2013-05-15
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Essington International Senior College students, accompanied by their teacher Mali Grossman. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and I hope you enjoy your tour and visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention also to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Kormilda College students, accompanied by their teacher Ailsa MacFie. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you too and I hope you enjoy your tour and visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Filming of Budget Reply
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that I have given permission to the ABC to film in the Chamber during the Leader of the Opposition’s response to the budget.
Continued from 14 May 2013.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to yesterday’s Northern Territory budget. I note that convention is being broken with the Treasurer and the Chief Minister walking out before I even begin.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please withdraw that comment. You may not make reference to members being in or out of the Chamber.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. Yesterday’s budget was a budget of missed opportunity for the Northern Territory. It was a budget of broken promises. This is the worst budget in the Territory’s history, delivered by the worst government in the Territory’s history. This budget is a child of dysfunction, division and complete incompetence. This budget deepens the pain the CLP is inflicting on Territorians. This budget breaks almost every promise the CLP made to Territorians less than nine months ago at the Territory election.
This budget sees the CLP ensuring Territorians will be denied the benefits of, and miss out on, the opportunities of the economic boom the CLP inherited under Labor. We have seen 3600 Territorians lose their full-time jobs since the CLP came to power. That equates to 14 people every day who have lost their full-time jobs.
This budget misses opportunities in health. It slams the door on the new Palmerston Hospital and the children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital. It rips vital health funding out of the bush, including renal dialysis and the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases in young Indigenous girls.
This budget widens the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
This budget is about missed opportunities for our children in education. It commits to cutting 130 teachers. There could have been an extra $300m in education in this budget, but the CLP has decided to put politics before children and reject the Gonski school funding offer.
This budget is about increases to the cost of living, job cuts, new taxes and charges, and fewer health and education services.
This budget has the wrong priorities. Right now, this town should be enjoying the Arafura Games and the $10m that flowed in economic benefits. But, the CLP scrapped it and spent more money on giving their former candidates and members high-paying jobs: more than the entire cost of the Arafura Games. Teachers and support staff are losing pay; funding has been cut by $34m. However, the Chief Minister increased his own department staff by $8m. Fewer teachers in our classrooms, more of his mates getting jobs, these are the priorities of the Giles government.
This budget is a turning point for the Territory. To understand where we are going, we need to look at where we have come from. The last decade has seen the economic and human capital of the Northern Territory increase. We have punched above our weight in almost every area. The Northern Territory has become a fairer society. The Northern Territory has become a more prosperous society. No place in the world faced a brighter future than the Northern Territory.
With Labor’s investment in education right across the Territory, regardless of where you lived, many Territorians were being given that all-important opportunity for a better life. With the Labor investment in housing, particularly the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, we saw billions invested in improving housing, with training and job outcomes. Now, we can expect to see flat-packs that will not last the test of time and will not drive training and job opportunities.
With the investment in Charles Darwin University and our Marine Supply Base, Labor was delivering a world-class industry, training, and jobs to unlock the oil and gas potential of Northern Australia – landing that all-important major Ichthys project. With the investment in roads, power, water, and sewerage in our towns, regions, and remote communities, Labor built infrastructure to unlock regional economic development.
The CLP is putting up the regional ‘closed for business’ sign, with mining taxes and preparing to break up the land councils, delivering uncertainty to traditional owners and business.
With investment in health and child protection, Labor saw a significant improvement in child mortality rates and an improvement in life expectancy for renal patients of seven years. We were on the journey of working with families in crisis, not tearing them apart. This budget wipes that out.
What is truly missing in this budget is decency: decency towards people, towards hard-working men and women in Territory small- and medium-sized businesses. Instead, the CLP government is reaching into their pockets, stripping every cent out of them they can, and reducing basic services, breaking every core election commitment they made.
Six hundred public servants were sacked and there are more sackings to come, including teacher cuts. Inflation is now 3.9%, but this budget has wage rises indexed at 3%. This means a pay cut for teachers, nurses, doctors, police, child protection workers - all of our public servants. This budget inflicts pain on Territorians, but it will not break their spirit. Labor will proudly be the voice of opposition and debunk the CLP myths such as the big fat myth of unsustainable debt, claiming it was enormous and then continuing to grow the debt – rank hypocrisy. I will speak more on that later.
Of course, this CLP government is most famous for deliberately and dishonestly breaking its promise to cut the cost of living. The cost of living has gone through the roof. The CLP has already quite deliberately raised costs for families in the Territory in almost every way it can. Every single opportunity and avenue open to hurt families has been taken. This budget increases the cost of living even further.
Power is going up by 30%: $2000 per year for each family. The CLP believes that by delaying some of the increases suddenly everything is okay and families are no longer hurting. Territorians are hurting; they are struggling to pay your increased bills. But while power and water bills are up, Power and Water infrastructure spending is being cut by $20m; people are paying more for less. We are back to the CLP days of running down infrastructure which led to the need for Power and Water infrastructure increases in the first place.
The CLP promised to cut the cost of housing, but it is up. Under the CLP, house prices in Darwin are growing at 8%, which is three times the national average. Land release has ground to a halt. The only land release in this budget is subdivisions released by the previous Labor government. The CLP scrapped the My New Home scheme, taking more than 1000 properties off the market for first homebuyers.
This budget proves the CLP has hiked up the cost of living. The CLP inherited an inflation figure under Labor of 2.1%, and has jacked it up to 3.9%. The cost of living for families is increasing at nearly twice the rate it was only one year ago. The cost of everything is going up and the CLP has confirmed in its budget that it intends to keep pushing up prices and costs even further.
Domestic revenue measures how much has been taken from Territory families in taxes and charges. The budget shows that the CLP has increased this amount by $84m, up from $55m to $139m. This is nearly trebling the amount of domestic revenue in one year. This budget hits the pockets of Territory families in every way it possibly could, and while costs are going up, jobs are going down. An amount of 3600 full-time jobs have been lost since the CLP came to government less than nine months ago.
I mentioned earlier that this government’s biggest claim to fame was the decision to increase the cost of living, but not far behind was the decision to increase public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour on our streets. Police told them scrapping the BDR would be removing the best tool they had; they ignored them. The police were right, public drunkenness has escalated. Last week we saw the farcical policy of bringing back the BDR, only it will not be enforced. A banned problem drinker is free to buy as much alcohol as they like. This budget saves $2m by scrapping the BDR, which police said worked. Instead, the CLP will spend $45m on a plan that will not work: a plan that police and doctors do not support.
The CLP says the $45m being spent next year will deal with 500 problem drinkers. That is $90 000 for each problem drinker on treatment that experts say will not work. What happens to the other 2000 problem drinkers who were on the Banned Drinker Register? Well, they can drink as much as they like. They can purchase alcohol without restriction. It is not just police, doctors, and alcohol experts who say the CLP plans will not work. The CLP’s member for Arnhem says it will not work. She says this policy is forcing her to decide between her government and her people.
Every promise on police has been broken: no call centres in Alice Springs or Katherine and Police Beats closed. The current Chief Minister promised an extra Police Beat in Alice Springs, instead he has closed the existing one in the mall. There is no funding in this budget for the Nightcliff Police Station upgrade promise. The contract signed with the Nightcliff community has been torn up. The Safe Streets Audit, which was meant to have been completed and acted upon by December last year, has been pushed into next year. The only increase in the Police budget from the Commonwealth government is the increase in funding to the Northern Territory government of $7m to $23m to fund the 90 extra police to deal with any detention centre issues.
The CLP promised boot camps but they scrapped the Balunu camp and we still do not have anything resembling their promise to send kids to boot camp. The budget completely fails to support police and deal with crime.
Education is a massive loser in this budget. In real terms, the Education budget has been cut by $51m. This budget confirms the changes to student/teacher ratios. These changes will result in 130 fewer teachers. Some schools will lose as many as 23 teachers, and all the Education minister can say is it is okay because they will only lose five a year. The budget reduces total pay for teachers and support staff by $34m. This is why the CLP has not signed up to the $300m offer under Gonski. Gonski is about more teachers, but the CLP is cutting teachers; that is why the CLP is refusing to sign up. Schools from Darwin High School and Casuarina Senior College through to our smallest and most remote schools are already suffering from the CLP’s huge education cuts. They are starting to speak out about the daily struggles they face in trying to protect students from the CLP’s cuts.
There are fewer teachers and fewer resources. Under the CLP there is now less education for our children, and all the CLP can say is that our teachers do not work hard enough. That is an absolute disgrace and a clear indication that the CLP is completely out of touch with the priorities and concerns of Territory families.
The CLP’s budget details its plan to cut Indigenous education. It is budgeting to cut the number of Indigenous students in senior schools by 215 in just one year. When Labor came to power in 2001, no student had ever completed secondary school in the bush. The number has increased every year since, but the CLP has decided to turn that around. That is an absolute disgrace. Improving education is the biggest challenge we face in the Northern Territory. By slashing education, this budget sets back the long-term future of the Northern Territory.
The budget confirms that the CLP will hand back some $130m in funding to Canberra that was meant to go towards our public hospital and health system. The CLP does not believe in investing in our public health system. This budget confirms that the Palmerston Hospital has been scrapped. This budget confirms that the planned children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital has been scrapped. How low can you go, scrapping a facility that everyone who has ever had to take their child to Royal Darwin Hospital insists is needed? The cost of running our hospitals increases by between 8% and 12% each year just to provide the same hospital service.
Next year the budget needs to increase by around $50m, yet page 163 of Budget Paper No 3 shows that instead of increasing the hospital budget it has been cut by $1m. Doctor and nurse numbers will need to be reduced to cope with this cut. In nominal terms, the Health budget is up by $43m, but $41m of this is due to the increase to the alcohol and other drugs budget. So, pretty much, their entire increase is to fund a plan that all the experts say will fail. The budget books show that the CLP’s hospital spending blew out by $40m in the last six months, no doubt largely as a result of a dramatic increase in alcohol-related admissions at emergency departments since the BDR was scrapped.
When doctors spoke out and said alcohol admissions at the Alice Springs Hospital Emergency Department had doubled, what was the CLP response? Hide the data. Why did the doctors speak out? Because, the CLP would not listen. The CLP would not listen to doctors who were telling them their policies were clogging our hospitals with drunks. The cuts to our hospitals are just the start of the CLP cuts to Health funding.
The budget rips $8m out of disease control funding. This is the funding used to try to reduce the alarmingly high rates of sexually transmitted diseases we have in the Territory. The latest report from the Centre for Disease Control shows there were 841 sexually transmitted disease notifications in just six months in kids aged between 15 and 19. Ninety per cent of them are Indigenous. Two-thirds of them are girls. You cannot take $8m out and pretend the number of STDs will not increase.
The budget confirms the funding cut will result in the number of treatments at Clinic 34 in Darwin and Alice Springs being reduced from 14 000 to 12 000. It is a disgrace that any member of the CLP supports reducing the prevention of STDs. It is incomprehensible that the CLP’s female Indigenous members have decided to support this funding cut.
There are currently 44 child protection positions vacant in Alice Springs alone. If 44 positions are vacant, then child protection reports are going without investigation. In real terms in this budget, funding to the Office of Children and Families is being cut by $9m. The budget papers confirm this funding cut means 6000 child protection reports will not be investigated next year. The budget books predicted that child protection reports will increase by 2000 up to 10 000, but the number of investigations will drop from 5400 to 4000 – child abuse up, child abuse investigations down.
The CLP ignored the experts and put Children and Families into the Department of Education, then changed its name to Families and Children. Then it changed it back again and now, without telling anyone, without saying so publicly, it has taken the Office of Children and Families back out of Education and made it a stand-alone department again. The CLP has spent far more energy on changing child protection letterhead than on protecting our children. Priorities do not get much more wrong. The CLP has destroyed the Office of Children and Families. Morale is down across the whole of the public service. Child protection is in crisis. The 44 vacant positions in Alice Springs are a direct result of the CLP government.
It is not just the department that has suffered cuts. Our non-government sector provides a wide range of vital child protection services and all of those organisations have had their funding cut. They no longer receive CPI indexation. They have all had to pay the Power and Water price hikes without additional funding. Our children deserve protection. This budget cuts the protection we, as a society, want to see provided to our children.
Business confidence in the Northern Territory government has plummeted by 39%. The CLP has been a disaster for small- and medium-sized business. The Chief Minister outlined his understanding of issues affecting business when he launched his Japanese coup and sabotaged a Territory trade mission for his personal ambitions. The CLP has hit businesses every way it could: power prices through the roof, all rates and charges up. Businesses have been forced to lay off staff: 3600 full-time jobs lost and worse is yet to come.
Under the previous Labor government, Territory small businesses enjoyed the lowest taxes in the country, but not for long, not under the CLP. Just this year the CLP has increased taxes on employers by $24m, up from $176m to $200m: a 13% tax increase. The budget outlines a CLP intention to increase taxation levels to the national average by 2016-17. This will require either significant payroll or stamp duty increases, or the introduction of a land tax. Just this morning at the Property Council breakfast, the Treasurer said he would not rule out a new land tax for the Northern Territory.
Before the election the CLP said it would fight the Commonwealth’s mining tax. We now know why; they wanted to introduce their own, and this budget does that: new mining taxes, implemented without any consultation, which prompted the mining industry to claim this CLP government has no understanding of the industry.
Yesterday, Drew Wagner, Executive Director of the NT Division of the Minerals Council of Australia, slammed the CLP budget. He said:
He concluded his media release by saying:
Madam Speaker, as a former boss of the Minerals Council, it must hurt you to hear your former industry describe your government as ‘closed for business’. There is no understanding of the Territory’s biggest industry. It is little wonder we have lost 3600 jobs since the CLP came to government.
This budget cuts infrastructure spending, which ultimately hurts business now with fewer contracts and into the future with less infrastructure. There is a $64m cut to the infrastructure budget, and the budget papers make it clear that this is just the start. I quote from page 1 of Budget Paper No 4:
The CLP promised to bring on Ord Stage 3. The project requires about $0.5bn. In December, the CLP allocated $400 000. They re-announced this $400 000 in this budget. The Chief Minister has said he wants to build the north, yet all he is doing in this budget is cutting the funding in infrastructure required to build the north.
The budget paper forecasts a massive decline in our domestic economy. State Final Demand measures the performance of the domestic economy. The CLP inherited a State Final Demand of positive-26% this financial year. Next year, alarmingly, it plummets to negative-15% and stays negative throughout the forward estimates. The CLP is ensuring Territorians and Territory businesses miss out on our growing economy, thanks to the major project of Ichthys.
Before the election, the CLP signed written contracts with communities across remote areas of the Northern Territory. This budget formally rips up those contracts. This budget failed to deliver on the promises the CLP made for infrastructure in the bush: no new port on the Tiwi Islands, no funding to seal the road to Wadeye, no funding for election promises for road improvements in the Daly and Tiwi regions, no new school or business centre for Borroloola, and this is just the start. The CLP promised its homeland policies would mean people on homelands would enjoy the same standard of living as the rest of the country. This budget confirms that most people on homelands will get absolutely nothing.
Funding for health, schools, and infrastructure in the bush has been cut. I mentioned earlier that the CLP is turning back the clock on Indigenous education. It is cutting the budget for Indigenous enrolment in senior schools by 215 students in just one year. In the Barkly region alone, $2m has been taken out of education. That is preschools, primary schools, middle schools and senior schools that have all had funding cuts.
In northeast Arnhem Land there has been a cut of $7m to acute and non-acute healthcare. Barge landing projects at Ramingining, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku have all been scrapped. There is no new money for serviced land in community housing in remote growth towns to address chronic housing shortages.
There are funding cuts to Indigenous marine ranger groups. Money for Indigenous essential services has been cut from $91m to $71m - less safety and less reliable power, water and sewerage in the bush. The budget confirms the CLP will cut public housing, especially in the bush. It is cutting remote public housing by 107 dwellings next year. The number of refurbishments of remote housing dwellings will drop from 588 this year to 199 next year - fewer houses, more overcrowding.
The CLP’s deceit on the Territory’s financial position is abundantly clear in this budget. The CLP promised to cut debt. The budget formally breaks this promise. Page 4 of the Budget Overview shows they have increased the debt by $1.1bn, up from $3.278bn this year to $4.417bn next year.
Page 28 of Budget Paper No 2 shows the fiscal balance next year will only be reduced by $12m. Last year, GST funding was $2.5bn, next year it will be $2.8bn. The budget confirms $300m will be stripped out of the public service. The financial figures the CLP is using to justify the pain it is inflicting on families and businesses are the same figures it used to promise to cut the cost of living. The same figures it used to promise increased teachers are now being used to sack teachers. The same figures it used to promise more spending on hospitals are now being used to justify scrapping the hospitals.
The Territory’s capacity to manage debt is better now than when Labor came to government in 2001. The CLP used to crow about an interest to revenue ratio of 12%. They said paying 12% of revenue on interest payments was sustainable. The figure is now 9%, but they say they have to pass the burden on to Territory families and business.
They have broken their promise to cut debt because they know our debt levels are both manageable and essential for the future prosperity of the Northern Territory. The greatest threat to the financial future of the Northern Territory is the Liberal agenda under Tony Abbott to strip us of our GST.
The four big Liberal premiers have announced they are in agreement with Tony Abbott to allocate the GST on a per capita basis. Tony Abbott has agreed that a move toward per capita distribution is his preferred approach. That puts $2.2bn of Territory revenue at threat every year. That is how much we could lose under this Liberal plan.
The Labor opposition’s policy alternatives are clear. We would employ more teachers, not sack 130. We would build the Palmerston Hospital and the Royal Darwin Hospital’s children’s wing. We would combat alcohol crime and abuse with policies that police and doctors say would work.
We would return power and water price increases to CPI and not privatise our utility, which would send prices skyrocketing. We will ensure Territorians can again benefit from our strong economy and we would stop the massive job losses the CLP has inflicted.
We would restore confidence to business. We would not implement new taxes without talking to industry. In a developing economy, we would keep taxes the lowest in the country. We would stop the pain. We would govern sustainably and not view Territory families as a cash cow to hurt as much as possible.
We would not rip up contracts in the bush. We would not promise Indigenous Territorians billions of dollars they will never see. We would increase Indigenous education, not cut it. Most importantly, we would take the time to listen to Territorians.
I will quote from the budget reply speech from one year ago. This is what Terry Mills said:
In just that short paragraph there are a dozen promises which have been broken. Our streets and parks are full of more drunks than ever; the cost of living has skyrocketed; house prices and rents are up; there has been no new residential land released; 3600 full-time jobs have been lost; infrastructure funding has been cut and there is no money for the rails and ports. We did not know then that when they said they would capitalise on our natural resources they meant they would hand over our natural resources, water, to their mates. Water worth millions of dollars has been handed to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. The stench is all over this government. The CLP government has been a massive failure.
In closing, this is a true CLP budget. It looks after their mates and abandons families. It leaves our most vulnerable, children and senior Territorians, without a helping hand. This budget formally leaves behind the most disadvantaged people in our society. This is a budget without a heart. I condemn this budget and I condemn the pain this government is so hell-bent on inflicting on Territorians. The Territory has missed an opportunity to build its social and economic strength.
Debate adjourned.
REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 28)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill puts in place a package of measures, as part of the government’s 2013-14 budget, to amend the Mineral Royalty Act and Payroll Tax Act. The primary measures contained in the bill focus on protecting the integrity of the Territory’s mineral royalty regime in order to ensure that all Territorians receive a fair return on the Territory’s mineral wealth through the collection of mineral royalties.
The bill undertakes to implement the following important measures. Firstly, the bill will cap the amount a royalty payer can claim as a transfer pricing margin to a maximum of 5.5% of the value of the relevant mineral. Transfer pricing generally involves an initial sale of minerals between a miner and a related overseas-based trading entity, after which the minerals are usually on-sold to a third-party customer or to a related commodities refiner within the group. The price received by the miner is generally less than the final arm’s-length price received by the trading company from the third-party customer. Accordingly, a profit margin or transfer pricing factor is earned by the trading entity.
Although it is reasonable for a profit margin to be earned by the trading entity in recognition of its specialisation in procuring sales, the danger is that transfer pricing provides a means for miners to procure a special tax benefit by shifting profits to the country with the most favourable tax system. Accounting for transfer pricing is also very administratively burdensome, both for the Northern Territory government and the miner.
The cap of 5.5% will be the general rule applied, except in circumstances where the royalty payer has a relevant transfer pricing arrangement in place with the Australian Taxation Office.
Secondly, the bill will limit the deductibility of head office expenses, management fees and administrative labour costs to those costs incurred by an office located, or for work performed, in the Northern Territory.
The recent Report on GST Revenue Sharing Relativities released by the Commonwealth Grants Commission highlights the fact that the Territory remains one of the lowest taxing jurisdictions in Australia. I note that the Commonwealth Grants Commission report does not take into account the government’s recent revenue raising efforts, implemented as part of the Territory’s 2012 mini-budget. Nevertheless, it is clear that further measures are required to improve the Territory’s overall fiscal and revenue raising position in order to better align the Territory’s taxation level with the average of other Australian jurisdictions.
The 2013-14 budget seeks to continue the government’s responsible fiscal policy and adjustment, as commenced with the mini-budget. The measures contained in this bill are expected to increase revenue by about $10.6m per annum and will assist government to pursue deficit reduction in a sustainable manner in order to return the Territory to a balanced budget by 2017-18.
However, these measures are about more than just ensuring the mining industry contributes fairly to the Territory community. These measures are also essential for protecting the integrity and long-term sustainability of the Territory’s mineral royalty scheme, will reduce red tape and expenses involved in administering the royalty scheme, and may also act as an incentive for large miners to set up offices in the Territory.
The Territory’s mineral royalty regime is unique amongst all states. It is the only regime in Australia to impose royalty on mining profits and applies generally to most mines and minerals across the Territory.
The Territory regime is widely recognised as providing the most fair and economically efficient means of determining mineral royalty as it only imposes royalty on profitable mines, whereas the quantity or value based schemes administered by other jurisdictions continue to draw royalty without regard to a miner’s ability to pay.
Unlike other royalty regimes, the Territory’s royalty scheme also promotes capital investment and encourages exploration activity by acknowledging many facets of the start-up costs new mines incur prior to commencing mining operations.
Together with the significant benefits of efficiency and equity delivered by the Territory’s profit based royalty regime comes a degree of administrative complexity. It is crucial that government continues to provide industry with measured rules and frameworks which take into account the contemporary reality of mining operations.
At the same time, this royalty framework must also be sufficiently robust to prevent potential abuses of the regime. The key measures proposed in this bill reflect the government’s commitment to an equitable and robust royalty regime, and encourage the mining industry to continue its important endeavours that contribute to the long-term benefit of the community and of all Territorians.
When the Mineral Royalty Act was first enacted in 1982, most mining companies operated from within Australia. At this time it was also common practice for a company to conduct every stage of the mining process from initial exploration through to the processing and sale of the final product to customers.
Technological advances and globalisation over the past three decades have created a fundamental shift in the way large multinational miners now structure and conduct business. There has been an increase in related party and cross-border dealings leading to the development of transfer pricing arrangements. Without appropriate mechanisms and rules, transfer pricing arrangements may distort the proper amount of royalty that should be returned to the Territory for the removal of its minerals.
The implications reach far beyond Territory royalties, however, as transfer pricing has taxation and economic influences globally.
The leading authority in the field of transfer pricing, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has committed substantial resources to develop a framework and guidance on transfer pricing issues for revenue authorities of member and non-member countries.
The Australian government incorporated the OECD transfer pricing guidelines into its federal income tax legislation. In addition, in the federal arena there is a bill before the House of Representatives that seeks to further strengthen the Commonwealth’s existing transfer pricing rules.
Many other governments around the world are also seeking to address these issues. It is the process of determining the correct arms-length value to a miner of a mineral commodity which is the subject of transfer pricing arrangements that is problematic for federal and state government’s alike, with costly and protracted disputes often resulting.
The proposed amendments to the Mineral Royalty Act reflect the government’s efforts to simplify the valuation process stemming from a notoriously complex concept. Government believes the mining industry will benefit from the certainty the proposed amendments will deliver when valuing transfer pricing arrangements. The broader community will also benefit from the government’s willingness to take steps to ensure the long-term integrity and sustainability of the Territory’s royalty regime.
The provisions of the bill that address transfer pricing are designed so royalty payers will have several options available to establish the methodology that is applied to calculate the value of a mineral commodity which is the subject of a transfer pricing arrangement.
In recognising the considerable expertise and extensive resources of the Australian Taxation Office in managing transfer pricing arrangements, this bill proposes to allow a mining company to rely on a transfer pricing figure it has established through select review and verification processes undertaken by the ATO in relation to transfer pricing arrangements for income tax purposes. For instance, under the bill’s proposed model, when assessing a miner’s Territory royalty liability, the mineral royalty secretary will accept a submission from a mining company regarding an appropriate transfer pricing methodology where that methodology is based on the ATO’s finalised audit of a transfer pricing arrangement or, alternatively, an advance pricing arrangement between the royalty payer and the Australian Taxation Office.
The bill is designed to recognise that some Territory royalty payers may prefer to avoid the investment and administrative burden which can be involved in establishing one of the previously mentioned ATO accepted transfer pricing methodologies. The government intends to support mining companies in reducing this potential red tape by allowing the mining company to substitute a transfer pricing methodology with the mineral royalty secretary in the absence of an ATO endorsed arrangement.
In delivering this simplified option to mining companies engaged in transfer pricing, the government must also be mindful to protect the integrity of the Territory’s revenue base. For this reason, the bill proposes that the amount of any potential transfer pricing discount claimed by a miner in these circumstances will be capped to a maximum of 5.5% of the final value of the mineral commodity. The final value generally represents the amount obtained by a trading entity when the minerals are, ultimately, sold to a third party customer in an arm’s-length transaction.
The transfer pricing factor recognises that the related trading entities may add some value or incur expenses in the process of on-selling the minerals. However, the value of 5.5% is expressed as a maximum and royalty payers will still be required to establish and substantiate the appropriate transfer pricing factor, subject to the Revenue Office’s normal risk review and compliance program.
A guideline will be issued that details the necessary information for a miner to substantiate a transfer pricing methodology and claim a factor up to 5.5%. In accordance with normal practices, consultation with industry will occur before the final guideline is published.
Further risks to the Territory’s royalty scheme are accounting strategies that shift to the Territory expenses which were incurred by related entities in another jurisdiction. The experience of the Revenue Office suggests these related entities may be based either in other Australian states or overseas, and the external expenses are claimed by the Territory mining operation under the badge of being a deductable operating cost. The bill contains measures to address the risk this type of accounting behaviour poses to the integrity of the royalty base.
This government recognises the crucial role mining companies play in the regional and economic development of the Territory. For this reason, the amendments proposed by the bill are also targeted at encouraging and rewarding those mining companies that genuinely maintain and operate the bulk of their operations in the Territory. An integral component of the Territory’s profit-based royalty regime is a royalty payer’s ability to claim a deduction for legitimate operating costs, which include labour costs, head office expenses, and fees for management and services. Currently, these types of operating costs are claimable if a royalty payer can substantiate the costs are directly attributable to the operation of the individual mining project.
As I have previously outlined, since the introduction of the Mineral Royalty Act there have been dramatic advances in communications and technologies which have led to a globalised mining industry. This has made the determination of allowable operating costs increasingly difficult and administratively complex due to an increasing amount of royalty payers also having business interests outside the Territory. The bill introduces measures that will establish a geographical boundary before labour costs, office expenses, and fees for management services can be claimed as an operating cost. The remaining heads of operating costs remain unchanged by this bill.
For a mining operation to continue to claim labour costs, office expenses, and fees for management services as operating costs, it will be necessary that their claim relates directly to expenses incurred by an office located in the Territory or for work or services performed in the Territory.
These proposed amendments complement the government’s commitment to better ensuring stability and certainty in the collection of the Territory’s own-source revenue.
In order for the government to make meaningful progress on its promise to eliminate the fiscal problems it inherited from its fiscally irresponsible predecessor, the removal of unnecessary risks that undermine the integrity of the Territory’s revenue base is critical. The measures contained within this bill are designed to limit claims for labour costs, head office expenses, and management services to only such claims that have a sufficient nexus to the Territory and will assist in protecting the integrity of the Territory’s royalty regime by preventing royalty payers from shifting costs that are incurred in overseas or interstate jurisdictions into the Territory to reduce the amount of royalty payable.
Just as the government is focused on assisting and rewarding other Territory based businesses for their contribution to growing the Territory economy by creating local jobs and spending, so too does the government intend that these amendments recognise the efforts of mining companies that have an office in the Territory and engage Territory based workers and service providers.
To ensure all royalty payers are treated equally, all amendments to the Mineral Royalty Act will commence from 1 July 2013, regardless of when a miner’s royalty year commences. The bill also contains transitional provisions that will allow apportionment of operating costs where appropriate.
This bill also proposes several minor administrative measures to the Mineral Royalty Act and the Payroll Tax Act to commence from 1 July 2013.
The first measure seeks to clarify that payments to the federal government, pursuant to the mineral resources rent tax and carbon tax schemes, are not allowable deductions as operating costs under the Territory’s royalty regime. This clarification is consistent with the existing operation of provisions within the Mineral Royalty Act which establish that only expenditure necessary or essential for the production of a mineral commodity is allowable as a deduction. Payments in the nature of a tax or levy on output, value, or income and profits are not considered to be essential for production as they are generally incurred after the minerals have been produced and sold.
As both the minerals resource rent tax and carbon tax are relatively recent Commonwealth initiatives, the bill makes it abundantly clear that royalty payers cannot claim payments made in satisfaction of the minerals resource rent tax and carbon tax as deductible operating costs so as to reduce the amount of royalty due to the Territory.
Secondly, the bill amends the secrecy provisions in the Mineral Royalty Act to enable the secretary and other government employees to share information with the Commonwealth on royalty related matters that are incidental to uranium mining.
While the Territory was granted self-government in 1978, the Commonwealth retained ownership of uranium and other atomic substances. This meant the Territory did not have the power to regulate and impose royalty on uranium as it could on other minerals and resources. Royalty arrangements for uranium projects were entered into by the Commonwealth on a project-by-project basis and the Commonwealth paid a grant to the Territory in lieu of royalties.
In 2009, the previous fiscally irresponsible Labor government endorsed the Commonwealth’s proposal to introduce a harmonised profits-based royalty scheme mirrored on the Mineral Royalty Act for all new uranium projects that commenced operation in the Territory. Under the scheme the Territory administers the royalty regime on behalf of the Commonwealth, collecting and retaining royalty payable by uranium miners. A number of important procedural aspects of the scheme are contained in administrative arrangements including the requirement that the Territory report to the Commonwealth the amount of royalties collected and any changes made to the Mineral Royalty Act.
The amendment proposed by the bill is essential to enable Northern Territory Public Sector employees to fulfil the reporting obligations under the uranium royalty scheme without breaching the confidentially provisions currently contained in the Mineral Royalty Act.
The last of these minor administrative measures seeks to align the payroll tax formula in the Payroll Tax Act with the original intent. As part of the 2011-12 budget, the payroll tax rate was reduced to 5.5% and the payroll tax threshold changed to be calculated as a diminishing deduction where businesses with annual wages below $1.5m were not required to pay payroll tax. The deduction reduced by $1 for every $4 in Australian wages paid by an employer above $1.5m.
An anomaly has been identified in the payroll tax formulae which were inserted into the Payroll Tax Act as a result of the changes to the rate and threshold. This relates to the calculation of an employer’s part-year payroll tax liability where they commence or cease employment, or join or leave a payroll tax group. The bill seeks to remedy this deficiency by amending the formulae to produce the intended results.
Minor changes to definitional provisions have also been made to simplify the provisions. As the amendments to the Payroll Tax Act are aimed primarily at clarifying the original intent of the provision and reflect the calculations currently performed by the Territory’s online payroll tax return system used by registered employers, the proposed changes will not adversely affect Territory employers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to the accompanying bill.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Death of Carmelita Sceney, Stuart Sceney,
Kal-Kidan Sceney and Mekdes Sceney
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death, on 1 April 2013, of Carmelita Sceney and Stuart Sceney and their daughters, Kal-Kidan and Mekdes, four special, loved, respected and deeply missed Territorians.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the galleries of the family, friends, and loved ones of this family: Ms Jamila Sceney, Ms Yvonne Dunn, Mr Dennis Dunn, Mr Cadjie Dunn, Mr Dennis Dunn Jnr, Ms Amber Dunn, Mr Anthony Dunn, Mr Henry Dunn, Mrs Marjorie Liddy, Kim and Tania Hill, Dinee Mullet, Mrs Dianne Berto, Ms Anna Berto, Mr Michael Berto, Ms Christine Fitzgerald, Ms Sharon Greenof, Mr Shaun Hardy, Mr Adam Kerinaiua, Miss Sharon Morgan, Mr Mark Motlop, Mr Edward Talbot, Mr Lorenzo Kerinauia, Mrs Marilyn Kerinauia, Mr Ken Davies, Ms Shay Vigona-Goudge.
I also welcome staff and colleagues from Sceney Electrical, and I would like to apologise for those who wish to be here, Mr Tony Berto, Mrs Suzi Berto, and Hon Marion Scrymgour, a past member of this Assembly.
Honourable members, I also inform you that listening and watching via the Internet is the Sceney family in Geelong, Victoria. I extend a welcome to them as well on this very sad occasion.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister) (by leave):
Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly extends its deepest condolences to the Sceney and Dunn families on the sudden and tragic loss of their family members on Easter Monday, 1 April 2013.
There are always elements of great sadness attached to every condolence motion delivered in this House. However, most of those tributes are cushioned by the knowledge the person involved has lived a relatively full and wonderful life. There is no such similar comfort for us in this condolence motion today. Four special, loving, and respected Territorians, including two young women, have been taken from us in tragic circumstances and far too early.
On 1 April, Carmelita – Karmi - Sceney, her husband, Stuart, and their beautiful daughters, Kal-Kidan and Mekdes, were killed when their light plane crashed somewhere on the southwest coast of the Northern Territory. It is not for us to speculate as to the cause of this crash, but it seems likely to have been caused by bad weather which was prevalent in the area at that time.
The Sceney/Dunn story is about a family overflowing with love and talent. It is about a family of champion sportspeople, a family who adored the outdoors and who were caring and contributing members of our Territory community. I acknowledge and thank a number of people for the information that follows. Karmi’s sister, Yvonne Dunn, and her brother, Dennis, helped at a time when it must have been so very distressing for them, as did surviving daughter, Jamila, with her beautiful new baby on her lap.
Like her sisters, Jamila was also adopted. Jamila came to Darwin from Atlanta, Georgia in the US at a tender age of just three weeks old. I have used quite a bit of material from the funeral order of service booklet, particularly from Narelle Steel, Stuart’s sister.
This condolence motion acknowledges our collective sadness and is also dedicated to the Sceney/Dunn relatives. It is dedicated, in particular, to Karmi’s wonderful and strong mother, Marjorie, and Stuart’s parents, Daryl and Judith Sceney. It would be wrong to say we understand your pain, as I do not think that is at all possible. However, I can assure you every member of this parliament extends their deepest sympathy to you on behalf of the parliament of the Northern Territory and all Territorians.
Kal and Mekdes had two older sisters in Ethiopia and the family lives in a very poor village with no electronic communication facilities.
I will start with the story of the youngest victim of this accident, Kal-Kidan. Kal, as she was known, was just 12 years old: a gorgeous, bright, energetic young girl. It was July 2004 when Karmi, Stuart, and Jamila travelled to Ethiopia to pick up Kal and her equally beautiful sister Mekdes. The happiness and excitement in the family was, as Jamila said, unbelievable. As Jamila tells it:
Kal was quite sick when Karmi and Stuart brought her to Darwin. She had TB and other lung illnesses. Once again, it was the incredible love of her parents that saw her through. Karmi took her to many doctors in the Territory. There was nothing Karmi and Stuart were not prepared to do to ensure Kal grew into greater health.
Kal was absolutely devoted to her dad. When anyone asked if she had a boyfriend, she was quite adamant she was going to marry her dad. As with all the family, Kal loved the football, and she loved going to St Marys Football Club with Stuart and Karmi. She especially loved helping at the barbeque with her dad.
This beautiful girl loved makeup, high heels, pink dresses, and dancing. She was loud, full of life, energy and confidence. Kal wanted to be a nanny or a chef when she grew up.
Kal’s sister, Mekdes, was 15 years of age at the time of the accident. She was almost the total opposite of Kal when it came to personality. She was quiet and reserved around people. She was a fitness fanatic. She only ate healthy foods and preferred water to all other drinks. This young woman adored the Vampire Diaries on television and ended up getting the whole family addicted to the show. The bedroom walls were like those of so many other teenagers with lots of photos.
Amazingly, and unusually, at just 15 years old she had a well-evolved work ethic. She believed she could work to earn money for the things she wanted to buy. On her 15th birthday she wanted only one thing: to go to Woolworths and apply for a job there.
As well as being a wonderful father and husband, 45-year-old Stuart was a St Mary’s Football Club champion and life member. He played in two premiership teams and more than 200 games as a forward or utility player.
Stuart’s love and dedication to the Saints was legendary. When he retired from playing, Stuart became a committee man and a coach’s runner. He was renowned for his barbeque skills at the club. Even though he was retired, he loved to train and always had his boots in his car on game day in the hope he might be asked to play again.
Stuart embraced the Aboriginal ways of his family. Jamila tells of her dad insisting on cooking and trying carpet snake, bats, dugong, mangrove worms and stingray, amongst other things, but it was magpie geese that were his favourite and he had a secret recipe for cooking them.
Stuart was the acknowledged cook in the Sceney household and was very proud of his herb garden. Jamila says he adored basil, lemongrass, coriander, and, especially, extremely hot chilli. Along with Karmi, Stuart loved fishing and would buy every new rod or reel that came out. Yvonne tells the story of Stuart catching a lovely big salmon in the Tiwi’s and then a huge croc taking it right out of his hands.
Stuart did his electrical apprenticeship in Geelong, and when he arrived in Darwin he worked for Mobile Electrics, before starting his own business, Sceney Electrical.
He had a passion for flying and he eventually bought his own plane which he used to access work in remote areas of the Northern Territory. He was known as a conservative pilot, particularly when bad weather threatened.
He was a kind dad and a great boss. Jamila said she never had her pay docked when she turned up for work late at her dad’s electrical company.
Karmi was born at Nguiu on Bathurst Island and was one of 12 children. Her childhood was a happy one, and her father, Dinee, instilled in her that family always came first. This is the quality members of the family have spoken most of when describing Karmi. According to her family, if there was one thing that stood out about Karmi, it is that she was the glue who was always there to help and support members of her family through good times and tough times.
Her love for her children and Stuart was unconditional. Like Stuart, Karmi was a great all-round athlete. She played four sports in the Territory: basketball from 1982 to 1993, netball from 1976 to 1979, softball from 1974 to 1987 and soccer in 1981.
Just for good measure, she also played touch for Darwin, and in basketball she captained the NT premiership team, the Rebels, playing 350 first-grade games and scoring on 3000 points. Karmi’s brother Dennis said his sister just adored sports - any sports at all.
