held to the highest standards, this is in line with the community’s expectation. This is in line with what members of our community deserve when it comes to those who represent them or act on their behalf.

We saw the previous CLP government break trust with the community on numerous occasions; we have heard many of their stories today. When I doorknocked towards the end of the term of the former government it was very clear that members of my community supported the introduction of an independent body that would hold people in offices of influences to account. It is simply what the community expects and what they feel did not occur during that particular term of government.

Instead, they were subjected to chaos, dysfunction and self-interest. Even today as I hold mobile offices and speak to people in Casuarina, they talk about the distrust they have in processes and system as a result of the conduct of the former government. This is a legacy we all have to deal with and importantly, a legacy we have to address.

There are many examples of where the former government eroded people’s trust in public institutions, and many of the members of this Chamber were a part of that government. Who can forget the day, 22 October 2014, when they back flipped on a decision of the House to hold an inquiry into political donations, I certainly cannot. It was a measure that would have added a layer of accountability to their activities. I remember it because all the way through the Casuarina by-election Territorians were lead to believe that would go ahead, only for the former CLP government to shut it down once the election was over.

The community deserves a government they can trust, one that is transparent in its dealings, accountable for its actions and collaborative in its efforts to create a better place for all Territorians no matter where they live. This does not mean every decision we make will be welcome by everyone but it means listening to Territorians and ensuring that decisions are made for the right reasons and being prepared to explain those decisions.

Since coming to government we have sought to restore trust. We have not always got it right and we have a long way to go and a lot of work to do but we have made some headway we can be proud of. We have taken a number of steps to increase transparency in government decision-making. For example, we are establishing a much more robust and transparent framework for assessing, managing and monitoring the environmental impacts of new development; Territorians will be given a greater say in decision-making and reasons for decisions will be made publicly available.

Over the last 12 months I have been pleased to see the NTPA have begun publishing their statement of reasons for not assessing a project, which was a decision I made early on in this government’s term. That is a really positive progression in building shared understanding and increasing transparency in decision- making. They are an independent board and this is a fantastic decision and move they have made in what is an exceptionally important area of policy.

Water licensing was one area where the previous government lost the trust of Territorians and we are seeking to restore that trust. Earlier this year I launched an online water portal, a one stop shop for Territorians to access information on water allocation plan areas, existing licences and applications, factors involved in approval, committee members and so on.

46

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

As well as being more transparent about decisions made and the reasons for making those decisions, we have reinstated water advisory committees in key catchments so that relevant stakeholders are at the table when it comes to decisions about water allocations. Planning is another area where Territorians have lost faith in the integrity of the decision-making process. It is another area where we are seeking to restore trust and I really commend the Minister for Planning, who recently released a discussion paper into how we can improve that system in the Territory.

We will not always get it right but partnerships and increased community voices mean we are much more likely to get it right more often.

The Territory is facing tough economic times. We have seen our share of the GST pool shrink. The previous government failed to adequately prepare for the wind-down of INPEX and this lack of foresight is starting to be felt throughout the economy. Never before has it been more important that public funds are spent responsibly and in the best interests of Territorians.

I wholeheartedly believe that ICAC gives Territorians another level of assurance that public officers are not misusing their money and they understand in decisions there is that level of accountability and protection. It will become another important bar against which public bodies and officers measure their conduct and decision making when it comes to spending taxpayers’ funds.

It is imperative that public officers and bodies take their responsibility to the community seriously and that every decision they make in the course of their work is made in the best interests of the Territory community in mind. There is no doubt that corruption flourishes in darkness. Establishing an Independent Commissioner Against Corruption will ensure that we are shining the light in every corner of public life.

Mr Deputy Speaker, ultimately, we all accept that we must do better. Territorians expect us to do better.

Ms UIBO (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I support the bill presented by the Attorney-General, Hon Natasha Fyles, to establish an Independent Commission Against Corruption, more commonly referred to as the ICAC, to which I will refer here on in.

In August 2016, the Northern Territory public overwhelmingly elected a Michael Gunner Labor government after a chaotic and shameful four years of the government under the CLP. Territorians were sick of being taken for granted and had had enough of enduring a disrespectful, arrogant and self-interested CLP government. The last government was so bad, there was actually a book written about it.

This bill demonstrates how a Labor government is restoring trust, accountability and integrity to government. Territorians deserve to have a clear and transparent government. We intend to continue to deliver on this important promise and ensure we do not experience anything as extreme or disastrous as the 2012 to 2016 CLP government.

As the Attorney-General stated, the ICAC’s primary role is to investigate and deal with the most serious, sensitive, systemic corrupt conduct by public officers and bodies. It is important to emphasise that the corruption that will be investigation must be connected to public affairs. The ICAC will not look at people’s private affairs, except to the extent where they connected with the public sector corruption.

I will take a moment to emphasise the word ‘independent’. The following definitions of ‘independent’ have been taken from the English Oxford living dictionaries, which are available online and will be part of my speech.

1. Free from outside control; not subject to another's authority.

3. Capable of thinking or acting for oneself.

3.1 Not influenced by others; impartial.

4.1 Not depending on something else for strength or effectiveness; free-standing.

The Attorney-General drew attention to the fact that:

The ICAC does not replace existing investigation bodies such as the Ombudsman, police or specialist bodies such as the Children’s Commissioner or Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. By referring

47

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

matters to these bodies, the ICAC will remain free to focus on the serious corruption that requires its jurisdiction and specialist powers.

I feel that this is an important distinction to point out, to assure the public that there are various mechanisms still available to focus on specific targeted areas.

Some of the main features of the bill include:

 The appointment of an independent commissioner against corruption

 allows for the appointment of an acting ICAC

 gives the ICAC the power to investigate a wide range of improper conduct in the broader public sector

 gives the ICAC the power to investigate electoral offences relating to the Territory and local government elections

 tasks the ICAC with focusing on the most serious, sensitive and systemic conduct

 allows the ICAC the flexibility to deal with improper conduct using a wide range of methods

 allows the ICAC to investigate wrongful conduct that occurred before the bill commences

There is no time limit as to how far back the ICAC can go, but there are guidelines for the ICAC’s priorities

 giving the ICAC comprehensive investigation powers gives the ICAC the power to create a mandatory reporting scheme and the power to impose varying requirements for mandatory reporting, repeals the Public Interest Disclosure Act and provides for any outstanding investigations and disclosures to transfer to the ICAC

 continues the whistleblower protection scheme from the Public Interest Disclosure Act with some changes to strengthen the scheme and clarify lines of responsibility

 provides for the appointment of the inspector; a statutory role tasked with overseeing the ICAC, particularly to ensure that the ICAC is acting within powers, the inspector can also receive and investigate complaints about the ICAC itself.

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to briefly explore how the ICAC will affect the electorate of Arnhem. It might not seem like an obvious thing, so I would like to join the dots, so to speak, so that the constituents that I represent know and understand how a legislation such as the establishment of the ICAC will affect them in their everyday lives.

Ensuring people who work in public offices and for public bodies are held accountable for their power, authority and the use of public funds is critical to ensuring we have a transparent government.

What this means for the people of the electorate of Arnhem is, gone are the days for those opportunities of high profile jobs and tenders given to mates, by mates. Fair and just processes will be followed. No longer will Territorians, particularly living in the bush who are experiencing disadvantage, will have their public funds wasted away and not spent in the correct manner.

Corruption is an insult to Territorians. Our Labor government is driven by the sincere belief that our Territorians deserve the best. Bringing to the House important legislation, such as the establishment of an ICAC, might create waves around the NT, but regardless of the bumps and knocks we, as a government, have a social and economic responsibility to establish the ICAC in the Northern Territory.

I would like to take the time to acknowledge the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee on their report on the ICAC. It was the first piece of legislation to come before the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee and what an important bill for them to be scrutinising.

In closing, I commend the Attorney-General, her ministerial office staff and the staff at the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice for their hard work in bringing this important and much anticipated legislation to the House.

48

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

I would like to reassure Territorians that our Labor government is keeping our election promise to establish an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory to serve and protect the interests of the Northern Territory.

Mr PAECH (Namatjira): Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The establishment of an independent commission against corruption was a clear and unequivocal election undertaking by our government, the then opposition.

The people of this great Territory have given my government—our government—an equally clear mandate by the resounding election result that we all bore witness to on 27 August 2016. This bill, developed and led by the Attorney-General, the Honourable Natasha Fyles, honours that commitment and undertaking made to the people of the Northern Territory by the Labor Party.

This bill does exactly what we said we would do and is not an imitation of what is required, it is by the very fact the body of work that will safeguard the Territory for future generations, for Territorians and future industries looking to invest in the Territory.

Before I go on, I want to take those in the House on a journey through my understanding of this legislation. I want to say something furthermore about this government’s rationale and reasoning around the establishment of an independent commission. Before the election there was absolutely no doubt there was an enormous volume of speculation about what was going on with the previous government, what improper deals were being done and what public systems were being ignored.

Let there be no doubt for a minute that prior to the 2016 Northern Territory General Election I had indicated to various people, organisations and corporations I was appalled and ashamed by the sort of reputation the previous government had left our Territorians in, a reputation that has interstate and international bodies, corporations and members of the public looking at us in amazement of this type of behaviour being instituted by a government. There was a general view from many people in the Territory, but not limited to Territorians, that saw people in office as improper and self-indulgent; in some cases I am sure that would be found.

Over recent years, Territorians have seen and heard of contracts being awarded not on merit but rather on lowest cost or personal relationships people had with ministers. We saw the sale of public assets with little or no consultations with the public. I am sure a number of people would like to look a little deeper into those decisions. I am sure that is all I need to say on that matter; the rest is pretty self-evident. Being a member of parliament, it is your role to serve for the entire Territory, not just yourself or your mates.

In order to restore trust, be legitimate and be a government free from suspicion and perception, an enormous volume of work must be done to reform and re-establish confidence back with the people, our people of the Northern Territory. For the purpose of deliverance in the Chamber, I will be the clearest of clear; the Territory Labor government has a program of reform we intend to carry through this term of government and following.

Both our Chief Minister and Attorney-General have worked with the Cabinet to ensure that we embrace change and the message Territorians gave us on 27 August 2016. Restoring the integrity and accountability of public administrations and office holders is a job we must do. We must do this to ensure our democratic rights remain intact and that our democratic processes remain a valuable commodity to members of the public.

Our government has already shown its loyalty to the people of our jurisdiction by its firm commitment to look into the reforming practices for awarding contracts for both small scale projects and initiatives of a larger nature. This legislation is in fact the cornerstone part of the government’s long-term plans for restoring integrity, accountability and trust back to the people of the Northern Territory.

Furthermore, it is important for me to place on the parliamentary record that the establishment of an Independent Commission Against Corruption is not or should never be used as a political tool for the benefit of cheap political tricks. No one has been exempt from the ICAC. The committee has proposed that MLAs are subject to the ICAC investigations for corrupt conduct, misconduct and anti-democratic conduct.

The recommendations of the committee are aimed at keeping MLAs subject to the scrutiny of criminal or corrupt conduct or misconduct, while keeping elected members accountable for their standard of work to the people. Of course, people who know me well know that I have been quite public both before coming into office and since commencing my time in office on a number of matters I felt should be looked into by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

49

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Like any other person, I too have to register my concern with the commission. The commission, having independent discretion, would then need to make a determination on whether the allegation was worthy of investigation. The simple fact is those of us on this side of the Chamber have not only designed a system that is simple and friendly for everyone to understand, but we have also ensured members of parliament and public office are not given special treatment on what the commission will investigate.

A particular point I would like to emphasise is the ICAC is not a crime commission. The commission has a very particular and narrow purpose, which is to prevent corruption, enhance transparency of the public service if required, and to investigate allegations into serious corruption. The ICAC will have powers similar to the police; however, in addition it will have powers to enter government premises without warrants to compel any person to attend and provide evidence.

The ICAC is directed and its main focus will be on the most serious matters of corruption. Its focus will be on public institutions. I reiterate that the jurisdiction also extends to government functions or organisations which receive funds. This includes judges, politicians and local government bodies. As part of this legislation we have to ensure adequate whistleblower protections have been incorporated, which will allow it to protect important sources of information and whistleblowers from retribution.

Once the ICAC has made its findings or recommendations, it has before it a range of options on how it reports, including the ability to publicly report on matters of importance that warrant the community to be notified of. That is a decision for the ICAC.

An additional key feature of the ICAC is that where it investigates and believes a crime has been committed, it can refer that to the Northern Territory Police Force or the Department of Public Prosecutions, whose job it will be to prosecute.

Honourable members may take comfort in knowing the ICAC has been developed with a strong emphasis on specific functions to educate and advise public authorities, and to coordinate with the Northern Territory Ombudsman and similar public bodies. A function of the ICAC will be to train and educate public bodies on the types of matters the ICAC can and will investigate. It is important that everyone is aware of the suite of measures this bill sets out to achieve.

It is for those reasons alone that the success of an ICAC cannot and should not be measured by the number of convictions or the level of corruption it convers. The ICAC will work to prevent corruption, build on restoring trust and integrity, and above all, be a public watchdog.

As a committee member of the Social Scrutiny Committee, I have the opportunity to meet with some of the country’s leading experts on the establishment, functions and runnings of the independent commissions against corruption. As a member of that committee, I am very thankful for the time the leading practitioners made to discuss this important legislation with the committee. It was imperative to discuss this legislation as a member of a committee in a bipartisan way of the Legislative Assembly to ensure the future for Territorians is safeguarded now and into the future.

I wholeheartedly agree with the committee report and am pleased to hear the Attorney-General has in principle agreed and accepted a large number of the recommendations of the committee’s report.

I am sure there are a number of recommendations the Attorney-General and the executive will choose to accept and not accept for a variety of reasons which I am happy to discuss should the opportunity to do so present itself.

Furthermore, the committee, at length, discussed the role of the commissioner and as previously mentioned, I am happy with the recommendations. The commissioner will be a person of the highest calibre and to ensure they have a particular tertiary legal skill set the Bill sets out parameters for assistant commissioners and the powers they will have to exercise both in the commissioner’s presence and when they are out of the jurisdiction.

In conclusion, I place on the record my support and that the government is committed to Territorians; we will not be soft on corruption in any form. Our government will take tough action against corruption and restore integrity. Our government has a plan with a clear mandate to deliver this for the Territory. I commence this Bill to honourable members and suggest they study the Bill closely over the course of this debate and remember this is a Bill for all Territorians to deliver certainty for Territory businesses and to restore trust for all. As members have stated in this Chamber, the ICAC is a very technical piece of legislation and as a

50

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 member of the Social Scrutiny Committee I am happy to talk with honourable members further if they have any questions. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr VOWLES (Primary Industry and Resources): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I start by congratulating the Attorney-General, Natasha Fyles, for bringing this crucial legislation before the Assembly and I acknowledge my colleagues that have already spoken on it. I want to touch on the Member for Sanderson’s contribution quickly around the New South Wales ICAC.

It is obvious that we need to mention it considering we are forming our own ICAC but it seems like once that was formed that every week another one bites the dust. There are 11 liberal MP’s and to even the score the Opposition Leader mentioned we also have two L ministers in jail right now as well. I will highlight that fact as that is what an ICAC does, it looks at everything from both parties. That is why we have brought in this ground-breaking legislation in the forming of an ICAC but we do forget that it will investigate both sides and public servants.