Karmi loved fishing and regularly took their seven metre boat from Darwin to Bathurst. Dennis said no one could match Karmi with a throw net and she could look through muddy water and tell you what fish was lurking there, even though others could not see a single thing. Karmi would walk for miles to get mud crabs and then fearlessly stick her hand down the hole and grab the crab out. It was Stuart, however, who did the cooking, always with plenty of chilli.
Camping was also Karmi’s domain. While the location would be remote and rough, Karmi would set up a five-star camp taking camping to another level. She would always have enough tucker to feed everybody.
But Karmi was more than just a wonderful angler and a camper, she was a senior executive in the Northern Territory Department of Education and worked for more than 10 years in education in the Territory through periods of major reforms.
Karmi was a strongly committed and respected member of the national ministerial Indigenous education working group, driving reforms to the system to improve outcomes for Indigenous students, and was active in implementing the groundbreaking 1976 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
She delivered the voice of the Territory on national and major education initiatives. Karmi cared passionately about children, and what made her so very special was that she not only had a sharp policy mind, but her heart absolutely belonged to all the children. She was a highly-respected public servant.
Most of all, Karmi was an amazing mother. Her daughter Jamila said Karmi grew up very poor and was determined to give her children whatever she had. Jamila said that if you had to choose one word to describe her mum, it would simply be ‘love’.
Karmi’s mum Marjorie says the family was working towards building an airstrip at the outstation on Melville where they would build a house and live together.
How do you possibly do justice to the lives of four beautiful people lost in such a short time? How do we paint the picture? How do we express our sorrow for those lives lost - Kal and Mekdes who will not know the joys and pains of having their own children and watching them grow.
Stuart and Karmi had just become grandparents and now that most special of experiences has been taken away from them. They will not see little Maliah grow up.
To all the Sceney family, and especially Marjorie, Daryl and Judith. you are in our thoughts and prayers. I am confident that your family is strong in all ways, especially in faith. Together I am sure you will get through this unspeakable sadness.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Northern Territory Parliament I express my sincere condolences.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the incredible loss the Territory has suffered with the tragic and untimely deaths of Stu, Karmi, Kal-Kidan and Mekdes. I thank the government for bringing the condolence motion to the parliament to give us the opportunity to pay our deep respects.
To the Sceney and Dunn families, no parent wants to witness the loss of their child before them, so my heartfelt condolences go to Daryl and Judith Sceney, and, of course, to Marjorie Dunn. I cannot begin to understand the grief you must be feeling, Jamila, to have lost, in one tragic accident, your parents and your beautiful sisters - the grandparents of your beautiful daughter, Maliah, and those wonderful aunties.
Listening, at St Mary’s Cathedral, to the beautiful bond of love within your tightly knit family was a truly moving experience. I am a believer that the ones we love so dearly, whilst they might pass this mortal earth, are never truly forever lost to us. I have no doubt you have some very special angels looking over you and your gorgeous daughter.
This condolence is about paying our respects to four beautiful Territorians and recognising their Territory journey. Karmi and Stuart, as we heard at St Mary’s in the eulogies, met each other on New Year’s Eve - how appropriate - in 1995 at their beloved St Mary’s Football Club where Stuart had devoted endless hours. The pair married six years later, on 21 July 2001. While Stu was not from the Territory, he made this place his home after he came here with two mates when they took off on the holiday of a lifetime when they were just in their twenties.
With his parents, Daryl and Judith, living in Geelong, Stu was still very closely connected to the city in which he lived. It was in Geelong where he started his great love of football. He played in the under 10s with the Kangaroos and played senior football with Grovedale, near Geelong, in the Geelong Football League. He continued to play AFL as soon as he arrived in Darwin and was also happy to help in other positions with the club.
Stu worked for Mobile Electrics when he arrived in Darwin. After he met Karmi they started their own business together. Sceney Electrical came to life in 1998 and became a thriving business in Darwin. Karmi gave Stu the confidence to back himself and go for it. Lucky for him he did because now Sceney Electrical is one of the leading electrical engineering construction firms in Darwin, regional Northern Territory, regional Western Australia and the surrounding islands, and it employs eight staff. They carried a reputable business ethic for over 10 years and prided themselves on being the best in the field with excellence and trust.
Karmi was such a sports star. A Territory basketball star, she played 432 games from 1976 to 1994 for Rebels and 33 games for Tracy Village Jets from 1994 to 1996. In 1993, Karmi became the first female player to score 5000 points in the Darwin Basketball Association.
I want to acknowledge her dear friend, Donna Hunter, who has provided me with a lot of background for the condolence motion today.
Karmi was a well-respected and prominent Northern Territory Aboriginal woman who, as we have heard, was born on Nguiu, Bathurst Island, and became one of our highest ranked Indigenous public servants in the Top End. She always had her people and her family in the forefront of her mind in everything she did and what she achieved. Her work spanned many decades, including helping to implement the groundbreaking Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976.
She was a passionate campaigner for education for her people, and was Chairperson of the Northern Territory Area Consultative Committee and worked with the Northern Territory Department of Education in the Indigenous Education branch.
From 1999 to 2006, Karmi was the Chairperson of the Yilli Rreung Regional Council in Darwin and also held the role of Deputy Chairperson of the Indigenous Housing Authority of the NT. She worked previously with the NT Land Councils and the Office of Aboriginal Development with the NT government.
As we have heard, she came from a big family. She was one of 12 children born to her parents, Dennis, now deceased, and Marjorie Dunn. She was a Territorian through and through, growing up on Rossiter Street in Rapid Creek.
That love for sport did not just occur with basketball; she was also an awesome player in softball, netball and soccer. In 1982, she was awarded the Steve Abala Role Model Award for her contribution to sport in the Territory.
She had a strong desire to become a mother. She was always influenced by the motto ‘family comes first’ and supported each and every one of her family members. Her dream came true in 1987 when she adopted her eldest daughter, Jamila, in September. Karmi and Stuart wanted Jamila to have siblings, and they knew Jamila would make a great role model and big sister.
In 2002, Karmi and Stuart began the adoption process of their two beautiful daughters, Mekdes and Kal-Kidan, sisters from Ethiopia. In order to carry out the adoption process they had to complete reams and reams of paperwork and undergo a series of interviews before they were allowed to travel to Ethiopia in 2004. Mekdes was born in 1998 and she was the third youngest of four girls, including Kal-Kidan. Her sister Jamila said of her sister, Mekdes:
Mekdes and Kal-Kidan were both aunties to Jamila’s little girl and loved and adored her so dearly. Kal, as she is known by her friends and family, followed her mum and dad’s footsteps and fell in love with football. She thoroughly enjoyed going to the footy with Stu and Karmi. She became a very familiar little operator at the club and knew everyone there.
The girls’ Auntie Narelle. Stu’s sister, shared this of Kal:
Stu and Karmi also shared a love of fishing, as we have heard, which they enjoyed with their children. They were magnificent in finding the fishing hot spots. Of their passion for fishing, Rosanna de Santis said this of her friend Karmi:
Along with that touching tribute from Shaun, Adrian Moscini would like to share his memories with the Sceney/Dunn family. He is the former St Mary’s president and a best mate of the couple. Adrian has known Karmi and her family since 1972. He has great respect for the Dunn family and found Karmi to be their rock. During his time as president, Adrian and his committee had to make some decisions that did not go down well with people. The first person he would contact for assistance and to help explain to people would be Karmi.
St Mary’s has a list of active life members; Karmi and Stuart were both on it. Karmi could have been nominated for the president position if it were not for her work commitments. It would have made her the first woman and first Indigenous woman to be club president.
Stuey became involved in the club in 1994 as a new player. Adrian took Stuey under his wing as they clicked immediately and became best mates. Stu played over 100 games in league and 100 games in reserve. He could be the only one who achieved this. In Stuey’s early years at St Mary’s he played in the league grade and made the weekly side but always missed out on being selected for the grand final team. He was finally selected in the fourth year under a new coach. It was against Waratahs and he was about the 22nd man called on the team sheet. He was happy, to say the least. To top off his first ever league grand final, they won against Waratahs and he did not stop smiling for weeks, even on the end of season team trip.
His last 30 games in the reserves were notched up after his so-called retirement. Stuart would always pack his boots in the boot of the car, arrive early to the reserve change rooms, and hang around just in case the reserve coach needed another player. On his face, when asked if he had his boots, you saw a big grin appear. He would then run out to the car and get his boots.
If Stuart was not playing he was water boy, runner or any job that needed filling. He would always take on the new players coming up as well, taking them out to his block in Dundee and fishing - anything to make them feel at home. The truth was, Stuart never really retired.
Adrian also remembers when he first met the girls. They were shy and did not speak much English. They soon became used to being around the club and the footy lifestyle. They became part of the St Mary’s family, even getting cheeky with Adrian about his hair. They always teased him about his lack of hair.
Donna Hunter was so close to Karmi and went on trips with Karmi, growing up in the sporting arena with basketball, netball and softball. Donna remembers how Karmi would always ask Coach Rose Damaso to be the shooter in netball.
People know of Karmi’s great scoring capability in basketball, but that was not the case in netball and she was banned from shooting as she could not get any in. They say that was because there was no backboard. It always annoyed Karmi not to be allowed to shoot, but she was an awesome goal defence.
Words seem so incredibly inadequate to express the feelings and the tragic sudden loss in the accident of Stuey, Karmi and their daughters, Kal and Mekdes. I was so stunned and deeply shocked to have heard the news and sometimes it still seems hard to grapple with the knowledge it has happened.
On behalf of colleagues in this Chamber, I extend my deepest condolences to the Sceney and Dunn families and their many, many friends who have come here today - some beautiful, awesome Territorians who I know will be genuinely and fondly remembered. Stu and Karmi made incredible imprints on the Territory.
Madam Speaker, my deepest condolences to Jamila and her beautiful little daughter. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this condolence motion on. I also express my deepest sympathies and condolences to Stuey’s and Karmi’s family and all the friends here today. It is a hard thing to talk about someone we knew so well.
The St Mary’s Club is an interesting club. It is like no other that I have been part of. It genuinely is a big family. I do not know too much about Australian Rules Football, and am not a great fan of it to tell you the honest truth, but I am a great fan of the St Mary’s Club. I have listened to the comments about the Dunn family and Dennis Dunn Snr saying that family is everything, and those values are spread through the entire St Mary’s Football Club. It is a genuine family. They are always looking after each other, watching each other’s backs, and are genuinely very decent to each other. Certainly, the club will not be the same without Kal and Mekdes running around enjoying themselves.
Stuey was a champion bloke. When my wife heard about the accident, she looked at me and asked, ‘Do I know Stuart?’ I said, ‘Yes, you know Stuey - Sceney Electrical’. My wife broke down; she is in the property management business and Stuart had been working for her for quite some time. She was cut up about the whole ordeal.
I remember going goose shooting quite often with Stuart, Michael Long, Bryan AhMat and a few others. While Michael, Bryan and I were not afraid to have a bit of fun with each other, Stuart was always very serious about his goose hunting; it was not so easy to have a crack at him. But he was genuinely a top fellow and a bloke you could call on for help and assistance. I fully support the comments of Shaun Hardy and Adrian Moscini about Stuart. He was the sort of fellow you could always count on to back you up or give you support.
I probably knew Karmi best. I originally came to Darwin to play basketball. You could not play basketball in the 1980s without knowing of Karmi Dunn. She was an absolute superstar, and probably one of the greatest female basketball players I have seen anywhere in the country. In my younger days, I travelled around the country a fair bit playing basketball, and I have seen some pretty damn good players. Karmi was up there with the best.
We have heard a lot about Karmi’s scoring record. However, you never really noticed Karmi scoring, as I am sure Donna and the other basketball ladies in the gallery would agree. What was noticeable about Karmi was her presence in the keyway. She was such a strong woman. She owned the boards; she dominated the basketball court. It always came as a surprise at the end of a game when you realised Karmi had scored 25 points because you never noticed her scoring. You would think, ‘Where did that come from?’ Karmi was always doing the hard work, getting rebounds and distributing the ball, but she was obviously a prolific scorer as well.
I have no doubt she was the most deserving recipient of the Steve Abala Role Model Award. The Rebels basketball team that played throughout the 1980s and 1990s, which Karmi was such an integral member of, stuck together like glue, and it was Karmi who lead the charge. Some of the teams they played against were not half bad, but they were no match for the mighty Rebels. They were all top ladies, good fun and a great bunch of people to be associated with.
I am so grateful to have the opportunity to say a couple of words today. I am so proud to be involved in a club like St Mary’s that values people like Stuey and Karmi. They will leave a great hole in that club; there is absolutely no doubt about it. I am proud to see so many people here today. I express my sincere and most heartfelt condolences to the Sceney and Dunn families. Thank you, Chief Minister, for this condolence motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I respectfully contribute to this condolence motion. I do not know the Sceney or Dunn families but I had the privilege of working with Karmi Dunn. It was very much a privilege to work as part of a team in the Indigenous Education Division of the Department of Education in the Northern Territory. I had been in the bush for 20 years so coming to the big end of town and working with an elite group of educators who were designing reforming policy for Indigenous education based on the major review Learning lessons was certainly an experience for me.
There were many great educators on that team but there was one stand out, and that was Karmi Dunn. It was wonderful to work with an intelligent and articulate woman who was a fantastic mentor. I was quite shy and reserved in my new working environment but I celebrated every time Karmi stopped the floor and called a spade a spade. It was terrific to hear Karmi call it out; she did not mince her words.
As a non-Indigenous person, it was wonderful to be able to stand behind that shield of strength and hear it as it is. That influenced not only the policy development, but the team and the outcomes we achieved.
The Learning lessons review was all about reforming Indigenous education and we put together a lot of good policy and plans. The project I was working on was to design the self-managing school. Karmi had a lot of important input into that. She saw me struggling a little in that highly bureaucratic area; she gave me lots of good advice and we designed a fantastic model to be trialled.
Unfortunately, the Country Liberal Party government did not take up that challenge, the project was shut down and I was sent home. I went back to Tennant Creek and joined the Aboriginal hearing program. I was very fortunate to have a little contact with Karmi on a number of occasions over the next few years and was inspired by her knowledge, strength and advice.
I remember very specifically enjoying the stories of culture and family, especially when she talked about challenging her own family members. She talked at length to me about the importance of child protection. She had very firm ideas and views that were the real recipe for change. I am sure in her distinguished career in the public sector with Education that much of that knowledge has translated into the department’s workings and its policy and delivery. As a family, when we heard the news I sat quietly with my wife and reflected on the story I am telling now. Together we did what we could; we sat quietly and said a prayer. For the families, may they rest in peace.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues and convey my condolences to the Dunn and Sceney families and their many friends and colleagues who are here today. I particularly acknowledge Karmi and Stuart’s eldest child, Jamila, and her daughter, Maliah, who have so suddenly and tragically lost their closest family members in this terrible accident. Our thoughts are certainly with you. As the Chief Minister said, Karmi, Stuart, Mekdes and Kal-Kidan were much loved, much respected and, of course, are much missed. My heart goes out to their family and friends.
As the Minister for Education, I pay particular tribute to Karmi and her substantial legacy in the area of Indigenous education. First and foremost, Karmi was a mother, a grandmother, a wife, and a proud Tiwi woman. She was a respected Aboriginal leader and a wonderful mother and, with Stuart, she brought up Jamila, Mekdes and Kal-Kidan to be strong, independent and vibrant people. As many would know, and as the Chief Minister said, Karmi, as a young woman, excelled in every sport she played, demonstrating her skill in representing the Territory in basketball, netball, softball and soccer.
That excellence did not end on the sports field. Over the course of her professional life, Karmi became even better known to Territorians through her work in various fields of government over 30 years, working in key policy areas advancing the cause of Indigenous Territorians. She was a foundation and essential staff member of the former Office of Aboriginal Development. Her old boss, Neville Jones, recalls her commitment as a key liaison officer in negotiating between the NT, the Commonwealth and the Stolen Generations group which finally saw the release of Aboriginal population records, essential information for those affected by that past policy.
In more recent years, Karmi turned her exceptional talents in policy reform, advocacy and leadership to the critical areas of Indigenous education. As a strongly committed and respected member of the national level working groups, Karmi drove reforms impacting the system and local level to improve outcomes for Indigenous students.
On the national stage, Karmi was the voice of the Territory in her advocacy for major initiatives to improve the educational outcomes of young Indigenous people from the early years through to their senior secondary education years and, of course, beyond. She delivered this message across the Territory with passion, intelligence and commitment.
Through her work at the Department of Education and Children’s Services, Karmi was one of the key proponents and leaders for the agency’s Reconciliation Action Plan. The Reconciliation Action Plan is the first by a Northern Territory government department.
She also worked tirelessly driving key initiatives such as developing pathways for assistant teachers and enabling the opportunity for Indigenous people to progress through a Bachelor of Education.
Here in the Territory, Karmi’s beloved home, she engaged with every region and every area of the department, advocating for education for Indigenous students to be built in, not bolted on, to the education service, and for that to be in every classroom for every Indigenous Territorian. Karmi delivered this message across the Northern Territory in a powerful yet gentle way, ensuring people heard the message and acted.
Colleagues have recalled how Karmi would tackle possibly difficult conversations by starting with a ‘Hey, lovie’, immediately putting people at ease before striking to the heart of an issue and making her message clear, but in a very down-to-earth manner. Karmi has been described as a natural leader.
Many people cite her charisma, her sense of humour, and the matter-of-fact way she expressed her opinion but, above all, Karmi had presence. Workmates recall she could walk into a meeting and immediately own it. It was her presence that made people pay attention and listen intently to her key message, and it resulted in the outcome Karmi was seeking. At times, Karmi’s message delivered uncomfortable truths, but mostly with achievable outcomes.
Throughout Karmi’s distinguished career, she has deeply influenced her colleagues in the education field, and it is fair to say her leadership and influence has changed the face of education in the Northern Territory. There can be no better example than her unrelenting advocacy for creating opportunities for local employment whatever the initiative being progressed. Karmi’s insistence on creating employment pathways for local people in education is a legacy to be carried on. Karmi’s legacy is a brighter future for young Territorians.
Jamila, your loss is heartbreaking for all of us. Please know our thoughts are with you and Maliah.
To all the Sceneys and Dunns, you have my deepest sympathies. I hope some of what we all say here today is some comfort to you and, in this, you can find some measure of consolation in today’s tributes to your amazing family.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I knew both Stuart and Karmi through my sporting and family connections. I, like many Territorians, felt the pain on that fateful day. We all mourned and we continue to mourn the loss of a Territory family, and our hearts go out to both families.
Stuart came to Darwin with a few mates on a trip around Australia and never left, and why would he? He loved this place and this is where he met Karmi. What a pair they were! They shared their love for family, sport, fishing, the Territory lifestyle, and cemented their relationship. Everything aligned when they met each other. They grew a family and loved and cared for each other.
Not only was Stuart a legend at St Mary’s, but he was also a much-loved and highly valued member of the Grovedale Football and Cricket Clubs of Geelong, where he was highly regarded as a great team mate, good player, and a ripper bloke.
We have heard Karmi was a Territory basketball legend and my aunties, Eileen and Ethel Cummings, played softball for many years against Karmi. She was a very good player and was also very competitive. She was another Dunn family superstar, a star in her own right, another Indigenous pioneer of sport in the Northern Territory.
When I was growing up in Darwin playing and watching all different sports, one of the biggest highlights for me was the footy season, which meant going to Gardens Oval to watch footy all day. I loved going because all family and friends would go along to catch up with each other. It was a huge social occasion with lots of laughs and fun times for all our families, getting on the ground and having a kick with 200 kids you did not know at quarter and half time. And what about the footy - silky skills, quality players, big torpies, and every now and then a coat hanger tackle or shirt front that fired everyone up, both the crowd and the players.
I remember the Dunns, the Longs, Teddy Liddy, and Stuart leading the field during the domination of St Mary’s at that time. It certainly was a great time if you were a Saints fan, but not very good if you were a Nightcliff or Buffaloes fan like my family. We suffered through those times.
I knew Karmi, her background and her family. My mother, who is in the gallery this afternoon, had many experiences growing up in Darwin with Karmi; their paths always crossed in the very close-knit community Darwin was at that time. My mum told me she and her brothers and sisters were placed on the Tiwi Islands as part of the Stolen Generation and the Tiwi Islanders all acknowledge our connections to family, including Karmi’s mum and wider family. We are truly blessed and proud to have those family connections.
In Karmi’s professional life, I have heard many times of the great respect of this strong, knowledgeable, articulate, local Indigenous woman in Education who was paving the way in the public service. From the Tiwi Islands to Darwin, to Katherine, from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs and all the communities in between, she was known and respected, and she is missed.
Karmi was a proud Tiwi Islander woman who stood up for what she believed in and demonstrated, on many occasions, her strong commitment to advancing all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families through education. On behalf of all my Caucus colleagues and my family, I give our sincerest apologies and condolences on a tragic loss. They will be missed.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I will not be mentioning this wonderful lady by name in this motion as this name is Pukumani, or taboo, in our Tiwi culture at this time.
It is with much sadness that I speak. She was a jewel in the Tiwi family. To lose her power and contribution to Indigenous people is a terrible blow to our large extended family, to the Tiwi people, and to Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory and Australia as a whole. She was a major contributor within the field of Indigenous education and had been a force in a number of vital education initiatives on the Tiwi Islands, including Tiwi College at Pickertaramoor on Melville Island.
Her mother, Marjorie, was of the Pumarji family, she married to Dinee Dunn. Dinee grew up with the Kerinauia family. I was related to Marjorie and call her amo in Tiwi, or grandmother. My mother’s father was a cousin to Marjorie and part of the same tribal group. I feel her passing greatly. I recall first meeting her when her family lived on Bathurst Island. I remember her then as a smart, happy, busy person who went to St John’s College to further her education.
Later on, I became aware of her major involvement and contribution to sport and high ability in mentoring the young Tiwi. As Deputy Chair of the Tiwi Land Council and of Tiwi College, I became very aware of her concern to progress the Tiwi people through education.
Her passion is one that I share. She was one of those rare people who had a wonderful, positive vision for Aboriginal people. She understood the complex demand on Indigenous people as they try to live in two cultures. When we learn something of the contribution of this great Tiwi woman by listening to her words, which I am sure will continue to influence all of us into the future, we survive her passing.
She was able to clearly identify the main challenge facing Indigenous education in the Territory. The problem of distance in the Territory leads to many important challenges, including isolation, students’ mobility and teacher turnover.
This challenge called for a need to look at a way of keeping our teachers for longer, particularly in remote schools. In a clear view, the main way was by growing our own through training Indigenous teachers, as well as including the principle that students need to have high expectation of themselves, and others involved in education.
Second and third was not good enough for her. She wanted all young Indigenous students to understand that they have both rights and obligations, and to have high expectations about their ability and what they could achieve.
As part of such high expectations, she emphasised to those within the Education department and to Indigenous students that they also had a right to demand high quality in the things they were asked to learn and in the way they were taught.
Importantly, her strong message to educators and Indigenous students was that the curriculum and means of teaching must be kept real and relevant to the situations and challenges facing young Indigenous students in their communities.
What a wonderful principle. I am sure that if educators were to follow her advice we would do a lot to remove the disadvantage that confronts Indigenous young people.
Indigenous students, she believed rightly, need to go to school, learn and achieve at school, stay at school and be able to identify work opportunities after school. She was able to express this key principle in ways we could all understand.
She was a wonderful family and community person, who loved her husband Stuart and had a lovely family with Mekdes and Kal-Kidan. She was a wise and intelligent woman. What a loss to all of us. We can be comforted that her life contribution and her wisdom will be passed on.
She has shown us the way. Great people live on because they are able to pass on their values and beliefs to the many they have touched and influenced. Thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I just want to say a few words because much has already been said about the Sceney and Dunn familes. I did not know the Sceney family personally, but I knew the Dunn family through Marjorie Dunn. I first met Marjorie and Dinny Dunn when I started work on Bathurst Island in 1974. They are a wonderful family and, as you have heard today, left a wonderful contribution and legacy to the Northern Territory.
I extend my deepest sympathy to Marjorie especially, because she has been through so many tragedies in her life. What has brought her through all those times is her great strength and Catholic faith. It is that Catholic faith, I know, which will give her some comfort that she will meet those who have passed away from this earth in another place. I give my deepest sympathy to Marjorie at this tragic time and to the rest of the Dunn family and Sceney families.
Even though I did not know them, from what I have heard today they obviously made a great impact on many Territorians, regardless of whether they knew them personally or not. Anyone who went to the funeral at St Mary’s would realise they were wonderful people because they affected so many people’s lives, whether it was through work, sport or family. We should recognise that.
The students at Taminmin College who could not be here today - they were extremely upset at the loss of two of their fellow students - would also like me to express their sincere condolences today.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I too pay my respects and deepest sympathies to Mrs Marjorie Liddy, Jamila, the Dunn family and the Sceney family - particularly the members of the Sceney family who watching via the Internet - friends and colleagues. It is a very sad day indeed, but as we have heard today, the tributes paid to the family members you have lost will live with you forever. To Mrs Marjorie Liddy, I have also been asked to extend my mother, Noel Padgham’s sympathies as she knows you and your husband, Lawrence, very well.
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a sign of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. For the Sceney family, if you are still watching via the Internet, a memorial booklet will be passed through to family in Geelong and in Darwin as well as a DVD of today’s proceedings.
I invite family, friends and members to join guests for afternoon tea in the Main Hall.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
Today I introduce a bill that is delivering a commitment by this government to reduce red tape for motorists. One of the CLP’s first actions on coming to government was to address the urgent need for modernisation of MVR services. MVR staff have worked tirelessly over the years to provide services to Territorians. It was clear, however, that the systems and procedures they have been required to operate have not kept pace with modern approaches to regulation, and customers have rightly been frustrated at long waiting times and outdated procedures which no longer made sense.
As part of a range of reforms designed to improve motor vehicle registration and driver licensing services, this government undertook to remove the requirement for light vehicles to carry registration labels. The move is intended to reduce red tape and remove another reason for Territorians to have to visit a Motor Vehicle Registry office to re-register their light vehicle. It is just one part of this government’s commitment to update the operation of the MVR to provide a modern, responsive, and customer-focused service. The Motor Vehicle Registry will still issue reminder notices to Territorians. However, I emphasise in this House that it remains the vehicle owner’s responsibility to ensure their vehicle is appropriately registered.
This reform will further support my commitment to allow the vast majority of registration renewals to be completed online or by phone. Vehicles due for inspection will still need to be inspected by the MVR inspectors, or by one of about 470 authorised inspectors throughout the Territory. However, as a further part of the reform package, from 1 July there will be changes to the frequency of these checks, once again making the system quicker and more accessible. In time, it is envisaged that reminders will be sent electronically and Territorians will be able to access information by phone or online about the registration status of a vehicle. This is already possible in some jurisdictions where sticker-less registration of light vehicles has been implemented. These reforms bring the Territory into line with most other jurisdictions.
This reform does not mean that the government is going soft on unregistered vehicles: to the contrary. In the near future, my government intends to expand the current vehicle impoundment regime to include unregistered vehicles. Police will also continue to actively enforce the registration of Territory vehicles, and will have the means to determine a vehicle’s registration status, sticker-less or otherwise.
This legislative reform is just minor in that the Motor Vehicles Act references the location of the registration label to determine the placement of a defect notice. By removing the requirement for a light vehicle to have a registration label, it has become necessary to amend the act to define the requirements for placement of a defect notice. This amendment will clarify provisions for police and transport inspectors who continue to defect light vehicles that are not roadworthy.
Amendments are also necessary to various provisions of the Motor Vehicle Regulations and Traffic Regulations to remove references to registration labels. Those amendments will be brought into effect to coincide with this amendment.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable member, and I table a copy of the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to complete the process of converting penalties in all NT legislation from dollar amounts to penalty units.
This project was started in 2010 under the former government with the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Act 2010 and the Penalties Amendment (Justice and Treasury Legislation) Act 2010 which converted most of the penalties in the then Department of Justice and Treasury legislation into penalty units.
The Penalties Amendment (Chief Minister’s and Other Portfolios) Act 2011 and Penalties Amendment (Children and Families, Health and Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources) Act 2011 amended the legislation for the Department of the Chief Minister, the then Department of Children and Families, the Department of Health, and the then Department of Resources. In my capacity as the then shadow Attorney-General prior to the election, I supported these penalties amendment bills. The bill I introduce today continues and finalises the project of converting penalties in monetary amounts to penalty units. The purpose of this bill is to amend the remaining penalties in legislation across the statute book.
Some penalties included in the bill come from legislation in portfolios covered by the previous penalties amendment bills I have just read out, because for one reason or another they had not been amended at the time. The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice has now done an audit of the statute book for any remaining penalties to be included in this bill.
The bill amends penalties in the following portfolios: Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Transport; Treasurer; Business; Employment and Training; Attorney-General and Justice; Public Employment; Health; Education; Lands, Planning and the Environment; Mines and Energy; Land Resource Management; Regional Development; Local Government; Sport and Recreation; Parks and Wildlife; and Arts and Museums.
The previous penalties amendment bills provided for penalty increases of no more than 15%. The current bill provides for penalty increases of no more than 25%. The reason for this increase is to take into account the changes in the penalty unit value between 2010 and 2013 so there is a degree of parity between the conversion of the penalties in this bill and those done in 2010.
In previous debates of the penalties amendment bills, I noted the 15% increase was an arbitrary change made by the former government. The 25% increase is also arbitrary but has become necessary as the value of the penalty unit in 2010, when this process started, was $131, and the value today is $141. However, due to the rounding processes, which I will describe later, the increase from 15% to 25% does not necessarily change the penalty unit values for offences with lower penalties.
The conversion process adopted for this bill is the same general process used in previous penalties amendment bills and is as follows.
For the record, I believe, as a result of recent changes, the penalty unit is $144.
The current monetary penalty unit was increased by 25%, converted to penalty units and then, generally, rounded down to the nearest five penalty units to provide for a neat result in the statute books. Where the rounding down to the nearest five penalty units would result in an actual decrease in the penalty, the following principles were applied.
First, the penalty was rounded down to the nearest whole penalty unit that is closest to, but not more than, 25% of the increased value.
Second, where the rounding to the nearest whole number would result in an actual decrease in penalty, the penalty was rounded to the closest 0.5 of a penalty unit.
Third, where the penalty rounded to the nearest 0.5 of a penalty unit would result in an actual decrease in the penalty, the penalty was rounded down to the nearest one-tenth of the penalty unit.
Fourth, if the rounded penalty unit amount was less than 0.5 of a penalty unit, then the penalty was left in dollar amounts.
Acts that do not contain penalties or that contain penalties that have already been converted to penalty units have not been included in this bill.
Some legislation in the statute book was not amended by this bill because it is to be repealed or amended separately as part of a general review of the offences. For example, the following regulations are not included in this bill because they will be repealed by the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2013:
Marine (Crew Accommodation) Regulations
Marine (Hire-and-Drive Vessel) Regulations
Regulation 6 of the Marine (Passenger) Regulations
Marine (Pleasure Craft) Regulations
Marine (Safety) Regulations
Marine (Small Craft) Regulations.
The bill also makes a number of amendments of a statute law revision nature. They include the insertion of the words ‘maximum penalty’ into offence provisions in accordance with section 38C of the Interpretation Act. The legal effect is that the operation of the provision does not change but it becomes clearer.
The statute law revision amendments also include a number of amendments to the expression of some penalty provisions. This will make the offences clearer. For example, it is unclear whether the penalty provision at the foot of section 20(2) of the Animal Welfare Act applies to subsection 2 only for both subsections 1 and 2.
Section 38C(1) of the Interpretation Act provides that where a penalty provision is at the foot of a subsection it can be interpreted that the subsection is an offence. The bill makes clear that the penalty applies to both subsections 1 and 2 as they are both clearly offences.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Public and Environmental Health Act to allow the current Public Health Regulations to remain in force until 1 July 2014. This will allow additional time for the finalisation of a comprehensive set of public and environmental health regulations and ensure a seamless transition from the old regulations to the new.
Amending the Public and Environmental Health Act to extend the period of force of the current regulations will ensure there are no issues with legal coverage and provide for the ongoing effective monitoring and management of public and environmental health under this act.
The Public and Environmental Health Act commenced on 1 July 2011, having passed this place on 24 February 2011 with support from the government of the day and the opposition.
The act replaced the antiquated Public Health Act 1952, and is considered a major step forward in public and environmental health legislation reform in the Northern Territory. As the former Minister for Health, and now shadow Minister for Health, Mr Vatskalis, said at the time, the act replaced:
This sentiment was echoed by minister Conlan, who at the time was the shadow Health minister and demonstrated the bipartisan support for the act and its stated objectives, which are to:
protect and promote the health of individuals in communities in the Territory
provide a flexible capacity to protect the health of particular individuals and communities in the Territory from emerging environmental conditions or public and environmental health issues which may impact on their health and wellbeing
enable special action to be taken to protect the health of particular individuals and communities in the Territory who are at public health risk, or are facing particular health problems
improve the public and environmental health outcomes of all Territorians in partnership with individuals and the community
monitor, assess and control environmental conditions, factors and agents, facilities and equipment and activities, services and products which impact on, or may impact on, public and environmental health.
Key to this new regulatory regime is the consolidation of eight important current regulations which, when additional key aspects are added, will form the new consolidated regulations for a wide range of activities that may impact on public and environmental health.
The eight regulations are:
1. Public Health (Shops, Boarding-Houses, Hostels and Hotels Regulations
2. Public Health (Barbers’ Shops) Regulations
To ensure the development of the regulations were kept on track, the act established a sunset clause, meaning the existing eight regulations would fall over on 1 July 2013. It is this date that the government is seeking to extend by 12 months to ensure we maintain regulatory coverage in this important area as the new consolidated regulations are finalised.
It is unfortunate that the regulations could not be finalised within the original two-year time frame the act envisaged. When I sought clarification as to why the time frame has not been kept, I was advised by the Health department that there was a range of reasons, which I will now outline.
The former Territory government did not approve drafting instructions for the regulations until April 2012. That was a full nine months after the act came into force and a year and two months after it was passed by this parliament. Whilst it is fair to assume some time between the passage of legislation and the development of accompanying regulations could be considered to be required, this delay made the finalisation of the new regulations and their full public consultation prior to the end of the current financial year a lot less certain.
Another issue that compounded delay of the development of the regulations was the competing legislative priorities and accompanying resource implications of what is quite a small environmental health team within the department. For example, between April 2012 when the drafting instructions were approved and July last year, the amendments to radiation protection legislation appeared as a national priority which took staff away from work in this area.
Finally, the department also advised that some of the delay has come about given the complexity of merging the existing public health regulations into one set. The latter required significant negotiation, consultation and input across a number of departmental program areas, other agencies and Parliamentary Counsel. As so here we are today
I am advised that the department is on track to finalise the new regulations by the end of this calendar year. Were this bill not to receive the support of this House today, the new consolidated regulations could be fast tracked and put in place by 1 July this year, but, by doing so, full and proper consultation would be compromised. Given the importance of these regulations to the community and numerous industry sectors and businesses, this government does not want to rush that consultation. We want to get the regulations right the first time. That is why this government has introduced this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany it.
Debate adjourned.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Public and Environmental Health Amendment Bill 2013 (Serial 31) passing through all stages on 16 May 2013.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am presuming if the government wants to pass something on urgency there is very good reason for that to occur.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The reason for urgency was just explained in the second reading speech; the eight regulations I listed cease to be effective from the 1 July 2013. For a number of reasons, the changes or updates were not made before this date. All this legislation is asking is that we have another 12 months to complete that process.
Mr Wood: I missed the first part of your talk, minister. Thank you for that explanation.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
What is before the House today is truly groundbreaking. It is the real opportunity the Territory government wants to extend to some of the most disadvantaged in our community to change their lives to the betterment of not only themselves but their family, loved ones, and the broader community.
The purpose of the bill is to establish a legislative framework for mandated assessment and treatment arrangements for people with chronic drinking problems in public areas. Commitment to an alcohol mandatory treatment regime was part of the commitments made by the Country Liberals prior to the 2012 Northern Territory general election, and is a key strategy to address antisocial behaviour and problem drinking.
Alcohol remains a long-standing health and social problem in the Northern Territory, subject to considerable community debate and public commentary. This government has taken the firm view that alcohol rehabilitation should be the cornerstone of addressing alcohol problems in the community, and that the magnitude of alcohol-related harm experienced by a relative few warrants compulsory assessment and treatment. We believe people suffering from chronic alcohol abuse should be medically treated in the health system rather than thrown into the justice system.
The bill provides a legal basis to compel assessment and treatment for chronic drinkers who are either unlikely or unable to voluntarily access treatment options in the community. No power currently exists to take a person to involuntary assessment or treatment for alcohol misuse without legislation.
The approach taken is framed as a health response to chronic and problem drinkers. In this way, the bill can be described as a civil commitment approach to mandated treatment.
This model has precedents in other jurisdictions and in existing Northern Territory legislation such as the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act. The objects of the bill enshrine the intent to assist and protect those people in our community who are significant misusers of alcohol, and ultimately, those who are close to them, through the delivery of assessment and treatment and aftercare services with the aim of stabilising and improving health, improving social functioning, restoring capacity to make decisions about their alcohol use and improving access to ongoing treatment.
Eligibility for alcohol mandatory treatment is determined through a trigger identified as adults who have been taken into police protective custody three times in a two month period. Once this trigger is met, and at the conclusion of the protective custody period, the person will be transported by police to an assessment facility where they will be detained whilst an assessment is undertaken.
Once detained in the facility the assessment must be undertaken by a clinician against criteria established in the bill confirming that:
the person has an alcohol problem
that as a result of this problem the person has diminished capacity to make decisions about their own or others safety and welfare
the person could benefit from treatment, and
there are no other, less restrictive options available.
Assessment will also provide for a comprehensive health and risk assessment of the person and the opportunity to respond to identified health concerns, particularly supported withdrawal management, assessment of injuries and chronic disease management.
The assessment must be undertaken with a 72-hour period. This ensures there is an imperative to minimise the period of detainment. In exceptional circumstances and where the health and safety of the client is paramount, a further 72-hour period may be used for assessment, subject to notification to the independent Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal.
Based on my discussions with health and service providers, it can be expected that from time to time there may be circumstances where the person has an acute mental or emergency health issue that needs to be addressed. In these cases the bill provides for the assessment process to be paused while these matters are dealt with, with provisions for a resumption of the assessment process.
An application informed by the assessment must be lodged with the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal within 24 hours of completing the assessment.
The assessment will provide recommendations on the most suitable treatment options with an emphasis on therapeutic interventions, work skills and readiness, and health improvement and chronic disease management. The tribunal must make a decision on the application within seven days.
The tribunal is to be appointed by the minister and, at any one time, comprise at least a medical officer or other suitable health practitioner, a legal practitioner and a community member. The tribunal will need capacity to consider up to 800 applications in a year across all regions within the Northern Territory.
After if receives an application, the tribunal can make one of two types of order for up to three months:
1. a mandatory residential order for the person to be detained and treated in a secure treatment centre
2. a mandatory community treatment order which does not include detention.
All orders must include an order for income management, and may include other requirements, including prohibition options.
Within the period of treatment, service providers must establish an aftercare plan for lodgement with the tribunal. This ensures continued services are offered to people after they exit treatment to support gains in treatment. The chief executive will have the power to declare nominated secure treatment centres and community treatment providers within the program. Because the assessment process is critical to the entry process, it will be run by the Department of Health and staffed by its employees in the first instance.
The service system to support the legislation will be developed over a two stage process. At the planned commencement of the legislation on 1 July 2013, it is proposed that the Department of Health will operate the major secure treatment centre from the short-term patient accommodation facilities in Darwin. Non-government organisations in Alice Springs and Katherine will operate secure treatment centres in those locations under Phase 1 of the program.
As anticipated, there will be some public commentary about the perceived lack of individual rights protections in the government’s announced policy on alcohol mandatory treatment. I am confident that the bill, as tabled today, has a range of protections for individuals and provides a balance against the need to protect people from their significantly harmful behaviours with the right to information, engagement, representation and, in some cases, decision-making.
For example, the bill includes the right of appeal, options for individuals to be represented and for consideration of the revocation and variation of orders based on significantly changing circumstances.
The bill establishes arrangements for the oversight of complaints and to support advocacy for clients as well as scrutiny of services and processes to promote service and program quality through an extension of the Community Visitor Program and Community Visitor Panel. This is an important safeguard and accountability measure consistent with the Mental Health and Related Services Act.
I also strongly argue that upholding the right to drink alcohol to the extent that you are taken into police protective custody three times in a two-month period is not a behaviour or outcome that should be highly valued or protected. Evidently, people in these circumstances need intervention. They may not be in a functional position to seek it for themselves.
It should be reiterated that the intent of the legislation is not to be overtly punitive. Offence provisions are proposed in the bill and have been carefully considered.
The proposed offences are for being absent from a treatment order where an order is in place, punishable by 10 penalty units or three months in prison. This time frame is relative to the period of a treatment order.
The other offence applies for intentionally supplying alcohol to a person subject to an order: secondary supply. Five penalty units, or one month’s imprisonment, is proposed. Neither of these offences can be expiated through infringement notices.
This bill will also involve the repeal of the alcohol reform Substance Misuse Alcohol Referral and Assessment Court, alcohol reform Prevention of Alcohol Related Crimes and Substance Misuse Act when it commences.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge those members of the alcohol and other drugs sector, as well as health service providers who have openly shared their views and ideas about mandatory treatment in my meetings and forums with them across the Territory. Their collective experiences in working with people who are severely affected by alcohol and their concerns for these clients have shaped the bill and will continue to inform the service system to support it.
The government welcomes constructive feedback on this bill and we are open to suggestions as to how to improve the mandatory treatment system. The bill and explanatory statement have been loaded on to the department website and Health asks that feedback is provided by the end of May. Interested members of the community can log on and find information about our mandatory treatment plans and view the bill on the department’s website at www.health.nt.gov.au/alcoholmandatorytreatment
In addition, the bill has previously been provided and commented upon by the Information Commissioner and the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner.
In closing, this is important legislation that provides a framework for alcohol mandatory assessment and treatment in the Northern Territory. Alcohol mandatory treatment will include therapeutic treatment, health management, counselling, work and work readiness and reintegration programs, and is a real and meaningful opportunity for individuals to change their lives. I commend this bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the Treasurer is unable to be here, so for and on behalf of the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, I table the Power and Water Corporation’s 2013-14 Statement of Corporate Intent, or SCI.
The SCI is the annual performance agreement between the corporation and the shareholding minister on behalf of Territorians as owners of the corporation. Information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the Statement of Corporate Intent being tabled today on the basis it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information which no private sector business would be expected to release.
The financial position of the Power and Water Corporation has deteriorated in recent years and, based on the 2012-13 SCI tabled by the fiscally irresponsible Labor government, was set to worsen over the forward estimates period.
In response to the concerns about the commercial sustainability of the corporation and its longer term viability, a number of important changes in relation to its governance and management were made by the Giles Country Liberal Party government. These actions included the appointment of a new board and chief executive officer of the Corporation.
In March 2013, it was announced that the utilities tariff increases that commenced on 1 January 2013 would be phased in over three years.
Tariff increases for electricity were reduced to 20%, water to 30% and sewerage to 15% to apply from 1 January 2013 with a remaining 10% to come into effect on 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2015.
This decision recognised that the action needed to be taken, but spreading the increase over three years would reduce the impact on household budgets. In addition, the corporation’s new board has identified a range of operating and capital savings that would be achieved over the next five years.
The revised tariff structure, together with efficiencies and subsequent savings identified by the board, should improve its commercial sustainability and reduce its reliance on government support, as reflected in the 2013-14 SCI.
Power and Water Corporation’s 2013-14 SCI shows a substantially improved financial position and outlook when compared to the 2012-13 SCI over the five years from 2012-13 to 2016-17.
Revenues will increase by $164.7m, operating costs will decrease by $180.1m, borrowings will decrease by $818m and nett debt will be $681.7m less.
Revenues will increase as a result of the Giles government’s action to increase tariffs, which was required after the former fiscally irresponsible Labor administration allowed them to fall to almost the lowest amongst jurisdictions and threatened Power and Water Corporation’s financial viability.
Savings will be made as a result of the operational efficiency measures, including improved operating procedures in all business units and a reduction in corporate costs, improved procurement and inventory practices and improved business systems.
The capital and borrowing requirement will decrease as a result of the review of the capital reinvestment program. The board has made some adjustments to better align the capital expenditure with growth requirements, which has resulted in some capital projects being brought forward and a number of projects being deferred where consideration of current capacity and future demand has allowed.
Overall, this aims to reduce the corporation’s capital and borrowing requirement without jeopardising the service reliability for customers.
Throughout the SCI term, further reform initiatives to improve its financial position, operating efficiency and governance structure will be initiated by the corporation and the Territory government.
Under the fiscally irresponsible Labor government, the Power and Water Corporation was never allowed to meet its objectives under the Government Owned Corporations Act and operate at least as efficiently as any comparable business, and maximise the sustainable return to the Territory on its investment. It was a bloated and inefficient organisation, only sustained through taxpayer subsidies. This was a fact not lost on the Moody’s rating agency which recently commented on the need to improve the financial sustainability of the Power and Water Corporation. The Giles government is serious about putting the corporation back on a firmer financial footing. To this end, it is willing to take hard but necessary decisions to bring this about.
Madam Speaker, In accordance with section 39(7)(a), of the Government Owned Corporations Act, and on behalf of the shareholding minister for the corporation, I table the Power and Water Corporation's 2013-14 Statement of Corporate Intent.
Continued from 27 March 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I make comment on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Amendment Bill 2013.
I thank the minister for making staff available, for making us feel welcome, and for the briefing that was provided on this amendment bill which, basically, tidies up this legislation to make it workable, to make it function, and to make a smooth transition in identifying that important competent authority.
I took that information back to the Labor Caucus and we discussed this bill. Of course, the Territory Labor opposition supports the legislation. The amendment proposes that the competent authority for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act will be the Work Health Authority. This will alleviate tying this role to a particular position within the agency. The department of Justice has the opinion that when the package of work health reforms commenced on 1 January 2012, the Work Health Administration Act 2011 removed the position of Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as the position constituting the Work Health Authority, and this may have impacted on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act, section 22. It was explained it is for this reason a validation provision has been included in the amended bill to confirm any actions since 1 January 2012.
Currently, the minister directly appoints a person to constitute the Work Health Authority. If a person is not appointed, the CEO of the agency becomes the competent authority for the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act. By tying the competent authority under the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act to the Work Health Authority, future changes of staff positions within the department will not impact on this authority. As I said, we offer our support to the minister for this legislation.
It was interesting reading the background to this bill, and then discussing with constituents and Caucus colleagues the nature of the transportation of dangerous goods. Coming from the Barkly, Tennant Creek in particular, we have had experiences with dangerous goods travelling by road which have spilled. In the time I have lived in town in the last decade there was a cyanide spill on the Stuart Highway, which was a major spill of a dangerous good and a good example of when things go wrong. The cleanup and the Emergency Services response were impeccable. The material was cleaned up and then had to be transported with contaminated soil to the Warrego site. Whilst there were complications around that as a resolution, it did show Emergency Services and Territory agencies working together to clean up that spill to make safe the highway and the road reserves for Territory road users.
Having that experience in transport and dangerous goods, and looking at and evaluating that process, it was good to be able to apply that knowledge to this bill before the House and to understand the machinations behind it as well as - I say with respect - this housekeeping detail that is being tidied up in the parliament.
It is also good to be able to talk to departmental officers. In my discussions working through assessment of the bill I posed some questions that were taken with interest, but also reflected the possibility of accidents that could occur in the future in the transportation of dangerous goods by road and rail. However, I applied marine as well and am particularly concerned about the transport of nuclear waste.
The bill covers a schedule of dangerous goods, and I thank the department for providing that. In that schedule is the carriage of nuclear material. It is quite straightforward and the bill covers it. Nuclear material is travelling throughout the country regularly and it has cause to travel through the Northern Territory.
An example is the copper concentrate from the Olympic Dam project coming through the Territory to access the port, or material from the Territory’s uranium mines in northeast Arnhem Land coming back through Darwin and through the port. Those processes have been well-documented and well-managed.
However, we have a new challenge on the horizon, which is a higher level nuclear waste that is returning to Australia. In 2014, it is planned to return spent rods produced at Lucas Heights in New South Wales by ship in 2014. It is linked to the proposed first nuclear waste management facility that will be located on the Warlmanpa land trust at Muckaty Station.
As Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility, and Australia’s intermediate level nuclear waste that is coming home by ship, there is a good chance it will steam straight through the Arafura Sea, past the beautiful Tiwi Islands and arrive at East Arm port. From East Arm port it will have to be transported from the vessel onto either road or rail to continue its journey to what is proposed as Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility on the Warlmanpa land trust approximately 100 km north of Tennant Creek.
I made this point to departmental officers and I make this point to Territorians and any Aussies who will listen, because this will be very new for the Territory and has not been seen in an Australian context since that intermediate-level waste left our shore to be stored in appropriate facilities in Europe. To my thinking, this is not a good plan at all. I am out of favour with my federal Labor colleagues because I am part of an opposition to the proposed nuclear waste management facility at Muckaty Station. I have continued to dialogue about this with colleagues and the previous Northern Territory government, and now the Northern Territory opposition has put its position very clearly.
I was very privileged to be with the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Hon Paul Henderson, at a Senate inquiry where I could debate the case of the Barkly constituents and of Territorians opposed to this plan. I was the spokesperson for many people in, not only the Barkly, but across the Territory, to debate fairly and squarely with the federal Labor government about this, offering a good alternative of going back to the drawing board: a position of thinking very clearly about what will be Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility and what I consider to be short-term quick fix that could cause the Northern Territory far greater problems down the track. The federal Labor government has not chosen a resolution to that as yet, however, I continue to lead those in opposition to this plan.
The other interesting element of this case is that those in opposition to the proposed nuclear waste management facility at Muckaty are engaged in a court case with the Northern Land Council. That is in the Federal Court, and we hope there will be a hearing, possibly in Tennant Creek, this year. It is asking a very important question. The traditional owners are divided on the Muckaty proposal. Those opposed to Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility being located at Muckaty have organised a very strong action which is very well-defined, well-informed, well-researched, and a very common sense approach to try to resolve this situation.
It has come to a question that will be heard by a federal judge. Can a small family group of Indigenous traditional owners make a decision about the use of traditional lands that will impact on the wider clan, moiety and tribal groups, not only from within that specified land trust, but also the Aboriginal land trusts that surround the Warlmanpa land trust? It goes to a bigger picture, a bigger story and is a good question, because it will give a very positive road map for using Indigenous land for Indigenous community development in the future. It is a little unfortunate that the Muckaty issue is a very tricky situation because there is a lot of emotion and sentiment in it and, as I said, there is a very well-organised movement against it.
When we are talking about a bill for the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail, the Muckaty question really comes to the forefront for the Northern Territory. The previous Chief Minister, Hon Terry Mills, the member for Blain, gave his support to the federal government’s proposal for the first nuclear waste management facility to be located within the Northern Territory on the Warlmanpa land trust at Muckaty Station. Now that we have a new Chief Minister I would like to hear what the position of the Country Liberal Party and the new Chief Minister is on the question of Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility being located in the Barkly. I encourage all members of the government to ask, ‘What is it? What is it about? Do we support it?’ They should be examining many Indigenous cultural issues as well as the political, economic, and social issues around a decision that could locate this first facility. When I say, ‘Do some research’, I mean look at how intermediate and high level nuclear waste is stored safely. Really drill into that question. You will find those answers in Europe where this waste is currently stored. You will not find the solution in storage sheds above ground on traditional lands in prime cattle country with an aquifer source – a water table within 100 m of the surface - in an area of the Northern Territory that has experienced over 500 earthquakes since the major earthquake in 1988.
You will discover many people who will give you a well-balanced and straightforward explanation about this issue. The group opposed to the Muckaty plan is very well informed. They come from all walks of life and represent very influential organisations across the country, including a very esteemed legal firm from Melbourne which is conducting the case on behalf of the traditional owners.
It is an important question for all Aussies. It is very important for Indigenous members of parliament to find out what is happening and dialogue with the traditional owners who are opposed to the Muckaty solution and relate that back to ancillary challenges to the transportation of the dangerous good by road and rail after it leaves the ship - after it passes through legislation that will cover it in the maritime context - and is handed to stevedores who will load the waste onto road or rail, whatever is decided, and transport it to Muckaty Station should this plan go ahead.
It is a good opportunity to talk about safety, how legislation delivers for Territorians and about a very important federal court case which is being heard, asking that essential question: can one small family group make a decision that will impact on the wider clan, moieties and tribal groups that are interconnected socially, culturally and economically? That question can deliver a very powerful outcome either way.
That question delivered in the affirmative could see Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility located above the ground in some sheds at Muckaty Station. If that question goes the other way and the judge finds it should not be decided by a small group within that total context, then it will lead to an important element of Indigenous self-determination and community development about the use of Aboriginal lands and will provide a very clear road map.
I thank the minister for bringing this legislation to the House. It gave me a great opportunity to share with other Territorians what is happening in this case. I have done a lot of media and research on this and, as I always say, it is not just about Territorians, it is about all Aussies. If we go down this road, and the Country Liberal Party government always reminds us in this House about getting it right, you have to make sure you get it right. They continue to remind us that, apparently, we got everything wrong. You would not want to get this wrong when you are dealing with intermediate level nuclear waste. That is ours, it belongs to us, and it is coming home. It is booked, it is steaming and, if it goes to the plan initiated by the federal Liberal government and enacted by the federal Labor government then it will come home, ladies and gentleman. If anything goes wrong in its transport, or when it is put in a shed on a pristine cattle station north of Tennant Creek, it is not going to be a story of, ‘Oh, well, sorry about that. Now we will put the real plan in place’.
The real deal is not about storing nuclear waste, it is about the safe disposal of nuclear waste, which means a deep geological solution. That is not at Muckaty and that is not in the Northern Territory. The scientists tell us where it could be. If Australia is going down this road, we had better get it right because this stuff does not give second chances.
Madam Speaker, this is not about asbestos, landfill, or the waste we know and transport now under the legislation the minister has brought to this House and is tidying up to make sure the competent authority is tight and secure and everything goes well. This stuff is unforgiving.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I knew this bill might stir some passions about the transport of particular materials, but I did not realise it was going to come on today, otherwise I would have brought my many boxes of material on this issue which I have looked at since being in parliament. Although my good friend from the Barkly has given a good argument about the dangers of moving nuclear waste, one of the reasons we have this issue at Muckaty Station is because all of the states, when they were under Labor premiers, refused to take the waste. It was going to go to Woomera and that was probably a pretty good site. They said, ‘No, it will not go to Woomera’. Western Australia would not take it and the other states would not take it.
I will give you a funny example - I know we are talking about two forms of waste here. There is a site 100 km north of Brisbane - and Brisbane is a bit bigger than Tennant Creek – which is called Esk. It is a small town where a lot of …
Mr Tollner: Water is.
Mr WOOD: Yes, there is a catchment. Wivenhoe Dam is right next door. It is a fairly moderate sized town where many retired people live. There are fruit and vegies and horses in the area, and about 5 km out of town, there is a nuclear waste repository. It is a small building, probably about the size of a three- or four-bedroom house, surrounded by a fence and lawn. Low-level nuclear waste is transported from hospitals and other places in Queensland and deposited on that site. The council workers mow the lawn and that is it.
The difficulty I have with this debate is we have never been able to say we are Australians; we have worried about whether we are South Australians, Northern Territorians, etcetera. There comes a time when we need to do something that is good for the country. Our nuclear waste has come from something that benefits Australians. We have to understand that is why we need a place to store this waste. The argument is that Canberra can override the Territory; therefore, they can put it where they want. I am disappointed that is the case, but am I here as someone who supports the use of nuclear technology for the benefit it brings to Australia, whether it is medical, industrial, environmental, or research into molecular structures? That is exactly what happens as Lucas Heights. I have been to the old Lucas Heights nuclear research station. How many people have been to the old one and how many have been to the new nuclear research station at Lucas Heights? The new one would have to be one of the most fantastic contributions to the Australian economy …
Mr Tollner: So was the old one.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but the new one is mind-boggling because we are leaders in research in molecular science. We use the word ‘nuclear’ so often to scare people off. Much of this debate, unfortunately, relates not to science but to ideology. There are people in our community who are totally opposed to the nuclear cycle regardless of whether it is for medicine, industry, or electricity. I have met them time and time again.
I have had a debate with the gentleman from the Australian Conservation Foundation. He is a nice bloke, but the foundation is not willing to accept nuclear science is something they want. The Arid Lands Environment Centre is totally opposed and has been in Tennant Creek organising some of those opposed to it. They have the right to do that, but they are talking about the ideology and not the science. People have the right to disagree with things we do in this country based on ideology, but they need to say that and not dispute the scientific facts that show that some of these matters are not as alarming and terrible as they tend to make out.
I heard the member for Barkly give some classic arid land issues in regard to the storage of nuclear waste: it would be over a water table, it would affect the cattle, and it is an earthquake zone. If the earthquake zone was that bad, Tennant Creek should be a pile of rubble. It has had some mighty good earthquakes in its past, especially where the old gas pipeline was bent. I imagine you would build a structure that (1) is made in such a way - I would not agree to a structure that was not built this way - that it could withstand a reasonable size earthquake, (2) would not allow any materials to escape from it, and (3) recognises that in the case of low-level waste you are dealing with solids not liquids or gases. That issue is sometimes missed.
It is not as though this stuff all of a sudden flies off into the air when a drum is broken. It is solid material. One of the advantages of storing waste in a particular spot is that it is stationary and you can monitor it.
One of the things we overlook in this world is that we are alarmed about storing something that is smaller than two soccer fields when we spew out masses of pollution into our air which we have no control over. Every car, every company that produces some sort of pollution, every coal fire power station, and every gas coal fire station spews out pollution, including nuclear waste which you get from coal fired power stations, into the atmosphere. Are we getting so alarmed about that? We are hoping that one day we will not have to use those things. Solid nuclear waste can be kept in a place where it can be monitored, where it does not do anything and is stored securely. I would rather have that than all the stuff I have to breathe in every day that we are putting into our atmosphere.
I understand there are concerns about storing nuclear waste. Part of that is the old ‘not in my back yard’. In this case, I understand it is on Aboriginal land and I accept that. What annoyed me at a senate inquiry in Alice Springs was when Senator Ludlam, a person totally opposed to the nuclear cycle - he was Chair of that Senate inquiry and I rang from Darwin and said to them, ‘There is practically nobody living in that area’. I have visited the site on Bootu Creek Road to the railway line, there is no one living there, the closest is about 10 km away on Muckaty Station where there is a little outstation near the homestead. He said, ‘Oh, you believe in terra nullius’. I said, ‘I do’. I was saying very few people live there. Ray Aylett, the station manager, told me there is no water in a lot of the country on the other side of the railway. That is one of the reasons very few people live there. There is no water in that part of the world in the Tanami Desert where the famous Kookaburra crashed.
The reality is we need a place to store it. I do not mind arguments saying there are scientific or cultural reasons for not putting it here or there, but if ideology runs the argument, then I have a problem. If there are some issues about the manner in which it is stored, the risks that could be involved in storing it, or if the owners of the land are not happy with it going there, that is okay. But if it is about people running a different agenda simply because they do not want to have anything to do with a nuclear cycle, then I am not on that side because I see the great benefits this is bringing to us.
Nuclear waste is transported around Australia continually. High-level nuclear waste in the form of iridium comes to Darwin in a little esky once a week on a passenger airline, so why are people still flying? If it is such a terrible risk then you should give up flying. We have very tight controls over the transport of nuclear waste throughout the world. Have there been any major transport issues in regard to nuclear product in the world? You may have issues about Chernobyl and Fukushima, but in relation to the transport of those goods, when has there been a major issue? There are very strict guidelines to the transport of nuclear waste throughout the world.
My understanding, and I may stand corrected in this, of the higher level nuclear waste that will come back from France is that it will be in a solid form, in a glass container, and will be measured in milligrams, or a very small amount. You have to remember that we are getting material back which is nothing like Fukushima. It does not produce electricity; it is there to produce isotopes. So, the amount of waste we receive is not great. The science and the description of what I have seen is that this material will come back in glass containers that cannot be broken because the material is infused into it. It can be dropped in the sea; it can be dropped from heights, and all sorts of things. It is in a special material that bonds that into the material.
Now of course you can say there will be a risk. I remember when yellowcake was first going to be transported from Jabiru. The world was coming to an end. Now we have been transporting yellowcake for years and years. Has anyone had a problem with it? You can see how the mentality of much of Australia has shifted with the continual barrage of people who do not want the nuclear cycle.
Other states which are now mining uranium would like to take that uranium through their ports. People are saying, ‘oh terrible, terrible’, even though it has been going through Darwin for the last 30 years. They do not want it, even though science shows it can be transported safely and is not a health issue if transported correctly. We have a society which sees nuclear energy, because of the continual publicity of various concerns about it - some of those rightly so - but it is not so much about whether that is a good thing and can be remedied. It is simply, ‘We do not want this in Australia’, and many of those people do not want nuclear energy or anything to do with it at all in the world. So you have this battle of an ideology running the agenda, rather than the science and reality of the issues. The transport of materials is very important and low-level waste will be transported if Muckaty is the answer. If we can find another site, if we can convince the government that Woomera is the site, I would be very happy for it to go there because it is probably the better site of all the sites originally identified.
There were quite a number of sites identified throughout Australia and it all came back to the states. At that time they were all Labor states and we got nowhere because parochialism in Australia sometimes goes too far. Politics also drives it. People say they do not want it in their back yard. Obviously they are scared of the political outcry if they believe it should go somewhere where they might lose votes.
You are right, member for Barkly. You raised the issue that these materials need to be transported very carefully. I am not knocking what you said. Of course it has to be done that way. There are international regulations for the transport of nuclear product throughout the world which everyone has to abide by. The record is, and, again, I will stand to be corrected, I have not heard of any major issues with the transport of nuclear material throughout the world, and they are many nuclear power stations in the world.
They are talking about China reducing the amount of pollution. Tim Flannery was on the radio the other day talking about how they are going to use more renewable energy sources. What he forgot to say is – I am not sure what the number is – they are building a considerable number of nuclear power stations because they see that as the only opportunity to bring the pollution from coal fired power stations down fast enough to make a dip in the pollution in their country.
I do not say nuclear is the be all and end all. Nuclear has its problems, just like the motor car had its problems when it first started and other technology had its problems. I hope that as time goes on we improve on these technologies and do not end up being frightened of them but use them for the benefit of mankind.
I am one of those sceptics who does not believe that wind and solar will drive the economy of this world. It will help drive the economy of this world, but when the sun goes down, when the wind stops blowing, you will need a huge amount of batteries to keep the power going to build ships and motor cars, and produce fertiliser. All those things that require large amounts of energy will not, from a practical point of view, drive industry. They will possibly drive domestic consumption, which is a great thing. The less we have to depend on those forms of other energy the better. We need to keep our feet on the ground and stay in touch with reality, but we will still have to transport materials.
We transport coal, gas and fuel, and there are times when I wonder - the triples leaving Berrimah drive out on the outskirts of Palmerston with three tankers full of unleaded petrol. There are always dangers in the transport of materials …
Mr Tollner: A bit more dangerous than a few cups of nuclear waste.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Sometimes we need to keep things in perspective. We allow those vehicles to travel on our road and there is a great risk, to some extent. If they turned over and a spark went off anyone in the vicinity would be killed. So it is important we have legislation, not just about the issue the member for Barkly raised, which is a proper issue to raise, but about the transport of fuel, other forms of waste, and the transport of chemicals, for instance.
Each day a triple goes to Jabiru full of sulphuric acid. That is not something I would like to bump into. I would not have much of a car left if it spilled over my car. It is a dangerous product. It has to be transported according to certain rules and it is important we make sure those rules are policed and we continue to observe those rules because they are there for safety reasons.
It does not matter whether it is nuclear waste, fuel, gas, chemicals or waste materials; we know we need good transport regulations so the community is safe. I hope if there is any transport of nuclear waste it will come under guidelines that have clearly been set out within the regulation. I should not say ‘hope’. I know it will, and I would be satisfied those regulations will keep us safe from any problems with that material.
I am a supporter of Lucas Heights and I have been known to be a supporter of nuclear energy. It always seems strange to me that Ranger Uranium, which produces 1% of the world’s energy and 10% of the world’s uranium in our own back yard, sends all that energy overseas while we use gas. You can say all you like about it being clean; gas is clean in relation to coal, but it is not clean in relation to the amount of carbon dioxide that is spewed into the atmosphere. Nuclear is a clean form of energy. It does have its issues, there is no doubt about that, but sometimes the ideology has driven Australia away from using it, not the science. The science says we could use that as an energy source safely, but there is so much politics and so many people who have a very powerful influence on the media, especially those who are ideologically opposed to nuclear product, that governments are too scared to even give the idea of nuclear energy a fair go.
In relation to Muckaty, I am opposed to anything going on at Muckaty that was not up to a standard which ensured the issues the member for Barkly spoke of could not have any chance, if there was a chance in the first place of the water being contaminated. I do not know how the cattle would be contaminated, unless it somehow got into the water. The cattle could graze next door to it just as they can at Esk. I advise people who do not know about Esk to go there and look at where we store nuclear waste in Queensland. If there was an issue with earthquakes - as I said, Tennant Creek still stands today. That old pub has been there a long time and has been through many earthquakes and stood the test of time. If earthquakes are an issue - and I know the place rattles from time to time - you build a facility that is capable of withstanding an earthquake so the materials are not at risk.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this debate on. I know is has moved from an amendment, but it does give an opportunity for debate in parliament. You can blame the member for Barkly, member for Nhulunbuy; he brought it up. We do not get a chance to debate these things and it is good because, otherwise, we get just a boring old amendment that deals with national regulations, and puts you to sleep ...
Ms Walker: We might get a boring old reply, however.
Mr WOOD: That is right. That is okay if we can produce a bit of energy out of it. Madam Speaker might like to speak on this issue too.
Madam SPEAKER: Madam Speaker might like to speak, but it is not appropriate.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for raising the issue of nuclear power. I have mentioned to a few of my colleagues that we ought to be having a close look at pebble bed reactors. The member for Nhulunbuy might want to have a look at those too, rather than running gas to Nhulunbuy. That is just a personal view. People need to have a look at these nuclear reactors. They are something! I do not know whether the member is aware of them but it is definitely worthwhile having a read about them.
Back to the amendment. The Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act was first passed in 2011 and commenced on 31 March in the same year. The dangerous goods regulated under the act are as follows: Class 2 which is gas; Class 3 flammable liquids; Class 4 flammable solids; Class 5 oxidising substances; Class 6 toxic substances; Class 7 radioactive material, Class 8 corrosive substances; and Class 9 miscellaneous substances.
Section 22 of the act establishes the competent authority for the purpose of the act. Section 22(1) of this act provides for the Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as a competent authority for the act. What we are proposing is that the competent authority becomes the Work Health Authority. This will alleviate tying this role to a particular position within the agency.
When the package of work health reforms commenced on 1 January 2012, the Work Health Administration Act removed the position of Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as the position constituting the Work Health Authority. The Department of Justice had the opinion that this may have impacted on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act, section 22. It is for this reason that the validation provisions have been included in the amendment bill so as to confirm any actions in the interim since 1 January 2012.
The Work Health Administration Act, effective 1 January 2012, provides for a person to be directly appointed by the minister to constitute the Work Health Authority. If a person is not appointed, the Chief Executive Officer of the agency becomes the competent authority for the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act. By tying the competent authority under the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act to the Work Health Authority, any future changes of staff positions within the department will not have any impact on this authority.
In summing up, the object of the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Amendment Bill 2013 is to remove the restriction to the person holding or occupying the position of Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as the competent authority. The bill allows the minister to appoint a person as the competent authority and, in the event such an appointment is not made or is made and later revoked, the competent authority then becomes the Chief Executive Officer of the agency responsible for administrating the legislation.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, what an interesting debate this has been. Thank you to the member for Daly. He was the only bloke who stuck to topic, apart from when I gave the second reading speech. I will probably stray off the subject myself, member for Daly. I also thank the member for Nelson for his contribution and, of course, the wonderful member for Barkly for his support. I thank the opposition from the bottom of my heart for its support of this bill.
A few other things have come up during debate which are probably worthwhile commenting on, spurred on by the member for Barkly and his comments in relation to nuclear waste. He has taken a long time, but it seems the opposition is now talking about a nuclear waste management facility. That is wonderful. For so long we heard talk about a nuclear dump. That, in itself, is a political statement and I congratulate the member for Barkly for taking it seriously and calling it a nuclear waste management facility.
Mr McCarthy: I always have.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely. Good on you mate, because that is exactly what it is.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nelson raised some interesting points. The issue with nuclear waste management in Australia has always been, as the member for Nelson put it, run by politics and ideology as opposed to any considered scientific opinion. I, like the member for Nelson, have been to ANSTO at Lucas Heights on a few occasions. I have seen the old reactor and the new reactor; I have been through the entire facility. When I was first taken through there by the then Director, Ian Smith, he told me that every person he had taken through that facility walked away feeling intensely proud to be an Australian and intensely proud of that facility, except for one. I inquired who that person was, and he said, ‘Bob Brown’. I said, ‘Really, you have taken Bob Brown through here?’ He said, ‘I have shown him everything you guys have seen and he said he was not impressed at all and he ran out’. He is probably the only member of the Greens who has been through ANSTO, so good on Bob Brown, even though a great scientist like Ian Smith could not change his mind.
Getting back to Lucas Heights, it does make you proud to be an Australian. We are world leaders in nuclear science and understanding molecular structures as a result of the facility we have at Lucas Heights. Of course, it is a nuclear reactor. It is probably about the size of your average Whirlpool washing machine; it is not very big at all. It is housed in a large concrete bunker-like building but the reactor itself is tiny. From that reactor there is an enormous amount of research that gives us insight into a range of different aspects of physics, chemistry, biology and energy. It is amazing to see the work that happens there. For a period of time we have been world leaders in this type of research and in our understanding of how nature and science work in the world we live in. That in itself is extraordinary.
The other thing they do at Lucas Heights is provide a range of different isotopes for a range of different reasons. Probably the most obvious is the medical isotopes produced at Lucas Heights. I know there are people who believe in natural remedies for cancer and other diseases. They do not want to have any type of nuclear treatment for cancer; however, by far and away, most people who develop cancer are treated with medical isotopes that emanate from Lucas Heights. It is probably standard medical practice and theory at this point of time in our development as a human species that the most highly regarded treatment for cancer is with the use of medical isotopes.
That facility is particularly important to Australia and our region because when you are transporting medical isotopes they only have a certain life span. It is important that we have this facility in Australia because it allows us to access those medical isotopes in a timely manner so they can be used for treatment.
The people who protest against Muckaty Station know that Australia has signed up to an international agreement that states we have to have a nuclear waste facility to store nuclear waste if we are to maintain our licence to operate Lucas Heights. By stopping a nuclear waste facility, inevitably they shut down Lucas Heights. Their view - this is the extreme green environmentalist view - is that Lucas Heights is something we should not have in Australia and it should be shut down.
That is not a view I support; it is a view I totally abhor because the reality is if you shut down Lucas Heights, you shut down many people’s easy access to medical isotopes that allow them cancer treatment in a timely manner. What is more, whether it is the only one, or one of the very few nuclear reactors producing medical isotopes in the southern hemisphere, if we close it down, we have to line up behind other countries to get medical isotopes for a range of different treatments. If that were to occur, make no mistake, people in Australia would die. It is quite a serious matter.
Mr Wood: They did a year ago when it closed down.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, people were dying; I take the interjection from the member for Nelson.
It is about politics. I ask the member for Barkly to talk to some of his federal colleagues because in 2004, during the federal election, Labor campaigned on it quite heavily. ‘Stop Tollner’s nuclear waste dump’ was one of the slogans used in the Territory, and federal Labor made the commitment that it would not allow a nuclear waste dump to go ahead in the Northern Territory. This is despite the fact that it was a former Senator for the Northern Territory, Bob Collins, Paul Keating and a range of people who, in the 1980s, had organised for the nuclear waste facility to go into Woomera. They had transported thousands of tonnes of radioactive dirt to Woomera in preparation for the nuclear waste facility going there.
But, in 2004, it suited politics to say they would stop the dump from going ahead in the Northern Territory. Well, they did not win that election but they did win in 2007. It is interesting that when you are in opposition, as you probably know, member for Barkly, you can say all sorts of things but when you come into government you have to take account, particularly the national government, of what is in the national interest. Federal Labor quickly came to the realisation that it is in the national interest that we have a national nuclear waste management facility somewhere. Because of the High Court decision that allowed states to reject it, the only place the Commonwealth can store nuclear waste is in the Northern Territory. At the time it was seen as bully boy tactics to locate that facility in the Territory, and I agree that it was.
As Territorians we want to be able to chart our own course and destiny. But I also agree with the member for Nelson. First and foremost we are Australians and as Australians we have a responsibility to act in the interest of Australians. Whether they be in the Northern Territory, Tasmania, New South Wales or Western Australia, it should not really matter.
But, that was imposed upon us. I remember the time exactly. I was in Germany at the time and had been looking at energy systems around the world. I had been through France and was looking at nuclear reactors. It was a big issue at the time, and I received a phone call in Hamburg from Brendan Nelson informing me that the announcement was to be made that the Northern Territory would be the location for the national nuclear waste repository. I said to Brendan, ‘Look mate, can’t you just hold off? I am only overseas for another week. I would like to be in the Northern Territory when the announcement is made.’ Of course they could not hold off. The announcement was made and they nominated three defence sites. All hell had broken loose at that stage because Canberra was stepping all over our rights again.
Nigel Scullion and I, shortly afterwards, got our heads together and said there must be some way to soften the blow, so we crafted legislation. I put forward a private members’ amendment to the legislation in the federal parliament. That amendment, which was passed through both Houses, allowed the Northern Territory government or other landholders to nominate alternate sites to those three defence sites.
Member for Barkly, I do not know if you were elected at that time, you may have been, but Clare Martin was the Chief Minister and the decision made by the Northern Territory government was to bury their heads in the sand and say, ‘We do not care. We do not want this nuclear nonsense here. We are not putting it anywhere.’ The Central Land Council took a similar view, but I was chuffed when the Northern Land Council said it would look at it. Galarrwuy Yunupingu suggested they might be interested in the Nhulunbuy area to store the waste. Then Muckaty people put their hands up and went to ANSTO, checked out Lucas Heights and said, ‘This stuff is not as dangerous as we once thought. Maybe we can.’
They nominated their own site. They volunteered their site and, member for Barkly, the thing that stands out for me with Muckaty is that it is the only site in the history of Australia that has been volunteered. Whilst it was wrong at the start for the federal government to impose this on the Northern Territory, and I take heed of the comment that we should not be the dumping ground for Australia’s problems whether it is nuclear waste or jumping up and down about how we pass euthanasia laws. The Commonwealth should not be able to do that.
In this case, the site was volunteered by the traditional owners at Muckaty Station. The argument you are running is that those people should not be able to volunteer their site without consultation with a much wider group around them. ‘What about all these other people, the cattle and everything that exists around that?’ That is probably true, but my argument to people who put that to me is: show me someone else who is going to volunteer a site, or name a site, that is more appropriate. Do not tell me why we cannot do something, tell me how we can do something somewhere else. But, nobody ever comes at that. Nobody says ‘You can do it here’. They say, ‘Put it back in South Australia’. The South Australians are waving around a High Court judgment to say, ‘No, no, no, we are not having it here’. That is not a response.
Show me somewhere where we can put this because, at the end of the day, this is about politics. It is not about science or engineering; that stuff has been done to death these days. The fact is you can build a nuclear waste management facility on the site of Mount Vesuvius. It does not really matter where you put them. There are no problems with Lucas Heights storing the waste at the moment, apart from the fact that it is too small a location and pretty well 100% of the waste is medical waste or smocks, gloves, or beakers - everyday things.
People tend to get a bit wary about nuclear waste, but I do not think they understand how much nuclear material we are in contact with. All these exit signs you see here, when the lights go out, when the power goes off, those exit signs stay on. You have to ask why that is; how can those lights work when we have no electricity? All of those exit signs have a small nuclear isotope held within them that is there for emergency purposes so when the lights go out we know where the exit is and we can find it in the dark. We see nuclear technology all around us. Many watches these days are run with a small nuclear isotope.
To me, the fear of nuclear is akin to the fear of electricity. Several hundred years ago when people were talking about electricity - electricity killed. People did not want to know anything about electricity. ‘Dangerous stuff. We have a wood fire, that will do. Why would we want electricity?’ Well, the world moves on.
I was glad to hear the member for Daly talk about pebble bed reactors. This is the fourth generation of nuclear reactors. These days there is very little nuclear waste in the world because these new nuclear reactors pretty well burn everything. There is practically no nuclear waste coming out of the new pebble bed reactors. Everything gets burnt. Where we were thinking 10 or 20 years ago about deep underground repositories for high-level nuclear waste, that high-level nuclear waste in storage is being pulled up and stuck in fourth generation pebble bed reactors to be used as fuel. That is why it is stored and not disposed of, member for Barkly. I note you made a point of that in your speech.
There is no harm at all with a nuclear waste facility. We are doing the right thing by Australians by accepting it here. I am bemused that we cannot have a bigger facility in Sydney. People used to say to me, ‘If you do not think it is a problem, why do you not stick it underneath Parliament House in Canberra?’ Well, fine, it would not have bothered me, to be honest. I do not have a great fear of nuclear waste. Our hospital is full of it. When these debates were going on, I was saying Kakadu is full of nuclear waste. I was accused of fear-mongering because I said that. Then, of course, we found out - lo and behold! - there is a heap of nuclear waste sitting in old shipping containers in Kakadu. This stuff is everywhere. At the moment it is being dumped at the rubbish dump and used in landfill. What happens to these exit signs when they are pulled out? They should be going into a nuclear waste repository but, no, if you searched the dump at Shoal Bay you would find a heap of them. It is not something we should be carrying on too much about.