I am going to call it the ICAC from now on. It is a large body of work and I will join my colleagues in thanking everybody who has been a part of this. Any introduction of legislation – such as an ICAC and a Bill coming into this House – while we get to stand up and contribute for 10, 15, 20 minutes or more, the amount of work that goes into forming the Bills and legislation is astronomical and I take my hat off. Once again I thank everybody who was involved from the Attorney-General to the departments and everybody who has been able to contribute to get this into parliament.

The most important thing for Territorians and why we were elected is transparency and an election commitment that we would introduce an ICAC which is what we are doing this Sittings. It was needed. As politicians we always squabble, ‘You did this. They did that. You did this before, we are doing it now.’ What will happen now is that we will be able to investigate and go through any accusations or wrongdoings from us down and that is important.

Just to remind everyone in this Chamber, our job is to make a positive difference to the lives of Territorians. Making a difference starts with having a high standard of accountability. I will talk more about standards a bit later on in this contribution.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank those who had a hand in developing this legislation. It is an amazing and large body of work. I do thank you once again.

I would like to thank Territorians, in particular, those who participated in the public consultation; the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee for conducting those consultations. I do thank you. It is vital that the government takes the public with them as they deliver reforms. I am proud to be a member of this Labor government which is doing that.

Putting in place an ICAC was an essential commitment of our election last year and I believe one of the key reasons Territorians put their trust in us to govern them for the next four years. In honouring that trust by delivering on our pre-election commitment, Territorians show that polls last year had lost trust in the previous government. As a government we went to the election with a key platform to restore that trust in governments.

Improving openness and transparency were two of our key ways to do this. Introduction of an ICAC, something present in every other state and territory, was another of the key ways that we promised Territorians we would improve due processes and absolute open transparency and accountability.

The need for an ICAC in many respects is obvious and sadly that has been demonstrated at length, no more so often than the previous government. That said though, this is about us all being held to the highest standards moving forward. There are other reasons why having an ICAC in the Territory will be of great benefit. Our great Territory lifestyle is built around our tight knit community and comes in wide-ranging and diverse networks of friendships.

We have all heard the term ‘six degrees of separation’. I always say in the Northern Territory I think it is more like two. For me, life in a northern town for me in Darwin – while this makes issues such as dealing with actual or perceived conflicts of interest more challenging here, proper governance is still achievable. This is not by a long shot a bad thing although for public officials it has potential to create complexity through perceptions that things are not just quite right. That ICAC adds a layer of protection to hard-working honourable public officials – both elected non-elected – going about their work for the benefits of all Territorians.

51

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Transparency by ICAC can only reinforce a confidence in the work being done. So an ICAC bring protection to officials who are following the rules when going about their business of adding value for Territorians and the Territory lifestyle.

As the Minister for Primary Industry and Resources, I understand the core of my role and the work of my department is to attract investment into the Territory and, in turn, create jobs for the benefit of Territorians. It is critical that this work is done in an open, transparent, professional and accountable manner.

In a modern democracy, there is no place for sweetheart and backdoor deals or mates’ rates. At the end of the day, justifying the means are well and truly over. We now know that how we do things is just as important as why we do them. As I have already said in this Chamber, transparency builds trust and like respect, trust is something that has to be earned over time as a result of our actions.

Our Government is committed to restoring trust in government and has its shoulder to the wheel, building that trust with Territorians. The bond of trust is not something that happens overnight. It takes time and we have been vigilant, putting in the ground work to earn that trust of Territorians.

As we have said, trust is hard-earned and precious. Much too precious to give up so easily. That is why this government we will not only work hard to earn the trust in the first place, we will just as hard – if not harder – to preserve it. This ICAC is a critical reform to not only restore trust but also maintaining that trust earned through ensuring higher standards of governance in the long term.

High standards of governance creates confidence for people to stay in the Territory and make the decision to establish here and become part of the great community that we live. It helps people to make the decision to raise a family here, knowing that there are good employment opportunities, quality health and education services and a stable pipeline of prosperity to provide opportunity to meet their aspirations both for themselves and their children.

Confidence generated through high standards of governance creates the stability that the business community requires to be able to invest in the Northern Territory. That investment in the Territory creates jobs and adds value across the depth and breadth of our communities. Confidence in government creates a chain reaction of confidence right through the business community and has a multiplier effect.

As the Minister for Primary Industry and Resources, this confidence is critical and crucial, as my portfolios are largely about attracting investment into the Territory and creating long-term jobs. I have just returned from Cairns and the Northern Australia Investor Forum with the Chief Minister, where we had separate meetings all day yesterday. One thing that is very apparent, is that we have the resources and opportunities for investment in the Territory both by domestic and foreign investors.

There is absolute confidence there. They want to invest in the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister and I, in his meetings and in mine, stressed that we want long-term investment in the Territory, not short-term investment.

My portfolio of Primary Industry and Resources comprise about 20% of the Territory economy and is the lifeblood of our regions beyond Darwin. Project in primary industries almost always require large amounts of capital to get the projects off the ground and into full production. The financing of these projects mean certainty and stability that is generated by confidence in government. When these projects reach the potential, they bring a wealth of prosperity to the Northern Territory.

A formal governance structure such as an ICAC provides the foundation for stable and reliable government, something demanded by the types of overseas investors the Chief Minister and I met over the last two days in Cairns. A transparency delivered by ICAC will also promote business confidence by creating a level playing field for business to compete or work on factors such as value for money rather than who is connected with whom, or even worse, contracts being given to businesses the decision makers are involved in or derive a financial benefit from.

Businesses will be able to submit responses to tenders with the confidence they are entering into a fair and truly competitive bidding process, rather than a sham process where the successful applicant has been determined beforehand and the process is a mere smokescreen to create the illusion that due process has been taken. This only serves to create prosperity for a select few.

Unlike the previous government, this is not what this Labor government is about. As parliamentarians, it is our fundamental duty to serve our constituencies and the wider Northern Territory. It is not our duty to serve

52

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 ourselves and extract advantage from our positions. The privilege to serve here is a valuable honour bestowed upon us by all Territorians who have exercised their democratic right and endorsed us to be their representatives in this Assembly where we have stewardship and responsibilities over the Territory on behalf of all Territorians. We should never forget that.

It cannot be said enough how important it is for each of us to exercise due diligence in our roles as elected parliamentarians. As Mahatma Ghandi said in one of his famous quotes, ‘Be the change you want to see’. These words of wisdom speak for themselves.

Implementation of an ICAC sets a clarity around improper conduct and leaves no subjectivity around the boundaries between proper and improper conduct. This helps to identify conflicts of interest. I spoke earlier about the Territory being a tightknit community built on diverse networks of friendships and how that can create complexity for public officials. Conflict of interest is something all public servants need to be vigilant about. There is a reasonable expectation that public officials demonstrate the wisdom to identify conflicts of interest, though the ICAC puts down a marker that makes the risk of conflict of interest very clear.

This is where the application of due diligence is critical to all public officials elected or not. The old excuse, ‘I did not know’, will not cut the mustard anymore, as the ICAC will have a broad education function. I am pleased that the education function is in place as it offers guidance for public officials on how to identify and manage areas of conflict of interest appropriately both real and perceived.

Public Servants do an outstanding job for the benefits of the Territory and supporting them with the correct knowledge to go about their work in a professional manner, as always, only adds protection and enhance integrity into their work environment.

This is especially important to new recruits to the public service and also young people a bit short of experience just beginning careers in the NT Public Service. That is why there can be no excuses—that all public officials will be informed. The tools and knowledge for public officials to apply due diligence will exist and those participating in corrupt behaviour will be exposed and be held accountable.

By having an ICAC in the Territory I believe standards will improve and better outcomes from Territorians will be accomplished. I think of a saying of a former Wallabies coach—I have my sporting analogy coming in here—frequently used when describing his role, and that Wallies coach is Rod Macqueen the greatest coach ever to coach the Wallabies from my opinion.

Mr Macqueen was coach during arguably the most successful period in Wallaby history winning and retaining a Bledisloe Cup with distant memory—for the duration of his tenure winning the rugby world cup, winning a British and Irish Lion series for the first time in Wallaby history. The point he makes is to be the keeper of the standards and that is the mantra he put through the Wallabies of the time. The point is the higher the standards the greater the outcomes.

Territorians will accept nothing but the highest standard and as a jurisdiction we all were embarrassed by being viewed as the national laughing stock by the rest of the country during the previous term of government. This ICAC also increases accountability. Accountability is a big part of this Labor government’s agenda formally introducing scrutiny the annual reports as part of the estimates process has been a big reform in this area.

I recall the Member for Nelson asking many questions on the contents of the department’s annual reports during the estimates process in previous years. The problems that in May, the Member for Nelson only had at his disposal annual reports that contained information that was up to two years old. Under this government’s reforms scrutiny of annual reports will relate to the reports released in the last month.

Mr WOOD: One year old.

Mr VOWLES: This is one year old, thank you, Gerry. I was stretching it but that is all right. I had to get you in my speech somewhere Gerry, sorry mate.

This is solid reform to promote the transparency and accountability. The CLP seemed to have no interest in transparency and accountability as they have expressed no commitment to take part in the scrutiny committees of the annual reports and I do urge the Member for Daly, the Opposition Leader and the Member for Spillett to please participate in the next week’s estimates.

53

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Labor has a very proud record on transparency, accountability and being open to scrutiny as it was the Martin Labor government that introduced the estimates process to the Territory parliament. This was a significant reform that initiated an unprecedented level of accountability of governments to Territorians. We brought integrity, honesty and transparency to government in the Territory after 20 years of absolute arrogance from the CLP government.

It was disappointing that opposition independence, with the exception of the Member for Nhulunbuy, did not show up to take part in the budget estimates process. I acknowledge they had reservations but I feel there is no excuse for not showing up and being part of a transparent process that has always been the instrument of scrutiny and accountability.

I do urge the CLP opposition to rethink their position and carry out their duties as members of this Assembly as they are elected to do so by Territorians.

I am proud we as a government are delivering on our election commitments. Delivering strong long-term reforms to Territorians in consultation with Territorians and putting in the ground work through our actions to earn the trust of Territorians. This is a hard working government that has a strong commitment to scrutiny and accountability founded upon action in the same fashion as Territory Labor governments of the past.

This legislation to introduce and Independent Commission Against Corruption was one of our key commitments at the last election and is being delivered.

Once again I congratulate the Attorney-General and her team on introducing this legislation. I cannot wait for the contributions from those heckling me at the moment.

Mr KIRBY (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise today in support of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill brought to the Legislative Assembly by the Attorney-General because I, like all of us in the House, believe in open and transparent government.

As the member just explained, this government campaigned heavily on the necessity for an ICAC, and unsurprisingly, that was welcomed by all corners and pillars of the community because it was high time for one. Every time we were doorknocking across the NT, it was constantly brought up by voters.

From the remote and very rural outback of the Territory, to the heart of my own electorate, any respect and confidence the previous administration operated with had long since disappeared. From the unceremonious acts that were publically played out for all to see, to the open admission that money opens doors, the NT public had long turned their back on that government and wanted substantial change.

I will not harp too much on sporting references or Ghandi but everyone knows that, within a team, once that confidence is eroded—it is no different in society. If the coach has lost the commitment and discipline of the team, if the team is walking out on them, then you know you are in trouble. That is what happened in previous years. If a coach got himself in that sort of situation then you realise you are in a lot of trouble.

I congratulate the committee on its hard work. I have sat on committees and understand the body of work that goes into these things. The legislative changes being enacted by this bill are varied and many. They are detailed and need to be taken very seriously into account.

The very fabric and foundation of our society was eroded regarding the trust of the government of the day.

It is good to see that government and public office holders will be held to account through legislation like this. It is important that the pillars of our society will be judged and have the ability to be held accountable for their decisions.

The introduction of the ICAC has been front and centre of our commitments since coming into government. It is something we will strive to introduce with the most prudent of controls, because that is what the Territory and our society demands. We lost far too much ground is too short of time. We have been warned by some from across the floor to be careful what we wish for. They are almost suggesting there will be people from both sides of politics caught up in some types of turmoil from previous years.

While I understand there is a risk that may happen, this is more about drawing a line in the sand and setting standards of behaviour. It is about moving forward, not looking back at what mistakes were made. Although I understand ICAC will be given powers to do that where necessary.

54

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

While we understand there will be some trepidation any time you draft new legislation that has the ability to encompass previous administrations, that cannot be the motive for not proceeding. I am extremely proud that we have set up right from the start and announced this was going to be the direction we head in and we are following through on our commitments. We need the community at large to have unquestionable confidence in the government of the day and their decision-making process.

I pick up some of the comments that have been made earlier today about previous issues we have had but also the Four Corners program we had last night where we saw some pretty amazing footage of the lengths that previous federal governments had gone to try to cover their tracks and hide what they had been up to. They did not hide it well enough. It came out and people will be judged for that well into the future.

For me, getting my head around the mechanics of government, being from a high-risk industry where you follow your systems and processes strictly and stringently, which makes sure everybody goes home safely at the end of the day. Some of the mechanics of government is more fluid than that and works differently; I have certainly come to learn that over the last 12 or 18 months, which definitely means that people’s decision- making and the processes they go to need to have a higher level of account they are held to. That is what this ICAC legislation will do, it will make sure that into the future people have the ability to have their decision- making held to account.

The closer we come to those regimented outcomes for decision-making processes and as the public gets to earn more trust in the government of the day, I have no doubt that will take some time as our Primary Industries minister just mentioned. We are a small community through the Northern Territory which is a fantastic thing; it is one of the things we all love about the NT but it also means that trust erodes quickly in a small community as it does through a small team. When you take advantage of people’s trust then it can erode quickly and that is the position we find ourselves in. As decision-makers we have to implement these measures that will bring that trust back to the Northern Territory.

As has been mentioned, it goes for interstate and overseas people who are watching what is going on in the Northern Territory, business people and investors, because we need to have the confidence of businesspeople to make sure they are ready, willing and able to come to the Northern Territory and have confidence in not just the government of the day but of all our senior public figures. It will certainly help with that.

It will be a slow process of restoring faith in our decision-makers but this government is well on track to turn that around. In previous years there has been little confidence that decisions on planning and development have not had some level of interference. There will always be the ability for a minister to intervene so I look forward to working with the current minister in her office in the department to make sure that scepticism is continually improved over years to come with all our planning and development types of issues.

As with most people, certainly in Port Darwin, there were constituents constantly through the campaign having conversations about the level of trust in the government and decisions being made. It is upon all of us to turn that around and those trust deficits have been spoken about very regularly in the House over the last 12 months. There are a number of examples that have been mentioned this afternoon, just changing the MLAs travel arrangements so they have to be open and honest about where they are travelling is one of the small steps we have taken. It goes to the accountability, openness and honesty this government will be prepared to be judged on into the future.

The Member for Nelson had some issues with the scrutiny of the bill. I had a quiet chat with him, while I do understand the concerns if the entirety of the committee’s work was to be overturned, but I understand there is a couple of key issues that were overturned. I understand that, as far as the new committee structures go, we will work through issues like that over the next few years.

We have put these committees in place to improve the transparency of government and I am sure that at times into the future—I have sat with the Member for Nelson through a taxi committee and we did have some very robust debate on that. There will always be times when other people need to be involved as it comes back to government.

I very much look forward to the introduction of this bill. I thank the Attorney-General and her hard-working staff for all of the hours of work that they have put into it, all the people that have been involved through the department and the drafting of the legislation. As I mentioned before, I thank the committee for all their hours of hard work.

I commend this bill to the House.

55

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Ms AH KIT (Karama): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to speak to the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill 2017 that was introduced by the Attorney-General to establish and new anti-corruption body for the Northern Territory.