As the member for Nelson said, if a triple road train full of unleaded fuel goes off and hits a spark you have a serious problem, particularly in a built up area. You have a major problem. You have a triple road train full of intermediate or low-level nuclear waste, even high-level waste, topple over and what happens? We sweep it all up. If you have a road train of unleaded go over and a spark fires it up, there is no reason why you would not have hundreds dead. Look at some of the greatest disasters we have had around the world – the Bhopal disaster in Asia where tens of thousands of people died in a fuel explosion. It happens everywhere but we tend to focus on Fukushima, One Mile Island and Chernobyl, which are very isolated incidents. We have very dangerous stuff all around us.
I tend to be quite angry about protestors who want to stop Muckaty Station because they do not have another solution and, ultimately, there goal is to see Lucas Heights and ANSTO closed. If that happened we would see Australians dying much sooner because they do not have access to the technology and treatments available to treat some diseases.
I thank the opposition for their support of this bill. It is a minor administrative change which does not have any great effect on the way the legislation works apart from allowing the department responsible for Work Health to be the officer in charge under the act. In that regard, it does not change a great deal; it just sorts out some of our legislative requitements. I appreciate the support of the opposition.
I appreciate the opposition member, the member Barkly, making the comments he did because, as the member for Nelson said, it has given us an opportunity to speak on something we have not spoken on for quite some time. I appreciate the member for Nelson putting in his two cents worth and, of course, I appreciate the member for Daly sticking to the intent of the motion and talking about the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Business) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
Continued from 28 March 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the opposition does not support this bill which will repeal the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act and with it unravel years of work to develop and implement legislation aimed at providing a better level of consumer protection for the buyers of land or residential properties in the Northern Territory.
Buying property, buying a home, is the single biggest financial commitment a person will undertake in a lifetime. While the current backwards policies of the CLP government are pushing the dream of owning a home further away from reality for so many Territorians, on top of it this new government also wants to remove vendor disclosure legislation, and it will.
Vendor disclosure legislation is designed to protect consumers from being ripped off. If this is the biggest financial undertaking in a person’s lifetime, then there needs to be level of protection associated and commensurate with that investment. The NT was not exactly going out on a limb with vendor disclosure legislation when our Labor government introduced it, given that similar legislation exists in several jurisdictions in Australia: Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, the ACT and Tasmania have also enacted legislation.
There is clear evidence that these vendor disclosure regimes work to achieve the objectives of the legislation. The CLP’s claims that repealing vendor disclosure legislation in the Territory is about reducing red tape and costs is misguided and ignores the key principle of consumer protection, but fits neatly with the CLP’s core values which deny transparency and accountability.
With the repeal of the act, a move which I suspect has seen no consultation with consumers or lobby groups like the Planning Action Network, we have legislation which will be overturned and which was never given an opportunity to work. Indeed the baby has been thrown out with the bath water and land and home buyers are back to being served poorly by the principle of caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.
This doctrine may well have been useful and may continue to be useful for consumers in other negotiation of purchases, but not for a purchase on the scale of land or residential property. Under a common law caveat emptor regime, the purchaser is required to undertake his or her own investigations of a property being considered …
Sorry, the conversation behind me is a little distracting.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, if you could go to the gallery at the back please.
Ms WALKER: The purchaser is required to undertake his or her own investigations of a property being considered for purchase and the vendor has no legal obligation to unilaterally disclose matters relating to either the quality of the title, or of the condition of the property or structures. Quite clearly, under this doctrine, the vendor and the potential purchaser are not equal players in the sale transaction. The seller knows much more than the buyer does. It is because of the recognition of this disparity that other jurisdictions have enacted legislation to introduce some form of vendor disclosure.
Let us make no mistake, this bill from the CLP takes rights away from home buyers and increases the rights of real estate agents. It transfers rights away from home buyers towards real estate agents and reverses the former Labor government’s legislation to redress that imbalance. It makes it a no-brainer, but that is the modus operandi of this government, making poor decisions which expose Territorians to risk and getting hurt.
The truth is that ‘buyer beware’ no longer serves the interest of purchasers but, sadly, this truth escapes the new CLP government. Because of the financial significance of buying a home, one would imagine that purchasers want to get it right. They want to choose a property that suits their needs and aspirations and they want to pay a fair price. Assessing these factors requires information. There is only so much information which can be gleaned from the usual physical inspection of a property. Without access to information about the property, the buyer is at a significant disadvantage in making decisions about whether to buy a property and in negotiating a fair price. Vendor disclosure aims to address this disadvantage by giving potential purchasers information about the property before they decide whether to buy it or not.
During the years of the former Labor government, much time and energy was invested with stakeholders to eventually develop a bill which would provide a regime of vendor disclosure in the Territory to address the imbalance between sellers and buyers in the residential property market, recognising that caveat emptor alone – ‘buyer beware’ - was inadequate.
Former Labor Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, championed this cause in the early days of Labor’s administration when he raised the matter in his ministerial statement on consumer affairs in February 2003. In 2005 he established the Property Law Taskforce which brought stakeholders together from industry and professional bodies, along with the relevant government agencies. Dr Toyne’s successor, Syd Stirling, also pursued this course of legislative action to protect consumers. During this time the member for Nelson also worked on vendor disclosure and introduced two private member’s bills, though they were defeated.
During this time, the Vendor Disclosure Discussion Paper was drafted by the Department of Justice in March 2006 and invited submissions from interested stakeholders. It is worth revisiting that paper which describes the legislation as follows:
The paper goes on to say:
Clearly the CLP government does not see vendor disclosure as any of these things or, if it does, it simply sees no need to have it in place. The views of the CLP are well known on this subject. Reading Hansard from 18 February 2010, the second reading debate highlights not just the CLP’s objections, but the flawed assumptions made about the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act which is to be repealed today.
The member for Katherine spoke during that debate - a contribution which was interesting, if a little confused around the intent of the bill and his wrong assumption that the bill was about addressing gazumping. He said:
The member for Katherine went on to talk about his experience of spending 18 months in the real estate industry in Queensland as a salesman, not that the Territory’s proposed legislation was based on Queensland; in fact, it was far from it. He talked about his view that the practice of gazumping came about because of ‘unethical real estate agents’ who bring the industry into dispute. He said:
He went on to say:
That is an interesting statement from the member for Katherine who, the following year, was exposed for his earlier dodgy dealings with a second hand car when he bought a troop carrier from a Katherine dealer and falsely declared the sale date on the registration document and the notice of the disposal, and acted contrary to the police code of conduct in the way he sold the vehicle in an Indigenous community and failed to transfer the registration within 14 days as he was obliged to.
I know the member has deeply regretted this episode, but it highlights, somewhat ironically, that there are unethical salespeople and vendors who will take advantage of unsuspecting buyers for personal gain. How exactly does the buyer beware of unethical characters? The answer in short, and when it comes to buying property, is to have vendor disclosure legislation in place.
Another observation from the member for Katherine’s contribution on that day in February 2010 when he said on the record:
There is absolutely no denying that the provisions of supplying additional information will come at a cost, but at a cost which is kept to a minimum and which provides protection for the consumer whose costs in purchasing a property are far greater.
How interesting that the member for Katherine might make these comments regarding a new tax, given that as the Minister for Mines and Energy, he has just done this very thing in the past fortnight - introduced a levy, a tax, on mining companies to pay for environmental rehabilitation legacy of mines: an announcement which has been widely condemned.
The decision of the CLP government to bring forward a bill to repeal the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act is a backwards move, but not a surprising one from the CLP. While industry sectors may welcome it, it represents a great loss and a return to a position of disadvantage for buyers of residential property who have had a level of protection removed from under their feet by this bill.
Madam Speaker, the opposition does not support this bill which takes the Territory backwards in repealing what is regarded as sensible and contemporary legislation in most other jurisdictions, aimed at protecting consumers making the biggest purchase and financial undertaking of their lives.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nhulunbuy’s comments opposing the government’s decision to repeal the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act. It is disappointing to see this move to repeal the legislation, given its main intent is to ensure that people going through with the purchase of land have full access to information regarding the land and property, helping protect consumers as they are about to enter into what becomes one of the biggest financial investments most people will ever make in their lives.
The intent of this legislation was, in simple terms, to ensure that potential buyers of land would be provided, by the seller, all relevant information concerning the land and property from the outset. This would help a potential buyer to make a fully-informed decision before going through with the sale of a property. There is no doubt there has been a great deal of debate around this subject over many years, both here in the Chamber, as well as out in the real world.
We have all heard stories about people entering into the sale of a property who have made the purchase without knowing the full condition or issues of what they were buying. Sometimes this is not intentional and at other times, unfortunately, it has been. Buying a property can be an extremely daunting process, especially for those who have not done it before. First homebuyers are especially vulnerable if they do not have good support and advice to help them with the checklists of what to do when they go through the sale of property process.
You also hear stories of people feeling pressured to make quick decisions to sign up and purchase a property. Sometimes this happens without all the information at hand and it can be due to dealing with some ruthless operators. This is something none of us want to see but, unfortunately, it can happen.
The bill the government is repealing effectively means buyers have less access to information up-front and fewer safeguards around their purchase. This is more vulnerability for buyers and less protection for them throughout this process. This type of legislation is not unique to the Territory. Similar legislation in some form is in existence in other jurisdictions including New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory.
Why is the government repealing this legislation? The government has stated that it is to reduce red tape for industry and the general public and to keep the costs of housing transactions down. The costs associated with arranging the relevant reports would have had some impact on the cost of the property. However, in most cases the buyer would be paying for these reports anyway. The price impact would have been minimal.
The fact is, the real pressure on the cost of housing is the supply of land. In addition to this, many Territorians who want to get out of a life of renting and into their own homes are, sadly, going to find it much harder under this government. The legislation that would have eventually applied to them has gone out the window, as far fewer of them now have the opportunity to buy their own home. For example, the scrapping of the stamp duty concessions by the government has made it more difficult for first homebuyers, given that they now have far less financial assistance to buy a property. First homeowners now have to find an additional $26 730 in stamp duty concessions because it has been taken away from them. The scrapping of HOMESTART NT has also meant low- to middle-income earners have less opportunity to buy a home.
The government has made it harder for those who want to purchase an established home as a starter to get them into the housing market. Many people want a home that requires a few upgrades and renovations they can do for themselves. Many people also have the desire to live in established suburbs near their family connections, their work, or the school of choice for their children. The new home ownership program, HomeBuild Access, specifies that homebuyers must purchase a property that has not commenced construction prior to 1 January 2013. Given this, if your assistance is to flow through to first homebuyers to help them get a foot in the door into new housing, it is critical that the supply of land continues.
It is disappointing to see the government repealing legislation that will mean less protection in place for people purchasing a home. It is hard to understand why the government does not seem to want to provide protection for consumers in what is, for most, the biggest investment they will make in their life. If the government succeeds in repealing this legislation today, which I greatly suspect it will, it is essential it does not completely walk away from this area of consumer protection around the purchase of land and property.
Perhaps the government will consider looking at what communication strategies can be put in place to ensure homebuyers - with the real focus on first homebuyers - have more information available to better inform them about the processes, what to look out for, and what to go through when they are purchasing a home.
I realise communications staff are pretty stretched at the moment and a few more will lose their jobs; however, if you are taking away the legislation, to give them a little more protection it would be positive to review what information is available to first homebuyers in particular so they can make more informed choices when they are going into the process of buying a property.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have spoken about this issue for many years and have heard the debates of the Attorney-General many times. It is sad that I know whatever words I say today will not change the Attorney-General’s mind; however, I put to the Attorney-General that whilst I believe this legislation, especially the regulations, had some issues, I hope the government does not throw the baby out with the bath water and reconsiders the issue of vendor legislation.
It is not as though it is something new. It occurs in quite a number of the other states in various forms. It is not as though what we have is something that should not be there to protect the consumers. Obviously people in New South Wales and Victoria have said there needs to be this type of legislation. For instance, in Victoria they have a Vendor’s Statement, section 32, and it is compulsory for the vendor to provide a potential purchaser with the Vendor’s Statement before a contract of sale is signed. If the property is being sold at auction, the copy of the Vendor’s Statement and the contract of sale must be available for inspection before the auction. New South Wales has a Schedule 1 prescribed document which is also compulsory. In South Australia they have a Form 1 disclosure statement which is also compulsory. Queensland does not have any requirement at present. In Western Australia there is a seller disclosure statement, but it is not compulsory for the seller to provide that to a potential buyer. Tasmania was renewing its legislation recently; I am not sure what stage that is at. In the Australian Capital Territory there is a requirement for documentation for the sale of residential property or land. It is compulsory for the vendor to provide a potential purchaser with the required documents before the property is offered for sale.
We are not talking about something that is out of step with the rest of Australia. I hope this is not being knocked on the head because Territorians like to do things out of step with the rest of Australia. The whole reason for this debate was the protection of consumers and to get away from caveat emptor. I have heard the minister give us the historical background of it, which may enlighten us as to why it exists, but from a consumer’s point of view, a consumer purchasing a house is normally spending the largest amount of money they will ever spend on any one item. There is certainly a need for honesty in selling and that is where the shift should be. The person selling the land should come up with various documents showing either the deficiencies or benefits of buying this property.
Unfortunately, - I have read the minister’s second reading - it became bogged down in the regulations. I do not think the bill itself is the problem. It is not a large bill; it is not hard to read, but when I went to the regulations it became lost. It was not me saying that; I spoke to the manager of Home Star Rating Australia about this last year. This man, Ray, certainly has much experience in building and he said there were problems with the practicality of the regulations. I took that back to the government and asked them to discuss this with him. To my disappointment, I found out the other day when I rang him and asked if he had any contact from the government - this man is a very experienced person in the building trade, especially in energy ratings – he said he had not been contacted.
You might be right, minister, in relation to whether some people did not have their heart in it. I know the regulations went to the Department of Justice. The legal eagles got hold of it and what should have come out in a simple form instead came out in a complicated form.
A classic example is this. I thought someone who was selling a house would be required to say they had a certificate of occupancy. However, what came from this was that they wanted a building status report, which is a far more complicated thing to come up with. If you sold a building and you knew that the chook shed out the back did not have an occupancy certificate, you simply said that. It was not an issue of getting into trouble from the building board; it was simply saying that if you bought this house there was a certificate of occupancy. If there had been some changes to the building then you had to at least tell people that a room had been added. The intent was to have some very basic information up front so anybody, at the time the property was advertised or went up for auction, would be able to go to the seller or the seller’s agent and collect a series of documents that were basic to the requirements for anyone wanting to purchase that land.
Minister, you said in your media release that:
I disagree. I believe it would have done something. It would have made sure the seller told the buyer exactly what the issues were with this property or if there were some defects, such as not having a certificate of occupancy. The purchases could have been told those simple things up front.
You also said:
It may have taken a little time but it would also take time for the purchaser to find all these certificates. There would be one application for all these documents and then all the purchaser would be required to do is say, ‘I am interested in buying this property’, and there would be a requirement to give them those documents up front.
In some ways that would save costs. The minister said in the second reading that getting rid of the sale of land act would keep costs down. If it costs the vendor a certain amount of money to acquire those documents, naturally he could have added that on to the purchase price. Someone has to pay for the documents, whether it is the vendor or the purchaser. It is not going to change except that you would have it all up front and this would make it much more efficient.
The minister also said:
That may be the issue about what is in the regulation and what is required. If there were problems in the existing regulations that made it very difficult to obtain that information then why do we not look at changing the regulations?
Do not throw out the legislation; let us look at the regulations and see if we can make it work, if that is the issue. You also said this issue can be covered by other means. I am not sure that is the case. The contract of sale does not force the vendor to have documents ready unless the purchaser ticks off certain boxes.
It may work in some cases and in other cases it may not, but this piece of legislation was trying to protect people from unscrupulous vendors. You have to look at it in the context that in many cases the purchasers of houses will be doing this for the first time and will have little experience in dealing with the purchase of land. There is a requirement that some of the onus about what matters apply to this parcel of land should be provided at the point of sale.
I know the minister will have all his answers to that, but I put it to the minister that I have stood on peoples’ blocks of land while there is water running through their lounge room. They can sell that block of land today to someone else without any issue and do not to have to say, ‘Water goes through the lounge room on this block of land in a good Wet Season’. In the case of the member for Daly, it probably goes through his lounge room every three years. There are blocks of land in my area where people have passed on the problem because there is no requirement to say these blocks are subject to flooding.
The minister might think I am coming from some highfalutin philosophical point of view, and to some extent I am. But I am also coming from a point of view that I know, and have seen for myself, that so many people in my electorate have suffered because there was no recourse when it came to buying land where the vendor was not required to tell people about the block of land. It is unfortunate that they got bogged down.
You were very close to the mark, minister, that some people did not want it, but I had an independent from Home Star Rating Australia give me his independent assessment. He said there were a number of issues that were too complicated in relation to the regulations.
I say to the minister, I am not going to win the debate today and I will not fall on my sword about it. I am disappointed that this sort of legislation is disappearing off the books today. I ask the minister if he would at least consider a form of vendor disclosure that would be relatively simple to achieve, and requires the owner of a property to at least provide certain basic requirements up front before someone purchases the block of land. That does not mean purchasers cannot do some of that work themselves or double check that information is correct, but the vendor would be under some sort of penalty if they gave the purchaser incorrect information. That is what will make sure this legislation works.
I know other states have had some difficulty with vendor disclosure legislation. In 2010 there was a review of vendor disclosure for residential property sales in New South Wales by Matt Brown MP. I am not sure of the full outcomes since that was brought up. It raises a number of issues, but perhaps we could nitpick the legislation of other states and come up with something that is workable and practical, because that was the intent. The regulations went off somewhere to those people who wanted to make it a very legalised document. My intent was to make it practical, simple and reasonable to protect the purchaser.
The minister for Lands and Planning has told us how many houses he will put on the market. In many cases the people who buy them will be first homeowners. Perhaps most of them will be in Darwin, so you expect them to not have too many problems with the parcel of land. However, there might be some, for instance, within the tidal surge. Is there a requirement for the owner of the land to tell people the block of land is within the tidal surge of Darwin? As far as I know there is no requirement. I am not even sure if it is in those boxes in the contract of sale. They are the simple things that need to be up front so people can still buy a block of land in the tidal surge, can still buy a mango farm at Daly River which they know goes under water; they are willing to put up with that.
I want to see some honesty in the selling. That is really the intent. I have read all the arguments from the minister. In final summary, yes, you do not think it is good legislation, but I hope you might at least consider something to replace it with in the future and still achieve the ideals it was intended to achieve.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have listened to all members here today and I want to touch on a few things. In relation to the member for Nhulunbuy, my response has been partly given by the member for Nelson. Basically, one could be forgiven, listening to the member for Nhulunbuy, for thinking we are repealing an act that is operational and are stripping away something which currently protects purchasers of houses in the property market. That is not the case; this act never became operational.
We are repealing legislation which, while passed through this House, never operated in the Northern Territory, for the reasons outlined by the member for Nelson: the regulatory environment grown out of the legislation was causing increasing difficulty and the former government would have been aware of that through the enormous push back from REINT and other such organisations in relation to the operation of this legislation.
Words like ‘disaster’, ‘bureaucratic nightmare’, ‘impost’ and similar synonymous terms were woven into nearly every conversation I had with the profession that dealt with this legislation, and this was before the legislation became an operational law in the Northern Territory. Since the passage of this legislation, Northern Territorians have operated under the system that they have operated under for decades. That system continues to operate to this day, and does so in an effective way. I do not think there was ever a criticism from members opposite that the old system was ineffective. However, this is a consumer affairs argument that is being run, and it is certainly the motivation behind this bill.
A little history though: this bill was born out of the crisis the former Labor government had. One of the things the member for Nelson particularly wanted to pursue was gazumping legislation, and he often would refer to it as that. I heard the member for Nhulunbuy make references to gazumping, quoting the member for Katherine. If memory serves me, that is precisely what the member for Katherine was referring to: that the origin of this particular legislation was gazumping legislation.
That is certainly not what is in this legislation. Anybody who closely examines gazumping realises, for a number of reasons, not least of which is the operation of the Statute of Frauds or its current equivalent in the Northern Territory legislation, that you cannot be contractually bound for a sale of contract of land unless it is a written document, and for good reason. The Statute of Frauds goes back to the 1600s or thereabouts. Even 450 years ago sale of land contracts were so inherently difficult to resolve in regard to promises and otherwise that the parliament of the day in England determined it was necessary to reduce these contracts to writing to save the confusion which surrounded them, which is why we have written contracts.
That being the case, you cannot be contractually bound unless you have a written contract; hence, things like the Agents Licensing Act, which is the standard form contract. It does not automatically follow that people are not protected in the law of contract without referring to legislative instruments particularly.
We shifted away from gazumping because of the difficulties in trying to water down that absolute point of obligation which the Statute of Frauds or its current form – what is the current form of it in the Territory? It is in the Land Title Act. Essentially, the idea of the Statute of Frauds is in the Land Title Act where it demands you have a written contract. If you try to introduce gazumping legislation, the problem you were trying to sort out 450 years ago is reintroduced. You have an environment which is fairly nebulous as to when you are contractually bound. Getting to that point you then step away from it and say, ‘If we cannot fix gazumping, we will do vendor disclosure’. I understand that. There was no attempt by the member for Nelson at the time to obfuscate the difficulty with gazumping. He then said, ‘We need some form of vendor disclosure’.
We are now talking about an environment where we are arguing about a matter of degrees. If you take the idea of an arrangement between two parties to one extreme or the other, the most extreme example of an arrangement between two parties is some type of threat or menace. ‘You will do this otherwise I will do something horrible to you.’ That is hardly what you would describe as a contract and could hardly be described as a meeting of the minds, but that is an arrangement between two people. At the other extreme, the other person who would have been the victim in that case is the offender and the offender, in the first instance, would become the victim.
Those are two arrangements on the extreme. An example of those types of arrangements is peace treaties after a successful invasion. ‘You will sign this peace treaty by virtue of the fact you lost the war when we invaded.’ There are some good examples of that. After the Zulu war of the late 1800s, Cetshwayo was condemned to having to sign. However, the interesting thing about a treaty of that nature is that by sliding the document across the table at the person saying, ‘Sign this, you are the loser’, you are still, by implication, acknowledging the prior ownership.
That is the extreme example, but let us go into the world of contract. In that world such an arrangement would never be enforceable because contract implies something in its very nature: that it is an agreement between parties. You have one party sitting over here, one party sitting over there; they have a chat and form a relationship. They do that through a series of steps; they make offers, there is acceptance.
In the case where an offer is accepted in a land environment, you then write that down and autograph it and there is your contract of sale. However, that does not mean that contract is automatically written in blood. There are a number of remedies available to a person under the common law of contract, without looking at the legislative instruments. There are a number of remedies under contract law which deal with errors, problems and difficulties in these areas.
I draw honourable members to the contents page of Carter, Peden & Tolhurst’s Contract Law in Australia, on page vii, Part V – Viatating Factors:
Contracts Induced by Misleading Conduct
Misleading Conduct Under Statutes
Contractual Mistakes
Documents Mistakenly Signed
Duress
Undue Influence
Unconscionable Conduct
These are the factors where a person could say, ‘This is not the contract I agreed to’; non est factum is the Latin expression in that case. There was an honest and reasonable mistake. There was undue influence in a number of ways. Those laws are quite protective. If you look at the law surrounding promissory estoppel, you will find a number of cases which deal with these sorts of mistakes. Contract law in Australia, whilst it is still common law, has developed an equitable flavour. Whilst it has had that flavour, remedies such as specific performance are clearly equitable remedies which contract law provides.
Even without looking at a piece of legislation, there are a number of areas where a contract would be supported in the courts of Australia or a contracting party would be supported in the courts of Australia if they were able to demonstrate any number of items of conduct which confronted the common law of making contracts in Australia. Having made that observation, it is also important that when parties enter into a contract with each other, and do so in a written form when it comes to the sale of property - an example is this contract of sale from the Agents Licensing Act - then it must be a reflection of the intention of the parties who are signing because even the vendor deserves protection from the purchaser if the purchaser is in some way miscreant in their attitude towards the contract. There have to be ways, and there are ways, to enforce the terms of contracts to protect vendors as well as purchasers.
There seems to be an assumption that permeates the world that anybody selling somebody something is in some way beholden morally to the person they are selling to on a number of levels. Equity recognises that to a degree, but it has now become more pronounced that everybody who sells, whether they are a business or a private vendor, is beholden to this glorious exercise of self-effacing honesty in all their dealings. We expect certain standards, but we also have to understand that then places enormous responsibilities on vendors, generally speaking. It is not often the case that the vendor is necessarily financially better off than the purchaser. Whilst the vendor might end up financially better off, there are many examples where the cost imposts of having these inspections done will be a real impost on the vendor.
The argument I put to honourable members is that this is just an issue of balance. It is a fine balance and the argument is where …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, as it is 5.30 pm, do you wish to adjourn your comments for a later time?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have some way to go yet.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Being 5.30 pm it is now General Business.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns this government for:
slashing child protection resources in the Northern Territory budget by $9m
child protection notifications increasing from 8000 to 10 000 next year, but only 4000 being investigated
stripping resources from non-government organisations providing vital child protection services
putting child protection into Education, changing its name and then taking it out again, and changing letterhead three times
closing down independent scrutiny of child protection
destroying morale in Child Protection and having 44 positions vacant in Alice Springs.
The Northern Territory budget handed down yesterday was not good news for child protection in the Territory. The budget acknowledged that, sadly, child abuse and neglect levels are predicted to increase, but the CLP is cutting funds to child protection services.
Page 253 of Budget Paper 3 shows a real budget cut of nearly $9m to the Office of Children and Families. That is $9m less to provide essential services to Territory children. Page 254 of Budget Paper 3, shows that 6000 child protection reports will go without investigation next year.
The budget anticipates that reports of child abuse and neglect will increase from 8000 to 10 000 in just one year, yet the number of investigations will drop from 5400 to 4000. These figures cause alarm and concern: an increase in notifications but less funding and fewer resources and investigations.
There are currently 44 child protection vacancies in the Alice Springs Office of Children and Families alone. Child abuse is being swept under the carpet. You cannot have one-third of positions unfilled in an office and provide acceptable levels of services to Territory children. We know that since the CLP came to government frontline staff in child protection have been sacked, contracts have not been renewed, positions have been left vacant, and senior staff have been sacked. From all of this, children are the ones who suffer. At the same time, we will see child protection notifications increase but we will see a decrease in the number of notifications investigated.
The CLP government seems to think that child protection is about picking out the best bits, the easy bits, the bits that do not need much funding. We saw this with this government’s response to the independent board of inquiry’s recommendations. The previous minister said the CLP would not accept all of the recommendations but would work towards the Growing them strong, together recommendations, using the report as a guide for ongoing policy, procedural and system improvements, but it would not restrict them. Was this an out clause? One must ask.
The alarm bells are ringing with 10 000 child protection notifications but only 4000 notifications completed. What are the criteria for investigating some cases and not others? Already, in your budget papers, we have been told that child protections investigations being finalised this year are tracking below the estimated figure. It is not hard to look at all of these cuts in Children and Families and worry that they are not directly related to the dropping number of investigations being completed.
The budget paper talks about strengthening the child protection system but there is no evidence of this. Under the CLP we saw, for 27 years, neglect of our child protection system as evidenced in the State of Denial report. The CLP has made two major reforms to child protection since coming to government. They moved it to the Department of Education and they took it out again. This agency swapping has cost thousands of dollars and delivered nothing.
The CLP has spent more effort on changing letterhead three times than on protecting children. In December, former minister Lambley justified the move into Education saying:
She went on to say:
Minster Lambley was then dumped and minister Anderson took over, but there has been no explanation as to why the agency has been removed from Education. Here we are less than six months later with the department quietly slipped into being a stand-alone office. In fact, we only found out second hand about this change back to a stand-alone Office of Children and Families. Is it an office within a department? A stand-alone department? A stand-alone office? It is all very confusing and not open and accountable, which you so often speak of. Minister, you spoke so highly only a few months ago of this merger, and I quote from the Parliamentary Record:
What happened to that plan? You have just quietly slipped Children and Families back into its own office. What happened to the plans for a strategy? When this merger was announced you said:
We have seen no strategy, no results, just child protection cases going uninvestigated with large numbers of staff vacancies in offices. Your government has treated staff with contempt, moving the Office of Children and Families into Education and taking it out again. What does this do for staff morale? You have sacked staff, including very experienced senior professionals. We have lost knowledge and skills. Child protection services in the Territory are in chaos. We have heard reports that the minister has offended staff, creating division in her own department, saying very unsavoury things and making personal attacks on the character and diligence of staff, behaving in ways that are very unbecoming of a minister of the Crown, and hardly the leadership required in this difficult area.
The current minister is even more divisive than the previous one. Minster Lambley, this year, tried to politicise a tragic death. Yesterday, we saw your Chief Minister speak to the NT News about allowing children in the child protection system to be available for adoption: a simplistic answer that shows his ignorance. We have 820 children in care today. It is the courts that, appropriately, make the decisions for these children and their welfare. Supporting our child protection system with the resources through the care, supporting families in crisis to out-of-home care, and appropriate information from sharing government agencies is the answer. Let us not forget that it was the Labor government that established and resourced CATforce, police and child protection working together. Punishing people for crimes against children is definitely part of the answer. Where appropriate, adoption may be part of it too, but to propose that adoption is the answer is ridiculous.
The Board of Inquiry conducted the most comprehensive inquiry into child protection in the Northern Territory’s history. There was expert advice that held back nothing, with 156 submissions received from a range of organisations, individuals, and government departments, including the then CLP opposition. The Board of Inquiry also incorporated recommendations from other reports including the High Risk Audit and the Tolhurst review into intake services.
I remind the House that the Board of Inquiry report took nearly 12 months to complete and was the most thorough investigation into child protection and child services the Northern Territory has ever seen. It comprised of 147 recommendations made by three experts: Howard Bath, Rod Rosebery and Muriel Bamblett. All provided independent and expert advice, knowledge, and submissions on what works and what does not. It was not a political piece of work, it was independently authored by experts, aimed solely at supporting Territory families and ensuring the safety of our children.
All the recommendations were being implemented and, as I have called for before in this House, the recommendations must be followed through by the new government. In fact it was you, minister Anderson, who congratulated the minister at the time for taking on the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry. Yet since you have become minister you have done nothing in this space. I remind you of what you said in 2010 about the Board of Inquiry:
Since coming to power the CLP has decimated child protection resources. You have removed independent oversight of child protection, including scrapping of the Coordinator-General. You have moved Child Protection into the Department of Education and out again. You have cut the children and family support budget by 24%. An amount of $4.8 million has been cut from Child Protection and Youth Services. You have slashed funding to non-government organisations. You sacked the Chief Executive Officer, despite saying she was doing a good job, paid her out, and re-employed her as the Chief Executive of Transport. You sacked the child protection executive team as well as swapping and changing Child Protection in and out of Education. The increased funding to this sector under the previous Labor government must be reinstated, but under the Giles CLP government budget we see none of this, only cuts to the NGO sector.
Minister Lambley told the House previously regarding the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry:
Yet to date, after eight months of government, we have seen no alternative independent monitoring of child protection in the Northern Territory. Nothing!
The external and independent monitoring committee was a unique blend of local and interstate experts working in the area of children’s services, able to pass on specialised knowledge as well as being able to share other strategies that were working well in child protection across other parts of Australia. You, as a government, claimed to be accountable in child services but there is no oversight; we have seen nothing.
The act recognises the Children’s Commissioner as the appropriate statutory office to assess, investigate and report on issues relating to vulnerable children. It reinforces the skill and expertise of the Children’s Commissioner in this regard but, as your government has previously suggested in this House, to take this a step further to monitor the act and report on performance data such as child protection data, investigations, substantiations and out-of-home care, we have concern. The Children’s Commissioner’s role is to be the voice of vulnerable children, not to be reporting to you. However, we have seen nothing.
The government has thrown the advice of experts out the window, ignoring well-considered opinions and recommendations in reports. One of the key recommendations of the Board of Inquiry themes was the dual pathway model, involving NGOs, to support families, which is a modern child protection practice we see throughout the rest of this nation when it comes to protecting our children. Yet your government’s budget has slashed funding to our NGO sector.
One of the main recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report was to fund and develop the establishment of a peak NGO on child and family safety. Your government has decimated safety. Where is its funding? What has happened to its director? A peak body for Indigenous children in care, a voice silenced by the CLP. These organisations provide support and represent workers in organisations on the ground providing valuable services to our most vulnerable.
The budget yesterday ripped $8m out of disease control funding. You might ask what this has to do with child protection. Everything. It is vital funding used to reduce the alarmingly high rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the Territory. The latest report from the Centre for Disease Control shows there were 841 sexually transmitted disease notifications in just six months in children aged between 15 and 19, 90% of them Indigenous, two thirds of them girls. You cannot take out $8m and pretend the number of sexually transmitted diseases will not increase. The budget confirms the funding cut will result in the direct number of treatments at Clinic 34 in Darwin and Alice Springs being cut by 2000, from 14 000 to 12 000, a direct correlation between your budget cuts and services. It is a disgrace that any member of the CLP supports reducing the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. It is incomprehensible that the Indigenous female CLP members have decided to support this funding cut.
Ms Anderson: Well speak off the cuff. You were an advisor. Know your core business! Shame job.
Ms FYLES: I must touch on the sad domestic violence rates we have in the Territory which are continuing to rise. We see Indigenous women hospitalised due to assault at a rate far higher than non-Indigenous women. Between 2009 and 2010 - I do not have to tell the minister these statistics, she knows them, she spoke about them in Melbourne - 840 Aboriginal women were admitted to hospital after being assaulted compared to just 27 non-Indigenous women. We are exposing our children to this violence. It is tragic, and it has lifelong consequences.
The Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee sponsored the report into children and youth suicide which strongly endorsed the Board of Inquiry recommendations into the NT child protection system. This CLP government has thrown all this out the door. Minister for Children and Families, you say we must not muck around with child protection, but from your government we have only seen cuts to the public sector and slashing of the NGO budget. We have seen you throw out the recommendations of the most comprehensive inquiry into child protection in the Territory’s history. That is your choice. Where is the policy? We have seen nothing. In eight months in government we have seen one ministerial statement on child protection from your government, and that was from the previous minister.
Ms Anderson: Another one coming. Be careful.
Ms FYLES: Where are your policies? Where is your direction? You sit here and laugh at me; these are your families, your people that you stand here and talk about.
Ms Anderson: You are reading, not speaking off the cuff, as a senior advisor.
Ms FYLES: I do not doubt …
Ms Anderson: You don’t know your core business. Shame.
Ms FYLES: Minister, it is my business. I am the Opposition’s spokesperson. I do not doubt your passion for your portfolio but your haphazard approach without a clear plan is worrying.
Ms Anderson: Ten years as a senior advisor.
Ms FYLES: After eight months, the Territory wants to see something. Twenty seven years and we saw a budget of $7m. After eight months, we have seen nothing. We fear that it is going back to that.
Minister, I remind you that Territory child protection issues are mainly around neglect. As a society, we are trying to overcome and change decades of neglect. We do not have time to pause for a period of consolidation for you to think up a plan. We have lost momentum in eight months.
Mrs Lambley interjecting.
Ms FYLES: The children of the Northern Territory are counting on you and I note the interjections from the members opposite laughing at me.
Minister, you need to get on with supporting our child protection system. The Office of Children and Families needs you to be a leader. The system is failing under your government. We are heading back, racing back to the good old days of the CLP when child protection had a minor budget of some millions. Your side talks of a new period, a new policy platform, but I question just what is different about the way you intend to progress things this time. The only ministerial statement we have seen from your government on the issue of child services lacks detail. There is no oversight or accountability, unlike the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee had, which was made up of independent experts from around Australia giving up their time to help the Territory.
Minister, I quote back to you from this House:
Yes, minister. People do expect you to do something but from you we have seen nothing so far. You speak of nurture and love and the need to care for our children. These feel like hollow words. We need a strategy. We need you to step up. Previously in the parliament you have spoken about what we need to do to ensure families stay together, to reconnect, but it is your Chief Minister, your leader, who is talking about the adoption of children in care.
Minister, you speak so often of the need to talk in Cabinet and talk in the lobby. The time for talking is over. We need to act. You need to act. You are the minister and, under your watch, our child protection system is in crisis. The budget cut of $9m to Children and Families is terrible. We need to have a strong system in place to support families and early intervention. We need to have a strong department with good policies to ensure the welfare of our children.
Minister, I note your previous concerns around substance abuse, yet it is your government that has allowed 2500 people to start drinking again. Your government has allowed children to become victims of alcohol again by letting these people drink. You previously said:
That sector is slipping under your watch. This budget, which you allowed to be put in place in Budget Cabinet, is letting children slip - a budget of dysfunction with no support to our most vulnerable children.
You once said in debate in this House:
Yet, as a minister, you have allowed for the budget to be cut and for investigations to go uncompleted.
I commend the motion to the House.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, the majority of the points made by the opposition, directed at my colleague, the member for Namatjira, were quite veiled. We have only been in government for eight months, you have had 12 years of debating, trying to sort out a problem that …
Ms Fyles: We sorted it out. We had a plan. Where is yours?
Ms LEE: Yes, you had a plan, like everyone else here has a plan. We have plans too and you are not the only one with a voice in this House. Yes, we are Indigenous. Yes, pretty much …
Ms Fyles: It is nothing to do with that, it is a plan for the children.
Ms LEE: It is the same as any non-Indigenous child who is in protective care now. It is very similar. The stories out there - we understand the majority of them are Indigenous kids. It is sad, because we have to live with it. Because we are in government, we are, in the best interest of these kids, trying our best to work together, in conjunction with NGOs, the community members, and the families who are suffering …
Ms Fyles: You cut the funding.
Ms LEE: … because their kids are in care. There are numerous reasons and stories behind why kids are in care.
Ms Fyles: Absolutely.
Ms LEE: There are even stories that kids were put into care because they had an ear infection. They were taken away from their parents and put into care and the situation got even worse. Have you considered that?
Ms Fyles: These are experts who look into these things.
Ms LEE: Exactly! That is the line we get back from the opposition, they are experts. Not everybody is an expert in our field. There are many things I am not an expert on, but I am not here to say what is right or wrong. I am here to brainstorm and work my way around it like everybody else would.
There is a story behind the 44 positions in Alice Springs which you are talking about.
Ms Fyles: A third of the office.
Ms LEE: It is quite the opposite of how you are describing it. We have a story on our side of the fence as well. We are doing the best we can. The minister is doing the best she can and I congratulate her on her efforts. What I am seeing her doing - there will be a few changes and you will be pretty shocked because she is actually doing.
For example - you want to talk about something good, you want to talk about grassroots people because the majority of them in there are Indigenous, for one. Your ministers in that area when Labor was in power did not understand the cultural complexities and put those safeguards in place for these kids. They were not in there when we got in. You are talking about kids’ safety, yet you were putting these kids in care at risk. That is shocking. The safeguards and triggers were not in place and that is what we are working on because we understand our culture and tradition.
The culture and tradition of Indigenous people, regardless of whether you are from Arnhem Land, Victoria River Downs or Central Australia, has to be implemented into this legislation and policy because it can affect a child’s wellbeing. You did not adapt to the core problems. You were putting these kids at risk, but did anybody ask any of the Indigenous people? No. How do you think that affects us, coming in here telling you these triggers were not in place then and now we are finding it there? We have to do something about it – congratulations. Yet, you want to try to run the minister down. Nobody on that side ever came up with it. Maybe they were not so Indigenous back then because they did not think about it. They did not care about the kids. All they cared about was sitting in here, being elected time after time and getting the money in their bank every fortnight. That is not good enough for me. I do not care about that. I am the one who will see these kids growing up in a world, opposite to that of my kids, without the freedom and everything else they deserve.
I have to make sacrifices just like every other mother but these kids did not have that. It is sad for us to go home and see that because we have to go home and see it every day. We have to see the parents, walking down the street, getting drunk. We know them. You were a minster, Kon. You should have known that. Did you care? Did you ever think about talking to the traditional owners about the safeguards and putting them in place? You could not tell me that then? You probably had no idea of what I am telling you now. Even if I break it down for you, you still would not know what I am talking about.
That is not transparency. That is not making your work as effective as we are trying to do now, working with the minister to try to get those safeguards in place for these kids because it is vital. It was never there, and that is an embarrassment; it is shocking. Have any of your former Indigenous members ever worked with you to show you that direction and shed some light on how you can really protect these kids while they are in custody? Look at the options. There are two worlds. There is the Western world, but there is our world, the Madayin law. I come from that. My father is a chief of the Madayin law. The member for Nhulunbuy would know what I am talking about since she represents the Yolngu people.
Those safeguards were not in place. It is embarrassing for me to stand here and say that. It brings tears to my eyes to think about that. Safeguards were not in place to put a child into a culturally appropriate safe place. It was never there for these kids and that is a shame job. You are the former government and former minister of that department. You should be ashamed. Yet, you are getting your little rookie to downgrade the minister who is now trying to put the safeguards in place so these kids can be well protected. Nobody understood the cultural complex around that. Even the department did know about it. That is an embarrassment.
It is all right for you to comment on the kids in the urban areas around the suburbs. That applies to them, but in the bush it is a different setting. You have to look at where you place these kids. The different levels, the further down you go – it is dangerous to that child’s wellbeing. I bet you did not know that.
Yes, we are working together in the right direction. I congratulate the minister; she is an awesome minister. She does the best she can. There are four of us in here; we all work together. Yes, it might seem like a joke. We have our little mate at the top there, Gary. He is good too; he shows us the other side of the light. How cool is that?
Talking about child protection, you are talking about our kids: our nieces and nephews, my sister’s kids and my brother’s kids. It is a very sensitive issue to bring into this House, but trying to run down a government which has only been in for eight months? Seriously? You had 11 years to fix that problem and you could not come up with a culturally appropriate way to put a kid into a safe place. That is an embarrassment. That is a failure from your side of the table.
Now, we are putting the safeguards in place with the trigger modes because we are not there to take the kids away and put them in care until they are 18 years old. Are you trying to build another Stolen Generation with these kids? We have to sort that out because that is not what the parents want. The majority of parents are trying everything in their ability to get their kids back. They are going through counselling, rehabilitation, you name it. I have friends who are in this situation. Do you? You probably do not because everybody in your electorate is pretty wealthy. In my world, they are pretty poor and they have to live with this kind of stuff.
We in this House are fortunate. I wish I could say the same for the people outside this House. They are left behind; they are struggling to get their kids back because of the failure of the former government and the former minister.
You run down the minister just for having the department for eight months. You put a motion against her, step her down, and run her down in the House saying this and that. To me …
Ms Fyles: She is the minister, she needs to step up.
Ms LEE: I do not care what you say to me. That is not good enough because you have no idea after 11 years. I worked in health for 10 of those 11 years, and I have seen from both sides of the story exactly what was going on, on the ground. You call yourself front line! We are protected in this House. We do not have the time to talk to the NGOs. We do not even have the time to sit under a tree.
Ms Fyles: I do. I was talking to one yesterday.
Ms LEE: In Darwin you do. You go to Gapuwiyak. They told me all about how cool you all acted out there with your fancy little skirts and tops trying to run me down in my own stomping ground where everybody is related to me. Man, you have done a good job. I commend you on that one. The only thing you cannot do, which I cannot do, is speak the language. You cannot even interpret what they are saying. They told me that because they are my brothers and sisters. You did not realise that. One person you were talking to told me everything you guys were saying about me. Well that is fine; say it all you want. Do you think they will care? Seriously, you cannot see things through their eyes the way we can because we come from there. As much as I try to explain the life we come from, they will never understand.
However, you can sit there and compassionately talk about this. It should be spoken about in this House. Child protection is everybody’s business.
It is not only us; it is your business too. You have the right to say what you say, but there are always two sides of every story. Accusing a minster of doing this and that when - I do not know where you get your information from. Do your homework. They are happy to have you back on level five for another briefing, this time from the Chief Executive probably. We will probably break it down on a whiteboard so you can understand it a little better.
Ms Fyles: We had one last week.
Ms LEE: I know, and I heard it did not get through to you. That is shocking.
Imagine the difference the safeguards coming into place now will make in a year. We put the triggers in place - the safeguards - because we understand the cultural complexities. We might see a difference in the system because before, from what I understand, the minister did not control the department, the department controlled the minster. That is not my colleague’s way of living.
The Labor government failed on staff turnover. It is a long-term inherited problem, particularly in Alice Springs. A staff turnover of 98 is shocking. If you are going to have child protection services offices there, you need grassroots people. When I walked through the department the first time the minster and I did our laps around the departments, the majority of them were not even Territorians. They were not grassroots people. How many safe houses did they have for these kids? How many carers did they have? Hardly any. Since the minister had the portfolio - how many did you recruit? Was it 20 or 21?
Ms Anderson: No, five.
Ms LEE: Twenty-five carers. What did you do in the past? You basically stripped your carers down to their skins one by one and they left. They did not want to talk to you any longer. Closed the door. No, you had to look for somebody else.
What the workers had to do in the department, from my understanding after going through this thing for a couple of months, is use their own families to care for these kids because they had to go home and do their own stuff. They had kids to go home to too. That is how bad the department was. It was shocking to a breaking point, basically. It was controlled. There were people in there - just like when you were at school being bullied, the same thing happened in the departments. You could not see that and you let it happen. You are talking about the protection of kids when the staff are being bullied? Where is the protection for kids when the staff cannot do their job because they are being bullied every day by a standover person in that department? That is shocking and devastating. You are talking about 90% of Indigenous kids in care? Did she say 90%? I do not recall what she said; I did not even write it down. It did not matter to me, but I know there was a high number. It is common knowledge. Maybe I should write down everything you say and pay attention to it because we could probably use it in the future, couldn’t we? Maybe if we are ever in opposition when she is still around.
Ms Anderson: She might be Chief Minister yet.
Ms LEE: Yes, she might be the next Chief Minister. I forgot about that. You never know.
You have done quite the opposite to us. We are still coming to terms on how to fix your big mess up. It is a big black hole in that department. It is like having a table made of glass and it is shattered with sticky tape here, there and everywhere, trying to keep it in place. That is what it looks like. If this was described to you - if they told you that then, yet you did not fix it; all you did was put sticky tape here and there. That is devastating.
You accuse the minister for the past eight months, yet that department was already fractured to a point where I do not even know whether we will repair it in time, it is that bad. At least we are working in that direction. We had to make sacrifices like everybody else because the standover tactics you created in that department were not funny. It was basically throwing local staff who had the knowledge and background of the region of the Northern Territory out of that office. That is what was happening.
The rate of Indigenous people employed in the department dropped completely. We walked through that department - and you are talking about Indigenous kids - where were the Indigenous workers in that office? They were all low grade Indigenous employees in that department. They were not in higher positions; they were not even in senior positions. That is embarrassing. You are talking to us about adoption and all this kind of stuff. That is hypocritical because when you are looking at where the future is for Indigenous people, Indigenous people are the ones who are supposed to help you; they should be your frontline workers, yet they were not. They were left to sit in the corner and were forgotten by everybody else while foreigners came in and took their jobs. Yes, we are a multicultural Australia but where is the respect for Indigenous people in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory?
These people were shafted to the lowest state. Some even left because they could not take the bullying anymore. There was nothing there for them; there was no support. When I went out that is exactly what I was told. I found them sitting right up in the corner of the department and there were only two in every place we went to. That is shocking. You have 90% of Indigenous kids in care and only two Indigenous staff in every office. You are implementing foreign laws on how to protect these kids. We have our own race in the Northern Territory; we have our own laws. We respect the Kiwis and their laws, but we are Aboriginal Northern Territory people. We have our own law and where is the law to protect those kids? Where is the traditional law of this land to protect those kids? There were not even safeguards in there to protect those kids. There were none. Not one. It was just the western law mixed with everything else to make an example of the kids in care. ‘We will use a bit of this. We will use a bit of that’. That is like taking an apple from here, an apple from there and putting it in one department to see how it goes.
You are going to play those games with the lives of little kids who are being abused and traumatised. That is the last thing we want for our kids. We lived with that for decades. We have heard different speeches about hope. Hope is frail out there. These kids are fragile, to a point that we cannot speak about it anymore because all that is coming through my ears is talk, but I am not seeing any action. For eight months we have been trying to make something work by working together. We had to fix the problem in the department before we could push anything from here out there because the department was the biggest screw up anybody could have thought of. If we took the rest of the team out there you would be shocked.
If the people from the outside have to look at where their kids are going, who these case workers were, their backgrounds, what cultural background any of them have, they would be shocked to understand there is nothing there to protect and educate these kids. We have created a system that works and is getting there. Roll your eye all you want. I can see the little attitude swinging. I hope these guys come up with something because I do not need a piece of paper. I am standing here talking off the cuff. How good is that?
The member for Stuart has a lot to say on this, as do the members for Arafura and Araluen. I think the Deputy Chair has something to say as well. Of course child protection is our priority. My children are my priority. The most disgusting thing is to sit there. You received a briefing from her department but you still cannot make sense of it. I had the same briefing and I can make sense of it. If there is something I think is not in there, I will ask the minister. I will write up a scenario and I will ask her until she can define it for me because I want to know the ins and outs too. I want to be well informed just like everybody else. You cannot even interpret that. You are better off going back up there and getting another briefing.
I am pretty confident my colleague has a really good speech to throw back at you, and I cannot wait. I want to hear that because it will be explosive.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I did not want to speak about this area - my colleague made the point very well - but after listening to the member for Arnhem I would like to make some comments.
We all come from somewhere else. We all come from another country. I come from a different country to yours and I have history and stories and background that you would not understand unless I explained it to you. One thing I learnt is the best way to understand each other is to find a common ground to join our cultures: our country.
I sat in your father’s country with your father. We are from different countries but we found a common element and a common ground to understand each other and talk to each other. We talked to each other and did not put the differences in front of us; we put the things that connect us in front of us to find some solutions. I remember very well the day when we both visited the Mt Todd mine and he explained to me the significance of the area and the problems it created for the Jawoyn people. I understood what he was talking about, member for Arnhem.
I will respond to some of the comments the member for Arnhem has made because, obviously, the story she has been told is not accurate. It was the CLP government, in 2001, that left a budget of $7m for child protection. It was the CLP government in 2001 that had 100 workers only for the whole of the Territory and it was the CLP government and its policy about child protection that was criticised by a peak Indigenous organisation that had abandoned all children in need in remote areas and concentrated on children in the urban areas. Since then, it has changed a lot. Member for Arnhem, I suggest you talk to some people who know the story and you will find out what you have been told is probably far from the truth.
As for what we have done since then, the number of people working in the department has increased five times to in excess of 500 people. In 2011-12, one in five of the people working in the department were Indigenous. Not only were Indigenous people working in the department, but we made sure they were put through university to become fully-qualified child protection officers in the department in order to address this issue with cultural understanding. We knew very well that people who come from somewhere else - and I am not talking about another country, I am talking about other areas in Australia – will not have an understanding of the cultural differences of people from remote areas within the Northern Territory. That is why we wanted these people to become frontline officers; to address these sad cultural issues.
Also, member for Arnhem, it was your so-called good minister who had been advocating to abolish the Aboriginal placement. She preferred to put kids with white families rather than kin. We resisted that time after time. Do not tell us it was everybody else’s fault but yours. You have been in government for eight months. Unfortunately, you are busier trying to find out who will be your next leader, rather than focusing on the department of Children to protect your children - our children. These are not black children or white children, they are our children. I borrow this phrase from the member for Namatjira. Many times I have heard her say there should not be a white way or a black way, it should be our way. The child, irrespective of the colour, is our child, a Territory child.
I learnt this lesson very early when I came to the Territory and my son asked to bring his friend to play at home. I said ‘All right, bring him home. What is his name?’ ‘Matthew.’ Matthew arrived, and he and was one of the few Larrakia kids, very dark. I said, ‘Oh, your friend is Aboriginal’, and he turned around and surprised me when he said, ‘No, he is only a kid’. My son, a five-year-old, gave me one of the biggest lessons of my life. That was not an Aboriginal child; that was a kid - a child. I do not care if a kid comes from Papunya, Beswick, Nhulunbuy or Nakara, they are still a kid irrespective of their cultural background and colour.
Our responsibility, as ministers, whoever the minister is, is to protect children. I had my differences before with the member for Araluen, but I always believed that she believed in child protection. She made some criticism of us and I accepted it at that time. I am also entitled to, and I will, criticise ministers, whoever they are, for things they have done. It was wrong to decide to stand up in this parliament and say you are not going to be bound by the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry which the CLP at the time pushed for. We allocated a significant amount of money for it. When the CLP came to government, it sacked the implementation committee and announced it would not be bound by the Board of Inquiry. Now it continues with the department which has been decimated.
You cannot have 44 vacancies in a branch of the department and expect it to operate and function properly. Politics is politics, and I accept that. We had the story of the black hole and everything else, but we also heard many times that somehow, the then minister, which was me, asked the department to hire 90 people without any funding.
At estimates last year I presented my case and said that in 2012-13 our government had allocated $33.7m to continue the implementation of the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry. Within this $33m, $11.2m was to support new frontline workers, which would cover more than 90 people in the department. So, there was no black hole in the department, the money was there; it was part of the $135m we had allocated over four years on top of the $177m per year allocated in the departmental budget.
I was also very disappointed today to read in the media that the current minister for Child Protection said it was a fault from within the department that there was a black hole. You cannot accuse the department of creating the black hole. First of all, there was no such black hole, and no bureaucrat will ever dare to do something against the policy of the government.
Another thing I will strongly suggest is, again, it is a very sensitive area; it affects the lives of children today and will affect them for many years to come. Any kid who is neglected today - and most of the cases are neglect; they are not the severe cases we have seen in another places. It is parents who do not care and use the money on alcohol or drugs while the children are starving. The children then get sick and do not go to school. In the majority of cases it is neglect.
At the same time, we cannot blame the department, member for Arnhem. We have to remember the department is at the very end of the child protection issue. Much of the time it is our fault; it is our community if the people live together. It is always easier to blame somebody else, but the reality is: what is the community doing about the children in the community? What are the parents doing about the children in their care? What are the people around the parents doing about protecting these children? The department, unfortunately, comes at the very end, which is sometimes too late. At the same time, we cannot talk about - I have a point about cultural understanding, which is very important, and why I instigated what a previous CLP minister instigated with health.
When we have the health issues, and many people come from overseas and interstate, the biggest argument with Indigenous people was that they did not have any cultural understanding. The then CLP Minister for Health decided to have a parallel stream of Indigenous health in one of the streams you worked in, I worked there too: Indigenous control of Aboriginal Medical Services - Danila Dilba, some in Nhulunbuy, Katherine West, and Katherine East. Indigenous controlled medical services employ Indigenous people as health workers to bridge that gap in cultural understanding. I advocated and succeeded in getting money for SAF,T, the Indigenous peak body for child protection. Unfortunately, your government cut the funding. Unfortunately, because of your government, the person who was in charge of SAF,T has resigned. My prediction is that this organisation will fold and we will not have anything like Indigenous controlled medical or child protection services.
Of course, we can blame each other; it is very easy to do. My advice is that no minister is wise to visit a place and say, ‘I will only meet with a certain group of people. Because I am Indigenous I will only meet with Indigenous people. Because I am white, I will only meet with white people.’ A minister is responsible for all the people working in the department irrespective of their background, colour or religion. They are public servants and have to comply. Public servants are working under rules the government puts in place and the minister has the obligation to meet with everybody. It does not look good. A minister is a leader, and a leader has to show leadership. You have to take the people with you because if you do not you will not succeed.
We know that since the new minister took over there has been a significant turnover of staff. Many people lost their jobs. The first was the CEO of the department, Clare Gardiner-Barnes, who did an excellent job for the department. I do not know why she was sacked; I am not privy to that. There are many rumours but I do not want to go there.
A new minister comes in. The previous minister, the member for Araluen, left. It was a difficult job. It was amalgamated with the Education department, despite the policy before the election that the departments should be separate, despite the previous announcement that there would be a separate budget and it would be strengthened, it was amalgamated with the Education department. That was a big mistake. I realised this early as a minister and tried to take it out of the Department of Health, and I succeeded. Now it is the Office of Children and Families, a good start, but there is more work to be done.
At the same time, you cannot have an organisation and try to build it by sacking not only the CEO, but the Deputy CEO and a number of other people. It is not really the people who undermine the department; there may be other reasons for that. You have to be very careful before you strip the department of corporate knowledge and leave such big gaps that it is impossible to fill them in time in order to bring the department up to scratch.
Can you imagine the morale of the people in the department when they see a significant number of people at the top disappear because they have been sacked or sent to another department? Who is going to lead this department? The minister cannot lead, that is not the role of the minister. The minister and the government decide policy; they do not decide the day to day running of the department.
We have to be very focused in child protection. It is not like any other department where you can make a mistake and then correct it. A mistake in child protection will reverberate for a long time to come. A mistake with child safety will affect families and children for years to come.
The Stolen Generation is a very good example. People who were taken away from their parents 40 or 50 years ago still suffer the consequences. I was really disappointed and alarmed to hear the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory advocate a policy of taking kids again and putting them in forced adoptions because we cannot put them anywhere.
Instead of cutting $9m from the department, it might be a good idea to put this money there to encourage Indigenous people to become foster parents by providing better pay - as we proposed - by providing better training - as we proposed - and train Indigenous people and put them in Indigenous-controlled child protection services to address the significant issue with Indigenous kids. This is the way to go rather than take the kid out, take them with you, chuck them with a white family, and take them away from their culture. If you tried to do that with some of the people of my background they would be up in arms. If you said, ‘I am going to take a kid out of this family and not place them with a Greek aunty or uncle, but give them to someone else’, boy, you have another thing coming. The dynamite would not be thrown at Easter time; it would be thrown at you. Instead of having this crazy idea, which I suspect was more to distract from the terrible budget the Treasurer put in the House on Tuesday, this created …
Members interjecting.
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Can we have quiet while the member is speaking?
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Instead of making this kind of explosive announcement that creates angst and alarm, it might be a good idea to sit down and talk properly about how we are going to strengthen the child protection system.
As the Minister for Child Protection - the member for Araluen shared the same sentiment with me - there were many nights I stayed awake because of the issues facing me; it was one of the most difficult portfolios I had. It was not because there was no money; it was because I was dealing with people’s lives: families, the breakdown of families, and children. It is not about black children or a white children. At the end of the day, they are our children.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I respond to the motion on child protection put before us the member for Nightcliff. I thank her for bringing this motion forward. I have listened to her speech and the member for Casuarina’s in support of the opposition’s line on this. It is really important at this point in the debate that we all take a deep breath and reflect on where we have been and where we are now with child protection. I know the member for Casuarina likes to talk about pre-2001, during the time of the Country Liberal government, but you cannot talk about child protection today without referring to the period in which Labor managed, or rather, mismanaged, child protection.
During the 11 years of the Labor government, we saw the child protection industry slump to an all-time low, an historic meltdown. To talk about the performance of this current government over the last eight-and-a-half months without reference to where we have been for the previous 11 years is extremely cheeky and is poor form.
I first met the member for Nightcliff because she was the advisor to the former Minister for Child Protection, the member for Casuarina. She worked in his office for many years, so there is no excuse for her not knowing the corporate history of Labor’s failure in child protection. To hide behind her very precisely scripted notes without uttering a word unless it was on them and failing to mention this abhorrent history due to Labor’s mismanagement is very poor form and is unprofessional for anyone who enters this Chamber and calls themselves a member of parliament. What happened during those 11 years has been well documented and spoken about many times in this Chamber.
During the 11 years of Labor from 2001 to August last year we saw six independent inquiries into child protection outlining the abject failure of Labor to properly manage it. They were given many warnings about how they were travelling. State of Denial was the first report. Years later came the Little Children are Sacred report. The last report, which was tabled one week after I started as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, was the Growing them strong, together report - the Board of Inquiry report.
I remember very well when that report was brought down on 18 October because I was immediately thrust into the limelight and made shadow minister for Child Protection. My first job was to read these two very comprehensive volumes called the Little Children are Sacred report and become familiar with the failures of the Labor government in child protection at a very intimate level. I familiarised myself with what had gone on in this space. It painted a very sad and tragic picture, as the member for Casuarina just discussed.
This is an extremely difficult area to work in. I acknowledge openly and honestly that it has taken most jurisdictions within Australia decades to get on the right track, and it is just as easy to fall off that track as it is to get on it again. I acknowledge that it is a very tough business; it is very difficult to get it right and the former Labor government illustrated to all of us in the Northern Territory just how you can get it wrong for year after year.
That is the context we are talking about when we talk about child protection in the Northern Territory - 11 years of failure. Yes, they did pull up their socks in the last 12 to 18 months; they had no choice in the matter. They had to look at the Growing them strong, together report because, as the member for Nightcliff told us very clearly, it spelled out just where they went wrong.
The chapters in this document talk about failures in the statutory intervention process; they refer to the out-of-home care system, which we inherited, as a dinosaur and a system in a state of neglect needing a vast amount of reform and improvement. The legislation we inherited from the former Labor government has not been substantially updated for many years. It was outdated. It did not reflect the current business of child protection; I will talk about what I did in that space during my time as minister for Child Protection. The report noted that the workforce of the child protection industry, employed by the Northern Territory Labor government, was in a state of collapse and was absolutely demoralised.
The staff turnover rates were very high and, interestingly, the member for Nightcliff has given us a figure she has plucked out of thin air saying the staffing level in Central Australia is down by 35%. Table 12.3 on page 476 of the Growing them strong, together report outlines that in 2008 and 2009 in Central Australia the percentage annual turnover was 35.14%. If that is the current case, and I cannot dispute it because I do not know exactly what it is, it is no better or worse than where you left in 2008-09. I suspect the member for Nightcliff has used her discretion in making up that figure because I do not know where she would get it from. How would she know that? I suggest she does not know it but has made it up.
The Growing them strong, together report was a dismal report card, issued in October 2010, showing the failure of the former Labor government in the area of child protection: a big fat F! We heard from the wonderful people who put that report together, who the member for Nightcliff recognised, that there was a tsunami of need within child protection which was not addressed by the former Labor government. Things were in a diabolical state. Things could not get worse, so they had to regroup and try to look at this systematic failure in child protection.
The former Labor government took this document and called it the bible of child protection. Their lack of imagination and credibility, and their deep embarrassment around this, meant the way they functioned in this space was 100% directed by this document. They accepted every recommendation without query or question. I remember very clearly the former Labor Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, stood in this parliament and said, ‘Yes, we accept all 147 recommendations’, and that was it.
They did not scrutinise the report. It is a brilliant document, but some things should have been scrutinised because there were substantial costs associated with some of the recommendations. By the time the report got to us some of the recommendations were obsolete; they are certainly obsolete now, two-and-a-half years down the track. When we got to government we did scrutinise it. We were not hindered by this terrible history of failure in the space of child protection. We were not bringing with us this legacy, this embarrassment. We could look at the business of child protection with fresh eyes, and that is what we did. We looked at the report and how the former Labor government was undertaking the business of child protection, and it was pitiful. The reports we got from within the organisation said nothing could be done without reference to a recommendation number, and the day-to-day activities were absolutely stuck to this document.
We unharnessed ourselves from this document. We acknowledged 100% that it had true value in reforming the child protection system in the Northern Territory, but we were not going to use it as a bible. We saw that as unnecessary and a symptom of a very pitiful and deeply embarrassed former Labor government. We looked at it and made some intelligent decisions about how to proceed. During the six months I was minister for Child Protection, there were decisions I made in regard to the Board of Inquiry recommendations which I feel no shame for. They were intelligent, well-thought-out decisions based on the fact that this document is now almost three years old. As I said before, some of the recommendations were outdated, obsolete, no longer relevant, some were before the court for court determinations, and some were, practically speaking, too expensive to implement.
Do not forget we inherited a huge debt from the former Labor government: a debt that was unsustainable. We have had to work very hard at tightening our belt and reining in spending. We could not do what the former Labor Minister for Child Protection did and employ 90 frontline staff with no money allocated to their employment. This was one of the most serious legacy items we inherited from the former Labor government: 90 unfunded child protection positions, an absolute disgrace. At the time we discovered it we scratched our heads and thought, ‘How on earth does the Labor Minister for Child Protection get away with such serious mismanagement?’ However, we honoured that legacy. We knew those positions had to remain where they were for the child protection system to continue to operate.
When the member for Nightcliff talks about our lack of commitment to the Board of Inquiry recommendations, it is simply not true. We are committed to reforming the child protection system and we use this document, but it is not our bible. We on this side of the Chamber have brains in our heads and make good decisions based on common sense, intelligent arguments, and evidence. We have adhered to most of the recommendations - around 90%. The other 10% we have let go and given, in this Chamber, clear and rational explanations as to why we have decided to not proceed with various recommendations.
Our link with education, uniting the education department and the child protection system - what better way to get to children who are abused and neglected, particularly in remote areas of the Northern Territory, than using the education system. The way to overcome one of the main stumbling blocks to helping kids in these very remote areas was to recognise that in all these areas there are schools. One of the main reasons for uniting these two agencies was to develop synergies, develop opportunities for all agencies - Child Protection, Children and Families and Education - to provide better services for children in those areas. It was not exclusively for children and families in remote areas, but also in the suburbs of Darwin. By linking them together you have closer scrutiny, more people watching how these kids are developing, whether they are thriving and if they have any health problems. Early intervention and prevention works better when these two agencies work hand in hand, but all we have heard from the opposition is criticism because they are so ignorant they cannot understand the possibilities when these two agencies combine and the potential …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing order 62: Offensive or Unbecoming Words. I ask that the member withdraws.
Mrs Lambley: Which word was that, member for Barkly?
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Which word was that again, member?
Mr McCARTHY: There have been a few, Mr Deputy Speaker. The last one was calling members on this side ignorant.
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: I do not see that as a point of order.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The member for Barkly likes to do that when I speak because he does not like what he is hearing. I will withdraw that. If it makes him feel bad, so be it. I withdraw the word ‘ignorant’. It is plain to see and hear that the truth really does hurt. This is a very bad story about the former Labor government. I will continue though.
The synergies between Education and Children and Families are potentially enormous. Improving school attendance, those two agencies working together to get more kids to attend school on a regular basis.
Improved educational outcomes for children in care: this is a very important area. Believe it or not, many of the children in the care and protection of the Chief Executive of the agency are still not attending school regularly. This is a way to enhance that.
Improved prevention and early intervention strategies that reduce the need for statutory child protection intervention: If children are being monitored from an early age by the school, Child Protection, and the health clinic, it means better outcomes in monitoring the progress of kids physically, mentally and socially. So, combining those two departments can only bring positive results to the children and families of the Northern Territory. But the Labor opposition does not get it. They cannot get it because it must indicate to them that thinking outside the square could possibly be a good thing on some occasions which is outrageous, really isn’t it?
Eighty-five per cent of children that come into the child protection system are Aboriginal. So, having a new female Aboriginal minister with years of experience as an ATSIC commissioner and years within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly taking on the responsibility of child protection is an exciting era for all Territorians. Minister Anderson has embraced this opportunity to stamp herself on the area of child protection. She is very familiar with how it operates and she is putting her own reforms in place which are exciting but they do involve change. Change is resisted by some people and obviously change is seen as a bit of a problem from the opposition which is interpreting this change we are bringing about as some sort of threat to the outcomes of child protection. This is unfounded and irrational. We have also started to look at redrafting the Care and Protection of Children Act, bringing it up to date and putting our stamp on it as the new Country Liberal government.
Ms ANDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAMBLEY: The redrafting of the Care and Protection of Children Act is an important reform which I commenced, and I have been assured that the new Minister for Children and Families is continuing with it. Within that, we are looking at things like children who have been in out-of-home care for a long period of time in long-term placements within the foster care system. These children are well cared for, generally, but we want to look at that and optimise the benefits to these children and families who have had a long-term relationship.
We are not talking about rolling out adoption, forced adoptions, or all this nonsense we are hearing about and reading in the paper. We are looking at trying to provide a more stable and secure environment for kids in long-term foster care. We make no secret about that. We think this will be a positive thing, mainly for the child but also for the biological family and the foster family, knowing the child will not be pushed around from pillar to post and that there is real security there. Getting all parties to agree to a long-term productive, supportive environment and home for that child is what counts. That is ultimately the most important thing. There are many changes to child protection that we are considering as a new Country Liberal government. We want to improve the outcomes for children and families in the Northern Territory. By scrutinising the act and making amendments and changes, we hope that will flow on and improve the lives of Aboriginal children.
The member for Nightcliff alleged that we have closed down independent scrutiny of child protection. Gee whiz, this is another area which indicates great hypocrisy from the former Labor government, now the opposition. If anyone shut down independent scrutiny of child protection, it was the former Labor government. It got rid of the Ombudsman. She was sent on her way. She did an amazing job at scrutinising child protection for many years. She came out with a rather damning report, I think in 2011, and was given her marching orders very promptly. The former Labor government did not want the Ombudsman to tell them they were continuing to do a very poor job in the child protection space.
The Children’s Commissioner was not given a gig to scrutinise or monitor the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report recommendations, as was recommended within the report. That was too close to home. He was also given his marching orders and told they would sort something out. Instead, they set up the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, which I have spoken about many times, made up of a group of esteemed and highly competent professional people, but it was a toothless tiger. It was given no grunt at all. There was no real scrutiny or scientific analysis of how Labor was tracking in the child protection space.
Accusing us of closing down independent scrutiny by winding up the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee is an absolute joke. That committee never scrutinised; it was just a feel good committee made up of incredibly smart people who made the former Minister for Child Protection feel good about what he was doing. It was not threatening and did not provide anything I can remember in the way of negative feedback. It was all, ‘You’re doing a great job’. For people on the ground and people like me who were trying to scrutinise the Labor Party’s performance in this space, it was very disappointing.
We have asked the Children’s Commissioner to step into this space and take on a greater role of independently scrutinising how we are going in child protection. He has had a huge role, a wonderful role, in scrutinising the government with the Little Children are Sacred report, which I think has come to an end or comes to an end very soon, so he has some capacity to do that. During the last conversation I had with Dr Howard Bath, the Children’s Commissioner, he indicated he was very happy to do that.
The story of child protection in the Northern Territory is not what the opposition would have you believe. Omitting to mention the last 11 years and concentrating on the last eight-and-a-half months in a very negative way is a very poor portrayal of what has been happening.
This new government is committed to the Office of Children and Families. It is a very hard area to work in, as the member for Casuarina said, but we are determined to improve it. We are redrafting the act and making changes. We have made decisions which may not have been welcomed by some parties, but that is life. To make improvements sometimes you have to make some very difficult decisions.
I commend the new Minister for Children and Families, minister Anderson, for her great enthusiasm and commitment in this area. She will do a good job, I have no doubt, and I support her 100%.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, in the Northern Territory any person who believes a child is being, or has been, abused or neglected is required by law to report their concern. People do not need to prove abuse or neglect; they need only report their concern. The Care and Protection of Children Act provides legal protection against civil or criminal liability for people who make reports in good faith. The act also makes it clear that making a report does not breach any requirement of confidentiality and professional ethics.
Every year, the Northern Territory Families and Children Child Protection Branch takes over 3000 phone calls from people who are concerned about the care a child is receiving. All of these calls are subject to a thorough assessment process. About 1400 of these calls lead to further investigation of child circumstances, meeting the needs of children and making sure they are safe in their families. This is shared responsibility between individuals, the family, the community and the government. When adults caring for children do not follow through their own responsibilities or are abusive, then it is the child protection system under the Giles government that becomes responsible for taking action.
The main function of child protection is to investigate matters where it is alleged that a child is at risk of harm, and refer children and families to services that assist in providing ongoing safety and the wellbeing of children. It is not true to say that child protection resources are being slashed in the Northern Territory budget by $9m.
Another area in which the Giles government has made major progress is a partnership with other government agencies and the NGO sectors. The department works very closely with NGOs to ensure it aligns service deliveries and encourages input into best ideas and practice. NGOs providing direct service in this area have not had their funding cut. This is another of many misleading statements made by the opposition, designed to confuse Territorians about the real picture.
Our programs are child focused and are based on a fundamental belief that children have the right to physical and psychological safety. Preventing child abuse and neglect is our highest priority. We believe our children have a right to be safe and keeping them safe is everyone’s responsibility. This advance under the Giles government is making service delivery across the board much more effective and targeted. The Giles government will identify best practice to prevent and reduce child maltreatment in a vulnerable and high-risk situation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened to the Minster for Health talking about the history of child protection in the Northern Territory. There is no doubt that, for quite a number of years, things were not good in the Northern Territory. Otherwise, you would not have the Little Children Are Sacred report which was part of a lever into intervention in the Northern Territory by the federal government. The federal government at that time claimed the Northern Territory Chief Minister had not acted quickly enough in relation to that report, and stepped in with, to some extent, some fairly draconian methods of trying to turn things around. After that we had the Growing them strong, together report, and you need a bit of history in relation to that report.
The then member for Greatorex Jodeen Carney, was very concerned about some aspects of child welfare in the Northern Territory, and had been for a long time. The minister then was Malarndirri McCarthy, who decided she would have a review which would only cover a very small area. We ended up with a full-blown review at that time because of NAPCAN. NAPCAN, as you might know, is a non-government organisation in the Northern Territory and Australia-wide which says in its strategy:
The minister just said the government should not have made a broad decision to take up all the recommendations of that report. On the surface, that is not such a silly thing to say, but you have to look at history when the current government was in opposition and the current opposition was in government; you can see the government was under an enormous amount of pressure. First, it had the Little Children are Sacred report, then the intervention, then this fairly damning report produced by independent people. People say this is the Labor party’s report, but it was produced by Dr Howard Bath and two other independent people; I believe there was an Indigenous lady from Victoria and somebody else. You could not get a more independent group of people to put this report together.
Naturally, the government said it accepted these reports, because (1) it was produced by an independent group, and (2) there was enormous pressure from the opposition at the time which was looking at the government and saying things were crook. They were crook, I am not denying that. The government, of course, tried to do what it saw as the right thing because it was under pressure; so it accepted all the recommendations. It is a bit harsh to say, in hindsight, ‘They should not have accepted all those recommendations’. The government was under pressure to do something and to offset some of that pressure it said, ‘We have a report; we need to accept all the recommendations, let us go from there’.
Fair enough, the new government is in power and says some of the recommendations do not make sense. However, by scrapping the independent monitoring committee you have nobody to say to you, as a government, ‘That was not a good idea’ or ‘That was a good idea’. Until I heard today that the minister has asked the Children’s Commissioner to be the independent scrutineer of the recommendations, I was a little concerned that the government was dropping off whatever it felt like and there was no independent body to say, ‘That was a good idea’.
We need to put things in perspective. It is easy to throw mud around, but this is a very important issue. Yes, it is obvious from the two reports that things were not good and you can blame the government for that. At least the government eventually had two solid reports to try to improve things. I believe the Minister for Health admitted this is not just a Territory-wide issue, this is Australia-wide. I think Tasmania came up with a shocking report into child abuse. We are not alone in this; that does not mean that is an excuse for it, but if people think the Northern Territory government at the time was the only one that had these issues then that is just political baloney. It was important that through that crisis time we came up with some serious changes to child welfare.
The minister also mentioned the Ombudsman. There were politics in all of that; the Ombudsman did not get along too well with the government at the time. I do not believe that was entirely the reason they decided to change some of her duties. There was obviously a difference of opinion between the Children’s Commissioner and the Ombudsman on some things, but you have to remember that the Ombudsman does not take all that work. There is a Health Commissioner who does similar work to the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner does similar work to the Ombudsman. There is no reason why the government cannot appoint different Ombudsmen. After all, we have an Ombudsman of Telecommunications and an Ombudsman of Banking. There is no reason why you cannot have an Ombudsman of children’s welfare, an Ombudsman of Health and an Ombudsman who deals with more general matters, including the police.
Whilst there was a bit of tension between the government and the Ombudsman at the time, the decision to have a specialist – and I have a great deal of time for Dr Howard Bath; he is such a wonderful man with a lot of experience, and he is independent. He is willing to say whether governments are going down the right path. Whether they be Labor or Country Liberals, he will tell them because that is the sort of man he is. It was a good decision, regardless of what I think about some of the politics in the area, for the government of the day to elect Howard Bath as the Children’s Commissioner/Ombudsman.
The minister also mentioned adoption of children. The Chief Minister was quoted on the front page of the NT News yesterday as saying the welfare of the child is more important. I hope I do not verbal him here, because I do not have the quote. He said that if a child needs to be cared for, it that means an Aboriginal child goes to a non-Aboriginal person, well so be it, because the child’s welfare is the most important thing.
I was not sure whether the Minister for Health was agreeing with him or whether the statement by the Chief Minister on the front page of the NT News is government policy. I do not know. I put out a media release supporting what the Chief Minister said because he made good sense. I remember when Marion Scrymgour, who was the chair of one of our committees, was in Alice Springs and she mentioned something similar. The issue of the Stolen Generation came straight back at her. It was a terrible thing for them to say about the minister, as she was trying to do what you are talking about today, find solutions for children who do not have a good home life. It is a real problem trying to find families in the Northern Territory who will look after these children. It is an issue that probably needs more debate in this parliament because if we do not help children early in their upbringing then we will have problems later on.
That brings me to the subject of NAPCAN. The minister said they knocked off a few recommendations that did not make sense, or they might have been unpopular. NAPCAN was essential to the existence of the Growing them strong, together report because it was through its lobbying that the minister was convinced the report was needed. One of the key issues NAPCAN highlighted is that you need to focus on parenting. I say this time and again because early intervention will save you, if you want to talk in dollar terms, lots of money later when trying to look after people in prison. That is a fact; we know that. If you can intervene early - and the minister’s argument is the department should be attached to the schools because, theoretically, we are trying to intervene early. We do not only need early intervention in school, we need early intervention in parenting. If two 16-year-old people have a baby, it is likely that their parenting skills are not great. One of the recommendations in this report was an emphasis on parenting. NAPCAN is one of the groups that does exactly that. I remember going to Canteen Creek a couple of years ago - the home of the Canteen Creek Blues on the Gap.
Mr McCarthy interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Gee whiz. I remember going crook at the government of the day, the Labor government, for spending $95 000 on the Crusty Demons. I said they could have spent $95 000 on fixing the Canteen Creek Football ground, because it was a shocker. There was not a blade of grass within cooee. That is where they should have spent their money; it would have been of more value.