Such a watch dog is needed in the Northern Territory and I am happy to support the bill.

Unfortunately, an ICAC is very much needed as a number of Territorians were left feeling let down, disappointed and angry at the previous Country Liberal government, because they made a number of questionable decisions during their time.

I echo the sentiments that my colleague, the Member for Katherine stated, which is that we current members of parliament are judged on the performance of our predecessors each and every single day. This is unfortunate, but I use each reminder of the previous dysfunctional government to avoid walking their path and continue working hard to achieve outcomes in the best interests of my constituents and Territorians in general.

It is important that parliament and government operations are open and transparent and I feel privileged to participate on the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee that scrutinised this bill. The committee encouraged public input, held a public hearing to clarify questions that were raised in submissions and questioned the Department of Attorney-General and Justice in relation to the bill.

I send a huge thank you to those who participated in the scrutiny process and acknowledge Ms Caroline Heske, principal policy officer of the Department of Attorney-General and Justice for her work on this legislation and for answering the committee’s questions.

I also thank my fellow committee members for your important contribution throughout this process. I was extremely grateful to learn about the experiences of other anti-corruption bodies that are in operation around the country and thank those commissioners for their contribution to the scrutiny of this bill as well.

When questioning the commissioners about the work they undertake as the ICAC for their jurisdiction, the words misconduct, serious misconduct, criminal offence and maladministration were used frequently. We spoke about the need for the ICAC to have a wide remit to be able to investigate matters it deemed serious enough to warrant its action, but also the need for the ICAC to be able to focus on serious matters.

It was helpful to hear that ICACs have reviewed their operations after being bogged down with complaints of minor matters, so it also drummed home the importance of evaluating the new processes.

Last week, the NT News reported that the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee set out to exclude ourselves and other members of the Assembly from the scrutiny of the ICAC. This was not the intention of the committee. Instead, the committee considered input from submissions and the fact that there are existing parliamentary regulations in place to manage unsatisfactory conduct.

In his submission to the ICAC bill, Mr Bret Walker SC, advised that allegations of criminal misconduct by members as such can reasonably be regarded as appropriate to be considered by the proposed ICAC, whereas conduct of members as such calling for censure without being criminal, can reasonably be regarded as inappropriate for consideration by the proposed ICAC rather than the Legislative Assembly itself.

By not including ourselves in clause 12(3) we provide the ICAC with the power to assess the standards of negligence or incompetence of members of parliament. I personally feel that assessing the standards of negligence or incompetence of members of parliament is the job and right of the people and not an unelected commissioner. However, I take on board the Attorney-General’s point that the ICAC should have the power to consider all matters and decide what they will and will not investigate. I am happy to support this.

Territorians are knowledgeable, informed and vocal and do a great job to hold elected officials to account. If Territory voters get fed up with the negligence or incompetence of their local member, you can be sure the will vote them out at the next election. We saw this in the results of the 2016 NT election, which sent a strong message to all parliamentarians, that bad behaviour and unprofessionalism will not be tolerated.

It is important that we have an ICAC which will hold parliamentarians, government departments and those who receive government funds to account so Territorians can take comfort in knowing that public moneys are being used appropriately and in their best interest. It is important that Territorians are aware of how the ICAC will operate and understand when they should report to the ICAC or another body like the

56

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Ombudsman’s Office. Education will play a key role in ensuring this happens, and there is a great opportunity for our ICAC to learn from the other ICACs’ work in this area.

During my campaign and since being elected, I have spoken to many constituents about the proposal to establish and ICAC in the Northern Territory. The majority of responses are similar to the quote provided by my colleague, the Member for Brennan, which I will not repeat.

I join my constituents in taking pleasure to see the inclusion of the mechanism that allows the ICAC to investigate not only current and future decisions, but past decisions like the awarding of water licences, raised by the Member for Casuarina.

In conclusion, the establishment and appointment of an Independent Commission Against Corruption is long overdue and heavily supported by Territorians. It is a timely reminder that we must act professionally and above board in the best interests of Territorians when we fulfil our role and be held to account each and every day we serve our constituents.

I acknowledge that the previous CLP government raised the need for an ICAC and wish to much that they could have introduced legislation during their term of government. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this important legislation before the Assembly and acknowledge her and her department’s tireless efforts in constructing this bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, today the Assembly is considering an important bill which, if enacted, will forever change the approach taken to inquiring into and investigating alleged corruption by government officials and members of the Assembly and staff.

I welcome the legislation and have been on the public record supporting the proposed legislation. There has been, unfortunately, considerable confusion about the proposed recommendation 10 of the Social Policy Scrutiny Committee. Recommendation 10 arose out of advice which the Speaker sought on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, that is, the advice was sought on behalf of all members – and I stress all members – of the Assembly. Recommendation 10 is:

The Committee recommends that clause 12(3) be amended to read as follows:

Despite subsection (1), unsatisfactory conduct does not include any conduct engaged in by a judicial officer in the performance of judicial functions, or by a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

While I am contributing in debate as the Member for Goyder, in my role as Speaker, I value the powers and privileges of the Assembly to ensure that minor behavioural infringements and oversights are accountable to the Assembly as the body which must ensure the integrity of our parliamentary institution and the behaviour of its members.

To ensure the legislation was strategically focused, the Speaker sought a written opinion from Mr Brett Walker SC. Mr Walker is arguably Australia’s pre-eminent expert on matters of parliamentary privilege and is considered to be one of the five best barristers and lawyers in Australia. For interest of members, he recently represented the former Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, with his constitutional matter.

Mr Walker has provided counsel over many years to most Australian parliaments …

Members interjecting.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms PURICK: I repeat, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Walker has provided counsel over many years to most of the Australian parliaments about their powers and privileges in particular where there is intersection with bodies such as an Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The Speaker received Mr Walker’s advice and submitted it to the scrutiny committee for their analysis and consideration. The committee has given Mr Walker’s advice serious consideration and has proposed recommendation 10. I thank the committee for its consideration and deliberation on this serious matter.

57

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Notwithstanding the headlines last week in the local print media, which was factually incorrect, misleading and claimed the recommendation was some sort of sub diffuse. I support consideration of recommendation number 10 and do so because the recommendation focuses the ICAC on the core business of investigating and uncovering corrupt conduct rather than, potentially, traversing the privileges of this assembly where the assembly has the role of examining questions of code of conduct matters in relation to members of the assembly. It is important that the assembly understands what recommendation number 10 is all about before blithely rejecting it because it may be a little more complex to explain to a local print media.

There have been comments made about what this recommendation does and I quote, ‘It does not pass the pub test.’ While I understand the meaning of that expression and we have all used it, the recommendation is not about passing the pub test. It is about understanding what parliamentary privilege is and showing leadership in regard to this Bill. Recommendation 10 is not about shielding members from scrutiny, it is about democracy and the separation of powers.

I will not lecture members on the separation of powers other than to say this, matters of poor or bad conduct by a member for parliament such as overlook to declare, a registerable interest or using a position for personal gain are currently dealt with by the assembly. The matter is brought to the attention of the assembly and then referred to the Privilege Committee for consideration and appropriate action, if needed.

For the benefit of those who may not know, the Privileges Committee are a very serious step and can impose something like a slap on the wrist for someone not doing the right thing to a formal apology or to a term of imprisonment; yes, a term of imprisonment can result from a Privilege Committee action. Mr Brian Martin recommended the ICAC not cross over into jurisdictions such as the assembly and its powers; this should be accepted by the government and they should respect the principle of separation of powers.

The government, if it rejects this recommendation for amendments to the Bill, will leave members and their electoral officers vulnerable by way of vexatious and mischievous behaviour. An example could be, a member who is absent from their office for a long period and the office is closed meaning there is no service to their constituents could be construed as poor behaviour and referred to the ICAC. Is this what is intended by the government by rejecting this recommendation? I do not think so.

What this recommendation is about is protecting the institution of parliament itself and ensuring the ICAC is focussed and its strategic body is not getting distracted by matters the assembly should deal with. Let me be very clear, if a member of this assembly undertakes corrupt and/or illegal activity it will be dealt with by the ICAC, the member and the matter itself and there is no getting away from that. It is important to repeat some of the content of the report which said that Mr Bret Walker SC raised concerns that the meaning of unsatisfactory conduct in relation to members of the legislative assembly.

The report emphasises that Mr Walker noted under Section 12 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that the legislative assembly is empowered to:

Declare its own non-legislative powers, privileges and immunities (including that of its members) but not exceeding those of the House of Representatives.

That power extends to providing for the manner which those powers may be excised or upheld. This legislative power has been exercised, amongst other ways, by the enactment of Section 4 of the Legislative Assembly (Power and Privileges) Act in the Northern Territory. Mr Walker points out that pursuant to Section 49 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act and Section 5 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, that the House of Representatives, beyond any possibility of dispute, has the capacity to judge for itself the question whether one of its members has conducted him or herself in breach of the standards which, in the public interest, are required of a member of that house.

That also applies to members here. Mr Walker, therefore, is of the view that the level of conduct of members calling for censure, without being criminal, can reasonably be regarded as inappropriate and for consideration by the proposed ICAC.

Mr Walker stated,

Notwithstanding the notorious reality of improper, negligent and incompetent judges, it is noted that Clause 12 (3) excludes judicial officers in the performance of judicial functions from falling within unsatisfactory conduct, thereby recognising the institutional integrity of the judiciary in its relations with the executive and executive agencies.

58

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Given that proper separation, Mr Walker suggested that a similar caution should be applied to members’ conduct. While no person should be exempt from an investigation of an allegation of corruption in relation to the administration of public affairs, Commissioner Martin said judicial independence and parliamentary privilege should be maintained.

The boundaries in relation to parliamentary privilege should be clearly defined in relation to judicial officers and Members of the Legislative Assembly. If an allegation is made of conduct falling short of corruption, such as maladministration or misconduct, ordinarily the NT Anticorruption Commission should not conduct such investigations.

He said that allegations concerning judicial officers should be referred to the Chief Justice or Chief Judge as appropriate; or in the case of allegation concerning the Chief Justice, to the Attorney General. Less serious matters relating to Members of the Legislative Assembly should be referred to the Speaker. I am disappointed that the Government applies one test for judges but does not agree that this should also apply to the other separate branch, the Assembly, when it comes to low level, self-regulating matters.

What will be the situation when the ICAC decides to look into an alleged code of conduct matter which the law says is a matter for the Legislative Assembly (Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Act)? That is the question that I need to find out with an answer from the government.

This Act provides a code that establishes principles of ethical conduct and standards of behaviour for members and reinforcement of that code through investigation by the Privileges Committee; and any punishment for breaches to be imposed by the Assembly.

Only time will tell an opportunity for clarity for the ICAC, and the already well-established roles of the institutions of the Territory is somewhat murkier than it has to be as a result of dismissing this sensible recommendation.

The Committee also noted that the bill contains an explicit statutory provision limiting parliamentary privilege in clause 82. Clause 82(i) explicitly limits parliamentary privilege to allow the ICAC to investigate and make findings in relation to improper conduct which includes unsatisfactory conduct. So if there is an unsatisfactory conduct, claimed by a member of the public against a Member, the ICAC will be looking at it and investigating.

I do not think that is the intent of the ICAC. I accept the intent of the ICAC – corruption, alleged corruption, serious problems within our public administration and expenditure of public monies. This involves the ICAC determining the standards of negligence or incompetence for Members’ behaviour in breach of established parliamentary privilege as outlined by Mr Walker.

While Clause 82(ii) protects the Assembly’s privilege of free speech, it does not protect the Assembly from the privilege of against an executive agency prescribing the standards of satisfactory conduct for a Member. And that is what will happen. You will have an outside agency establishing what is a satisfactory conduct for all us in this House.

The Committee did not agree with the department’s statement that Clause 82 would effectively inhibit the ICAC’s ability to progress investigating an allegation that will breach parliamentary privilege. I truly hope that this is the case in practice but the opportunity to make it clear has not been taken up.

The ICAC’s ability to investigation an allegation of improper conduct is only limited with respect to evidence which might attract parliamentary privilege which itself may be subject to dispute and subsequent determination by the Supreme Court. There is nothing to preclude the ICAC from investigating an MLA for corrupt conduct, misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct. That is how it should be. I have no argument with that at all.

But while Clause 82 limits what material can be tended in evidence, it does not have the same effect as Clause 12(iii) does for the judiciary which prevents the ICAC from investigating allegations that that a judicial officer has engaged or is engaging in unsatisfactory conduct in the performance of judicial factors.

One test for judges are different for Members. That is the message of this bill.

I support the bill and welcome its intent but remain somewhat concerned that in years to come it will result in some confusion about minor matters of bad behaviour by Members of a Parliament as opposed to criminal and corrupt behaviour.

59

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Ms FYLES (Attorney-General and Justice): I move the debate be adjourned and I will continue with my reply speech at another time.

Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.

PAPERS TABLED Travel Reports for members for Sanderson, Brennan, Fong Lim and Nelson

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Members, I table the reports for the members for Brennan, Sanderson, Fong Lim and Nelson and they are the travel reports for those members.

2017–17 Northern Territory Electoral Commission Annual Report

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I also table the Annual Report of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission.

Royal Commission and Board of Inquiry into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory Report

Mr GUNNER (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the report from the Royal Commission and Board of Inquiry into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory.

On Friday 17 November I received the Royal Commission’s report into the detention and protection of children in the NT. I took that opportunity to apologise, to say I am sorry that the Northern Territory failed to care for and protect our children. The period of the Commission’s report was the last 10 years. I said that I take responsibility for fixing the system so no future Chief Minister will have to address these same problems.

The failures of youth justice and child protection systems as outlined in the Royal Commission report are shocking. These services have not in the main helped children and families and nor have they helped keep community safe. The youth justice system was like a maze; there were lots of ways into it and very few pathways out.

The Royal Commission report made 142 findings and 226 recommendations. The key recommendation to youth justice were raising the criminal age responsibility to 12 years; replacing Don Dale with new, securer accommodation; establishing remote youth diversion programs with communities; establishing bail support services in all regional centres; establishing youth and children’s court with a court president and reviewing and establishing more suitable youth diversion programs.

The key recommendation of child protection was reconsidering the outsourcing of out of home care; establishing a new housing service for children needing care up to age 25; requiring courts to consider if government has taken all reasonable steps to provide services to address risks of harm before removal is considered; mandating family group conferencing; establishing a dedicated crossover team for young people in care and detention, establishing no fewer than 20 family support centres.

There were also a number of governance changes recommended by the Royal Commission, including establishing a commission for children and young people; adopting a public health approach to child protection, developing a 10 year generation strategy for children and families; consider a single act for child protection and youth justice; establishing a tripartite forum with the Northern Territory government, the Commonwealth and community sector.

We will have to do a lot of work to define community. We spoke in detail with the Commissioners about what community was and they deliberately chose not to be prescriptive in how they defined community in their report. My government made some initial statements on Friday while we go through the process of considering the detail of the vulnerable youths report.

By and large, the Royal Commission has confirmed the policy direction of the Northern Territory government and our recent changes to the youth justice and child protection systems. In February we announced some historic changes that I think are worth mentioning in the House because they are starkly different to how things have previously been done and they are the start of a long journey of improvement.

An $18m investment in youth justice has established teams of youth outreach workers in regional centres across the Northern Territory, and we have funded 52 positions across our regional centres. We will provide an additional $6m per year for NGOs to deliver diversion programs. This includes bail support and diversion

60

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 pathways, five new trained youth justice officers commenced work at Don Dale and Alice Springs youth detention centres.