I went out there – what does the big sign say? Canteen Creek, home of NAPCAN, and it has the Aboriginal name for Canteen Creek. Sorry, I cannot remember what it is; it is probably written in a language I cannot read anyway. You know my favourite complaint is that Ampilatwatja is unreadable. NAPCAN was in those communities talking about parenting and raising kids. This is not just a government issue. There is room for non-government organisations, and we have taken one of those organisations that has been in the Northern Territory for years out of the equation by reducing its funding. I am not sure how much it has been reduced by.
I will read a little about NAPCAN so you get an understanding. This is the mission of NAPCAN:
It was working with the media on a program to help develop media approaches to the issue of child abuse in communities, but the government cut it off halfway through the contract.
History gets a little warped at times. We always fall into this idea that - I can be guilty of it too - my attempts at fixing things are better than yours. My law is better than your law. I can put more people in gaol than you can because I am tougher on crime. Some of these issues show the weakness of the Westminster system because, as the member for Port Darwin keeps telling me, this is an adversarial system. Why do we have to be adversarial about child welfare? What does a child have to do with an adversarial system? The last thing they want is an adversarial system, they want a loving system. We have a system which says we have to debate things like we are enemies. It is sometimes sad that such a small parliament cannot work together on some of these issues, like alcohol, child abuse, education and children not turning up for school. No one has a magic elixir because they are in government or in opposition. It is disappointing, at times, that we spend our time arguing about who is better than who instead of coming up with solutions that will improve the lot or people, especially children, in the Northern Territory.
I will take it as anecdotal that there has been a drop in morale within the staff. What I have heard is that there have been so many changes it has been difficult for staff to know whether they are coming or going. Even the CEO, who was sacked, has come back in another job - a little like when the Treasurer was sacked and came back in another job. If the government thinks the person is not good enough for the job, then why would they give that person a job somewhere else? Those things send messages that things are not quite right.
I am interested – and it might come up in estimates - to see how many jobs have changed hands, and how many people have left the department. If you are going to have a system that will make a difference to child welfare, the last thing you want is disruptive and disillusioned staff. You want them to be permanent and you want them to be happy because it is a very difficult job. It is not an easy department to work in. I take my hat off to the people who work in these areas, because they see some pretty terrible things and probably face a fair amount of abuse themselves. They have a tough job, so we need to ensure they have plenty of support and, if there are cutbacks, those cutbacks do not cause problems within the department that mean it is harder to operate. People say they will ensure frontline staff are not cut back, but if there is no one behind them for support, because they have been cut out of the system, then morale could easily drop off.
It would be good to hear – and, as I said, perhaps it will come out in the Estimates Committee - what the state of affairs is of the department when it comes to staffing. How many people still have their jobs? How many people have left? What is the length of time staff have stayed on? It may even be worth asking how many staff from overseas are still working. The minister mentioned there were 90 staff employed and there was no money to pay them, but I remember the opposition saying, ‘You have to do something urgently, the situation is terrible’. The government said, ‘Let us advertise’. We had New Zealander’s, English people, and Irish people coming as part of the attack on the problems of child welfare in the Northern Territory. How long they lasted for, I do not know. Maybe they used it as a lever to get into Australia and found another job; I am not sure. They were approaches made at the time, and the new government criticises them for that. Maybe it is fair enough if there was not enough money but, on the other hand, the government was being criticised for not having enough staff to do the job. You have to put these things into perspective.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I made these comments because this is an important issue. It would be much healthier if we could work together on these matters because children’s welfare should be more important than politics. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, that is what we should be working towards.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to the motion, put forward by the member for Nightcliff, that this Assembly condemns the government for ‘slashing child protection resources in the Northern Territory budget by $9m’. First, it is untrue. Second, that figure does not appear anywhere in the budget.
‘Child Protection notifications will increase from 8000 to 10 000 next year, but only 4000 will be investigated’ – it is unclear what the opposition member is condemning the government for. The opposition member commented on projections but made no statement and did not ask a question. This vague and unfocused allegation has no bearing on any professional work done by the department.
‘Stripping resources from non-government organisations providing vital child protections services’ – we are doing the opposite. We have left funding to NGOs providing direct services untouched.
‘Putting child protection into Education, changing the name and then taking it out again, and changing the letterhead three times.’ Again, what does this have to do with the budget? When circumstances change, sometimes the names change.
‘Closing down independent scrutiny of child protection’ - quite the opposite. We are drafting legislation to increase the scrutiny and powers of the Children’s Commissioner. The changes will include a level of independence and power to scrutinise OCF independently and fearlessly.
The opposition was too afraid of independent scrutiny, destroying morale in child protection and having 44 positions vacant in Alice Springs.
Staff turnover is a long-term inherent problem, particularly in Alice Springs, but it has improved from 2008-09, when there was a 78% turnover of staff.
An amount of $25.1m has now been directed into frontline services in OCF. We talk about how child protection is everyone’s business; we all know it is everyone’s business, especially ours as Aboriginal people because we live with this problem. It is in our faces every day, and I can tell you these children are left to fend for themselves and there is no adult, no counsellor, nobody there who wants to help these children when they need it. We all say it is everyone’s business, but we are not there for them when they need us to ask them if they are all right, if they want us to help them. We are not there to hold their hands or feed them. If child protection is everyone’s business then it is very hard for us to listen to everybody else talk about child welfare because we see it every day - the abuse, the neglect - and nobody seems to want to do anything for these children except talk about them. It is all about talking, talking, talking, more talking, more policies, and more jobs for people who do not have a clue about these kids, their background and their culture. This is pure neglect.
The member for Casuarina talks about previous Country Liberal governments, but when I was growing up and they were in government, I did not see any of this abuse amongst our people or our children. Things were tougher then. I did not see any of these kids being abused, neglected, or wandering the streets on their own or in gangs. I did not come across that when I was growing up or living amongst the children we talk about or their parents and grandparents. This abuse was not around then; this neglect was not around then.
We all know it is a very difficult business and every government has struggled with the demands of this crucial and vitally important work. We, as a government, should be getting together to ensure we create a better lifestyle for these children.
Member for Nightcliff, you have a beautiful baby. Your baby is how many months now?
Ms Fyles: One year.
Mrs PRICE: I have seen children younger than him who are full of sores: scabies. Their whole bodies are riddled with all sorts of nasty things. These parents - they are probably younger than you -do not realise they are abusing their child by not taking them to the hospital or clinic. They do not worry about that. We need to start looking at the parents of these children who are being neglected, because it is their children we are talking about. Let us start talking to them. Let us start saying to them, ‘Where is your child? How is your child today? What have you done with your child today? Do you know where he or she is?’ They are the questions we should be asking because these children just wander the streets of Tennant Creek, Mutitjulu, Galiwinku, Wadeye, and Yuendumu without a responsible person in sight asking them or telling them to go home, telling them to look after themselves or asking their family members, ‘Where is your child? Go and get your child, look after your child, and protect your child’.
Our government is strongly focused on child protection service delivery, which is crucial work, together with the children and families in need. We want to make sure that is embedded in our policies, in our heads and in the heads of all the parents who do not realise how important they are to their children, because that is what is missing with these mums and dads who neglect their children. We have to start talking to them and being tough in making sure they understand that if they neglect their children, they are doing the wrong thing by them.
This government is commencing a major review of the Care and Protection of Children Act. We will closely scrutinise this act. Specific elements of the legislation will be fast-tracked to effectively reform this sensitive area. We strive to improve overall child protection practice in the Territory. The opposition took no such action in their extensive time in power. Instead, they built expensive buildings such as the Secure Care Facility without bothering to develop the legislation which allowed for the use of it. Government is redirecting funding to frontline services, putting the money where it matters the most.
What is most important is keeping families together: keeping children with their parents in a safe environment. These children are neglected, abused and do not have the structure a normal family has. These children are left on their own. In Yuendumu, where I am from, none of the kids sit around at a table by 6 o’clock to have a family meal. There is no security for these children. They are wandering the streets of Yuendumu, Nyirripi or Lajamanu. If we, as government, want to do something to help these children, we all have to work together and find a common ground, as the member for Casuarina said earlier. We all have to work together, as the member for Nelson said, because these children, especially for we Aboriginal members, are our families. We want them to be future leaders; we want them to have the best education and the best health so they can be the proud race they are.
We want to make sure, as a government, we give them that opportunity. We have a minister who is Indigenous and who is surrounded by these problems we talk about in parliament. She has first-hand knowledge of what happens. We all know, as Aboriginal people, how serious this has become that our own people do not know how to care for their children.
I want to go back to when Mantatjara Wilson - a wonderful, strong, compassionate women I called mother - told the world about the crimes against her children on national TV in 2007 with tears streaming down her face. The left wing activists moved to undermine her. They went into communities not to protect the kids but to find women who would oppose her. They talked about outrage and shame, not because of the crimes we all know about, but because someone was brave enough to tell the world about them and ask for help. That was what they called shameful.
We had the intervention because it became so bad that nobody wanted to talk about it except that one woman. Nobody wanted to listen to her, and she was telling the truth about our children being abused and neglected. Who was in government then? Who was the Chief Minster then? Why did they not do anything about it? Why did they not talk to Mandajarra, sit down with her and say, ‘Let us talk about this; let us do something together. We are here to help you.’ What happened? Why was that not even considered? Here we are today and we are still talking about the abuse of our children. We are still running around chasing our tails. Anything that comes up here you want to criticise, yet these kids are still being abused.
Our Chief Minister made a comment about adopting children. I have seen decent white people who wanted to adopt one of my granddaughters. We said, ‘Yes, we would love you to take her on board’. But, guess what? FACS said, ‘Oh no, you can’t take her away. What about her culture?’ It turns out this is what our culture is doing to her. Do not tell us we should be mindful that she might lose her culture. Did they take any notice of us? No, and the same cycle has been repeated with her child. That was 10 to 11 years ago, when the Labor government was in power. This was happening then but today it is worse because I see children being neglected right in front of me. It is a disgrace. We put all this money and effort into recruit people from all over the world who know nothing about our culture or the Northern Territory. Why can we not employ our own people? We have plenty of people in the Northern Territory, black and white, who have lived here, have the skills, know these children, and would be best able to give advice or the care we really want to see given to our children.
Madam Speaker, we all have a child somewhere we know of, and we have children ourselves. I have grandchildren as well, and I want to ensure these children receive the best of care, which they deserve because we are all Australian citizens. We should not forget that when we are arguing about budgets, policies, and everything else that divides us. We should not create that division. We should be all thinking one thing: the child needs the best care, the child needs protection, and child welfare should come first. We have children, we are related to families who have children, we know people who have children, and we grew up with that protection. Why can we not help get that back? I am going to make sure we bring that back: the protection, love and care our people gave to us. I want to see that back on the table because that is how Alison, Larisa, Francis and I were created. That is not happening. What we need to do if we care about these children is give that tough love. Do not make it too soft because it is really bad out there. We, as a government, need to be able to give that support.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, the first point I want to make is in relation to the first bullet point in this motion, ‘Slashing Child Protection resources in the Northern Territory Budget by $9m’. You do not have to look too hard at the budget papers to realise this organisation has undergone some restructuring in recent times. In fact, it is implied in the negative spin in further bullet points that there have been restructures in this area.
One of two things is happening, as far as the member for Nightcliff is concerned in sponsoring this debate. Either she simply does not know how the budget works and how restructures move around output groups, which is very common – it happened under the Labor government all the time - or she is aware of it and has engaged in nothing more than skulduggery and fear mongering. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and think it is the former rather than the latter. I put that down to a modicum of inexperience.
Government budgets are not easy to read; it took me a number of years to get my head around how these things work. But do not ever, on the face of it, think to yourself, ‘Oh good, we have a point of attack’, simply because some numbers change over years to years.
I also point out that the $9m figure the member is relying on is a forecast produced in a Labor budget in prior years. You are trying to compare apples with oranges because you are relying on a document you produced, misreading a document the current Treasurer has produced and, from that, deducing by some sort of syllogism that you can find a cut of $9m. That is incorrect at best and, at worst, disingenuous. The fact remains that this government has committed a great deal of money in this space; however, that money is not exclusively the solution. There is a long-standing thought I used to hear all the time from that side of the House, ‘What are you doing about child welfare?’ The answer was, ‘We are spending money’. Governments can spend lots of money, but it takes ministers to drive their departments with clear unambiguous policy and direction to make things happen.
What is happening in Corrections at the moment, which I talked about in Question Time today, is something I am proud of. The Sentenced to a Job program of placing prisoners in jobs is being done at no expense to the taxpayer; it is not costing a cent. It is being paid for, essentially, by the prisoners. When I get into the parole environment and we start putting group housing together for parolees you will see – this will come out in more detail in the future - this is something I as the minister, at the request of the Chief Minister, am driving in my department. The effect is that group housing for parolees which I hope to have rolled out in the next 12 to 18 months will be paid for by the prisoners. The cost to the taxpayer will be zero.
I am a firm believer in this simple idea: if you demand something from somebody they will rise up and meet that demand because you have placed the responsibility to meet in on their shoulders. When you expect nothing from somebody, you will generally get nothing in return. This is not just true for prisoners; this is a human condition.
When I was the member for Macdonnell I saw some photographs of some school kids in a place called Titjikala in the 1950s; the member for Namatjira is familiar with Titjikala. I was struck by these photographs because these kids were all from the local community and were on their way to school. They were wearing black shorts and white shirts. Stop there for a second. A white shirt in Central Australia? That is exactly what they had on, and the white shirts were spotlessly clean, as were the black shorts, as were the kids, with the exception of their feet. They had bare feet and they were dirty around the feet. That happens when you walk in the dirt. They had short back and sides and were clearly in good physical condition.
The places they lived in were rudimentary in the 1950s compared to much of what is available now, but there was a demand placed on those kids and their parents that certain benchmarks be met in how they turned out at school, and they turned out accordingly. Was it paternalistic? Yes, it was. Was it all brilliant; was it a great way to run a community? No, it was not because there were legacy items we found out about in later years. However, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when we decided to go into a national bout of self-flagellating guilt about the dreadful things we had done to Aboriginal people, we threw out all the bath water and all the babies that were in it.
Ntaria, another community many members in this House are familiar with, once had a carpentry workshop, a tannery and a butcher shop; I should know because I used the band saw in the butcher shop when cutting up Barney the bull, but that is another story. It used to grow about 60 tonnes of fresh fruit and vegetables every year which was sold into Alice Springs. Was it a paternalistic Lutheran community? Yes, it was. Do I approve of paternalism as a policy? No, but I believe you can still demand things from people.
I have seen photographs from the Lutheran missions in the Ntaria area dating back to the late 1800s and early 1900s which show traditional people who lived in that area as strong, vibrant, healthy people. What on Earth has happened? We have spent all this money - billions upon billions of dollars thrown at the problem of the conditions we see in our remote communities for no discernible advantage. I would go so far as to say it has caused a retardation of opportunity and results for many people in these remote communities.
The one constant that finds its way through this sad state of affairs is that we have, through policies from the 1970s onwards, said to these people, ‘We expect nothing from you’. I do not object to apologising to Aboriginal people for the conduct of imperialism and colonialism in the past. There is good cause to apologise in many respects, but having made that observation, it does not automatically follow that these people are abrogated of the responsibility of daily living. Yet, every single policy we roll out when we talk about policy in this place says to the people who live in these remote communities, ‘You have no responsibility’. ‘You want a house? We will build you one. You want a free income? We will give you one. But we expect nothing from you, and in expecting nothing from you, we will get it back from you in spades.’ Unfortunately, that is what happens.
The problem is that when you continue to do that as a matter of policy, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because every time you see something awful you want to fix it. Solution? Throw money at the problem and expect nothing from the person, because we want to help them. It is a genuine motive. I do not believe that governments in the past have been motivated by villainy in their attempts to do what they have been doing in remote communities, no matter what flavour of government they are. But the motive is genuine because it is, in essence, charitable. We want to help people; that is a natural part of who we are and of being human. But the point is, when you help a person or a group of people and expect nothing from them and get nothing, you should get to a point where you say, ‘Hang on. You have a certain amount of responsibility in this domain’. If you do not get that from them, the response should be, ‘Hang on. You have to lift yourself up and do it yourself’. One of the fortunate things in the Ntaria area was there was no choice but for local people to get involved in their own wellbeing because the capacity of the Lutheran missions was tiny. One pastor there for 30 years: people like Pastor Albrecht. They could not fix all of these problems. So they said to the local people, ‘Guys, if you want something, you are going to have to do it. We will help you get organised but you have to provide the labour.’ So they provided labour and, as a consequence of that, they were actively involved in their own community.
It is for that reason that the traditional people of that time said to their kids, ‘We know the importance of education; get to school’. Was school this multi-million dollar affair with roll in and out hot and cold running teachers? No, it was not. It was the pastor’s wife or some other well-meaning priest, often under a tree, or in a rudimentary school building. Yet, the first time I worked in Ntaria, which was around 1984, I met some of the old people and saw their handwriting; their handwriting made my handwriting look awful. The quality of their handwriting and their general literacy was excellent.
I remember one old fellow, who came to the police station when I was there, wanted to re-registered his car. I was a young constable and this vehicle never got out of second gear; it never left Ntaria. I looked out of the window and said, ‘You want to register it?’ Well, woe betide me! He was cross at me because I did not inspect his vehicle. He dragged me out of the station and I did a full inspection on the vehicle. The vehicle was fine, as I knew it would be. But this old fellow had standards and he knew his vehicle had to be at this standard. That was an expectation that had been placed on him by the law and he knew what that expectation was. Because of his habits in life, he had lifted himself up to that because somebody demanded of him that if he drove a car it had to be of a certain standard.
It is not that hard, yet we are terrified because of this historical cringe as non-Aboriginal people that we carry around flagellating ourselves with guilt. That guilt is blinding us to the reality that we have to get to a point of demanding something from people in terms of them looking after their own welfare. This is one of the many reasons I am so critical of welfare and will talk about it again and again. By cashing this habit up we are underwriting, in cash terms, the ongoing neglect of children. Rather than saying to these people, ‘Come and fix your problem’, and demanding it often, expecting it often, we expect nothing. So, we end up at a point where, after two decades of our charity, we wake up one morning and realise there are all these kids running out of control.
It is not something that is exclusive to Central Australia. You can see the same thing happening in Brixton in London; you find it throughout Europe. Wherever there is this welfare system it percolates through and produces similar results. The drug problems of Harlem in New York City are generated by the same sort of attitudes.
Whilst we continue to do this, motivated by our most charitable motivations, we have to understand we have to place perimeters and expectations on the subjects of our charity. I imagine that the Good Samaritan in the biblical story would have been less patient with the fellow he helped if that fellow continued to engage in conduct which left him injured on the side of the road. There are limits to what we should do. There are limits to the amount of charity we can deliver, and for good reason, because it is not too long before people start taking advantage.
The second component - and this is where I picked up on the member for Stuart’s comments - is the business about placement of children. I heard on the news the other night the Chief Minister’s comments being debated in the public domain. There was a lady - I forget her name, on ABC saying, ‘Oh no, we are going to put Indigenous kids with Indigenous families’. Fair enough. I understand the rationale behind that. I remember a similar debate in the United States a few years ago when there was a push to only put black kids with black families. Some people were arguing it should be unlawful to place a black kid in need of care with a white family, so there was this sort of racial cringe in the United States in a similar fashion.
Whilst I understand the rationale behind it, it misses the fundamental point that there has to be a hierarchy of needs when it comes to a child’s welfare. I think all members would be aware of the concept called Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. On the bottom rung is food and shelter: the stuff of life. At the top rung is self-actualisation. We should be unafraid to say there should be a hierarchy of needs when it comes to child protection.
The first thing we should be making sure of is that a kid has care and protection. The cultural stuff, which comes lower in the list of needs, is a secondary responsibility. Whilst it might be important, in truth, the welfare and health of the child and the child’s physical health and mental health has to be paramount.
This is where the argument about the cultural aspects comes in. There is no way I will be part of a government that sells a child down the river because they allow a child to be demonstrably abandoned and to have proper care withheld for a cultural reason.
Surely the health and wellbeing of the child is paramount. Where there is an environment where a child can be loved, I am sure that love as a concept is colour blind. We saw that in this House today.
We should have a child protection system that works very hard to create expectations of those people who do not properly look after their kids. There are number of ways it can be done, and I know the minister is working very hard to roll those sorts of things out. But I remain convinced that our current policies, particularly at the federal level, and those in the past in the Territory, whilst noble and intent in their charitable disposition, are destructive in implementation. As I said before, if you expect nothing from people they will give it back to you in abundance.
Ms ANDERSON (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, this is a very important motion. As everybody in this House this evening said, we are about the protection of children.
Member for Nightcliff, I thank you for bringing this motion forward. However, it alarms me that you, as a senior advisor to the minister of the Office of Children and Families, have to read from your written work when you worked in the very department with the minister on Level 5. I cannot believe it. You should know this as your core business.
It is really important that we address these issues in a civil manner, so I am not going to be agitated or aggravated in this debate this evening, because it is about outlining where we can do things better. Yes, all across Australia child protection is an issue; it is not just an issue in the Northern Territory. In some cases it has been worse in the Northern Territory, compared to other states, under your watch.
When the CLP was the first government, governing the Northern Territory in its very early years, there was a lower population and less money. The population grew, you came in and, of course, you invested much more money, but that investment also came from the Commonwealth. There is lots of money coming in from the Commonwealth that goes into child protection.
I take this opportunity to send a message to my people, Aboriginal people: once proud people who looked after and educated their children. As the members for Stuart, Arafura, Arnhem and Port Darwin said, once proud people - what is happening to us?
The member for Nightcliff has asked me to be a leader and I have done that since I took over this ministry. I have visited every OCF office in the Northern Territory, expect for two, which will be visited. I went to the Hermannsburg sports weekend, where for the very first time OCF had a stand. That initiative was instigated by me, the minister. I took staff out from Hermannsburg on two occasions: on the Friday before the sports weekend and gave them a dummy run on how to engage with people, what to say to them, and what kind of material to take to interact and engage with people. Then, over the sports weekend, we were there talking about how important it is, member for Nightcliff, for our people to come back and ask for their children, look after their children, and make sure the system allows for the parents to be engaged.
I know there was a Commonwealth program you would know about, the RAFCW program, which the former minister, the member for Casuarina, launched. The RAFCW program has not had any support in the two-and-a-half years it has existed. I have a photograph of a RAFCW. Since I have become a minister I have visited the community of Ti Tree, where the photo of the RAFCW was taken, sitting on a chair with a chair in front of her that held her computer and no table. I believe in the last couple of weeks that RAFCW received a table. But for two-and-a-half years these very important programs the Commonwealth funded, while you were governing, were not looked after and supported properly. This is the interface we have through the Aboriginal RAFCWs and the practitioners to ensure the interaction between communities and parents is vital. The RAFCWs jobs are important for the practitioners because through them the practitioners can engage with families and communities through language, and identify the families in those communities. It was a real pity to see this program neglected and not supported properly.
Look at the former minister’s statements and media releases he continuously put out saying, ‘We will grow our own’. I even have an estimates paper which says they would grow their own. Well, you did not grow your own. You did not support the RAFCWs, you did not grow any kind of Aboriginal employment, nothing whatsoever in Office of Children and Families. The Aboriginal staff were struggling. The Aboriginal RAFCWs, the vital piece of interaction and engagement with Aboriginal communities and mothers and fathers in remote Aboriginal communities, were unsupported. It is a real shame, member for Nightcliff, that it happened on your watch.
This clearly is a failure of your government and your former minister. We have taken over this agency with many problems, and I give thanks to my colleague, the member for Araluen, who started many of the reforms we spoke about in the Chamber this evening. We are hands-on ministers; we have a hands-on Chief Minister, as you can see. We will go to these agencies; we are interested in these agencies. It is not about keeping our hands off saying, ‘They are the policy people; we are the government’. We are going in to ensure we identify the problems because that is the only way you are going to get things right for Aboriginal kids or Territory kids. It really was a mess, member for Nightcliff. I wonder how these people got away with it. How did you get away with it when you stood in this Chamber and continuously harped on in every debate about how well you were doing? Did you not ever think that one day you would be sitting across the other side and we would start searching to see what had really happened?
The member for Casuarina, the former minister, was saying that these matters are so sensitive to Indigenous people. If it was so sensitive, member for Nightcliff, why did you close down Karu and not replace it with anything? You did not replace it with ACCA for 10 years, member for Nightcliff, and that really is a shame. In all our debates on child protection we need to go down the path of trying to identify the problem and find solutions for it, because at the end of the day we are talking about Territory children. Long after we have gone these children will be the future of this Territory. We want to ensure we engage with them socially, mentally, physically and economically. We want to ensure they get the best healthcare, the best education, and are engaged in society through a good quality education. It is not about us not keeping our eye on the ball. This is a government that is focused and will lead our agencies to get the results.
Member for Nightcliff, as I said at the beginning, this is a problem area. For every step you take in this agency you will take three backwards. That is a fact. We are dealing with an agency that deals with vulnerable children. We have to get all the things right on the ground. NGOs are not statutory bodies, they are funded by government to fill in the gaps where government cannot. That is why we pay them. They should be at the front line developing the communities, interacting with the communities and with the parents: all the things we spoke about in this Chamber tonight - making sure that parents, families and the communities are engaged to understand that their children are important and they are the future of their communities, and to love them. You cannot tell me that a drunken Aboriginal woman does not love her child because she does.
I showed a photo to someone today of my young sister who grew up in the Todd River. Her mother was a drunk, but at no stage did that young child leave the mother. She loved her mother and the drunken mother loved her child. Love is unconditional. We love children no matter who they are and where they come from. This is the system we need to fix to help the people. Sometimes we just think these people are lazy, and that they are gamblers and drinkers, but do we ever say there might be underlying issues that might be pushing them to neglect their children? They might not have a house or an income.
There is a range of issues we have to consider when we are looking at child protection. A child is one small part of a bigger picture in the remote Aboriginal community. Unlike the non-Indigenous family, which is the nuclear family, we do not have nuclear families. We have a mother, mother, mother, mother, mother. We have a father, father, father, father, father, father. We have a sister, sister, sister, sister, sister and a brother, brother, brother, brother. So, through all the reforms, we will look at out-of-home care, kinship care and NGOs. We will scrutinise NGOs because they will not be duplicating programs, providing the same service for 14 kids in the same place and just wasting money. An example is the Tangentyere Night Patrol, the Congress Night Patrol, and the department’s own YSOS, all in Alice Springs, all chasing the same kids in the same area. We need to make sure there is one program doing that. The other two should be working with the families and children.
We will scrutinise the NGOs, member for Nightcliff, because we want to start seeing results. We want to make sure there are fewer children coming into care and that those who are coming into care are being looked after. We want to make sure that through all our reforms we are helping Territory children and we are not taking them from what is deemed as an unsafe community or parenting situation to put them in an agency that is also unsafe.
We will make sure that through the education strategies we have that parents and the community will be educated in how to understand and love their children. Take them back to what the members for Stuart and Port Darwin were talking about: how we grew up in loving and working families. We did not live in $600 000 houses; we lived in humpies, but we went to school every day and we knew we were inside that little humpy with our mum and dad and our siblings.
I ask my own people in this journey to make sure they direct their children to be loving children, and that they give and show those children the love and respect their parents showed them, and if they have a problem with drugs or alcoholism, that they go and talk to someone. When an OCF worker, practitioner or RAFCW goes there, that they talk to these people and say, ‘Can you help me? I want to get my child back, but I have these problems. Can you help me with an intensive family support program to get out of my habit of dealing drugs and abusing alcohol so I can have my child back?’ Those are systems we will put in place because we are not scared to act. We will not be sacred to act to protect Territory children; that is a fact. We will not be diverted. There are so many things because 85% of children in the care of the department are Indigenous. We need to ensure we get the message back out to our remote communities to make sure they grow up and be mums and dads again.
Like the member for Stuart said, if a child has a child then we need to intervene very early because we know they do not have the parenting skills, and their mum and dad may have passed away or moved on. We need to be alert and mindful and to understand, through our Indigenous workers, that those are symptoms we are looking for. Seeing a 14 or 15-year-old who is expecting should alert you. This young girl will not have all the parenting skills needed to raise a child. Maybe she will have problems when she stops breastfeeding the baby. We need to put programs into place early, and you can only do that if you look after the workers you have: the frontline practitioners who we are supporting. We are not ashamed to say we will support our frontline service.
We will make sure we interact and engage with our RAFCWs. We will make sure they get all the support they need because they will be the interface to Aboriginal communities and to those parents and children. They are the identifiers of a child in the community when the practitioner comes out. It is only through that person that they can go to the right house and see the right family and the right child.
To come in as a new government, eight months in, and see these vital parts of the agency sitting there unsupported - this will not happen under our watch. We have already started working with the agency and taking direction. The RAFCWs must be helped, they must be supported. They are the vital link to the agency for the practitioners to help our young children and make sure they have a future.
Member for Nightcliff, there are many things we can talk about, but we have talked about this issue for many parliaments now. There will be a statement brought to this House by this government on child protection and the safety of children.
One of the other things you spoke about, member for Nightcliff, was the $9m. You need to go back to reading the budget papers properly and understand there are programs such as women’s policy, youth justice and youth services which have gone, with the money, outside of OCF to other agencies. That is where you are getting the $9m. I urge you to ring my office and ask the questions if you are unsure about whether these services have gone. You were there on International Women’s Day. You saw me, in this House, launch an online agency for women’s policy. Something should have clicked. The online agency was in OCF – something must have happened there, but it is obvious that it did click with you. Because this is a very sensitive issue, I will not be too critical of the things you have raised. We should not be critical of each other when we are talking about the protection of children.
Member for Nightcliff, as I said earlier, non-government organisations are vital partners to any government agency – you would know that - but they need to be scrutinised, and they need to play in the area ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension for the minister, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Non-government organisations are vital; they are partners to any kind of agency, but they have to play in the area where there are gaps for the department and the community. They are not a statutory body to be playing in the area where the Office of Children and Families is. We want them to play in the area of community development, family support, and family development. This is where we will start to see small results in our communities with our parents when these non-government organisations start getting into that space of educating parents and communities about their children.
I often pull up at Kentucky Cross in Alice Springs, as I have named it: the Kentucky Fried Chicken corner. I see young kids running around in the street and I see YSOS chasing the same group of 20. Tangentyere Night Patrol drives along, chasing the same 20. Then you see Congress Night Patrol coming, or the bus, to pick up the same 20. I think to myself ‘What a waste’, because you could have one of those NGOs in that space and have the other two taking some of those children back to their town camps and their parents’ homes, and sitting down for an hour or two and talking to the parents about how important it is to ensure they know where their children are. Where is my daughter tonight? Where is my son tonight? Are they safe? Are they warm? Have they eaten? Those are the things NGOs must do: community development, family development, and intensive family support.
That is where we will start seeing, hopefully in the future, fewer kids coming into care. However, when we are removing children we must also ensure they come to the safe place. We do not want children coming from a place that is deemed unsafe and being placed somewhere where it is unsafe.
Through all of our reforms, you will be shocked, member for Nightcliff, to see the journey and opportunities we will take to make life easier for one child, for the children of the Northern Territory. As I said, they are our future. I hope you come on this journey of reform with us. You will see the reforms.
I thank my colleague, the Minister for Health, because it was this government and the member for Araluen who saw the need for the changes to very old legislation, seeing the failures of the past, and what we can do in the future. How can we change that road? How can we make that road happier and safe for a child? How can we make the transition from a remote Aboriginal community to a foster carer, to OCF, safer and happier for that child?
It is ultimately our responsibility, as debaters and politicians in this House, to ensure we are vigilant about the safety of the child at all times. This government is not about putting culture before the safety of the child. The OCF has always been, and always will be, under our watch, about the safety of the child. Culture comes second. We must ensure, wherever we move the child, it is about the safety of the child, ensuring that child’s happiness is there and ensuring the transition from one place to another is about that child’s love and happiness. It is what we expect of our own children, what our own children expect of us.
Member for Nightcliff, I urge my people to start loving and looking after their children. If you are on alcohol or anything like that, there are many places in the Northern Territory where you can ask for help if you are on drugs. If you are living rough and have children, or are homeless, there are places where you can ask for help but make sure you put your children first, make sure they are safe, make sure they are fed, and make sure they always have a home.
We were once a proud people. Let us go back to being those proud, tough people in the Northern Territory by looking after our children. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution tonight. We all have unique stories we bring to this motion, but this is about your budget. Budget Paper No 3 shows 6000 child protection reports will go without investigation next year.
This motion is about your government slashing the child protection budget by $9m, child protection notifications increasing from 8000 to 10 000 next year but only 4000 being investigated, stripping resources from our non-government organisations that are providing vital services to child protection, putting child protection into Education and changing its name, taking it out again, changing the letterhead three times, and shutting down independent scrutiny of child protection. You speak of trying your best. This is not a sports carnival, this is people’s lives, their futures, and you need to show us your policy, your direction. This debate is about you, the Northern Territory government, and your plans to support children.
You said tonight, member for Arafura, there have been no cuts. The NGO sector was cut by $4.8m by your government last year. I have met with foster carers and they are worried. They want to know what the policy is. You speak of staff morale being low. No wonder, you have sacked the executive. There are 44 positions vacant in Alice Springs.
You spoke of culture, member for Arnhem. Have you read the board of inquiry report and recommendations? They speak of culturally appropriate care - kinship care. Where is your policy? That is what this debate is about.
You speak of culture being resourced through SAF,T. One of the main recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report was to fund and develop the establishment of an ongoing peak NGO on child and family safety for Indigenous people. Your government has decimated SAF,T. Again, where is the funding? What has happened to its director?
Legislation and plans - we keep hearing these things but there is nothing concrete. You talk of child protection being shattered. We were trying to fix it; we were on a path and we had plans. From you we have seen nothing but talk. You speak of reforms but we have seen nothing concrete.
Months ago we called on the last minister to reinstate the board of inquiry recommendations but she dismissed that saying they would develop their own. That is why I am again calling on your government to reinstate those recommendations. They were the most comprehensive plans we had seen in child protection in the Territory’s history. Show us your policy.
The member for Araluen spoke tonight about the links with Education, which I find puzzling. Your new acting Chief Executive told me in a briefing last week that the merger with Education was the same as having Children and Families with Health. Your acting Chief Executive said it needs to be a stand-alone agency.
The member for Araluen said it can only bring positive results. It sounds like it is still with Education. I genuinely question the status of the department. The Health minister is saying it is a merged agency, the acting Chief Executive is saying it is separate. What is it? Where does it sit? No wonder staff morale is so low, they do not even know.
The member for Stuart spoke with such passion about the heartbreak and neglect. We are not debating neglect. We want to see the government’s plans. I appreciate, member for Stuart, the way you articulate your story in this parliament.
We are not arguing about the services you say we need. We all know it is dual pathway models; it is ACCAs; it is modern child protection. We are talking about your government. Where is its plan? You have cut the early intervention, the support services you speak about.
We had a department we invested in. There was a plan. Where is yours? You are the government. We have been calling for eight months. The member for Araluen gives me a delightful seven weeks - two-and-a-half months. Now it is eight months yet we see nothing. There are 44 positions vacant. It is about the government cutting funding and not resourcing the department, the public service, to do the job.
I am very puzzled. The member for Araluen accused me earlier tonight of making up 44 vacancies. It is here in a media release. Jenni Collard:
I would like that clarified by the member for Araluen.
Six thousand child abuse reports will not be investigated, that is what we are talking about. It is in your own budget papers; I did not make it up. The government is saying it is not there. Six thousand child abuse reports with no investigation! This agency swapping has cost thousands and delivered nothing.
You speak about cultural respect. I am not talking about that; I am talking about the budget, I am talking about documents. I am talking about a minister in Budget Cabinet who allowed child protection to be cut. Cultural background is important, but the welfare of children is the most important thing. A statutory law states that. In fact, one of your colleagues read it out to me. How can it be enforced if cases are not being investigated? One-third of the Alice Springs Office of Children and Families is vacant. We have that in writing.
Minister Anderson, your dialogue around NGOs is confusing to say the least. In modern child protection practices, NGOs play a vital role; it is called the dual pathway model. Everybody knows about it. Tonight you say they play a vital role but need to be scrutinised. That is an unfair comment. They are funded by government through formal legal arrangements. You need to work out what you want and get them to do it. If you have other worries they are separate. These are professional organisations and I believe that is an insult.
The Northern Territory budget handed down yesterday was not good news for child protection in the Northern Territory. The budget acknowledges that, sadly, child abuse and neglect levels are predicted to increase, but the CLP government is cutting funding to child protection services. It is in the budget books. Page 253 of Budget Paper No 3 shows a real budget cut of nearly $9m to the Office of Children and Families. Page 254 of Budget Paper No 3 shows 6000 child protection reports will go without investigation next year. The budget anticipates the reports of child abuse will increase from 8000 to 10 000 in one year. However, the number of investigations will drop by 1400, from 5400 to 4000. These figures are alarming; they cause concern. Any increase in notifications does, but less funding, fewer resources, less investigation?
We on this side of the House are asking to see your plans and policies. After eight months we see nothing. We are worried things have stalled.
You talk about programs to support families, NGO mentoring, but your government is not supporting these programs. You have cut early intervention services. The NGOs were cut last year. You talk about supporting frontline practitioners, but how are you doing this? We need a strong department. We need independent scrutiny. We hear things are not working; things are failing in Children and Families. That is clear from the budget papers, from what we hear about staff morale, and from 44 staff vacancies in the Alice Springs office. The government says we need to talk. We believe we need to see policies and direction and, after eight months, we have seen nothing.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 12
Motion negatived.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the government for promising homelands residents they will receive $5200 from the government while implementing a policy which means most will get nothing, and for its failure to support access to education and economic development opportunities for homelands residents.
I bring this motion before the House following an announcement by the CLP government on 2 May in relation to the future of homelands and outstations. It was something of a Clayton’s announcement given there was nothing which had not already been announced by the member for Namatjira, and recognising all the hard yards in the lead-up to the election had been done by the former Labor government under the A Working Future policy announced by the member for Namatjira when member for Macdonnell and the Labor Minister for Indigenous Policy. I have a 20 May 2009 media release by the member for Namatjira and the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, where she said:
What a great policy that was. Obviously, it is the platform for the policy announced at GanGan
However, the major, yet vaguest, part of that announcement on 2 May - from the sound Labor policy which has been, in many ways, simply a cut and paste into the CLP’s policy books - was the promise of $5200 to fix houses. The CLP government has allocated this money to every eligible dwelling - key word being ‘eligible’, as it was in Labor’s policy - across 10 000 homelands and outstations, with some 560 or so dwellings across those remote communities.
It sounds good on the surface; however, there are many strings attached to the Homelands Extra Allowance which will mean many homelands and outstation residents will miss out, and this policy is not worth the paper it is written on.
Speaking of policy on paper, the roadshow announcement at GanGan was not supported by a single piece of paper made available to the hundred or so clan leaders and their families from the Laynha Homelands who attended the meeting at GanGan, with the Chair of Laynha actually asking to see it ‘in black and white’. What were they thinking of attending a launch of a policy announcement empty handed?
The new government has had plenty of time to organise this communication, noting this was third time lucky for this meeting to occur in the Laynhapuy Homelands. The planned November and January meetings were cancelled by the former Chief Minister and the member for Namatjira.
As the local member, I was pleased to be at GanGan for the announcement - or non-announcement - having received a warm invitation from the senior man at that community, Dr Gawirrin Gumana, one of the most senior men in Arnhem Land, both in age and cultural authority. Being a bit of a stickler for protocol, I also sought permission of the Laynhapuy Homelands Corporation Acting CEO that the board was comfortable with me attending. I was pleased to receive a positive response to my request to attend as an observer, which was all I wanted to do. I did not need to be there to talk. Obviously, this was an opportunity for the government to be talking and I wanted to listen to what was said.
I took the opportunity to travel to GanGan the afternoon before - approximately a three-hour drive from Nhulunbuy. I had pre-arranged to camp at the community. I had a lovely evening with the community, and the following morning had the opportunity to sit in on the board meeting called for everybody attending the meeting the Chief Minister was to address. I appreciated the opportunity to listen to people’s concerns.
On the day of the launch, the Chief Minister, the member for Namatjira, and other people travelling with them, including media, took questions from the crowd, following a couple of fairly underwhelming speeches from the Chief Minster and the member for Namatjira. This gathering of people from GanGan wanted to hear about, most importantly, how they could access the money, when available, which led to some very interesting dialogue around eligibility criteria for the Homelands Extra Allowance.
Kids attending school is a reasonable expectation. Demonstrating the homeland residence is a primary residence and there is no other government-provided accommodation is also very reasonable. That was part of Labor’s homelands policy which we revised from the A Working Future policy with many good, well-researched ideas and what the CLP’s policy has, basically, built upon.
In relation to the questions people were asking, there was some confusion. In regard to setting eligibility criteria, where the opposition has issue with this policy is the means testing. It was a key element at that meeting and the member for Namatjira failed to touch upon it in her address to those gathered at GanGan. She did not mention to the crowd it was means tested. When people asked questions she talked about children needing to go school, adults needing to be engaged in some type of economic activity within the community, but she did not mention means testing.
Not only was that policy not available at the meeting, neither was the application form to apply for Homelands Extra Allowance money. This form is still not available. I have seen a draft copy of the form and know some people have been endeavouring to fill out the details required in the draft copy, but it says draft so you would expect a final to be coming. It was confirmed today with a call to the 1800 homelands information number. There was advice from a very helpful fellow who said the application forms were not yet available as they were going through legal checks. This is prudent. The final draft of this form will be available in 10 days’ time. If that is the case, I am unsure why people have been given the draft form to make a head start.
At the meeting at GanGan, and in reference to accessing the grant money, the member for Namatjira said to people, ‘This money is available from today’. Clearly, that was not the case on 2 May. How could it have been available on 2 May when people did not have access to the forms?
In a moment I will talk about the challenges associated with completing the form. The form has three pages. We all know filling out forms can be a bit challenging, but I want to know who is checking and verifying the accuracy and authenticity of the information provided. Details are required of householders from basic details of birth date, address, names - all in English, mind you. There is a requirement to understand people’s earnings, what activity they are involved in, and who exactly is living in the house. ‘Do you have government supported accommodation?’ Some questions are easier to deal with than others. Who will assist homeland residents, knowing many adults will struggle to complete the form and provide the level of information required? I do not object to an administrative paper trail, but am a little fearful this will become bogged down in process.
The member for Namatjira made it clear she was a stickler for things being done via a process when she said at the meeting, ‘They just give that money to anybody’. This was in relation to the process needing to be tightened up. Further to that she said, ‘No more ticking the boxes and getting away with it’. All those naughty homelands people just ticking boxes and getting away with it!
What prevents homelands and outstation residents just ticking the boxes now? Who is checking and verifying these forms? Is the administration of this grant scheme going to see precious R&M money lost as people become bogged down in administrative process? Many homelands residents will struggle on their own to complete these forms without access.
The draft application form I have requires applicants from homelands or outstations to supply documentation, including identification. I am sure the member is aware how hard it is for Indigenous people to obtain identification like birth certificates, although it does not specify what identification is required. What would be acceptable identification? Here is a suggestion for the member for Namatjira: why not offer a period of free birth certificates, as Labor did when we were preparing for the implementation of the Banned Drinker Register. I know communities that seized the opportunity, not because they wanted to access or purchase alcohol, but because it was a golden opportunity to get free access to a birth certificate with accurate information and correct spelling and all those things we know are so challenging for people in remote communities. It is a key to accessing a driver’s licence or a bank account.
For the people at Mapuru, when the opportunity came for free driver’s licences, every child and person in that community rechecked their birth certificate and most were replaced, including some relatively newborn babies.
The Labor government, the architect of the foundation of this policy, agreed there needed to be some eligibility criteria but not by means testing. I am fully aware of the difficult area homelands dwelling sits in around land tenure; however, tenants in public housing are required to meet eligibility criteria, including an income threshold to become a tenant. Ongoing provision of repairs and maintenance, on what is not their asset in normal public housing, is not means tested.
Here some of the most impoverished people who are often, but not always, located in remote communities where the cost of living and accessing services is higher than anywhere else, are means tested to access the $5200 dangled before their eyes. How will the means testing work? What is the threshold income point from which residents will start to lose the full amount of earning via Centrelink payments, a job, not to mention royalties? Information on how these applications will be assessed is not made clear to people. There is nothing wrong with criteria. An incentive-based eligibility criterion - children should be going to school - is okay, but means testing is grossly unfair and will see too many people miss out on this grant.
One man from Barrkira asked - there were many questions - about accessing this promised $5200. He made the observation it was, as he described, peanuts. I guess it is all relative whether you regard $5200 as a good sum of money or peanuts; however, Labor’s policy recognised there are dwellings out there where $5200 is peanuts, which is why Labor’s policy offer was between $5000 and $20 000. This recognised there was clearly a need for greater financial assistance. None of that recognition is in the CLP policy. It is a flat $5200 around eligibility criteria, which will make it difficult for many people to access.
Nor is there acknowledgement that Labor’s detailed homelands policy was borne out of three years of hard work to consult with homelands people across the Northern Territory. This was to gather information by compiling a comprehensive audit and report on the state of every homeland and outstation, the infrastructure, including housing, and the needs of every homeland and outstation. This exhaustive body of work had never been undertaken previously and one which, as was confirmed in my briefing in the minister’s office in November, ‘informed where we are now’.
With all that work already done for the CLP when entering government last August, the reality is people are confused about the CLP’s new policy. I and other fears that accessing the $5200 will be a road to frustration and disappointment.
I move to economic activity on homelands and outstations. It is all very well for the CLP to say, ‘We support jobs, jobs, jobs’, but what are the structures behind that? How will they make jobs and training happen? What will they do to build on the good work Labor had started? I have heard time and again from members opposite that spending money is not an outcome. What are the programs? What initiatives are in place? Who is being employed and what will they be delivering?
Jobs, jobs, jobs is what the Chief Minister wanted to talk about at GanGan. I guess it was fairly predictable he would take the opportunity to criticise Labor policy. His dishonesty and pure politicking was somewhat unbecoming for a new Chief Minister trying to groom himself as statesmanlike and presidential in style. He looked a bit silly talking about Labor’s under-investment in homelands, preaching, as he was, from a homeland which has benefitted from Labor investment and, what is more, standing on the veranda of a BER-funded training centre with the Labor-funded ranger station alongside and the Labor-funded health clinic a little further along. Next to that, let us not forget the newly opened shop the Chief Minister would have driven straight past on his way in from the airstrip. Perhaps he stopped there to buy a Coke. The shop has only been open for a few months. What was especially disappointing from the Chief Minister was his old trick of delivering mixed messages. Twice he said, ‘We are getting rid of the shires’.
That was his promise pre-election. At that time he was getting rid of ‘toxic’ shires, as he described them. Once installed as Minister for Local Government, and after his realisation that Labor’s local government reforms and shires needed to be retained, he changed his language saying he would not be getting rid of shires or going back to community government council but reviewing shires in the same way Labor had committed to reviewing them. However, there he was shooting his mouth off, telling clan leaders and their families and the Balanda present, the CLP was getting rid of shires. A bit of wedge driving with this deceit perhaps, who knows?
Eight months into government and already we see failure to support economic development in homelands and, with it, failure to support homelands education in any true sense. These go hand in hand: education, pathways to jobs and economic activity have to go hand in hand.
The Chief Minister was asked at GanGan about Northern Territory government support to work with the federal government for a federally funded boarding facility to be delivered at the homeland of Garthalala - one of three in the Northern Territory - to which he replied the federal government had pulled out.
I can only presume the Chief Minister took these people and the questioner, Ms Yananymul Mununggurr, for fools with his reply because he was left looking somewhat stumped when this woman advised the withdrawal for support had come from the former CLP Chief Minister via a letter - talk about gazumped.
The Chief Minister said he would look into that letter and knew nothing about it. Homelands people want him to provide full support for the aspirations of the Lanhapuy homelands people who want this facility. Garthalala was identified as able to deliver it because they already have a successful boarding facility for students in a secondary program - Stage 1 and Stage 2. It is an opportunity to grow, consolidate and support a full-time school which, for a few years, has already operated a successful boarding facility.
The member for Namatjira has condemned homeland learning centres which can only provide visiting teachers two to three days a week, with local teachers and aides taking classes on the other days. Here is a perfect opportunity for the member for Namatjira to support a full-time boarding school at Garthalala, or are she and the Chief Minister working in the background against the wishes of the Lanhapuy homelands people, not to mention the KPMG study which supported Garthalala to deliver something closer to Nhulunbuy, in the vicinity of the Garma site perhaps. Is there another deal brewing which the Lanhypuy homelands people are not aware of?
What is the CLP government doing to lobby the federal government given three of the Territory’s DEEWR funded, Indigenous Economic Advisor positions have finished? One was based in Tennant Creek, one in Katherine, and one in Nhulunbuy which wound up, sadly, a few weeks ago.
I pay tribute to the gentleman who did the job in Nhulunbuy and who, like his colleagues in other regions, was working with success to assist Indigenous people to devise and build business plans and feasibility studies, and to access Indigenous business developments plans and the funding that goes with it.
The federal government’s RJCP contract announcements are beginning to roll out. We need officers on the ground to build mutual trust and relationships to assist Indigenous people in remote areas and on homelands to create economic activity and jobs.
I know from his days in opposition the now Chief Minister thought fibre artists - basket weavers - something of a joke. He needs to recognise there are unique jobs in homelands and products people want to buy, such as the tourism packages offered by Lirrwi Yolngu Tourism Aboriginal Corporation across the Laynha and and Marthakal homelands. Given the member for Namatjira’s visit to GanGan was only brief, I hope she found time on her way to or from the airstrip to call in on the Miyalk Yirralka Rangers who were busy from first thing that morning until late that afternoon making and packaging medicinal bush soaps and chest rubs. They told me they were hoping the minister would stop to talk with them and they could show her the good work they do.
That group of female rangers has tapped into a niche market and there is much demand for their product which they look after end to end - from collection of the native organic material, the preparation and mixing of products, pouring into moulds, and eventually wrapping and handwriting labels.
It typifies a business which has grown out of caring for country and ancestral lands, caring for homelands, and an industry which, like ranger programs, can only truly be done by Indigenous people. In the six or so years they have been operating, Yirralka Rangers have grown from one Yolngu employee to more than 40.
On that note, I place on the record my disappointment in a letter I recently received from the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. I wrote pleading for him to reconsider a decision to remove from northeast Arnhem Land two senior parks and wildlife rangers, one of whom has been dedicated to working with Dhimurru and the Indigenous protected area they look after, and the second senior ranger, who has been working with Yirralka Rangers looking after a massive Indigenous protected area. Sadly, the response I received was in the negative; those positions will be going on 30 June. It is really a cost-shifting exercise. Those two senior rangers are being redeployed to other parts of the Northern Territory. For those two Indigenous ranger groups it will mean the loss of a valuable and supportive resource which is required, as far as they are concerned, to continue building those ranger organisations, recognising they provide such valuable work.
In growing our regions and jobs in regions and, typically, those organisations like ranger groups that employ Indigenous people, the loss of those two roles is quite significant. I hope there might be a rethink about that. I know those positions were tied to certain program funding, but I still believe there is a case to be fought there.
Further, while we are talking about Parks and Wildlife, I want to talk about the Learning on Country program. This program has evolved as a trial with very good support from the federal government and the previous Territory Labor government and, presumably under this current government, to link with education to provide pathways into ranger jobs, but not exclusively so. Currently, the trial is across Shepherdson College at Galiwinku, Maningrida School, Yirrkala School and the Laynha and Marthakal Homelands.
This is one of many economic opportunities established under Labor for people in homelands. There are similar stories in other parts of the Northern Territory. However, I know stimulating jobs and training in some parts of the Territory can be extremely challenging where there are limitations in the job market. Let us not forget there is choice and opportunity for people who are prepared to leave their community. However, I am mindful of those people I know who worry that when their young ones go away, they grow away.
Good luck to the CLP government in supporting Indigenous people living in remote areas and outstations whose aspirations are to remain on country, to live in good homes, to attend schools where education - according to the aspirations of the minister - would be the same as in Sydney and Melbourne, and where there are jobs to be developed and grown. So far, we have seen nothing to demonstrate results and the commitments and promises taken to the August election by the CLP.
The member for Namatjira has a reputation for chopping and changing. As I said at the outset, it was she who, as a Labor minister, launched the A Working Future policy which included plotting the direction for homelands and growth towns. She spoke passionately about this policy, only to walk away from it when things were not going her way. Yes, she does chop and change. This is the person who said the member for Blain was a fantastic Chief Minister and had her full support. That pledge of support splashed across the NT News in full colour photographs with arms wrapped around one another all changed the following week. Having described the member for Braitling as just a ‘boy’, a week later he had her full support as another fantastic Chief Minister, despite all her earlier insults.
Madam Speaker, I hope, for the future of the Territory’s homelands and outstations, the people who live there, raise their families there, and want jobs on their country, that the Chief Minister and the member for Namatjira can deliver because, so far, they have failed people. They are far too preoccupied with in-fighting than getting on with the job they were elected to do: support people in the bush no matter where they live across the Territory …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, it is 9 pm. Have you concluded your comments?
Ms WALKER: Thank you.
Debate suspended.
SALE OF LAND (RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARTIES) ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 25)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, 1677 was the Statute of Frauds but I will not dwell on that too long. Suffice to say, that was the time when contracts for sale had to be written. I would be tempted to quote from the Statute of Frauds; however, it would not particularly enliven this debate.
I was trying to describe a circumstance in which a balance needs to be struck between the rights of the vendor and the rights of the purchaser of any particular property. The way the member for Nelson would have us see the world is that is a moral responsibility, which implies an equitable approach to contracting. That is not necessarily correct. Our side of the argument would be there is a legal responsibility to ensure you comply with the law.
The best way to comply with the law without mandating preconditions into contracts is to allow the contract as much liberty as it needs to survive. I point honourable members to the standard form contract to which the member for Nelson referred on several occasions. Nothing prevents a person adding or subtracting items from these contractual arrangements. A person may require a number of reports to be completed in the standard form contract which is a pest report, a condition report, building status report, plumbing report, electrical report, gas fitting certificate compliance, sacred site certificate or body corporate inspection record. This is not an exclusive list.
If a purchaser wants to be protected from a possible shortcoming, they can add into the standard form contract a term upon which the contract will live or die which that person may consider important. That person could ask questions about whether they are in a flood zone, tidal zone, etcetera, and have that made part of the contract. If it becomes a term of the contract, that term will be upheld in any subsequent challenge either through the payment of damages or, depending on the remedy available, having the contract declared void or void ab initio. A number of remedies are available to the courts.
The honourable member has suggested on many occasions this disclosure is necessary because people might not know the right questions to ask. That is why you employ lawyers.
Several people in this House have said this is the biggest purchase many people will make and that is true. If it is the biggest purchase many people will make then there is a due diligence process available to a purchaser when they are purchasing a property. It is sufficient the law continues to operate the way it does now.
Personally, I have received no negative comment since announcing the legislation would not be in force. Subsequent to my tabling the bill in this House, my phone has hardly rung hot with people saying this is a bad idea. It has certainly not been relayed to me. If my office has received any complaints I am not aware of it. Many people in this industry have welcomed repeal of this because they felt the legislation was too burdensome. I had some notes here which I will see if I can find. Unfortunately, I have misplaced them.
The member for Nelson said this had become somehow too regulatorily bound up in the process of having the regulations created. Regulations, by necessity, are a product of the legislation which covers them. They do not operate independently of legislation. When regulators or lawyers are looking at particular sections of legislation and determining what regulatory environment that legislation should look like, those regulations are a child of that parent act. If those regulations become excessively burdensome and cumbersome, it is probably because there is a flaw in the legislation which causes a legalistic response. You cannot necessarily blame lawyers for doing their job, but it is clearly a shortcoming in the legislation.
I take on board the plea from the member for Nelson in relation to vendor disclosure. If the member for Nelson come to me with a model which is straightforward and captures his original intent - which clearly the regulations did not - he is welcome to do so at any time. However, as this legislation stands it has not yet come into force; it has not protected a single person in the two years it has existed. It never became operational, partly because of the difficulty in the regulations. I imagine, in spite of the former government’s position on this, it had more to do with its reluctance to introduce it than anything else.
There is an element of caveat emptor in any purchase. However, there are numerous protections in place for somebody who is misled, misrepresented, enters into an illegal contract, or any other vitiating factor which affects the operation of contract.
The non-enlivening of this bill in it becoming law has not changed the landscape of property settlements in the Northern Territory, and that world has continued to operate successfully without the excessive interference of government. Being a good Liberal, keeping the excessive interference of government away from people’s right to make decisions is something I stood for in the original debate when this legislation was introduced in the House a few years ago. I objected to it then, I object to it now, and those arguments have pretty much been done to death.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney General and Justice)(by Leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this will be my last chance to speak on repeal of the bill.
The minister mentioned he had not been overwhelmed with people disappointed the bill was being repealed. The bill had not commenced so they probably did not know it existed. My concern is people will not be told what they should because they will not know what questions to ask.
With that in mind, I am looking at bringing forward a motion which may help people whose blocks are affected by flooding or tidal surge. This has concerned me in the rural area for some time because some people have spent large amounts of money. For instance, there are two people on Power Road. A young bloke came to see me and said, ‘I have spent $200 000 on this block. I was told by the real estate agent it got a bit wet here and a bit damp’. Something like 90% of the block went under water. Another person bought a block lower than that and built a house on it. It went under water two years ago; they were lucky the house was on stilts. The information they had from the department was partly to blame.
If we do not have vendor disclosure so the truth about these blocks is not discovered because there is no requirement on the previous owner to say the land goes under water, we need another method to protect people.
One thing I will be putting forward for discussion is the requirement that on the title there is some identification of the surge line or the seepage or flood line, depending on where the block is. People, when they buy a block and check out the title, then not only know there are easements on the block, but a section of land could be inundated.
It is sad that, after many years of trying, this bill is dead. I do think about being a Liberal, a socialist or whatever, I go on what is fair and reasonable. I do not want to be stuck in political boxes. Perhaps my religious upbringing comes forward where one should look after their neighbour. If their neighbour is ripped off when buying land and they have to suffer for it later because they did not have the right information, so be it. That is what I was trying to do; nothing more, nothing less.
If the legislation was faulty it should have been repaired, not thrown out. Obviously, that is not the course the government wants to take. It is very unlikely we will see this legislation come through again, even though many states in Australia have something similar.
I will look at other means of trying to protect people. I understand the rural area is only a small part of the Northern Territory, but I have seen many cases. It might only be 10 cases, but it is enough for me to realise people had spent their hard earned money and had to decide whether to sell the land without telling the purchaser it goes under water - a difficult situation for them.
It is an attempt to overcome some of those difficulties. I will be looking at other ways to do it in the hope I can get the government’s support when I bring those ideas to parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I pick up on the comments of the member for Nelson. I draw the honourable member’s attention to section 34(1) of the Land Title Act which says:
It then goes on to describe it. Basically, it covers off on that suggestion - mosquitos, crocodiles, those types of things.
I am not necessarily adverse, prima facie, to your suggestion. If that is what you want to protect people from, that is a much better approach than creating vendor disclosure legislation. Of course, it is something I would have to talk to my Cabinet colleagues about. I am not committing the government to a position, but if that is what you are trying to outline, we can deal with that. That is probably not a difficult proposition. On the face of it, and with those qualifications, I am prepared to countenance the idea so much as looking at it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Treasurer for bringing down a responsible budget and note this budget is projected to be balanced by 2017-18. In congratulating the Treasurer, we need to look at the lead-up to this budget; that is, we have been left with a $5.5bn debt by the country’s worst Treasurer we have ever had, the member for Karama.
The member for Namatjira referred to the local media as the ninth Labor member. I reiterate that statement, which was quite correct. Misleading information has been produced by the media. One piece said no one on this side of the House had any involvement in small business. I have much experience. I have had the Daly River Mango Farm for the last 15 years. Not only is it a horticultural business, it is a caravan park. I have a liquor licence and boat hire, so I am quite au fait with small business. For someone in small business to look at a budget projecting a deficit of any amount that is growing is not good. Any debt that is growing is gradually eating away at your asset.
I meet annually, if not more often, with our bank manager. One of the key things he looks at is our cash flow. If I ever presented him a cash flow where the amount of money I was spending every year was getting higher and higher, and the debt was getting bigger and bigger, he would eventually realise the asset would be worthless to pay out the debt. The debt would be bigger than the asset and any return we would get on it.
When people think about the growing debt we were left with, they need to look at it in that perspective. It is the same as borrowing more and more money every year on your house without the income to pay it back.
Labor complains about reduced spending. Tonight we have heard them complain about expenditure cuts, but none have mentioned where we have increased it.
The Labor opposition needs to consider where the money comes from? It does not come out of the public service; it comes from small business generating income, and that is where we need to concentrate. We do not need to concentrate on increasing our public sector spending; we need to increase income so we can afford to pay for our public sector.
Look at Labor federally. They paid too much attention to spending. What were the big items they mentioned yesterday? Gonski and NDIS. Nowhere did they talk about producing an income to support the $20bn deficit they are projecting. People need to look at the income.
Certainty for small businesses needs to be looked at so we can produce income in the Territory, and that is what this budget is trying to do: look at ways to help small business, which will then increase the income available to this government so we can service this debt, plus increase some of the expenditure we want across our public sector.
I turn to the budget speech. I will highlight a few things which show our expenditure. Budget 2013-14 includes an $8m boost for tourism, providing a total of $15m to extend the Territory’s international marketing activities in partnership with tourism retailers, airlines, and other partners. Tourism is one of the key hub economies we have been talking about. It is one of the three big income earners for the Northern Territory. To expend money in that area is boosting our small business.
In the fisheries area, we have $3m additional funding over two years for commercial fisheries development. We have $1.184m for infrastructure. Infrastructure is one of the key things, especially in regional areas. What is needed in regional areas for tourism, horticulture and primary industries is roads, roads and roads.
The next thing is $368m specifically aimed at regional development. That also includes another $30m for regional roads maintenance. In my electorate of Daly we specifically mention the Victoria Daly shire. In addition to the $30m, we have another $94.9m on maintenance. That was an increase in maintenance.
Looking at transport, look at the road to Dundee. The previous member for Daly took the money for the road to Dundee and spent it on the bridge over the Daly - the bridge to nowhere. The bridge cost $25m to $30m and it does not go anywhere. Snowdon came out, made a big speech and said the bridge would mean access to Wadeye was cut for only five days a year. It was cut for at least six weeks this year. As soon as the river gets over 6 m you cannot go anywhere.
The previous member moved that money from the Fog Bay Road to the Daly. We have to re-do that money so we have allocated $5m to upgrade the Charlotte River Crossing on the Fog Bay Road. I welcome that. That is a boost to tourism as well. Access during the Wet Season is cut at the Charlotte and the only stream crossing left is the Leviathan.
Another amount in relation to transport is $0.3m ongoing for marine safety. Anyone who does much boating around the Daly would know the more boats we have on the Daly the more potential for accidents, and people need to be aware of the need for marine safety. I welcome that contribution.
We have heard much about local government shires and the lack of services. I welcome an increase of $5m into the operational funding of our shires.
The next thing we have is Territory lifestyle. We have $55m for the sustainable management of the recreational fishing sector, and $0.3m to implement a recreational fishing development plan. Many people think amateur fishermen are just people in the northern suburbs. That is wrong. Amateur fishermen include much of the tourism infrastructure we have. The Daly has more caravan parks than Katherine and is based purely on fishing. At our caravan park we can have anything up to 300 people a night so this becomes critical to us.
I move on to regional highlights and look specifically at the Top End. The Top End is made up of tourism, horticulture, and mining, which contribute significantly into the region’s economic development. The Daly River gets a specific mention for recreational fishing, but in the Top End rural area Charles Darwin University and Batchelor Institute have been allocated $5.87m.
We have $0.81m to operate the Douglas Daly Research Farm. This is not in the Daly, it is in Stuart, but is a boost to the region.
We have allocated $0.81m to support the livestock industry, and $0.36m to increase the uptake of sustainable cropping practices. We have $0.31m to operate the Beatrice Hill Research Farm, all of which are in my electorate. We have $80 000 to support plant industry by protecting market access minimising the establishment of exotic pests and diseases.
There is $50 000 to increase productivity for the mango industry. I have a mango farm so that is a good boost for the industry. You do not make much money out of mangoes, I can tell you.
When we talk about safety, we have $12.9m to provide for police. One mentioned is at Peppimenarti, in my electorate. At the moment police live in demountables, so anything to help them would be good.
We have $17m for strengthening and widening sections of the Arnhem Highway. That will interest Madam Speaker and me. It cuts through both our electorates. I have already mentioned the extension to the Charlotte River crossing on Fog Bay Road.
I can continue through all areas where we are increasing spending. They are targeted to help small business.
Look at the range of programs helping our Indigenous people with employment. In the Top End rural areas we have $0.18m for the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program, which will help many Indigenous communities. We have $0.17m ongoing funding for the Gamba Grass Assistance Program which will help our bushfire people.
Back to School - education. In the Palmerston and Litchfield area there is $1.3m for the back to school vouchers of $150. We have $1.3m to fund isolated children’s education through distance education. We have $6.1m for the Territory Wildlife Park at Berry Springs, and $0.74m for a new bus service from Palmerston to the suburbs of Rosebery, Bellamack and Zuccoli. I wish we were going all the way to Batchelor but we are not.
The last thing I want to mention in regard to regional areas is $30m for regional roads program. That is the $10m we have added each year. We have $188.6m under the 10-year National Partnership Agreement on Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory to improve Indigenous outcomes. I am unsure how we can increase the amount of development we are trying to create across the Territory.
In closing, we need to increase our private sector because that funds government. Most of the areas I highlighted where we are spending money are aimed at assisting the private sector. I am glad we are doing this. We are increasing tourism, spending money in primary industries, and protecting the environment. There is some money in the budget to help with water in Adelaide River. There is also a stack of money for monitoring the water, and I presume much of that will be around the Daly River.
We have good regional development recognition and it is not just Darwin. The member for Nelson said the budget stops at the Berrimah Line. I was worried that might have been the case. But I can see that a lot of money is being spent south of the Berrimah Line and I thank the Treasurer for that.
This is a responsible budget. I thank the Treasurer and all his staff - I know the hard work they have done - and I thank the public sector for their involvement in drawing up this budget in a very short time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for his proof of the pudding. In the case of Litchfield, the Berrimah Lines starts at one end of Litchfield then moves on. Yes, the bush electorates have done very well, but I ask the member for Daly to look at what has been achieved within the Litchfield boundary. Nothing, and that concerns me. Being a rural community of 20 000 people with two local members in the government makes it twice as disappointing.
I am happy for money to be spent out bush, but when you consider the government took away a number of funding promises made by the previous government - the swimming pool and money for Freds Pass - then gave us a very little in the budget, you have to wonder. We received some shade cloth for the Howard Springs Nature Park. That is for cooling off the rock pools, and we have some - in your electorate, member for Daly - improvements for the sign at Strauss Airstrip. If I wanted to save time, I could say thank you very much and good night, because that is all we have.
When the Treasurer spoke about the Howard Springs Nature Park I had to laugh because previously in parliament he went off like a half-cooked chook putting down the Howard Springs Nature Park. His description of Howard Springs Reserve after it was cleaned up was:
‘He’, is referring to me:
Then he said:
I am amazed at that type of speech in parliament. It shows a complete ignorance of the facts. The Howard Springs Nature Park had difficulty with water quality suitable for swimming. A community board looked at options, and that community board, plus Parks and Wildlife, agreed they would try to clean the reserve. They would cut back trees to reduce litter, put new sand on the bottom, then see if the water quality came up to standard. That is the reason there were changes to the park. Now the park has come back. It is beautiful and green, has a fantastic adventure playground, barbecues and shade for families, and a rock pool and waterfall. The shade will be important for the park as it gets too hot for young kids sitting in the shallow pools. Users of the park have asked Parks and Wildlife to do this.
It is a great improvement on what were already great improvements to the nature park. I recommend to the Treasurer that he, instead of always having a go at me and going off half-cocked, look at some of these places. It is not always about me; the community did this. A group of local people were appointed to the Howard Springs Reserve committee and made decisions about the future of the park along with Parks and Wildlife. Life goes on. The Treasurer makes it up sometimes for the sake of grandstanding, but I digress.
In the rural area, the electorate of Nelson received the shade cloth, the member for Daly got signs at Strauss, and the member for Goyder got nothing. I hear millions being discussed by the member for Daly and he thinks things are okay. I do not.
The Litchfield Shire has 20 000 people. It has the INPEX gas plant, the INPEX village, the AACo abattoir, the Coolalinga housing estate and shopping centre and the new prison the Treasurer refers to as the Taj Mahal in the member for Nelson’s backyard. I asked him to visit the prison with Ken Middlebrook, move on from the penal settlements of Tasmania, and see what is there.
A huge upgrade of Robertson Barracks is to occur. Millions of dollars will be spent moving the logistics section out to Robertson Barracks and a second entrance will be built. That is all Commonwealth money.
The extractive mining industry is centred in Litchfield. Most of what you see in Darwin and Palmerston depends on what comes out of the Howard Springs area in sand or gravel or, further down the quarries, crushed rock. We also have a new 80 lot subdivision approved at Girraween. There are some issues in relation to ownership of the lagoon, but that subdivision has been approved and I hope will start this Dry Season.
We must not forget thousands of jobs have been created through the different projects that are occurring.
Litchfield is also the home of the Berrimah Police Station, the power houses at Channel Island and Weddell, the ConocoPhillips LNG plant, the helium plant next door, and Darwin River Dam. It has a thriving mango, Asian vegetable, and cut flower industry as well as nurseries, some of which export plants interstate and overseas. It has two of the biggest high schools in the Territory - Taminmin College and Good Shepherd Lutheran College - and eight primary schools. It has a recreation reserve at Freds Pass which is home to over 30 user groups, which I believe is bigger than Marrara. It has the Mickett Creek Shooting Complex, Crocodylus Park, the Jumping Crocodile Cruises at Adelaide River, Knuckey Lagoon and Bees Creek crocodile farms, the Barramundi Farm at Adelaide River, the Knuckey Lagoon Conservation Reserve, the Howard Springs Nature Park, the Berry Springs Nature Park, the Tree Point Conservation Area, and the Territory Wildlife Park. It has the Coastal Plains Research Station and Windows on the Wetlands. It has World War II heritage - Strauss, Hughes, Livingstone and Sattler Airstrips. It has the Kamfari, the National Polocrosse championships, and two cable ski parks. It has the Shoal Bay Receiving Station, Humpty Doo Station at Middle Point and, of course, Robertson Barracks. It has industrial development at Holtze and Humpty Doo. It has 20 000 people living within its boundaries, making it the fourth largest municipality in the Northern Territory.
What was there in the budget for this vibrant and growing region of the Territory? Stuff all! Do the people of the rural area deserve this treatment? I do not believe so. This is what the government should have looked at, not in one year, but these are the issues the fast growing area needs. We have land which could be developed in the Humpty Doo district centre for housing and a retirement village - nothing in the budget. We are screaming for someone to invest in a retirement village in the rural area. Rural people do not want to live in Tiwi or Bellamack; they want to stay in their own community. There is land available and I hope we will be touring with the minister for Lands soon to see if that could be developed without using much government funds, because the private sector could be the main way to go.
We need an ambulance based at Humpty Doo - there is nothing in the budget. We have a fire brigade, we have a police station. With the amount of traffic moving up and down the Arnhem Highway, especially now with the growth of INPEX, there is need for an ambulance based at Humpty Doo – nothing in the budget.
We desperately need industrial land at Humpty Doo. Again, hopefully, I can show the minister because there is an opportunity for private industry to do it at a reasonable price. That would depend on what the government was willing to sell the land for. However, there is a definite need because recently there were two exceptional development permits the minister would have seen, one on the Stuart Highway and the other in Humpty Doo. These businesses have been told they are operating illegally under the present zoning. There is no land in Humpty Doo for them to move to, so they had to apply for an exceptional development permit. A construction company has been told to get off their 20 acre block and they have nowhere to go. There is a definite need for industrial land at Humpty Doo - nothing in the budget.
We need financial support for the Freds Pass Reserve to ensure it attracts as many people as possible to participate in sport, especially our youth. We can argue the toss over why the government took away the $2.7m left from the $3.6m promised over three years by the previous government. Yes, there may have been problems with acquittal of funds, but the government could have said, ‘We will not give you any more funds until you get your act together’. Instead, they took the money away. It would be good if the government gave a small amount of money to help with the operation of Freds Pass Reserve. I see it as part of an early intervention program as well - kids can run around.
When governments invest in things like Freds Pass Reserve, they encourage more youth to use the facilities and there is less chance the kids will get into trouble. At the moment there is a shortfall in funds for Freds Pass. It needed major upgrades to some of the buildings and some of the money promised would have gone towards that. It is getting a bit hard for Freds Pass Reserve to continue without upping the cost which will be borne by the user groups, meaning there could be less people using the facility.
We need a swimming pool. I recently did a tour of the INPEX development and am certainly very impressed. Besides having two air conditioned basketball courts, a gymnasium, a cycle room, a weights area, a recreation facility with music room, theatre and computer room, it has a tavern and the kitchen can serve about 1700 people at one time. They had a 25 m swimming pool built in about four months. I am unsure of the price but will be trying to find out. It was pretty easy for INPEX; they built it in a short time.
We were promised a pool. The pool is gone and it is especially disappointing considering the Coolalinga residential area will probably have about 400 to 500 people. It is full steam ahead at Coolalinga. I call it a mini-suburb with houses and duplexes going up overnight. It will not be long before the whole area is full and a swimming pool near the Coolalinga area would have been an ideal place for locals, especially those using Freds Pass.
The government says not to swim in creeks and rivers because crocodiles eat you. People want to cool off and not everyone has a pool. There is no pool in the rural area so people need a safe place to swim and to learn to swim. Sporting bodies could use a pool for training, even develop a swimming club, schools could use it, tourists and locals could cool off, seniors could use it for exercise, and people could have fun, but there is nothing in the budget.
Anyone who has ridden a bike recently would have noticed how many people use the bicycle path from Palmerston to Howard Springs. It has become extremely popular and has even added to the economy of the bakery at Howard Springs. People go there on a Saturday and Sunday morning in their lycra …
A member: Terry!
Mr WOOD: I have not seen Terry there yet. Tony might have been there. You mixed up Terry and Tony; however, they go for coffee and pies - work it off on the way home. The bicycle path has become an important part of the overall community and it would have been terrific to see something in the budget to take the bicycle path down to Coolalinga. That would connect the new supermarket shopping centre and residential area with Howard Springs and Palmerston by a bicycle path. Money has been set aside in town. Terrific! Darwin to Woolner and around Leanyer gets bicycle paths but the good old rural area – it took 20 years to get that bicycle path - is, once again, off the agenda. It is disappointing there is nothing in the budget.
The government is looking for affordable land. I have heard the minister say how much land he has found. The previous government had issues with the forestry land due to native title. You can blame the government sometimes, but they did try to go through native title procedures. That took until late 2011 and when I put to the government you could open up the forestry land, the department of Environment said, ‘We will not allow septic tanks in the area’. That killed that, but there are still opportunities there.
I have spoken to the CEO of Lands, Planning and the Environment, John Coleman. There is a 300 mm water pipe going to the prison and land there suitable for small rural subdivisions of 1 ha with town water which would not cost much money. Rural subdivisions do not cost as much as suburban subdivisions because they do not need storm water or sewerage.
We are looking forward to a trip with the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment because I would like - forget the politics - to see blocks opened up in the rural area at an affordable price. Many young people from the rural area are living in the granny flat, or granny is living in the flat and they are living in the house because they cannot afford to buy a block. You can do something quickly; this does not need a huge discussion because plans for that area have been set down for quite a while. It is not as though we are making it up as we go along. The land is zoned rural residential.
There was nothing in the budget either. If I had seen something to suggest the government would invest some money there that would have been good.
I realise I will hear from every speaker on the government side that the world is coming to an end because Labor put you into deficit and that deficit has to be paid. I do not have a problem with getting out of deficit; it is right and proper. My criticism has always been the speed at which you want to do it. I remember listening to an American economist talking about problems - they have some big debts. He said the danger of bringing in restorative measures is they could bring about an opposite reaction to the economy. Instead of it moving along, it shrinks because everyone is apprehensive about the future. Whilst we have to be prudent about the way we spend money, on the other hand, being a growing economy we sometimes have to spend money to make money go further.
There are undoubtedly some good things in the budget but I am annoyed, when you hear what the member for Daly said about his electorate and Litchfield is the fastest growing area and probably the biggest economic driver at the moment in the Northern Territory in regard to projects, to get two new items in the budget: shade cloth and some signs at Strauss. It does not go down too well. When you have two members of the government sharing the rural area it is extremely disappointing. I am unsure if the government takes us all for granted, but I have been around a long time.
In the rural area previous governments did not get a good deal. If people say, ‘You took advantage of the agreement you had with the previous Chief Minister’ - to some extent I did. However, if you look at the things promised, most of those were not in my electorate. Even the bicycle path was in the member for Brennan’s electorate, except for the final part going into Howard Springs. The upgrades to Freds Pass were all in the member for Goyder’s electorate. I was not necessarily looking for things for my electorate; I was looking for things to improve the rural area but, unfortunately, this year we missed out.
I do not agree with the Treasurer when he says there is no Berrimah Line. It starts at Berrimah and finishes at the boundary of Litchfield, and that is the problem. We have been forgotten and do not need this type of budget every year. I hope something changes next year so we get our fair share.
In relation to the budget as a whole, I have been going through the budget speeches instead of the budget papers - I have not had much time. I am glad the Chief Minister announced there will be money for Foodbank Northern Territory, a really important body. It is run by one of the churches and is a centre for food that supermarkets do not want. Food can be taken to Foodbank, which it then distributes to charities such as St Vincent de Paul, the Salvos or whoever. I am pleased the Chief Minister has announced $400 000 for 2013-14 and $160 000 for 2014-15 and 2015-16. He said more than 90 registered organisations distribute in excess of 100 tonnes of food per annum, which equates to more than 150 000 meals. That is a good thing from the government.