We have amended legislation to ban the use of restraint chairs in detention centres. We have made safe the existing detention centres including better education facilities in Alice Springs.

We have introduced health and care services by Danila Dilba and Congress into our detention centres. An additional $1.75m has been provided for after-hours youth services in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek and $250 000 into Palmerston. Outside plans are entrained for government and non-government services to work together on a program of events for youth engagement and to keep our children off our streets.

For the first time, bail support accommodation has started in Alice Springs with full operations for both Alice Springs and Darwin starting before the summer holiday period.

Jesuit Social Services are now providing court-referred victim youth conferencing operating in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine. This complements existing pre-court police conferencing in all regional centres.

In child protection, a draft early childhood plan has been developed and is out for consultation. Evidence shows that investing in our most vulnerable children in their early years can change children’s pathways in life. We have co-designed, with the NGO sector in a staged dual pathways program an ultimate referral gateway that works with vulnerable families and children at the local community level and away from child protection.

In consultation with the NGO sector and the Australia government, we undertook a major review to improve family support services. Additional funding has been set aside for NGOs to deliver an expanded scope and range of family and parenting services.

We have developed pilot programs in Nhulunbuy and Alice Springs town camps to increase the number of kinship carers and making out-of-home care more culturally responsive and sustainable. We have developed, through funding to Foster Care NT, a charter of rights for kinship and foster carers. We have funded additional positions to support young people to make the difficult transition at 18 years of age from being in out-of-home care to living independently, a very difficult period in these children’s lives.

We undertook a major overhaul of the case management system, reviewing policies and systems to focus on what is important to the child.

We support the Royal Commission’s approach, and our reform program of the last 12 months aligns with that approach. We are looking at rehabilitation and building our kids up, not breaking them down, and doing everything we can to make sure Territorians are safe, our children are safe and that we are not engaged in a system that turns young children into adult criminal. That makes all people in the Territory safer.

In the short term, we will close the high security unit at Don Dale and planning for this is well advanced. Within three months we will complete planning for detention facilities to replace Don Dale in Darwin and Alice Springs, essentially the works program that the Royal Commission has asked for—and for us to present to the children’s commissioner.

Last Friday I announced that my government will commit $50m to build these new facilities across the Territory and we are looking for the Commonwealth to match that investment. They went halves in the Royal Commission and we think it is reasonable that they are at the table for part of the solution.

They started the Royal Commission, they received the report from the Royal Commission and now we want to make sure they are part of delivering the response to the Royal Commission.

My government is fully supportive of core recommendations in the commission’s report, including implementing a public health approach for child protection with greater involvement in the Aboriginal community controlled sector in family support and early intervention.

We are putting a greater emphasis on diversion at the point of police contact and alternatives to detention, providing bail accommodation to keep kids out of detention off the streets. We are expanding the role of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to exercise greater oversight and introducing a single act for child protection and youth justice.

61

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

My government is aiming for an initial, considered response by February and a final response by late March. The massive amount of work ahead will be led and coordinated by the reform management office based in Territory Families.

We have, based of lessons from previous inquiries, established a small dedicated team, funded for four years, to develop our response and then be responsible for implementation of our response. This makes sure we do not take existing people working in this area and stretch them. They already have full-time jobs.

For the successful implementation, we had to have an implementation team. This includes the vital roles of Education, Police, Housing and Health in delivering the changes recommended.

We do not want this report to be forgotten. There are many conversations to be had to develop our road map to deliver the significant changes the Royal Commission has recommended. Most of the problems addressed by the report affect Aboriginal people, so Aboriginal people must be involved in making decisions about youth justice and child protection. The Aboriginal voice must be strong and clear in both the planning and implementation of a new way forward.

The commissioners themselves—I had a conversation with Commissioner Gooda in particular, where he made it very clear that all children in the system need to be treated differently, whether that is on poverty or location. Differently, but not separately and I think that is an important distinction to make as we work our way through the Royal Commission because it involves all kids.

We have to make sure we are looking after all kids, but without doubt Aboriginal children are overrepresented when it comes to being in the youth justice system. That is something we have to work on and make sure their voices are heard loudly and there is genuine involvement.

That is more than non-government organisations; that is community. We have to make sure the community is empowered. Through the local decision-making framework being rolled out by the Northern Territory Government we are seeking to partner with Aboriginal communities to support them in shaping and controlling their own healthcare, justice systems, local governments and housing.

The fundamental to change is giving local families the ability to make decisions because they are the best decisions. Across government we have already made sweeping social reform that will help families and communities stay strong. We developed the 10-year early childhood development plan to give kids the best start in life. We have introduced alcohol reform and are soon to introduce a domestic violence strategy.

We are spending $1.1bn to give families in remote areas better houses with Room to Breathe and space for kids to enjoy peace and quiet. This is a big reform process being implemented over the next 10 years. Leadership will be required at all levels—families, communities, non-government sectors and government. I thank the Leader of the Opposition. We spoke on the day the Royal Commission report was handed down. He indicated his support for the direction of the Royal Commission and us working with the Commonwealth, and I appreciate that.

This will take a lot of support by many governments over many years, as well as those in our community, not just us alone. It includes the Australian Government. I will continue to work with the Australian Government. We do not want them to walk away now that we have a pathway through this. I thank them for being involved in the Royal Commission process to date. But the Royal Commission does not end with the handing down of the report. In many ways that is the beginning of the work of the Royal Commission. It is also where the leadership of the Australian Government is most needed.

Leadership through change is everyone’s responsibility. It starts with the Territory, myself as Chief Minister, and extends through the public service. I thank everyone involved in the public service and the non- government sector for their generous cooperation, support and response to the Royal Commission. There was an incredible amount of work involved in getting us to where we are now.

I know the stats in the public service and I am sure from the private sector there are similar stats. There were 200 notices to produce, 70 witness statement requests and witness responses, and over 850 000 pages of documents. I have seen statistics on the viewing hours of CCTV footage, which was extraordinary. There was a significant workload for this. The public service worked nights and weekends above existing work hours to ensure they could deliver this. They were often working on other projects as well, especially the policy unit within the public justice, for example, was doing an extraordinary amount of work on the Royal Commission and policy.

62

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

The non-government sectors provided great clarity with their submissions and advise to government about what changes were needed to improve the system. I thank them for not just working with the Royal Commission through this process but for recognising that, as a government, we wanted to make change while the Royal Commission was going on, and they participated in that as well. We know they were stretched during this time. I thank everyone for their contributions.

We will have better youth justice and child protection services because of the work you have done. We have a clearer vision and pathway about how our community can raise our children. I believe this report and, most importantly, the actions generated in response to it will see us having better and safer children and families in the Territory.

We know we have to get it right in the first 1000 days of a child’s live to make that massive change generationally in the Territory. But there is a lot of work for us to do at the pointy end as well of youth justice. The system goes all the way through the Territory and our community.

Once again, I thank everyone for all the work they have done. I thank the commissioners. I do not want to forget them. I thank both of them for this and for being in Darwin on Friday to hand it over to myself and Senator Scullion.

Ms WAKEFIELD (Territory Families): Last Friday on behalf of the Northern Territory Government and community the Chief Minister and I took possession of what is possibly the most important document that our government has received. We committed early in this term to act quickly and decisively to effect genuine reform in the child protection and youth justice system and now with the Royal Commission into the protection and detention of children in the Northern Territory tabling of this final report we can progress those efforts even further.

Over the duration of the Royal Commission the government worked alongside the commissioners in terms of both submissions of material and sharing our reform agenda. I want to echo the Chief Minister’s sentiments about the amount of work that was done by the public service and our NGO partners during this period.

It is a testament to our commitment towards transparency and accountability and the hard working staff in our agencies that this cooperation was achieved. To every staff member who contributed to this important process I thank you for your efforts. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge that despite the difficult reading that is the Royal Commission we have many good people within Territory Families doing great work every day, and this is very much about systemic reform rather than not acknowledging the individual work that many people do on a day-to-day basis within the organisation.

The report being tabled today has six volumes, 2000 pages and as our Chief Minister noted 142 findings and 226 recommendations. Of the recommendations it can be noted that 85 relate to the child protection system, 112 to the youth justice system and 29 to what can be described as implementation and governance.

Yet, if our approach to implementation of recommendations stopped within these three areas we would not be effecting meaningful change. I quote from the executive summary of the report which says:

Focussing solely on the youth justice and child protection systems fails to recognise the profound social, cultural and economic problems which confront many people in the Northern Territory today and in particular Aboriginal people.

Importantly we have established a reform management office whose mission is to ensure that this quote is not lost. The task before that office is to oversee and coordinate a whole-of-government approach to our reform agenda and our response to the recommendations of the commission.

Healthcare, justice systems, housing, family support, education all are critical in our efforts to empower families and communities for a safe and better future. A future where the Northern Territory thrives with connected and strengthened communities, resilient and healthy families and thriving children. A future in which all governments agencies have a role to play. This must be a system that supports all Territory children and families

However, as also acknowledged by the Chief Minister Aboriginal children are over represented in the child protection and youth justice systems. Therefore Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal peak bodies will continue to lead and shape this reform agenda. Fundamental to meaningful change is giving the ability to make decisions that impact on Aboriginal people to Aboriginal people. This must be at the core of our shared future.

63

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Territory Families has undertaken a range of consultations over the past year to engage with both the mainstream non-government sector and Aboriginal peak bodies and organisations. This has included APONT, SNAICC, CREATE, Foster Carers Association NT, NTCOSS and NAPCAN to name but a few.

Secondments have been arranged between Territory Families and a number of NGOs, including APONT and Danila Dilba, where our agency staff have been placed within the non-government sector. Alternatively, we are welcoming a seconded person into the agency. This is about learning and growing together in true partnership, acknowledging each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

These are early efforts, but the efforts demonstrate a genuine desire to collaborate and do things differently. To achieve real and lasting change in the areas of youth justice and child protection, it is not a question of who leads this change, but of everyone stepping up together, honest partnerships to enable earlier intervention for families and children that support rather than intervene, and avoid ever having to reach that crisis-driven response.

I am proud to say that the contents of this report provide a third party endorsement of our reform actions to date, with a number of its recommendations acted upon in our first 14 months of government. This government has got on with the job of delivering early reforms and improvements so desperately needed.

So much work has been progressed in a short period of time and I acknowledge what the Chief Minister said regarding our progress. A couple of other things that were not mentioned by him were that:

 We have introduced a restorative practice approach to trauma and full care training for those working in the youth justice system. We see this as a critical step and know that ongoing training and skill development of our workforce is the key to any reform.

 Co-design of soon-to-be-launched improvements to family support services targeted at achieving better connected support service focused on early intervention.

 The introduction of five-year funding arrangements to give security to NGO partners and their clients by ensuring that service providers are best able to budget, recruit and strategically plan for the future.

 The establishment of youth coordinator roles in Alice Springs and Darwin.

 Palmerston to act as a central point of contact for youth service coordination and support our non-government partners.

 Recruitment of transition from care officers to support children in care at that critical stage of life where they exit the system.

So much work has progressed in such a short period of time, but this work must, and will, continue in earnest. In responding to the Royal Commission recommendations, the changes will come to see legislative and financial implications. However, the biggest change required is a cultural one where our community as a whole recognise that the poor decisions of the past have led us to where we are today and nothing short of a fresh start will suffice.

There is, undoubtedly, a long road ahead to enact much-needed cultural change and early intervention and prevention to support people at the top of the cliff instead of at the bottom.

Mr Deputy Speaker, today’s tabling of this document, along with our reform agenda and achievements to date, mark a moment in history as we diligently work towards supporting those who need it the most, working together to build a safer, fairer, stronger Northern Territory. ______

VISITORS

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I draw honourable members’ attention to some special people in the gallery this evening – the Livingstone Volunteer Fire Brigade, the beautiful wife of the Opposition Leader, Rhonda. I believe we have the Mayor of Litchfield joining us this evening. A big welcome to all other members in the gallery. I hope we are entertaining enough for you.

Members: Hear, hear!

64

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

______

Ms FYLES (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, no pressure. I acknowledge those members of the public in the gallery. I will keep my remarks short. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is keen to deliver a speech. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition’s wife. Apparently, the chutney is delicious. Not only do you need to send cakes - taking a moment away from the very serious matter that is before us on the agenda this evening.

I support the Chief Minister and Minister for Territory Families’ comments in relation to the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. I note that they have taken some time this evening while we are taking note of this report and tabling within our Assembly to reflect and talk about the plans that this government has.

It was last year, not long before the Northern Territory election that we saw those images on Four Corners and those young people had clearly done the wrong thing and had been placed in that detention facility by our court and justice system but those images we saw were disappointing and, as a mother, they moved me.

Yesterday morning, I note former ABC journalist that used to be based here, Kate Wilde, was ABC radio talking about that it was some months before, as a community here in the Territory, we had become aware. As the Shadow Minister at the time, I had spoken to local media and we had had a number of reports by the Children’s Commissioner, begun under the previous Children’s Commissioner.

It was the images we saw of Four Corners that marked the beginning of what was the Royal Commission into Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. From that time, we have seen a significant body of work. I would like to commend all those involved on the completion of that huge amount of work that has taken place right across the Northern Territory and thank the Commissioners for their time, and everyone involved.

As the Attorney-General, I know that it has been a huge amount of work for staff in my agency. Across government, it has been a huge amount of work: Going back through old records, finding documents, providing those to the Commission, making sure that people have been afforded fairness and procedure. It has been a big body of work.

The Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory, as we have heard this evening, makes over 220 recommendations regarding the reform of the Youth Justice Child Protection policy systems and legislation. As noted by the Chief Minister and Minister for Territory Families, following the publication the report on Friday, this government has already commenced reforms across youth justice, child protection, local decision-making, community safety and Aboriginal affairs just to name a few.

We began that body of work when the Chief Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, acknowledged that those images were unacceptable and took responsibility for when Labor had been in government and going forward from when we elected to the privileged position of being the government and ministers in the Northern Territory, and taking on that responsibility. I know that the Minister for Territory Families has been working intensively alongside the Royal Commission, and we have been putting in place implementation for reform.

The recommendations in the Report cement the need for the Territory Government to work across portfolios, to improve government policies in order to achieve better outcomes for youth and children into the future. While youth justice and youth detention may fall within the Department of Territory Families, my agency the Department of Attorney General and Justice, has a number of key responsibilities arising within the report.

These include court structures and consideration of criminal procedures such as bail and the age of criminal responsibility. The government has already committed to expanding the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in line with the recommendations in the report, so it becomes a commission with powers that monitoring of the implementation of the Royal Commission and the inclusion of an Aboriginal Co- commissioner. The Government has also committed a significant allocation towards youth justice infrastructure, $50 million.

I call on the federal government to come to table and to participate; and to make sure that we have the infrastructure. We are working on the programs, giving our children the best start in life but we need the federal government to be working with us.

65

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

This report provides further opportunity for the Northern Territory to consider ways to make lasting and substantial changes to these systems; to reduce the rates of reoffending, a key focus of the justice reform lead by the Department of Attorney General and Justice.

The department is already undertaking a body of work in the criminal justice space, including developing a whole-of-government justice framework, criminal justice reforms and an Aboriginal Justice Agreement. I announced the development of the whole-of-government justice reform framework in October last year. It was always intended that this framework would take the report’s recommendations into its consideration before being finalised. When I announced the development of the framework, I noted that it would provide a way for agencies to work together to achieve a broad reform.

In developing the whole-of-government justice reform framework, the Department of Attorney-General and Justice has considered how a system-wide approach to justice may be achieved. The challenge for this framework is noted in the Royal Commission Report which emphasises that any reform must be considered in the context and complexities we have in the Northern Territory. This includes the challenges of delivering services across huge geographically dispersed and sparsely populated areas, challenges in the area of education, health, housing, homelessness and with the over-representation of Aboriginal adults and youth in our justice system.

The government has also committed to examining broader criminal justice reforms and has provided support to Territory families in the domestic violence reforms. The work in the criminal justice reform space will support the government in responding to the Royal Commission’s recommendations and the report also places a significant focus on the importance of community and Aboriginal engagement to bring around long term, sustainable change. To this end, the Northern Territory government has committed to and is already developing an Aboriginal justice agreement to deliver better justice outcomes for Aboriginal Territorians. Consultation has been held across the Northern Territory and has been occurring since mid-year when we announced that body within the department of attorney-generals. It has been working with communities and Aboriginal peak bodies and that consultation will continue into 2018. It is meaningful conversation and consultation.

Communities are being visited multiple times and we are working with them around what they would like to see in an Aboriginal justice agreement. It will provide key support in responding to the Royal Commission’s recommendations as it is specifically aimed to

 partner with Aboriginal Territorians

 reduce the high levels of disadvantage of Aboriginal people who reside in the Northern Territory

 develop strategies to address the high levels of incarceration of Aboriginal Territorians and assist with the reduction of re-offending

 reduce the high levels of over-representation of Aboriginal people more broadly in the Northern Territory criminal justice system

 provide Aboriginal people with services that support human rights, individual and community resilience

 provide a framework for agencies and the Aboriginal community to work in partnership to address the complex issues that result in the current levels of disadvantage for Aboriginal Territorians

 ensure that agencies do not work in isolation in the delivery of projects and programs

 deliver on the Northern Territory Government election commitments to engage with Aboriginal people in law and justice matters

 establish a model to provide options for the role out of traditional leadership in the local court system in the decision making process

 develop a management process for implementing, monitoring and evaluating the implementation of this agreement.

The government is committed to the long term reforms and we are committed to the long term reforms of the youth justice system and my agency will play its part in assisting the Minister for Territory Families to implement these important reforms. Reform is never easy. We have spent much of today debating the ICAC

66

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 bill and the transformation reform that will come with the Northern Territory having its first ICAC. This is a huge challenge for the Royal Commission to implement the recommendations but we need to do it; we need to implement it for Territorians, those who are young, so we can give them the best start in life and the best opportunities, the opportunities we all want for our children. Our government is up to the task and will do the hard work across our portfolios to make the Territory a better place for all our families.

I join with my colleagues in calling on the commonwealth government to do its part, to step up and to invest in the Territory and these reforms. We have a clear road map before us and if we do this right we will start to drive the long term generational change we need in the Northern Territory. I acknowledge the commissioners and thank them for their work and I thank all agency staff across the Northern Territory government and the NGO’s who participated in this.

I acknowledge the Department of Attorney-General and Justice and the enormous amount of work on that particular agency this year. I reiterate – we heard it from the Chief Minister and the Minister for Territory Families – the responsibility lays with all of us and I hope the assembly takes note of the report.

Motion agreed to; report noted.

PAPER TABLED Treasurer’s Mid-year Report 2017–18

Ms MANISON (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s mid-year report 2017–18 to the Legislative Assembly.

I present the 2017–18 Mid-year Report that provides updated information on the Territory’s fiscal and economic outlook. Since coming into government, the government has been confronting with the falling GST, the Territory’s main revenue source and declining private investment.

The Territory continues to face challenging economic conditions, with the latest Mid-year Report economic forecast heavily influenced by the timing of major projects. The Mid-year Report shows the government is continuing to support Territorians through these challenging economic times in a fiscally responsible way. The nonfinancial public sector fiscal balance for 2017–18 is projected to improve by $245m with deficits continuing to decline over the forward Estimates.

Key factors influencing the changes in the estimate of fiscal outcomes of the 2017–18 Mid-year Report since the 2017–18 Budget include additional taxation and mining royalty collections, predominantly in 2017–18; revised timing of tied Commonwealth and Territory funded programs; carry over expenses from 2016–17; the government’s new recurrent commitments, mainly related to the pensioner concession reforms and the flow on effect of the 2016–17 final outcome.

The estimated outcomes for the fiscal outlook presented in the Mid-year Report are a general government operating deficit of $387m in 2017–18 and operating deficits projected to peak by 2019–20; a nonfinancial public sector fiscal balance deficit of $1.067bn in 2017–18 and reducing deficits projected over the forward Estimates period; net debt of $3.3bn in 2017–18 increasing to $5.3bn in 2020–2021 and a net debt to revenue ratio of 50% in 2017–18 rising to 84% in 2020–21.

All in all, the Mid-year Report shows government is expected to deliver a smaller deficit in 2017–18 and lower debt levels that were originally projected in the May 2017 Budget. Turning to the economy, the Territory economy grew 0.4% in 2016–17, stronger than estimated at the time of the May 2017 Budget.

The key driver of economic growth in 2016–17 was private sector investment expenditure, which alone contributed to 7.7 percentage points towards Territory economic growth. This was mainly major projects, non-dwelling construction expenditure and reflects the drive to complete the construction of the ICTHYS liquefied natural gas plant.

Notwithstanding this large stimulus from major project related investment expenditure, headline economic growth softened due to the impact of increased major project imports which detracted from overall economic growth. To put it into context, the major driver of the Territory economic growth has been the $34bn ICTHYS liquefied natural gas project, the most significant effect being the considerable levels of private investment.

Over the five years from 2012–13, it is estimated that there was an average of $4bn per annum of additional investment from this project, equivalent to almost 20% of total GSP. In comparison, this level of investment

67

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 in one year alone is equivalent to five major mining projects currently in the pipeline and more than double the total investment of Project Sea Dragon.

The scale of the INPEX investment is unprecedented in the Territory’s history and has had a substantial impact on the Territory’s economic indicators. As the ICTHYS LNG project completes construction in 2017– 18 and the very substantial levels of business investment unwinds in the Territory’s statistics, economic growth is forecast to reduce by 1.1% through reversion of total business investment to pre-major project levels will have a moderating influence on headline economic growth for both the 2018–19 and 2019–20 with forecast economic growth rates of 0.5% and 1.4% respectively.

The very significant increase in LNG exports over this period will be largely offset and the official economic statistics by declining investment expenditure, resulting in these modest economic growth rates. In addition, the department of treasury and finance adopts a conservative approach to forecasting economic growth over the forward Estimates, only including official forecasts of those projects with final investment decisions.

As important projects complete due diligence and make final investment decisions, they will then be factored into official economic outlooks. The transition of major projects from the high labour utilisation phase during construction to the more capital intensive operational phase is reflected in the Territory’s employment and population outlook.

The demobilisation of a very large major project workforce is reflected in the forecast of 2.5% decrease in resident employment in 2017-18 and a further 0.4% decline in 2018-19. Similarly, as major project construction workers resident in the Northern Territory demobilise from the major project over 2018, population growth is expected to flatten in 2017-18 before decreasing 0.7% in 2018-19 as workers seek construction employment in other states and territories. The departure of resident construction workers largely explains why the Territory’s forecast employment rate remains broadly steady over the forward estimates, averaging 4.4%.

It is clear that the challenging economic conditions are still expected to continue as the Territory goes through this major economic transition. The Territory government remains committed to supporting the economy through this transition. We are continuing to roll out the $1.75bn record infrastructure investment and there are many projects happening across the Northern Territory and many set to begin.

The Territory government is also working to deliver major private sector projects throughout the Northern Territory as well, and will continue to pursue further private investment in the Northern Territory.

The Mid-Year Report shows we are continuing to support the economy through job-creating infrastructure investment in these challenging economic times, while setting a path to return the budget to a more balanced position as the economy recovers. The government will continue to work with Territorians to listen and respond to the economic challenges of the Territory.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the 2017-18 Mid-Year Report and move that the Assembly takes note of the report.

Motion agreed to; report noted.

Debate adjourned. RESPONSE TO PETITION Petition No 12

The CLERK: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 123, I inform honourable members that a response from the Minister for Territory Families to Petition No 12 has been received and circulated to honourable members.

The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record and placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the Member for Goyder for distribution to petitioners.

ADJOURNMENT

Ms LAWLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.

Mr HIGGINS (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak of a great community organisation in my electorate, the Livingstone Volunteer Bushfire Brigade. Once you go beyond the borders of the city, people

68

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 rely on the services of bushfire volunteers to keep them and their properties safe. These men and women give their time freely to maintain equipment, train and raise funds so that in the event of a fire there is a trained team with maintained equipment in place to respond.

We rely on them to protect lives and properties. In a climate like Australia, it would be hard to live outside cities without the service being in place. There are 22 volunteer brigades across the NT, with about 500 active volunteers. Tonight I talk about one of the first gazetted in the Territory, now known as the Livingstone Volunteer Bushfire Brigade.

The inaugural meeting of what was then called the Berry Creek Fire Protection Group was held on 30 March 1978 at the Noonamah Pub, almost 40 years ago. Twenty-five people attended. The founding members of that fateful meeting included John and Therese Lugg, John and Margo McMaster, Bob and Ruth Parker, Max Kennon, Peter Luxford, Frank and Kay Gable, Ray and Gay Brown, Paddy and Maureen Heatley, David and Sue Burnett, Ted and Maureen Bradshaw, Bob Axsom, Jim and Carol Burke and Anne and Allan Watson. Mike Rowell and Fred Luff from the Bushfires Council also attended. John Lugg was elected chairman and fire patrol officer.

In September 1980, the name was changed to Berry Creek Bush Fire Brigade. In August 1981, they accepted an approach by the 34 Mile Progress Association for land which could be used for a recreation reserve and fire depot. In September 1981, the Berry Creek Bush Fire Brigade was the first brigade to be gazetted in the Northern Territory. Partly due to the example of this initial group of volunteers another volunteer bush fire brigade sprang up and on 10 May 1984, they changed their name again to the Livingstone Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade and has held that name for the past 33 years.

In particular, I want to mention two special members of the Livingstone Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade. From that first meeting on 30 March 1978 up until the present day, Mr David Burnett, a founding member, has been an active front line volunteer fire fighter as well as a well-respective brigade member and committee member. I am advised that David is the longest serving active front line bush fire volunteer in the Territory.

In addition, Mr Max Kennon was also there at the first meeting in March 1978 as a founding member. Max has held many senior positions within the brigade over that time including as captain and president from 1985–88 and 2001–03 and is a well-respected member of the brigade and the community. Thirty-nine years on, Max is still involved and a fire warden. David Burnett and Max Kennon are in the gallery today, together with other proud and past and present members.

Looking through the records, which we all want to do of course, of the Livingstone Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, one can see the history of the Darwin rural area and the history of those brave volunteers who have selflessly given up their time and efforts to keep all of us who live outside the city, safe.

As a previous minister and for the current minister, some things just do not change. On 5 April 1979, the records mention that they received a poor response from the minister. In 1980 a new bush fire act came into force. In of course 1983, they lost their fire unit in a fire and emphasised the need for a training program— are all of these sounding familiar, minister?

In November 1983, they noted the need for public education and that land owners need to clean up their blocks. In October 1984, they held their first meeting in their new brigade headquarters at the 34 Mile reserve. In 1986, they note that the international truck should only be driven on roads and good fire breaks, not for scrub-bashing. So one wonders what led to that rule.

I note that people still need to apply to Bushfires NT to recognition of service from that body and I wonder if it might be better if Bushfires NT proactively recognised volunteers for their service as a matter of course. Forcing people to apply means that less people are recognised as some do not bother to apply. Recognising and encouraging volunteers is simply good policy and this is a simple step that governments could take to demonstrate that volunteers are valued.

Other organisations can manage this system and I am sure the government can, too. The contribution of the Livingstone Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade and other volunteer groups is the cement that binds our community together. Over the past almost four decades, this group has selflessly given back to the community to allow everyone else to live in areas unpatrolled by salaried fire officers.

It is not just when fires occur, it is all the times in between. Going to meetings, organising training, fixing equipment, maintaining equipment and all the work that goes with getting funds for these activities.

69

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

That spirit of volunteering and giving back to the community is what makes the rural area such a great place to live and the Livingstone Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade is a great example to all of us in this Chamber of what Territorians are capable of doing for each other and their local community.

I congratulate David and Max and the rest of the brigade on their contribution and I note that on 30 March next year, you will be celebrating your 40 years of contribution and would encourage you to celebrate that milestone in style. I hope that the government comes to the party, so to speak, by chipping in.

Members: Hear, hear!

Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to address the House today to pay my respects to Mr Ted Hart, highly respected member of the Northern Territory cattle industry who sadly passed away at his home in Katherine on 29 October this year, at the age of 91. For 35 years up until 2008 Ted was the owner of Hodgson River Station in the Katherine region. Throughout his long and adventurous life he had exemplified the pioneering spirit of the Territory pastoral industry and it will be hard to find a man so well liked and admired.

Ted was born in Mullumbimby, New South Wales in 1925 and grew up on his family’s dairy farm. Leaving home at the age of 16 he initially worked in outback Queensland and by 1945 he was managing a team of 22 to 28 horses pulling a plough to create firebreaks and drains.

He first came to the Territory in 1948 to work on Limbunya Station as head stockman with Aboriginal stock camp before heading back to Queensland where he had his first attempt at owning a station only to learn the hard way how difficult a business that can be. He and his partner stocked the station with 500 head and had a few years later after one of the worst droughts in memory, Ted gave the surviving 50 head back to his partner and walked away.

Ted did a season on Brunchilly then Alcoota but he got paid off after walking cattle away to Maryvale in a drought. In 1956 he came to Alice Springs region initially cutting and carrying timber for railway sleepers on Loves Creek and Deep Well destined for the saw mill in Alice Springs. Ted then got a contract fencing and yard building for Eddie Connellan at Narwietooma and then Hamilton Downs and Napperby. In Connellan’s workshop in Alice Springs Ted developed an automatic fencing machine which allowed him to do half a mile a day in all in one pass with three or four wires and 350 wooden posts to the mile.

Ted, his wife and three adopted sons and two daughters lived on the fence line. He then went to Umbrula and Borella which was at that time an outstation of Hamerton Down Station on share farming arrangements. There he started his own bull breeding project. He noted that the bulls bought from interstate were finding it hard to survive and breed in the dry areas that Central Australia was going through so he went to Adelaide and for 1000 guineas he bought the best poll shorthorn bull available. He had a few lessons in collecting semen and practicing artificial insemination and he produced the first calves born to artificial insemination in the Northern Territory.

He fed his bull on Umbrello on Lucerne which he irrigated using a pumping system he devised himself that ran on gas produced from a charcoal burner. The charcoal having been made from hand cut mulga. Again this was pioneering work as he was the first person to grow Lucerne commercially in the Northern Territory. He worked closely with Colonel Rose of the animal industry branch as well as Dr Barns and Geoff Cott and he always acknowledged the support the department provided.

The biggest drought on record broke the project however, and Ted sold the cows and went contracting on the Atherton Tablelands to get back on his feet. In 1968 Ted married his second wife Elizabeth and in 1973 they bought Hodgson River 1100 square kilometre station in the Roper area. While their two girls Sonia and Donna then aged three and one, they moved onto the station which at that stage had a single shed with no power and water and they took delivery of the stock which totalled 19 cattle and 17 horses. Using a helicopter they managed to round up a number of clean skin cattle that roamed the station, so they began.

He also purchased some short horn cows from Victoria River Downs and some cross peak cows from Ian McBean at Innesvale. There were five Aboriginal families on Hodgson River when the Harts arrived and in 1974 the beef slump hit the northern cattle industry. The cattle that were worth $200 in 1973 were only worth $30 in 1974. By the following year it was not even worth mustering the cattle as the price on offer would not even pay the freight.

70

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

The Harts survived through hard years by running a small store at Hodgson River. In time the small Aboriginal community at Hodgson River, which is always a dry community, swelled to 70 people including 24 children between the ages of four and 14 so the Harts petitioned the government to start a school.

The Harts located a suitable school teacher and the government provided a teacher housing as a silver bullet trailer as a classroom. The silver bullet did not quite make it into Hodgson River before the wet so classes actually started that first year beneath an upturned cattle crate.

The close relationship with the Harts and the Aboriginal community remains to this day. Ted Hart was always keen on innovation. He first invited DPI, the department of Primary Industries to conduct trials on Hodgson River in 1982 and over the next decade he introduced mineral supplements, vaccination against botulism and dingo control on Hodgson River. He conducted trials in the best way to manage weaners and heifers and grew hay and mung beans.

Ted welcomed the new ideas that came from the department of Primary Industries and reciprocated by providing his best and his practical experience to mentor new researchers. In time Hodgson River became one of the best run family cattle stations in the region running 4000 head of quality cattle. For many years Ted was the main stay of the drought master breed in the Northern Territory. This is a tropical breed developed in Australia which is renowned as a high quality beef animal with a placid temperament.

Ted bought his first drought master in 1968 and had a small breeding herd in Atherton. The 60 animals he brought to Hodgson River were the first drought masters in the Northern Territory. In the 1980s and 90s they herded Kidman Springs the departments research station in the Victoria River district were made up of drought masters. Ted helped with advise and breeding and when in late 1990 he heard numbers were reduced to make room for other breeds Ted helped to choose the best animals to keep.

This herd was later transferred to Alice Springs and became one of the foundations of the department’s renowned drought master herd on the Old Man Plains Research Station. Now a days bulls from this herd are highly sought after by other Centralian producers at the annual cattle sales.

In 2003 at the age of 78 Ted had a stroke and as a result Hodgson River was sold in 2008. Ted and Elizabeth retired to a small block called New Haven on the banks of the Katherine River and that is where Ted died on 29 October 2017 surrounded by his family. Ted Hart represented the best qualities of a true Territorian. He was a great bushman an enterprising, inventive cattleman and a modest, kind and generous man. He was admired throughout the pastoral company and community for his integrity and good sense and he will be sadly missed.

Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I get into the main part of my adjournment tonight, I want to echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition in his recognition of the Livingston volunteer fire fighters, Max Kenan and David Burnham in particular.

As we come out of what has been a rather big firefighting season in terms of bushfires, it is important we all put on the record our thanks for our volunteers who do an immense amount of work in protecting life and property, particularly across our rural areas of the Northern Territory because those volunteers really are the backbone of that response and they do an incredible amount of work.

They are selfless and the thing that stands out about volunteers, particularly in the volunteer bushfire brigades is how long they continue to serve in those brigades for. That should be recognised and I am very happy to look at what the Leader of the Opposition has raised in terms of the recognition of their service. I wanted to put that on the record first.

Tonight I am going to do what I think is perhaps my most favourite adjournment of the year, and for the third year I have been lucky enough to do it, which is putting on the record a whole host of people whose contribution I am sincerely thankful for as we approach the end of the year and the last sittings of the year.

Of course, we must begin with the people in my electorate of Casuarina whose stories and perspectives I am always grateful for. The time they spend with me, I am always grateful for because I really feel that in my community there are so many people who are sharing their stories and perspectives with a view of making our community a better place to live, work and play.

All of us would say being able to share in those moments with people in our communities are some of the hardest and best times; it is an experience that changes and shapes us all. It really is a privilege every single day. In particular the work that was undertaken recently by my colleague, the Minister for Territory Families

71

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 on the NT concessions scheme and senior recognition scheme demonstrated how engaged the people in my electorate are. Many senior Territorians in my electorate responded in very large numbers in the consultation process. I thank them because they shape the policy that this government makes. We want to make things better for Territorians and the best way we can do that is in partnership with Territorians. It is a privilege every day to be their representative and something I never lose sight of.

I thank Carolyn Edwards at Henbury School, Britany Roestenburg at Nakara Primary School, Paul Mathews at Casuarina Senior College and Sandy Cartwright at Alawa Primary School. They are two feeder schools for the children and young people in my electorate. They and their teams do an incredible job providing quality education for our kids, no matter their background. I appreciate it. My parents are teachers and I understand how much work they put in all year round to provide that education to our kids. I thank them.

Sandy was recently recognised as Principal of the Year in the Territory excellence awards, which is incredible recognition of her tireless work.

I have not forgotten, I must mention Peter Swan, the Principal of Dripstone Middle School who is very sadly moving on. I have mentioned this in the House before, but I say again he will be sadly missed and has made a positive impact on that school body.

To everyone, please do not forget to get your tickets to the Henbury corporate luncheon, the event of the year. It makes a huge difference to the school in the resources they are able to provide to their wonderful students. We have seen them do some pretty amazing things with the fundraising that comes from the Henbury corporate luncheon. They are now running a coffee enterprise and provide many important learning resources for students with very high needs. It is a great event to get behind.

I acknowledge those who will be working over the Christmas period in our emergency services, in the services that provide crisis support to Territorians at what can be a very difficult time of the year. You make an invaluable contribution and impact on the lives of many, while at times missing out on special times with your own families. So, please know that it is recognised and appreciated by us all.

I say thank you to the CEOs - Jo Townsend, Kathleen Robinson and Alistair Shields - of the Departments of Environment and Natural Resources, Corporate and Information Services and Tourism and Culture, and their teams and staff across those departments. It has been a big year and we have a big agenda to drive and achieve together for the benefit of the broader community. I appreciate your hard work and commitment to delivering great services, research, initiatives, events and experiences that truly lie at the heart of a vibrant, healthy and connected community.

To my staff: Mary Fall, who is my incredible Chief of Staff, Steven Nugent, Emma Young, Martin Redhead, Ursula Raymond, Trish Grimshaw, Kathy Young, Sonni Butler, Emma Darby, Lucy Gregg, Tamara Murdie. It is a cliché, but it is true – I simply could not do it without you and I really appreciate the hard work you put in around the clock to support me. Team Moss is pretty awesome. So thank you for your commitment and hard work, but most of all thank you for your humour. It is not always easy and we are one heck of an odd bunch at times, but I really could not ask for a better ministerial team.

To Lucy Gunner, my unstoppable electorate officer, and Debbie Rowland, whose experience and connections in the electorate are second to none, I appreciate you each and every day. So, thank you for the role you play in our community and the help you provide to people, often in their biggest time of need and for all you do to keep me organised and moving through what is sometimes a very crazy life.

A big thank you to my family, my parents, Anita and Barry and my brother, Brendan. I do not necessarily get to enjoy as many coffees and family lunches with them, but they are always there to lend an ear and give me support and they love me unconditionally. Thank you. I love you and it is wonderful to be on this journey with a supportive family. I could not do it without them.

Of course, my Jake who forever balances me out and whose feet are firmly planted in the lighter side of life - I will be forever grateful for the day we walked into each other’s lives and the journey we are on together.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, no wrap-up, end-of-year adjournment would be complete without thanking all of you. Being part of this government team is something that makes me feel exceptionally proud every day because I know I am amongst colleagues who lead with heart and genuinely put people first. I wholeheartedly believe that it makes a difference to the environment you work in. So, thank you.

72

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

To the independents and opposition, I thank you too for the work you do in your communities. We can all acknowledge that we share a unique experience and it is a job that requires hard work and commitment and one where your whole family comes along with you.

I wish everyone a safe and happy Christmas. It seems a bit weird in November but it is the last Sittings for the year so have a safe and happy Christmas and a happy New Year. I am looking forward to the continued work and challenges ahead. We have a big agenda and have achieved a lot in 12 months but we will come back refreshed and ready for the next challenge. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity this evening.

Ms LAWLER (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to speak and do an end of year wrap. It will probably sound a lot like the Member for Casuarina’s but it has been a wonderful year for myself as the education minister but first and foremost as the Member for Drysdale. It is a pleasure to be the member for Drysdale and it is a privilege every day. It has been a bit over a year since I became the Member for Drysdale but that time seems to have gone very fast. The electorate of Drysdale is a very diverse and wonderful community; it has a little of everything. We have the industrial area of Yarrawonga, the huge, new Gateway shopping centre, the CBD, suburbia and we also have a golf course estate in Driver. We have a microcosm of the Territory with a little of everything. It is a privilege and a delight to be the member of Drysdale.

I am fortunate to have a wonderful electorate office with the best electorate officer you could possibly have. I have two Kirby’s. I have Kirby Bolton as my electorate officer who is always vibrant, happy and can sort things. Every day she continues to grow, develop and work out new connections and new ways to sort issues that come into the office. I also have my daughter, Kirby Lawler, who fills in and helps out when Kirby Bolton is not there. My life is full of Kirby’s and we also have Paul Kirby here so we are growing Kirby’s at the moment but they are all wonderful people. As I said, I thank Kirby Bolton for the wonderful work she does because when you are a minister there are lots of times when you are in and out of your office or out of phone range so it is great to know things are ticking over in the electorate office.

We have had a big year in Drysdale. The new Gateway shopping centre has been a wonderful addition to our community. It is such a delight to be able to go there to shop. It is clean and a lovely area but just to sit there and have a coffee and some lunch in that eatery area and run into people you know gives it that community feel. In the hot build up it is great on a Saturday morning or a Sunday afternoon to sit there and chat to people as they wander past. It has a great community feel and reminds me of those old piazzas and plazas and places like that overseas.

We have some new buildings going up. We have the Randazzo building which will be an office tower, apartment and shops which are opposite the Bunnings site and it is wonderful to see that development going ahead in leaps and bounds. We are getting a new Bunnings near Finlay’s Stone across the highway so things are going ahead in Palmerston which is great to see.

I have some amazing schools in the electorate of Drysdale and I am lucky to have fantastic school communities. It is a pleasure to attend assembly’s, meet and talk to the principals, school councils, the school board at Driver and all the parents and kids of those schools. It is a nice feeling when you are at the shopping centre and these little kids saying, ‘hello Eva, you gave me a merit award’. Those nice things that, as I said, you do enjoy. They are the happy days when, on a Friday morning when you are at assembly and seeing the gorgeous kids who are doing so well.

To Rob Presswell, who has retired now, from Driver Primary School, but Danielle Hall, who is acting principal there now, to Wendy Jordan at Moulden, Rebecca Stapleton at Gray, Sue Healy at Palmerston Senior College, Good Shepherd Lutheran as well. We also have the special education centre at Palmerston Senior College, all of them are working so hard and doing a terrific job with the Drysdale kids.

To all of them, thank you very much for all of your had work and commitment that you do every single day.

It would be remiss of me not to mention Wayne Zerbe from the Palmerston Regional Business Association. Wayne does so much for Palmerston and promoting Palmerston and the great news stories. It is always wonderful to sit down and talk to Wayne because he is such an optimist. As I said, you come away buoyed and thinking positively about things that are happening in our community.

Wayne, you are probably one of the longest term people who have lived in Palmerston and it is always lovely to talk to you and hear the optimism and the positive stories from your work in Palmerston.

73

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

We have some good news. The new site for the Palmerston Police Station was announced this year and I know the Member for Brennan and I look forward to seeing that come out of the ground and be completed sooner rather than later, so a wonderful addition to our community to have our own police station as well as our own hospital. Palmerston truly is becoming our second-biggest city in the Northern Territory.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the people in my Labor branch at Palmerston and the volunteers who help me out in so many different ways. To all of my supporters who attend the markets, come to mobile offices, letterboxing for me—to all of those good people and you know who you are, thank you very much for all you have done over this last year or so to support me in Palmerston, it is very much appreciated.

I quickly move on to my Education portfolio. I have amazing Team Lawler staff in my ministerial office: my Chief of Staff, Bryony Bree; my Education adviser, Nadia Phillips; Lee-Anne Jarrett Sims, my Early Childhood adviser; Jake Hauritz, the greatest media guy you could ever want in your corner; Tania Hill, my Executive Officer; and Alice Theodolou. I am fortunate to have an amazing team on the fifth floor who keep us all going and make sure it all happens. They are part of an efficient team and do exceptionally well - a very professional group of people. I am very proud and pleased with everything they do.

The Education Department is a big machine. Health and Education are probably the two biggest in government. It is also has a very professional team. I have Vicki Baylis, the Chief Executive, who I thank very much for the amazing work she has done over the last 12 months. There has been a huge body of work with a new government coming in. Vicki has worked on the department’s new strategic plan. It has been probably the best consultation for any strategic plan we have seen in government. I has been extensive consultation. Vicki had a great team who got out and spoke to and listened to people across the Territory. That was launched last Friday. It was an exceptional effort by some really wonderful people to listen and then come up with a plan that is narrow, sharp and focused and will get results for us in Education. Thank you very much to Vicki and that broader team which has done some amazing work this year.

The Deputy Chief Executive of Schools, Marion Guppy, Jasmine Anderson, the Executive Director in the corporate area, Marie Garrigan in Curriculum, David Cummins in Central Australia, Tony Roberts in the Top End, Tony Considine, all the regional directors and principals in their schools – you have done an exceptional job and I am very grateful for the work you do every day for Territory kids.

I make special mention of Leanne Taylor, who has headed up the infrastructure area in Education for probably about 10 years. Leanne is moving across to work in the Department of the Chief Minister on the city deals area. We are sad to see Leanne leave Education. I saw ‘we’, because I am a firm believer that Leanne can make 5 cents become $5. She always seems to be able to find money to get things happening in the department. Leanne has been an exceptional leader in the infrastructure area and I think she knows every school building inside-out.

Leanne, you will be missed from Education, that is for sure, but I know you will do a great job in the Department of the Chief Minister in the infrastructure area.

The other area I would like to make special mention of is the early childhood area in the Department of Education; Susan Bowden and her amazing staff as well. We have pushed very hard to roll out the Families as First Teachers. We now have FaFT in 37 sites. It is an exceptional program that is doing great things in the Territory. I was just reading the newsletter from the last quarter and it is a delight to see so many amazing stories of things happening in FaFT across the Territory. Susan and her staff have done a remarkable job. The briefs I get from early childhood are always so professional. The information is always spot on and really clear.

Ms UIBO (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to adjourn in regard to my recent travels since the last sittings. I always like to share some of the stories from around the electorate of Arnhem, there are some wonderful, hard-working people. I will kick start with the end of October.

Straight after the sittings, on Saturday 21 October, I held my first ever Mataranka Family Fun Day. I would like to acknowledge and thank the Member for Barkly for sharing the costs, although Mataranka is in the electorate of Arnhem, there are lots of people that get serviced through Mataranka as being a small hub in the region, places like Jilkminggan and Miniyeri, which the Member for Barkly represents.

Thank you, Minister McCarthy, the Member for Barkly, for going halves with me in the Mataranka Family Fun Day. We had approximately 40 people in Stan Martin Park, which was wonderful. For a place as small as Mataranka that was a really great turnout. We had a sausage sizzle and I would like to thank the Roper Gulf

74

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

Regional Council for arranging the jumping castle and supervising the kids while they had some good fun jumping away and wearing themselves down on Saturday morning.

I would like to say a special thank you to my electorate officer, Brooke Brenner and her son Cash, for coming down to assist with the family fun day, particularly the preparing of the food and Anthony Venes from the Office of the Chief Minister for making it back from a bit of a long road trip, a couple of shredded tyres on the Central Arnhem Road. He made it back to Mataranka in time to help cook the sausages. Thank you, Anthony, we really appreciated your support on that day.

It was a hot morning, but we stayed cool in the shade and had some really good conversations with some locals from Mataranka and Mulggan town camp.

No rest for the wicked, the next day I was back up to Darwin on 22 October, to attend the reception held here at Parliament House, hosted by the Chief Minister, the welcome reception for the Indigenous Economic Development Forum, which was held Monday 23 and Tuesday 24 October at the Darwin Convention Centre.

I was honoured to be able to do the opening address for the trade fair and I would like to acknowledge Mischa Cartwright, the acting director for the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, for her speech notes and ensuring that everything ran smoothly on our side.

It was a wonderful event. There were women from different parts of the electorate that I represent, particularly Groote Eylandt, the Bush Metijina ladies were there selling their products, so I gave them a shout out at the trade fair. I bought a couple of gift bags as Christmas presents for people. The Bush Metijina make beauty products and cosmetics out of bush medicine and native plants. A wonderful business and great to see them at the forum, a long way to travel from Groote and not a cheap way to travel in, so wonderful to see those ladies and also other people from around the electorate.

It was wonderful to attend that forum both as a mini presenter and an observer, and also to attend the different workshop sessions. It was great to network and reconnect with people.

That Tuesday I was back in Katherine to have a night at home because the next day I was travelling to Bulman and Weemol with Minister Moss and her Chief of Staff, Mary Full. I acknowledge and thank Minister Moss and Mary for their time and dedication to ensure this trip happened. Bulman and Weemol are not the easiest communities to get to. They get cut off in the Wet Season.

Minister Moss was the first Labor government minister in our current government to visit those places, so people were very happy to …

Mr Wood: I am not a minister.

Ms UIBO: Sorry, Member for Nelson. You are not a minister but thank you for visiting Bulman. It is a wonderful community. People were very excited to have Minister Moss and other members visit in support of those communities.

One of the main reasons we travelled there was to attend the independent celebrations of the Mimal rangers. They are now their own entity and fully fund themselves. It was wonderful to be there with the responsible minister to attend those celebrations.

I acknowledge and congratulate the CEO, Dominic Nicolls, and the manager, Peter Cook, for their hard work with the Mimal rangers and all the ranger there to make the evening a success. They were wonderful. There were quite a lot of people. Rangers from different areas and regions travelled a long way to attend this celebration. It was wonderful to see that support and comradery in the ranger network across the Top End.

I give a big thanks to the ground oven dinner they provided. There was a choice of bullocky and buffalo. I chose bullocky, but apparently the buffalo was pretty good as well. There were fresh mangoes for desert. The evening was topped off with a concert. In particular the famous Blekbala Mujik with the lead singer Peter Miller, who is a Bulman resident—heard all of my favourite childhood songs. Peter is a former student of my father, who lectured him at Batchelor College back in the day. It was wonderful to see people out and celebrating.

There is no mobile phone reception at Bulman or Weemol yet, but the next day we saw the Telstra cable cords being dug through the very heavy rock area there about 30km outside of northern Bulman. We whizzed

75

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 past that on Thursday on our way to visit Barapunta, also known as Amy Springs. Another reason I was very happy to host Minister Moss in that area is that Barapunta is a small outstation …

Mr Wood: Is there anyone living there?

Ms UIBO: No one is living there yet, but there is infrastructure and the Mimal rangers are interested to hold that infrastructure so they can use it as a possible headquarters. We were very fortunate to have one of the TOs, Alfred Rickson, meet and greet us there. I call him my father, so I was thankful for Dad Alfred to spend the hours with us. It was very hot, about 40 degrees, but he walked us around the space and talked about the plants and the outstation in terms of residents and headquarters for Mimal rangers in the future.

I forgot to mention that Joanne Nichol from Warren Snowden’s office, the Katherine base office for the Member for Lingiari, was also there to accompany us.

Alfred talked about the possible plans for a tourist park almost dead smack in the middle of the road from Katherine to Nhulunbuy. There is a lot of potential—people looking at employment opportunities and economic development in the bush. This is all being driven by the people in Bulman and Weemol.

It was wonderful for Minister Moss to walk around that space and see it for herself, so when I talk about it and lobby for it on behalf of my constituents she will be able to know because she has been there.

That same evening we went back to Katherine but in the morning we visited Bulman School, the Roper Gulf Regional Council office, the Aged Care and Sunrise Health Clinic. I want to thank all of those people in Bulman itself for their time and meeting and greeting also speaking to Minister Moss about some of the successes and challenges that they face in a small but remote place such as Bulman.

I think Minister Moss’ highlight after the concert and the celebration was the herded donkeys that stopped us on the road near Conway Station both ways going in on Wednesday and coming out on Thursday, it must have been the same herd. There were pastoralists out herding the donkeys so that quite an interesting sight sitting on the road for a couple of minutes and watching hundreds of donkeys herd past us—it was pretty funny to see everyone taking photos out the window of all these donkeys.

As the Minister for Primary Industry and Resources has said the donkeys are the sleeping giant of the Northern Territory primary industry—so we will have to watch that space.

Before I finish up, a pleasant surprise on the road, because of the donkeys there were two cars facing each other, my car and another car and as we went past my cousin from Numbulwar, Grant (inaudible) was passing us on the road so we stopped and had a chat through the window and they were off to community of Milingimbi to go and attend the Yurrwi Festival.

Ms NELSON (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, yesterday was the international day for children and I use this opportunity tonight to speak directly to the federal government to Minister Peter Dutton, the Prime Minister and Minister Julie Bishop.

Australia first started processing asylum seeker applications offshore under the Howard government. Kevin Rudd abolished it and Julia Gillard started it again and it has been in place since then. I was in Timor in 2011 when the Australian government—it was Labor government at the time—proposed setting up an offshore processing centre in Timor touting it as good for the economy, provide jobs, infrastructure investment and so on in Timor.

Jose Ramos Horta who was president at the time said no thanks. Then on July 19, 2013 there was a change to the policy and that change was that even if people were found to be refugees they would never be resettled in Australia ever. But here is the thing, the Australian government did not know what to do with the refugees and they had no plans moving forward. All they knew was that they just did not want them here in Australia and so they have left people languishing in these centres for years, in limbo.

It has been reported in the past four years that the Australian government has spent $9.6bn on its asylum policies. Offshore processing alone is estimated at a cost of $400°000 per person per year. Every person has a right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, serious human rights violations and other harm. This right is protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a number of international conventions to which Australia is a party and has never really challenged over many decades of implementation of the convention relating to the status of refugees.

76

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

This means that Australia is obliged under international law to recognise the right to seek asylum and to ensure that laws and policies concerning asylum seekers adhere to the principals contained in the refugee convention and other relevant instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Last week electricity and water supply was cut off to the offshore detention centre at Manis Island. Refugees that had been there for years are refusing to leave the camp and to be quite frank I do not blame them. There are no jobs to go to, no assistance given, no support, no infrastructure for them. The Australian government scheduled the Manis camp for closure after Papua New Guinea Supreme Court ruled last year that the detention centre was unconstitutional as it violated the detainee’s right of personal liberty.

I am going to repeat that. The Papua New Guinea Supreme Court ruled last year that the detention centre was unconstitutional as it violated the detainee’s right of personal liberty. Violating detainee’s rights of personal liberty but yet we are complicit in keeping them there. These are people that have fled war, persecution, drought, famine—you name it. All they want is a chance for a better life for themselves and their families. They come from impoverished countries. They bring nothing of value with them other than their life.

All they have is a yearning for a better life, a life that you and I have and often take for granted. Why are we not offering them that opportunity?

Offshore processing is a cool and inhumane practice that causes enormous suffering to highly vulnerable people. Why do we continue to do that?

I am not going to debate with anyone about this particular issue. It is incredibly personal to me. I am not interested in hearing from anyone that supports offshore detention centres and the abhorrent, turn back the boat policy. Every day I travel throughout my electorate and the surrounding communities, I am confronted by the disparity that exists within our own country and communities.

Every day someone will send me a message about lazy people, we give them everything, they choose to live that way, they need to get over it, and so forth. Every day I work had to service the needs and demands of all the people in the electorate I represent.

There is no denying that we have pockets within our own population that need support, attention and care. But there is also no denying that we, as Australians, no matter where we live, are incredibly fortunate people. We have a stable system of government, infrastructure, law and order, agriculture, industry and safety. We have sufficient of all those things to provide to those that are seeking asylum from war torn countries that we, as allies to other countries, helped to destroy.

There are many reasons as to why I do not support offshore detention centres. If humanitarian reasons do not appeal to those that support offshore detention centres, surely the financial toll should be of concern. It costs billions of dollars to establish and maintain those offshore detention centres.

The boats have not stopped. People seeking refuge and asylum have not stopped. All we have done is to keep them away silent and covered to appease our own conscience. I am not going to remain silent on this any further. I have lived a very fortunate life. Even when we were poor, we were fortunate. My family and I were given every opportunity to live a good, safe life.

In reality, that is what everybody wants for themselves and their families. This is why people risk their lives to come to Australia. The legacy of the offshore detention centres will forever cloud the true Australia spirit of fairness. We need to provide safe passage and opportunity for those that are now on Manus Island with no shelter, water or food. And if the only way we can do that is to accept New Zealand’s offer to resettle 600-plus people, then for god’s sake, just do it.

I understand only a fraction of Border Protection policy is likely to be apparent to the public. I understand it is not an easy policy and is not very sexy, politically correct, whatever you want to call it. I put off speaking about this in parliament for a really long time in the hopes that a kinder shade would be cast on the situation, but it seems that it has only made things worse as time goes by.

Using innocent people’s suffering as a diversionary technique is appalling and stopping the boats is no achievement if it means people simply die elsewhere. If the policy is in fact humane, please make those details more publicly apparent.

Current policy appears to be taking the horrors of the world and making them worse. The amount of rehabilitation required for every individual in detention is compounded every day of confinement. The cost of

77

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 keeping people in detention could be better spent welcoming and settling people into a safe community, providing support to help rather than hinder their future success.

I am going to finish with this piece of advice someone once gave me. It is useless sticking with a mistake, just because you spent a lot of time, money and effort making it. It seems that this current policy, this mistake, can be used only as a bad example.

Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, as you mentioned before, I have travelled overseas and I handed my report to the Speaker. I recently travelled to the United States and Canada and I am going to put on the record, the summary of my trip, at least that is in Hansard, I am not going to read the whole lot, we would be here for a long time.

I need to have at least, what I believe should be the way to go, in Hansard. I am referring to my report, so I will start off saying that this report covers a number of issues, solar, hydrogen and gas, all relevant to the Northern Territory.

We have an abundance of sunlight, especially in the Tenant Creek region of the Northern Territory – believe it or not, it is one of the best sites for solar – and we have the possibility of tidal energy in the north. These two forms of renewable energy – one reliable and the other not-so-reliable – can be part of an industry that produces an energy source that is renewable, reliable and clean: hydrogen.

South Australia is already taking the lead and the Northern Territory should be talking to the CSIRO about whether there are possibilities for the Territory to use its natural energy sources to set itself up as a potential producer of hydrogen for both domestic and international customers.

The second part of this report deals with gas as this is an important issue especially in light of the hydraulic fracturing inquiry. I know the issue is of concern for many people in my electorate as I see signs opposing the use of fracking and therefore they may not agree with my views. At least, I hope that it helps the discussion by giving a different point of view.

I travelled to Wyoming and Ohio in the United States, and British Columbia in Canada. These three states all have been producing gas for many years and over the last 17 or so years have drilled horizontal wells that are hydraulically fractured. In fact 275,000 wells were drilled and hydraulically fractured between 2000 and 2013 in the United States.

I went to these places, where this had been happening for some time, to get a feel for the issues and the benefits of the gas industry there. My conclusion is hydraulic fracturing is not the issue. Hydraulic fracturing is an industrial process used for many years in North America to release gas trapped below the ground.

The issue is about well-integrity. That is, a well must be built to the highest standards. To make sure that happens, an independent, reliable inspection and regulatory process must be in place. The issue is also about having a thorough knowledge of the geology of a prospective gas field to make sure it is suitable for development and, from there, determine how it will be developed. There is no doubt, for instance, that some issues have arisen in the United States where drilling has occurred in areas where there is shallow gas and shallow aquifers.

This may not relate to the Northern Territory but it is just an example of where fracking gets blamed for everything when something else was the cause. Even though the North American experience may not be the same as ours, we can learn from them and do it better. For instance, in Wyoming and Ohio there are two regulatory bodies, sometimes overlapping, and four owners of minerals with the possibility of different surface owners.

In the Northern Territory, we have one owner of minerals and regulatory agency – the government – so we should be able to do it better.

There needs to be a strong, independent, well-funded and well-resourced enforced body in forcing the standard required and funding by the industry, including things like water use and re-use, air quality, rehabilitation and natural environments and social impacts, et cetera.

We can certainly learn from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality; the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Oil and Gas Division; and the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission. The people I met in Wyoming, Ohio and British Columbia who oversee

78

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 and regulate the industry are all strongly dedicated to making sure there is continual improvement in the industry and that protection of the environment is a key objective of what they do.

As Scott Kell, Assistant Chief from Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, said ‘If I believed half of what the anti-fracking people said was true, I would change sides’. Naturally we have to be very careful with any mining process and we need to make sure that thorough environmental studies are done first. But I feel that we are seeing activists taking over the agenda and not being questioned about their motives or who finances them. They do not want a gas industry, even one that it developed to the highest standards. They simply oppose gas production in Australia.

To achieve that end, the use of fear – and sometimes people have only heard one viewpoint – is a great weapon to achieve that outcome. That is not to say that there are people with genuine concerns and it is good to have people questioning what is happening. With the knowledge we have locally and from what we can learn from overseas, I believe we can lead the way in gas production and protecting the environment at the same time. Instead of taking a view which is non-negotiable and no matter what, the answer is always ‘no’.

The Northern Territory’s economy is very much dependent on mining and it has been for years. Some of that history is good; and some not-so-good. We have also diminishing federal receipts through the GST and that has occurred this year. Our GST revenue is not guaranteed and can be changed by the federal parliament. To off-set these financial losses our economy needs to grow, and gas is one way – but not the only way – that the economy can grow.

Talking to people in my travels, it was clear that the gas industry has helped the economies of local communities, especially job creation whether in the development stage, production phase or through service industry.

If gas does come to the Territory then we need to make sure that other sectors benefit such as the pastoral industry, tourism, Aboriginal people, housing, et cetera, so that there are long-term benefits well past the life of the gas industry. Gas will be needed for some time yet – for heating, cooking and industrial uses in Australia and overseas. As it appears, we are not willing to go down the nuclear path. Gas is one way to switch from coal to a cleaner form of energy.

In Ohio, where I visited, at least six gas fired power stations are being built as coal fired stations are being phased out. Renewables have their place but do not fill all our energy needs. Hopefully hydrogen will fill the gap but that is still some way off. f The Territory needs to be careful but also needs to be dynamic and not be afraid of development. We need development – sensible and sustainable development – and not be afraid to do things. I have looked at how the gas industry operates in parts of North America and I did not see any yellow anti-fracking signs. The industry continues to grow in North America and I know there have been problems but did that bring the industry to a halt? Technologies are always changing, there is improved scrutiny and the benefits help local economies. We can sit on our hands and live in hope or we can do something. On balance, if done right, gas production will be safe and bring benefits to the people of the Northern Territory.

While I am at it, I would just like to thank all the people I met in the United States. It was an interesting tour and I know that people sometimes knock Americans and they think of Donald Trump and think everyone is like him but they are very generous people. One example was on my second last day I was told to visit this small farm out from Riverton, Wyoming – which is a country town with not many people – and see a man called John Hazlewood. I rang him the day before and he said, ‘I am not sure you are going to get here because sometimes the roads are shut because the snow is starting to come’ – I will admit it was feeling pretty cold. He rang me the next morning and said the roads are open so first I went to see a gentleman called Mr Louis Meeks but I will not go into his story as you have it in your documents.

I then went to see John Hazlewood who I had never met in my life and I find out he is a supplier of drilling fluids. Sometimes I think we get worried about chemicals but we have been using chemicals in the drilling process – nothing to do with fracking or any of that – to drill holes in the ground whether for mining, water or whatever. He said that is where you need to be careful. He admitted that 20 years ago there were a lot of cowboys in the industry but things have changed. Those fluids need to be looked after because the greatest risk of pollution from chemicals is above the ground, not below because if something tips onto the ground the aquifer is very close. He explained to me that is what people need to look at and I think that our emphasis is in the wrong direction.

79

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

The nice thing is that I went there about 3-3:30pm and I had to go back to a town called Casper to get on the plane to come home. We had a cup of tea, I could not believe it as it is usually always coffee but we talked about drilling and the issues of fracking and then I went to pack up and they said, ‘No, you are staying to dinner.’ I did not know these people from a bar of soap but I had this beautiful meal – I lived on some crappy fast foods in parts of America as that is all I had time to eat. I sat down to have a home cooked meal where people said grace – one of the nice things you still see in America – which was wonderful and I thanked them very much. It was nice to leave America with that feeling.

It is not like what you see on television about Americans, there are some fine people there and I thank them very much. I left America with the flu and some very fond memories of some very good and dedicated people. Sometimes we forget there are people who work in industries such as the environment and oil and gas industries who are dedicated to make sure we do not stuff up the environment. As one person said to me, ‘I live here, I don’t want the water stuffed up.’ Sometimes we do not take those people into account as well as we should but they are genuine people who want the right thing done by their community. One day, if I get enough time, I will talk about the rest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. I look forward to reading the report. Member for Sanderson.

Mrs WORDEN (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about a couple of wonderful people who go quietly about their business without a great deal of recognition, although the second person I will speak about has just had some wonderful recognition but these are two people who are quietly working away to make a difference in our community. The first is Cherie Vance from Autism NT who is local and not for profit.

Members interjecting.

Ms WORDEN: I am hearing that many people know Cherie and have had a bit to do with her. I have come to know Cherie over the last 18 months - probably a couple of years now in passing, but over the last 12 months we have got to know her and her team at Autism NT very well.

I realised the other day she was described in the Northern Territory News recently as an everyday Territorian. I think they have it wrong, because she is not an everyday person. She spends her entire working life, evening time – all her time – helping other people. She has been the Executive Officer for the peak body, which is Autism NT, for some four years now, but she has been helping Territory families with kids with autism for over 30 years.

Cherie will not mind me mentioning that she has a 22-year-old son with autism. But that brings understanding and experience to her role. One of my husband’s close cousins, Jackie, also has a son with high-needs autism. I see it in her as well. She works very closely with Autism NT.

Whilst we speak about autism in everyday language now, it was not been recognised and is quite new now. Cherie brings so much positivity, passion and dedication to helping not just the kids – she is working with the families. I totally get this space. I have probably said before that I have a child on the spectrum. I have learned from attending and getting to know Cherie and meeting other parents and talking through things I wish I had known 16 years ago, when my daughter was going to primary school. Cherie is doing that job every day and making it that bit easier so parents are not second-guessing themselves. It is such important work.

As I said, it is not just working with the kids, it is working with the parents, carers and grandparents so they have a better understanding of what their child is going through.

Autism does not discriminate and neither does Cherie. She will talk to and help anybody. She provides a very safe place for parents and carers to talk. I guess the key point is to be listened to. They can come in and tell their fears for the future of their children, but they also help them on a daily basis. It is such important work. She gives guidance and support and resources, with a great team of people behind her. I wanted to put on the record tonight Cherie’s positivity.

As the year draws to an end, it is important that we acknowledge the work of carers – often unpaid work – in this House. I appreciate all they do for our community. That is why, a few weeks ago, we supported the Autism NT fundraising lunch, which Cherie is obviously a big part of. We took a table and found, through Autism NT, a range of parents and carers in the Sanderson electorate who were dealing with autism on a daily basis. We were able to take a bunch of those people to the autism lunch. The room was amazing. People were connecting with each other. The conversations were enlightening and really interesting.

80

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

They raised $36 000 this year at that lunch. We were really happy to support that through donations and getting a table.

I put on the record appreciation for all they do in our community. All our members here agree. I hope they get a break this year as well and some time to spend with their loved ones, not just caring for others. It is important. Thank you, Cherie and your team at Autism NT. They do great work and I really look forward to working with them again next year.

The second person I mention tonight is Kevin Kadirgamar …

Members: Hear, hear!

Ms WORDEN: Many will know Kevin as well, although he does quietly work. He is not a person who is out there shouting to the world, ‘I am amazing’, but he is simply amazing. For those people who do not know Kevin, he has been a migration lawyer since 2009 with Ward Keller. I have met Kevin, fortunately, through my work as the Assistant Minister with the Multicultural Council. He is a very young president of the council. In his resume, he helped establish MY NT, which is Multicultural Youth of the Northern Territory.

They celebrated 10 years this year and that is an organisation that promotes youth leadership and harmony throughout our community. He has previously sat on the Australia Day Council, the NT Council for Human Rights Education, the Youth Justice Advisory Committee and Neighbourhood Watch. All of that and he is only 28. He has helped establish and chair the Northern Territory chapter for the Migration Institute of Australia which is a professional representation body for migration practitioners.

He is the president of the multicultural council of the NT at only 28 years old. He fights every day for some of our most vulnerable Territorians. He helps people all the time with residency difficulties. In my electorate office I have had a number of people come in who are really struggling to go through that space; it is difficult, even more so when English is not your first language.

He always puts others before himself and in 2012 he was named People of Australia Ambassador for the Australian Multicultural Council and in 2015 he was named young lawyer of the year by the law council of Australia. Now he is the Northern Territory Young Australian of the Year, just last week.

What is interesting about Kevin is he studied locally at CDU and he was only admitted to practice in 2011. An amazing young man, he has been in Darwin for more than 10 years and that is our gain to have Kevin working for us and our community. The naming of him as the Northern Territory Young Australian of the Year and some of the other accolades he has had is great recognition for the advocacy he just does quietly in the background. He was really vocal earlier this year, for example, in the proposed citizenship changes. He is another strong local voice.

When he heads to Canberra for the Australia Day awards I wish him well but I also want to put on record and thank him for the work he is doing with the multicultural community but also congratulate him sincerely. I could not think of a more worthy and deserving awardee of the NT Young Australian of the Year.

Ms AH KIT (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about my participation in the 2017 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Westminster Seminar that was held in London last week. The aim of the 2017 Westminster Seminar was to strengthen the knowledge, skills and confidence of first term members of parliament and newly appointed clerks in the core aspects of their work in parliamentary practice and procedure.

There were a number of adjectives this seminar focused on, including to provide an overview of the leadership and administrative functions of parliaments with the purpose of ensuring good governance to promote an understanding of parliamentary practice and procedure with reference to legislating and scrutinising the executive as well as ethics, standards and accountability and to develop skills and abilities to carry out the work of a parliamentarian or clerk with specific reference to committee work, parliamentary questions, engagement with the public, media and other stakeholders.

When I first learned of this opportunity I was interested as I believed it was a good opportunity to learn more about the Westminster system and to meet and learn from other new Commonwealth parliamentarians. I am pleased to say that the seminar lived up to my expectations and left me with a greater sense of self- awareness and knowledge of how I can work smarter to deliver for my constituents and Territorians in general.

81

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

The program was quite full as you know, with days around 10 hours’ worth of work and I want to share a snapshot of my biggest learnings with the House this evening. On day one the first seminar guest presenter was Deborah ‘Debris’ Stevenson, who was an award-winning spoken word artist and poet. Debris shared her interesting life journey with us and highlighted the power that words have to deliver messages and empower ourselves and others. The biggest thing I took out of Debris’ spoken word segment was that she is a person who lives with dyslexia and she has not let that hold her back. She has just such an inspiration.

We had Lord Lisvane who was a crossbencher with the UK House of Lords. He spoke about the Westminster system and the current challenges it faces as well as the UK Parliament’s web presence which is quite fantastic. Congratulations to them. I also took a lot out of Dr (inaudible) ‘s presentation. He is a university lecturer who spoke to our group about the need to be able to lead from the future.

On day two the honourable speaker Tan Chuan-Jin MP, a speaker of the Singapore parliament, spoke about the increased expectations of constituents, particularly in the age of increased use of social media and misinformation.

We heard from the Rt Hon Sir Kevin Barron MP, Katheryn Hudson and Maria Fitzpatrick MLA from the Alberta Parliament in Canada, they spoke to us about their parliamentary committee experiences. I was really interested in this, because I have been a part of four committees in my time as a parliamentarian and been able to chair two of those, so it was really good to hear their insights and exchange information, especially with the UK’s transition to electronic petitions, which is something I would love to see this parliament move towards in the future.

We also heard from the Rt Hon John Bercow MP, who is the Speaker of the UK House of Commons. He is a fascinating and interesting gentleman who gave us an honest account of his political journey to date and the challenges he faces as Speaker of the House and how he governs parliament, which is really interesting.

On day 3, all delegates took part in an interactive exercise where we held group discussions on a proposed legislation about the automotive industry and how we could garner parliamentary support and engage with the public on this bill.

We then watched the Prime Minister’s questions through live streaming. It was great to see that the Prime Minister has a dedicated Question Time allocated to her once a week on a Wednesday, so we were able to watch that, it was quite lively. I took a note that it held the attention of all those present in the room.

On day 4, we had a panel chaired by Baroness Verma, who is a member of the European Union Committee in the House of Lords. She was also joined by Dr Rupa Huq MP, Senator Jerome Gideon from Saint Lucia, who was a participant and Nana Akua Afriyie MP from Ghana, who was also a participant. They spoke about the need for parliaments to remain responsive to political change.

We had a great representation from African politicians, so it was really interesting to hear about their challenges and work to date.

We then heard about diversity and inclusion from Kenny Emafidon, who is the director of Bite the Ballot, who hosted the session. Kenny was joined by Steven Ferber, the co-chair of ParliOUT, who highlighted the initiatives that are available in the UK parliament.

We also heard from Katherine Waruguru MP from Kenya, who is a 31-year-old MP. She was able to discuss her experiences and challenges as a young female MP to date.

It was fantastic to hear, at the end, from the Rt Hon Diane Abbott MP, who spoke to us about her experiences since her election to the UK parliament in 1987, when she became the first black female MP in the UK. She is a stayer, she is quite inspirational and it was great to hear from her and her experiences to date.

On the final day I participated in my favourite exercise of the week, where Kate Faragher and David Viga from BeSpoke Skills set us an exercise where groups of three participants were able to participate in a mock media interview. The good thing about this exercise, is we each had to pick a topic we were passionate about and had to craft a three-minute interview. We sat with the interviewer and give them the highlights of what we wanted to talk about and what was great about the exercise is that we all got to take turns. We all participated as the interviewer, then the interviewee, then the cameraman.

82

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017

It was interesting to see what our interviews are like through the eyes of others and it was a real eye-opener for me.

I wanted to finish by sending a huge thank you to CPA UK for hosting the Westminster Seminar last week and to all those from the 22 Commonwealth parliaments who attended the seminar. Your stories of strength and determination despite the challenges you face each day is nothing short of admirable and I look forward to continuing to support one another in our political journeys.

I also wanted to send a personal thank you to my fellow NT participants who attended the seminar with me, the member for Namatjira and the Deputy Clerk, Marianne Conaty. Thank you for putting up with me and making sure I enjoyed the experience as much as possible. I am far richer in experience and knowledge after attending the CPA Westminster seminar and I look forward to using my new knowledge and experience to benefit my constituents, our parliament and all Territorians.

Members: Hear, hear!

Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to speak about the Islamic Society of Darwin and a recent event they held to bring more attention to the plight of the Rohingya people and the refugee crisis that is happening in Myanmar and Bangladesh. Our local Muslim community in Darwin are wonderful people …

Members: Hear, hear!

Ms MANISON: … and are always happy to open the doors to their mosque and community hall to all. Their generosity to others never ceases to amaze me and their work with other faiths and religion to promote the message of peace and support those in need.

Another example of this work took place last Saturday night when I attended an important event where they worked to raise more awareness about the current need of the Rohingya people and the suffering that is taking place. The aim of the event was to raise more awareness of this crisis so people do more to help those who are in need. At the event, we met several Rohingya refugees who now call Darwin home. Many of these people are familiar faces to us, each and every day of our lives. For me, at Hibiscus where my electorate office is, it is Rohingya refugees who are the hard workers collecting trolleys around the clock and have become a wonderful part of our local area. In fact, they have been very long-term employees at Hibiscus and they do a wonderful job.

It is no surprise that our Muslim community in Darwin is providing valuable, ongoing free support to many of these refugees to assist them with their literacy and numeracy to help them resettle in Australia and become part of our workforce and community, to help give them the confidence to work and play a more active role in the community. Members of the Islamic Society are doing this in their own time on Sundays, again showing their generosity and community spirit.

At the event we heard some wonderful speakers, including Dr Keith Joseph from our Anglican community who delivered a wonderful speech outlining the importance of helping others. We also heard some inspirational words from Shaikh Shady Alsulieman who is the President of the Australian National Iman Council, and Brother Waseem Razvi, who is the President of the Islamic Research and Educational Academy and someone who has come to Darwin on a few occasions. I have to say both gentlemen are amazing speakers and very inspirational to listen to.

We heard from several members of our Rohingya community, who shared their stories and concerns about the people who are suffering right now in their home country. We also heard moving and powerful speeches from Brothers Ghulam Abbas, Feroz Khan and Mohammed Raziuddin. Their messages were clear – that we all need to be united and we need to do more. We need to see more support for the Rohyinga people in the Territory, in Australia and in the international community. More needs to be done to stop the suffering.

They want more people to know what is happening there to women, children, babies and men. There have been some atrocities committed against people. This suffering must stop. We need more eyes upon what is happening to these very honourable people. They want more people speaking about this so more people know and show their support for the Rohingya people. People can help by donating to some of the humanitarian drives and showing their support to the local people here.

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I applaud the Islamic Society of Darwin for all its work. It is continuing in its long tradition of showing leadership when it comes to promoting peace and supporting those who are

83

DEBATES – Tuesday 21 November 2017 disadvantaged and suffering. We all need to open our hearts and show our compassion when it comes to these people suffering under the Rhonigya refugee crisis. I thank those members already working hard in our community each and every day to support the people who now call the Northern Territory home. It is also important that we talk about it to make sure that more people become aware of some of these issues happening there and we do our bit in our own way – whether that is finding some money in our pockets to donate to one of the humanitarian causes or raising awareness.

We all want to see a peaceful world. I again applaud the Islamic Society. It is a wonderful group of people who work very hard in our community to promote peace and harmony. It is always at the front leading the way working with all people, no matter what their faith or background. It is a very inclusive and wonderful part of our community.

Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.

84