There is discussion about Palmerston hospital. The government has made the right decision on scoping Palmerston hospital. I have previously said the hospital was in the wrong place and should be on the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway. The government has other ideas about where it might go. I have always felt the proposed site was too small. I had discussions with the architect who told me car parking was an issue. I do not want to see a repeat of RDH, where car parking is a real problem.
We have to look long term. I am not in the government and sometimes government members do not see me as flavour of the month, but I would be happy to be part of any discussions because this hospital will be for the rural area as well as Palmerston.
I mentioned last year I had discussions with someone from the hospital board. When it comes to the future of RDH, they were concerned the cost of refurbishment was nearly as much as pulling it down. That person looked at whether Berrimah Farm was a suitable site, or somewhere in between. People are ooing and ahhing, but that does not mean the RDH site disappears from use. There are many other facilities there. The idea of whether we have one or two hospitals, where they are located, who they are expected to serve and what facilities they will have is worthy of a scoping study.
I thank the Minister for Education, who has come in for some criticism. I am worried about where teachers from our secondary schools are going, but he said he does not want anyone selling sausages to pay utility costs for schools. That is fair enough. For money schools have raised for improvements to disappear into paying for electricity is very poor. In the number of school council meetings I attend people were not really happy. They were unsure of what the future would be. Some schools wanted to take fairly vocal action; others wanted to sit still for a while. Minster, the decision for the government to cover those costs is good.
That does not mean you just hand out money. The increase in power prices has people thinking about what to turn off or leave on. I nearly make the effort to turn the TV off at the switch. A bloke said to me recently, ‘The light in your fridge costs $88 a year?’ He worked it out. I am not going to take the light bulb out of my fridge; I would not be able to see what I was taking out. He wanted to show every bit of electricity used costs money. It has made people much more conscious about wasting electricity.
There was also mention of transportable classrooms, minister, in your speech. There are supposed to be new classrooms at Girraween Primary School but it has been slow. The school is bursting at the seams. I would appreciate it if you could you find out how that is going because things need to happen faster. That school is probably the biggest primary school in the rural area, having surpassed Humpty Doo. It was due for new classrooms but there was a delay. Because of the expanding nature of the school, perhaps you could get back to us. It might have been fixed, but I was under the impression it was bogged down.
The First Home Owner Grant - 2000 new affordable houses. The government comes under criticism again, and I criticised it a number of times saying it did not release enough land. The then Treasurer was saying they did not want to release too much land because of the impact on prices. I accused it of being the CLP in sheep’s clothing because the CLP would not want to upset the market. What are the government’s thoughts on releasing a great deal of land in relation to the market? The market has room to move up and down without too much harm. Has the government taken that into consideration when it mentioned - you were looking at nearly 2000 houses, minister?
Unless you have affordable land you will not have affordable housing. It is relatively easy to pick up blocks of land in the northern suburbs or Palmerston which have not been used because the infrastructure goes right past. I know from the cost of putting Zuccoli or Johnston together on fairly tough country that it is not cheap to put the headworks and infrastructure in.
Governments normally pay for the headworks, so it will be interesting to see, in some of your new developments for Palmerston, what that will cost and how much that will reflect in the cost of turning off land. For instance, land sold at Coolalinga in a private development for around $340 000 a block - pretty expensive. The private developer had to put in his own sewerage system; however, it gives you an idea that the price means it is just about impossible for a young family to put a reasonable house up. How will you come up with affordable housing, not so much on the existing blocks because that will be reasonably easy, but on greenfield sites?
Weddell - not a thing. It should be kept on the agenda. We need a city we can be proud of. We need a new city and the rural area should not be used as an excuse not to develop Weddell. Weddell should still be going ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but Weddell should still be there. The previous government did a lot of work on it. I hope that work is not thrown down the drain, because I went to some of the discussions about the future of Weddell and thought they were excellent. Other people might have other ideas, but if any of those ideas means blocking up the Elizabeth River, I am not for it.
I am concerned about the super shires because the government, when in opposition, said they were toxic. They now have two choices, neither of which are the right way to go. That might be other people’s opinion …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member for Nelson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan. What concerns me about the super shires is we have been given two options: a regional authority and a regional council. I do not know why ‘regional’ is being used. Local government is about local government; regional councils are normally an amalgamation of local government. They are not the same. The issue we have had with local government is lack of community. In other words, we made them so big that communities felt they were no longer part of it.
The government has said it will give them extra money for operational funds. That is a sign they do not have enough money. Most councils survive on rates and Commonwealth funding. That is what Litchfield, Palmerston, Darwin, and Alice Springs run on. The bigger shires need some extra help, but where is the discussion in all this? That is part of the problem. There is no ability for councils to raise sufficient funds through rates, as normal councils do, to help make them sustainable. There are issues about Aboriginal land and rates. If most of the land in the shire is Aboriginal Land Trust, unless you have Northern Territory Housing land there, you will not receive rates. That major issue seems to have been forgotten.
There is also the issue of the community being able to have more say. What is in the new super shires consultation document is only a refurbished version of the community boards. There does not seem to be discussion about whether we could have smaller shires. We have said we will keep them as they are, give them a new name, and they will have more responsibility. Do they want more responsibility? Shires were meant to be about essential services not about government. They were meant to ensure the rubbish was picked up, the roads were fixed, the grass was cut and trees were planted. That was the basic stuff they needed to do. We have now given them more and more things. The previous government gave them heaps of things, which is part of the problem. They have been given too much responsibility for things that are the government’s responsibility. In other words, they have been told to run before walking. We need to ask, ‘Do they need to have all those items as part of their core functions?’
Much noise was made by government when in opposition about the state of the super shires. They have come up with a package which does not say much - only two options. It should have a dozen options because people need to talk about the possibilities. Could Vic Daly be divided into this or that? Should the centre of Daly be at Wadeye instead of Katherine, etcetera? How will we raise more rates? That discussion is important.
Money is being put into SIHIP. I laugh a little because when Labor was in government and building houses there was so much criticism from this side of the House. In fact, the Council of Territory Cooperation was going out regularly. I am disappointed the government got rid of the Council of Territory Cooperation. We now have no other committee to do these things. Theoretically, we have the PAC. The CTC could decide to investigate how money was being spent or the condition of houses. Unfortunately, we have been here nearly nine months and do not have an environment committee or any other committees except the basic committees. The CTC, for all its faults - and it had some faults - was a bipartisan committee which enabled all members of parliament to, as a group, look at any issue it wanted, whether it was Mataranka cattle, domestic violence figures, or housing in Aboriginal communities. It was able to do that and report back to parliament. We do not have any of that; we do not have anyone reporting.
The government is investing $139.6m into remote Indigenous housing capital works and $32.25m into repairs and maintenance. That is a good reason for a committee. Let us see if that money is being well-spent because the previous opposition said it was not. It was not value for money, I heard that time and time again. Now the boot is on the other foot. You criticised the previous government, have you done any better with the money? Have you got better value for money? Sometimes it is not so simple when you see what has to be done to bring houses up to standard. I might ask the question later, but I am interested to know.
I do not see it here, but someone mentioned upgrade of Tiger Brennan Drive into town. When will that start, if the duplication is planned, and will the rail corridor be included? You do not have to build the rail now, but will they clear the land so the rail corridor, meant to go into Darwin, is built now so it is not forgotten? You have a parcel of land included in this duplication and, regardless of whether it is only 4 m wide, it needs to be included as a future rail corridor. I do not see anything about that.
The clock appears to be stuck, Mr Clerk.
The issue of tax on mining companies needs discussion. I understand the mining companies are not opposed to it; their biggest gripe is nobody discussed it with them. When the government is talking about a three-hub economy and one is mining, you are not sending out the right signal if you say they have to pay tax to fix up legacy mines and you want extra monies in royalties. If you want them to be part of the three-hub economy, you need to talk to them.
Fishing is a wonderful thing. I am still opposed to the decision to close Chambers Bay - a very poor decision. It is difficult to believe the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has amateur fishing in his portfolio as well as commercial fishing. They are two different groups. I do not have a boat and like to buy my fish at Fisherman’s Wharf. I expect it to be wild catch fish and do not expect it to be too expensive. The government said it will reduce the cost of living by removing Chambers Bay from the commercial fishing area and asking fisherman to go further out. Surely that must have some effect on the price of fish. It is a bad decision.
In regard to horticulture, we should spread our horticultural industries further. However, I become alarmed when the minister says, ‘We have to let these people have more water’. I have no problem with that, but if it is not done scientifically and with due diligence, we end up as silly as the people who took water out of the Murray River years ago. They took too much out when they, possibly, had an excuse because they did not have the knowledge or the science. Today we have the science and need to ensure, if we are giving people water licences, we have the water to do it, it is shared equitably amongst the people in that area, and we do not end up with an unsustainable horticultural industry.
We need to learn from our mistakes. I am all for people getting water, but would hate to see it happen just so someone can say, ‘We are for business in the Northern Territory’. I would rather someone say, ‘We are giving you water because we know you can use it wisely and we have enough to give you. We are supportive of sustainable agricultural business in the Northern Territory.’ That is the important thing.
It is good to see the minister has put some money into the Ord River Scheme, an area that needs looking at. I do not know where that is going, and it would be good if the minister gave us an update on what is happening in relation to the sugar farm on the Western Australian side and the possibility of cotton on the Northern Territory side.
There are good things in the budget; there is no doubt about it. The bush seats have received their reward for the government winning the election. Rural seats in the Litchfield area have received nothing. Darwin has received a reasonable number of things, but the government should not ignore the rural area. It has kids, seniors and needs; please do not ignore that. We would like our fair share of the budget considering we are the economic hub of the Northern Territory at the moment. That is certainly not reflected in the budget today. There are some good things in the budget, but they are not for people in the rural area of Litchfield.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support the budget. The Country Liberal government is taking responsibility for tackling Labor’s terrible legacy of debt, helping to grow the economy, and providing real opportunity for all Territorians. The Territory has only a limited number of ways to raise revenue compared with the bigger states. This is an important reason why we have to be good economic and financial managers and not spend like drunken sailors.
The Gillard government has cut more than $100m in GST funding from the Territory budget for 2013-14. It has been hard enough to deal with the crisis spending of the Territory Labor government, but we have also had to deal with the unpredictable and irresponsible financial decision-making of the federal Labor government in Canberra.
Everyone knows what happens when we spend far beyond our revenue. Like individuals and families, we are forced to borrow if we spend beyond our means. While some borrowing is not necessarily bad for economic management, it depends on how we borrow and what we spend borrowed money on.
Sensible, capable economic managers worry about spending tax dollars paid by taxpayers. We should not borrow beyond our capacity to pay the debt back. If we borrow like Labor, we badly affect the choice of future Territorians because much of our revenue will be tied up in paying back very high interest on the debt. Also, if we spend our borrowings on things which do not benefit future young Territorians, we will have spent it on the wrong things.
Labor did this as well. It used valuable borrowings to spend on things that should have been borrowed from our own revenue. The Territory government’s debt level under Labor became the highest of any state and Territory in the nation on a per capita basis. The interest cost we are forced to pay on this borrowing, which Labor agreed to, is a dead weight on all Territorians and stops us choosing the important things government expenditure is needed for.
An important example is badly needed government spending on health and education. It is also about us, as a government, being able to prepare enough land for housing development. As a result, under Labor rent and housing prices in the Territory reached very high levels. The problem is even worse in remote communities where land and housing shortages are being experienced by many individuals and organisations.
Such high housing prices are an important part of a family budget. They have become so high it has started to affect whether some people can continue living in the Territory. This is a serious state of affairs because we need more people to live in the Territory, not fewer, and we need the skills they can bring to assist our development further.
While the Territory economy is growing quickly, Labor had no plan to cope with this rapid development. This will have a major impact on the lifestyle of all Territorians. Labor seemed blind to the price impact of growth, was happy to rely on a fly-in fly-out workforce, and did not worry about the impact on the lifestyle of all Territorians.
The Country Liberal government attempted to deal quickly with the skyrocketing debt accumulated under Labor by introducing the mini-budget. Very importantly, it was pointed out such a high level of debt threatened the existence of an independent Northern Territory government as it was likely to balloon to $5.5bn over the forward estimates. No revenue would be available to the NT government to spend on other important emerging initiatives such as living standards and the condition of people living in remote communities of the Northern Territory, which I represent. For example, Labor is prepared to gamble with the future of the Territory, especially in remote regions.
The growing Labor debt reduced the ability of the Labor government to properly provide services to the most disadvantaged people in Australia: Aboriginal Australians living in remote regions of the Northern Territory. Consequently, those of us who live in remote regions know of the terrible, substandard services that continued under Labor in housing, roads, lack of choice in basic goods and service - and the very high price of these goods - restricted services in health and education, lack of opportunity for real work, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide amongst young people.
This is not to be tremendously thankful to the wonderful, dedicated people who work in remote communities and wish to, and do, contribute to the best of their ability. What I, and they, continually worry about is why they have to provide these services with one hand tied behind their back. Far too many of our people in remote regions are living in conditions of poverty, poor health, high crime, and high alcohol and other forms of substance abuse. This has caused a terrible toll in Aboriginal remote communities that would not be tolerated in non-Indigenous communities.
The Territory Labor government was on the spot; however, problems became worse. This government will work a policy proposal with the community to targets these problems directly. While I believe in the words of Dr King, ‘I have a dream’, it is now up to us to show young Aboriginal people can also dare to have a dream, and that we have planned a budgetary requirement in a fair and responsible manner.
Since coming to government, I have found how little the Labor Party cared about us and how little the budget was used to assist those in remote regions. They were not only spending money on things which did not benefit us, they then borrowed more and more so now we, as a new and responsible government, have to clean up the mess.
We also have to find new ways to help Indigenous people in remote communities. We will do this because we know how important it is. We will also do this because we really care about the people living in remote communities.
It is now clear that Labor had no care and no interest in our people. I have heard such people referred to as ‘chardonnay socialites’ and understand what this means. This budget aims to work towards overcoming the irresponsible and self-interest excesses of Labor. It has also been carefully designed to promote opportunity responsibly for all Territorians and further develop the Territory in a fair, just and equitable manner.
Madam Speaker, I commend the budget to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, today in Question Time I said I had never referred to teacher’s downtime in any interview, which is incorrect. I mentioned downtime in a telephone interview with Nicole Mills from the NT News. However, although my comments have been inferred by local media, the unions and, of course, the opposition, I have never called teachers lazy, and I never will because I do not believe it. I know how hard they work. I appreciate the level of responsibility and the scope of the role the modern teacher plays in our community.
In fact, today, a teacher not only needs to teach, they also are expected to be a counsellor, social worker, mediator, leader, friend and, in some sad cases, they are a student’s only friend.
Given the sincere respect I have for our teachers and the work they do, after many years of supporting out schools well before politics, I was very disappointed to see the word ‘lazy’ on the front page of the NT News last week and intimated in the cartoon that day. I consider the article written by Nicole Mills to be fair; however, the inference has created a perception within the education community, captured and fuelled by the opposition and the union, which is simply not true.
Now I have corrected the record, I need to put some context around my use of the term downtime and my understanding of it within the context of schools.
First, it needs to be said that hard-working teachers spend much of their time outside the classroom undertaking a range of teaching-related tasks such as classroom preparation, curriculum preparation, report writing, and marking, just to name a few, not to mention after school activities like school camps - I have been on a few myself - sporting or musical events, even just marking the day’s work. This is often referred to as downtime and does not mean a teacher is not working. I know many teachers who not only work before and after normal hours, but spend hundreds of hours of their own time each year on work-related jobs.
When I referred to downtime I was comparing teacher ratios between high schools and primary schools. There is far more flexibility in a high school compared to a primary school given the big difference in teacher ratios. There is far less opportunity in a primary school for a teacher to be given downtime than in a high school environment because of the difference in ratios.
High schools may use the additional teachers as they see fit but, again, the ratios are far different in middle and secondary education facilities compared to primary schools. This was the context of my argument. Thank you.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about an event I attended recently, as did your good self. I attended the launch, along with my colleague the member for Daly, Gary Higgins, of the Northern Territory Vietnamese Horticultural Association at a private property at the east of Humpty Doo.
The evening was delightful, complete with meeting the new committee, speeches in both English and Vietnamese, delicious food, tiny bottles of beer especially imported from Vietnam, and the ubiquitous karaoke. The tiny bottles of beer were about 250 ml.
The association already has 30 members from about 100 farming families in the Top End. I am sure more members will join once they know about the group and the good work they do and will do.
Farmers from non-English speaking backgrounds are a rapidly growing sector, none more so than in the Territory. The sector will continue to grow as will the challenges facing the industry and farmers.
During the evening the new executive committee was introduced one by one. They are a mixture of farmers from across the Top End of the Northern Territory. They come from different parts of the rural area, including farmers from Humpty Doo, Acacia Hills, Berry Springs, Lambells Lagoon and Herbert. The association was initiated by the farmers themselves as they want to provide better services to the Vietnamese farmers, particularly when they face serious challenges such as language barriers and sourcing good labour. As many of the farmers do not speak English, or very little English, negotiating prices for their products can be difficult and they may not get the best price. Also, as mentioned, sourcing good labour can be difficult and dealing with the labour hire companies can also present challenges as these companies may not understand the needs of the farmers.
Another area the farmers have to work with is the regulator of farming and what their farming activities involve. That is mostly the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. The department works well with the farmers; however, there remain some issues, such as language, that can prove a barrier to good work and understanding.
This area of regulation is particularly important. The rules and regulations around farming can be difficult to understand for people who have English as a second language, such as handling of chemicals, soil and water management, pest control and OH&S to name some. Then there are transportation issues, labour hire rules, and freight and pricing which can present enormous challenges. These are some clear reasons why forming their own group to work with and get farmers together makes very good sense.
As happens with other industry groups, and I am sure will happen with this group, there will be farm days and field days where the farmers get together, swap techniques, talk about their growing technology and, perhaps, their secrets. They can talk about where they have been successful, where they have had failures, and why. Generally, they can share experiences and learn from each other and, perhaps, from departmental and other experts in the field.
The evening was pulled together by a remarkable woman, Thanh Thai, who did a superb job of translation coordination with grace, dignity and professionalism. The new president is David Dinh, who is a wonderful advocate for his people and a tireless worker for the Vietnamese community and farming generally. I am sure with these two people at the helm of this group all will go well for the farmers and the farming industry, and ultimately, all of us, as what they grow is first quality, healthy, and nutritious.
The contribution of Vietnamese farmers should not be underestimated as last year they grew one million trays of mangoes and produced over $10m worth in Asian greens and vegetables. Vietnamese farmers in the Top End make up about 20% of the horticultural industry. No other group of people are at that level and it is a remarkable achievement.
The other contribution is these hard-working people have opened up land. They have developed and improved the land, and brought much value to the land and, of course, much wealth to the economy. They need our support and encouragement and definitely have mine. I know they also have support from the member for Daly.
In forming the new association, I am sure they will work with the NT Farmers Association. Grant Fenton was at the evening and is keen for his group, the Farmers Association, to work cooperatively with the Vietnamese Horticultural Association towards common goals and outcomes.
Both groups have the same focus, the same mission, and that is to provide first-class services to their members and first-class products to the markets, not only in the Northern Territory, but elsewhere in Australia. I congratulate the new group, the Vietnamese Horticultural Association, and also the farmers and people who put on such a lovely evening for everyone to enjoy. Well done!
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight in adjournment I want to catch everyone up on several things I have been up to and thank a couple of people.
The Palmerston Senior College Special Education unit celebrated Harmony Day in a very big way. I was, unfortunately, unable to attend but my electorate officer, Angie, went on my behalf and said it was outstanding, which I can imagine. Hats off to everyone at the Special Education centre. Each class was assigned a country and they dressed up in cultural dress, prepared food of that culture, decorated their classrooms, and there was a fashion parade. It sounded like a really wonderful time and the photographs look amazing. Well done!
I attended Gray Primary School for Harmony Day. I was fortunate to be taken under the wing by one of the preschool teachers, Michelle, who let me come in with a group of preschool students and make beautiful paper chains. All the paper chains had different flags of various nations around the world. That was a lovely, busy week. A tribute to Gray Primary School for such a wonderful Harmony Day event. Gray Primary School is a multicultural school. When you attend a school assembly there, it is really amazing to see all the children. Many children have English as a second language, there is a high number of Indigenous students, and a large number of students who have migrated from Asian countries.
The Palmerston Markets started three weeks ago and have been great. I missed having something as interactive as that to do on a Friday night. Renae is doing a wonderful job as this year’s market coordinator and has a new committee behind her. They have chopped things up a bit, changed the format, and are focusing on lots of entertainment for families and kids so they can sit on the grassed area and enjoy the night.
Our Country Liberals’ stand is there as always. Natasha Griggs, our member for Solomon, is in full campaign swing so if you get in early you will at least get a balloon from her.
The Palmerston Markets are going well. Again, thank you to the Palmerston Market committee, which does an amazing job. It is a huge market season, a huge market to pull off and, for volunteers, not a bad effort at all.
I touched on the federal campaign. Luke Gosling, Labor candidate for Solomon, can stop doorknocking in my electorate and spreading lies about the Palmerston hospital because everything he is saying is untrue. He is not here to defend himself, but I do not appreciate what he is peddling in my electorate.
June is coming up, which is SIDS and Kids month. Everyone loves Red Nose Day, but please remember the entire month of June is dedicated to SIDS and Kids. This is their one shot in the whole year to raise enough money to support bereaved families. SIDS and Kids covers families and people who are grieving over children from when they were in the womb through to becoming an adult, so they have a huge field to cover. They do an amazing job, and in recent weeks we have been packing up all the boxes in Rapid Creek Village and getting them off to businesses. If you see any SIDS and Kids merchandise, please purchase it, drop a donation in, or volunteer to help because there will be lots of stalls at the Palmerston shops and all over the place. Get in touch with SIDS and Kids if you would like to help.
I say a huge thank you to Fiona Peters and Deb Gardiner-Munro, the most amazing women. They work tirelessly forever and a day for SIDS and Kids. They live and breathe that organisation and without them there would be no SIDS and Kids NT. Thank you very much to those wonderful women.
On the weekend just gone we had the Mother’s Day Classic which raised money for breast cancer. It was a wonderfully organised event; the organisers did an exceptional job. Thousands of women were there in full force. Lake Alexander was covered in pink.
I thank my mum for getting involved in dressing me, my electorate officer, and herself up. She bought pink tiaras for the occasion and pink zinc cream, which went down quite well. We managed to have quite a few photos taken on the day. It was good fun and all for a very good cause.
I also thank Linda Heidstra, Kathryn Ward, Jenny Washington and the whole AIOP - Australian Institute of Office Professionals - for their annual breakfast last week. They always do an exceptional job with the breakfast. It was formerly Secretary’s Day, which some people might remember. It was excellent. The guest speaker was Geraldine Cox, who started the Sunrise orphanages in Cambodia. She was a very interesting guest speaker and an exceptional breakfast was put on. Thank you to those lovely ladies, who are on a number of committees. Their CVs would be a mile long. Thank you for your contribution to our not-for-profit organisations and our incorporated associations throughout the Top End.
Of course, my favourite is the Italian Festival. I thank Madam Speaker for allowing the Italian Festival use of Parliament House lawns. It will be a knockout event. The Italian community has not rallied together and put on a festival like this since I was about four years old when we had Pasta in the Park at the back of Fannie Bay shops. Territorians who have been around long enough will remember it as an awesome night. I can still remember the beautiful calamari and all types of things. You will feel that sense of nostalgia on Saturday. I seek leave to table the program so the highlights are forever recorded.
Leave granted.
What a wonderful event it will be. My Kitchen Rules will be there, which is a huge coup. We will have bocce, flag throwing, tarantella dancing, and there is some wonderful stuff for the children - mask making and all types of things. It is a genuine family day out, so please come along because we might not have one for another 25 years, depending on how it goes. If you all rock up we might have it again next year or the year after. Please come along. It has been cooking for two years and I cannot believe it is three sleeps away.
Over the weekend, Driver Primary School, which has a Stephanie Alexander farm, had a working bee. I thank Sherida, Sharon and Karen, stalwarts of Driver farm. They are amazing women who are always teaching the kids discipline on the farm, about food and nutrition, and all the other things that go with looking after a garden. I had a really good morning. Thank you to the Marines who shovelled dirt and compost with us. It was great to see so many kids involved. In fact, we had to send a few home because they got out of bed so early they forgot to tell their mums and dads they were coming to help on the farm. We had to sort out some issues there but, otherwise, it was mums and dads. It was really good. Driver school has a strong, healthy community spirit and I enjoy being there whenever I can.
After quickly going home to shower and wash off the dirt, I went to the Red Cross shop in Palmerston because we were celebrating World Red Cross Day.
On 8 May every year World Red Cross Day is celebrated in honour of Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross many moons ago. It was great to see many people I usually connect with in the electorate, such as Jerry and Mary, Anne and Dave, and all the usual suspects lurking around Drysdale doing things for our community. Unfortunately, we did not have many people through the doors that day, so the Red Cross shop did not make much money, and this was its big fundraising opportunity for the year. We still had a great time, had plenty of sausages, and the kids had a great time. Minnie and Mickey Mouse were there, and quite a few tears, surprisingly, coming out of that - less hugs and more tears than anticipated. Nonetheless, it was a well-organised market day and I enjoyed it very much.
Madam Speaker, soccer season has commenced again and every Sunday you will find me at the Palmerston Football Club where they host tons of juniors’ games. I thank Katy, Bill, Henry, Troy, Howard, Tony and anyone I may have forgotten. They do an amazing job. We are such a professional outfit. I say we because I am the patron, so I feel I am part of the team. They are pumping food out of the canteen to raise money to keep the venue organised. It is an outstanding outfit and I encourage all parents to sign kids up to the Palmerston Football Club - perhaps use the school sports voucher. That is it for now.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale. I will see you at the Italian Festival.
Ms Finocchiaro: Good.
Mr VOWLES: Looking forward to it.
Tonight I speak about an issue I have spoken of many times in this House and will continue to talk about until the CLP make good on their promise to the people of Millner. I refer to the CLP’s commitment to the residents who live along Rapid Creek Road and surrounding streets of my electorate of Johnston.
In February 2011, great distress was experienced by landowners and residents when, in the middle of the night, many had to evacuate their properties due to the rising creek levels causing flooding of their homes. This was a terrifying event for the residents.
As an election commitment, the former Labor government set aside $2.5m as the first payment to address the issue. Similarly, on 20 August, the CLP issued a media release stating:
The media release went on to say:
Of course, we would have liked the CLP to match our $2.5m, but were happy they would set aside money to address the issue, and $1.5m was a great start.
Post-election, with a CLP in government, how their tune has changed. In the mini-budget in December last year, the CLP broke their promise to the residents of Millner and Johnston. Instead of $1.5m, the commitment had halved to $750 000. Terry Mills said at the time:
In December last year, I received a letter from the then Chief Minister who said:
Mr Deputy Speaker, the CLP government said it would release a flood study report and a new flood map in December. As far as I am aware, neither has been released.
On 1 May, new Chief Minister, Adam Giles, was asked on radio what action he was taking on the issue of flooding at Rapid Creek. Instead of referring to action or dollar amounts, he referred to more investigations. The former Labor Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, said the flood studies were happening in 2011 and a draft report was available in May 2012. While I never saw the final report, I was briefed that the report was finalised and the election commitment of $2.5m would be a down payment to start work immediately if Labor won the election.
Here we are in May 2013 with Millner residents still none the wiser, with this now not new government being in power for nine months and no action. The former Labor Chief Minister promised to consult with the residents of Millner; this government has not. The new Chief Minister continues to keep residents in the dark about what the government is doing. In Budget 2013-14, the only mention of Rapid Creek is the following from page 215 of Budget Paper No 3:
The residents of Millner remain frustrated and have every reason to be. The facts speak for themselves. The CLP promised $1.5m. The CLP has broken the promise and halved the commitment. The CLP promised a report and maps to be released in December 2012. The CLP has still not released a report or any maps. The CLP promised to consult with residents. The CLP has not kept residents informed about what it is doing. The CLP says it takes this issue seriously. Not a single cent has been put aside in Budget 2013-14 by the government to address this problem.
There are too many broken promises. The people of Millner and Johnston deserve better and I will keep fighting and highlighting this issue until something is done.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I respond to the rather bizarre questions and allegations from the member for Namatjira in the adjournment debate on Tuesday, 14 May 2013. I will quote from Hansard where the member for Namatjira said:
For the member for Namatjira, the Minister for Regional Development, the correspondence she is unable to find - it is important we determine that here - is a petition lodged by petitioners from Tennant Creek, Ali Curung, Elliott and Borroloola. The petition was lodged in the parliament in February and petitioners from the Barkly electorate are still awaiting a response. The petition was:
I thank staff from the minister’s office for the search they conducted and for raising the issue that this petition has not yet found its way to the Department of Regional Development. It went to the previous Chief Minister. I hope the new Chief Minister has called for ministerial information on this issue and worked with the Minister for Regional Development to address the issue. It might be a yes, it might be a no, but the petitioners from Borroloola, Elliott, Ali Curung and Tennant Creek would like an answer from the Minister for Regional Development.
In relation to the other correspondence - it started with correspondence to the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment on 17 September regarding Crown land in Tennant Creek. The next correspondence was to the Minister for Essential Services on 21 September 2012. A reply to that was received in April 2013. The people of Barkly waited seven months for that reply.
There was also correspondence to the Minister for Health from me on 5 November 2012 regarding dental services. Thank you, minister; there was a reply.
There was correspondence to the Minister for Arts and Museums on 5 November 2012 regarding signage at the Defence of Darwin Experience. No response from the Minister for Arts and Museums; however, thank you to the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment who organised a response with a successful outcome.
There was further correspondence from me to the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment on 8 November regarding Crown Land in Tennant Creek. Thank you for the response, minister. There was further correspondence from me to the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment on 5 November regarding the Defence of Darwin Experience. Thank you very much, minister, for your kind work on that one.
There was a series of correspondence sent from me as member for Barkly to the Minister for Transport in March 2013 regarding remote airstrips, speed limits and road reserves. I also forwarded correspondence to the Minister for Corrections in March 2013. I received a response; thank you, minister. I look forward to progress on that project suggestion.
There was correspondence sent to the Minister for Tourism and Major Events from me, member for Barkly, in March 2013 which I spoke about last night. I am awaiting a response to my latest correspondence to the Minister for Infrastructure sent in May 2013.
For the Minister for Regional Development’s information, I will describe what the petitioners are trying to do. They want to set up regional sports infrastructure which not only involves a sporting oval but accompanying bush camping grounds as well. This is not big dollars we are talking about; this is real doable work in the regions. It will enable the Barkly Australian Football League to play home and away games. On any Saturday we could, for instance, have Ti Tree, Ali Curung, Canteen Creek and Epenarra all playing a normal round of football at Ali Curung. At the moment, the infrastructure is poor and does not confirm with occupation health and safety standards. Therefore, you cannot run the official Barkly league on that oval.
It will also, minister, start to wash the cash through the growth town of Ali Curung, instead of coming into Tennant Creek. It will also save family drama when football players come to Tennant Creek on the weekend and do not go home. This can lead to a chain of events that go horribly wrong and some people even end up in gaol. We are talking about Elliott and Ali Curung. Borroloola wants to get involved. The people are very supportive of this idea and it is doable.
We are not talking about huge money. It is specific regional development initiatives not only for football; it can be about arts and culture, you could have a rock ‘n’ roll show.
Something I am keen to revive, and people in the Barkly are keen to support, is regional school sports carnivals. You need the basic infrastructure of a sporting ground and an associated bush camping ground. These projects in the three growth towns in the Barkly would go a long way to delivering sport and recreation outcomes, great community development outcomes, and improved community safety. They would develop the economies of the regional centres as well.
When you think about the economies, member for Namatjira and Minister for Regional Development, it would be wonderful to inject funds. When Ali Curung plays a home game, not only will they be playing in front of 400 spectators, which might have an impact on their self-esteem, they will also be attracting other teams and spectators to their town for the weekend. That money will not go to hotels or to purchasing alcohol in roadhouses. It will be washed through the growth towns.
Leave alcohol in the equation though, because when you go to Elliott the teams will have to deal with the alcohol issue, likewise in Borroloola. That is part of normalising the use of alcohol as opposed to being inflicted with alcohol abuse.
Minister for Regional Development, that is the correspondence I was talking about. I hope you chat to the Chief Minister about this. It would be nice if you got off your vindictive brumby of a horse and live up to being a minister of the Crown, which has the definition of serving the people.
I do not appreciate your cheap shots, nor do the people of Barkly. How about you get a work ethic and start to face the delivery end of your portfolios. You are welcome any time in the Barkly, minister. I, and other people, talk about you all the time so please come on down. We would love to see you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Essington International Senior College students, accompanied by their teacher Mali Grossman. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and I hope you enjoy your tour and visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention also to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Kormilda College students, accompanied by their teacher Ailsa MacFie. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you too and I hope you enjoy your tour and visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Filming of Budget Reply
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that I have given permission to the ABC to film in the Chamber during the Leader of the Opposition’s response to the budget.
APPROPRIATION (2013-14) BILL
(Serial 26)
(Serial 26)
Continued from 14 May 2013.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to yesterday’s Northern Territory budget. I note that convention is being broken with the Treasurer and the Chief Minister walking out before I even begin.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please withdraw that comment. You may not make reference to members being in or out of the Chamber.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. Yesterday’s budget was a budget of missed opportunity for the Northern Territory. It was a budget of broken promises. This is the worst budget in the Territory’s history, delivered by the worst government in the Territory’s history. This budget is a child of dysfunction, division and complete incompetence. This budget deepens the pain the CLP is inflicting on Territorians. This budget breaks almost every promise the CLP made to Territorians less than nine months ago at the Territory election.
This budget sees the CLP ensuring Territorians will be denied the benefits of, and miss out on, the opportunities of the economic boom the CLP inherited under Labor. We have seen 3600 Territorians lose their full-time jobs since the CLP came to power. That equates to 14 people every day who have lost their full-time jobs.
This budget misses opportunities in health. It slams the door on the new Palmerston Hospital and the children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital. It rips vital health funding out of the bush, including renal dialysis and the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases in young Indigenous girls.
This budget widens the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
This budget is about missed opportunities for our children in education. It commits to cutting 130 teachers. There could have been an extra $300m in education in this budget, but the CLP has decided to put politics before children and reject the Gonski school funding offer.
This budget is about increases to the cost of living, job cuts, new taxes and charges, and fewer health and education services.
This budget has the wrong priorities. Right now, this town should be enjoying the Arafura Games and the $10m that flowed in economic benefits. But, the CLP scrapped it and spent more money on giving their former candidates and members high-paying jobs: more than the entire cost of the Arafura Games. Teachers and support staff are losing pay; funding has been cut by $34m. However, the Chief Minister increased his own department staff by $8m. Fewer teachers in our classrooms, more of his mates getting jobs, these are the priorities of the Giles government.
This budget is a turning point for the Territory. To understand where we are going, we need to look at where we have come from. The last decade has seen the economic and human capital of the Northern Territory increase. We have punched above our weight in almost every area. The Northern Territory has become a fairer society. The Northern Territory has become a more prosperous society. No place in the world faced a brighter future than the Northern Territory.
With Labor’s investment in education right across the Territory, regardless of where you lived, many Territorians were being given that all-important opportunity for a better life. With the Labor investment in housing, particularly the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, we saw billions invested in improving housing, with training and job outcomes. Now, we can expect to see flat-packs that will not last the test of time and will not drive training and job opportunities.
With the investment in Charles Darwin University and our Marine Supply Base, Labor was delivering a world-class industry, training, and jobs to unlock the oil and gas potential of Northern Australia – landing that all-important major Ichthys project. With the investment in roads, power, water, and sewerage in our towns, regions, and remote communities, Labor built infrastructure to unlock regional economic development.
The CLP is putting up the regional ‘closed for business’ sign, with mining taxes and preparing to break up the land councils, delivering uncertainty to traditional owners and business.
With investment in health and child protection, Labor saw a significant improvement in child mortality rates and an improvement in life expectancy for renal patients of seven years. We were on the journey of working with families in crisis, not tearing them apart. This budget wipes that out.
What is truly missing in this budget is decency: decency towards people, towards hard-working men and women in Territory small- and medium-sized businesses. Instead, the CLP government is reaching into their pockets, stripping every cent out of them they can, and reducing basic services, breaking every core election commitment they made.
Six hundred public servants were sacked and there are more sackings to come, including teacher cuts. Inflation is now 3.9%, but this budget has wage rises indexed at 3%. This means a pay cut for teachers, nurses, doctors, police, child protection workers - all of our public servants. This budget inflicts pain on Territorians, but it will not break their spirit. Labor will proudly be the voice of opposition and debunk the CLP myths such as the big fat myth of unsustainable debt, claiming it was enormous and then continuing to grow the debt – rank hypocrisy. I will speak more on that later.
Of course, this CLP government is most famous for deliberately and dishonestly breaking its promise to cut the cost of living. The cost of living has gone through the roof. The CLP has already quite deliberately raised costs for families in the Territory in almost every way it can. Every single opportunity and avenue open to hurt families has been taken. This budget increases the cost of living even further.
Power is going up by 30%: $2000 per year for each family. The CLP believes that by delaying some of the increases suddenly everything is okay and families are no longer hurting. Territorians are hurting; they are struggling to pay your increased bills. But while power and water bills are up, Power and Water infrastructure spending is being cut by $20m; people are paying more for less. We are back to the CLP days of running down infrastructure which led to the need for Power and Water infrastructure increases in the first place.
The CLP promised to cut the cost of housing, but it is up. Under the CLP, house prices in Darwin are growing at 8%, which is three times the national average. Land release has ground to a halt. The only land release in this budget is subdivisions released by the previous Labor government. The CLP scrapped the My New Home scheme, taking more than 1000 properties off the market for first homebuyers.
This budget proves the CLP has hiked up the cost of living. The CLP inherited an inflation figure under Labor of 2.1%, and has jacked it up to 3.9%. The cost of living for families is increasing at nearly twice the rate it was only one year ago. The cost of everything is going up and the CLP has confirmed in its budget that it intends to keep pushing up prices and costs even further.
Domestic revenue measures how much has been taken from Territory families in taxes and charges. The budget shows that the CLP has increased this amount by $84m, up from $55m to $139m. This is nearly trebling the amount of domestic revenue in one year. This budget hits the pockets of Territory families in every way it possibly could, and while costs are going up, jobs are going down. An amount of 3600 full-time jobs have been lost since the CLP came to government less than nine months ago.
I mentioned earlier that this government’s biggest claim to fame was the decision to increase the cost of living, but not far behind was the decision to increase public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour on our streets. Police told them scrapping the BDR would be removing the best tool they had; they ignored them. The police were right, public drunkenness has escalated. Last week we saw the farcical policy of bringing back the BDR, only it will not be enforced. A banned problem drinker is free to buy as much alcohol as they like. This budget saves $2m by scrapping the BDR, which police said worked. Instead, the CLP will spend $45m on a plan that will not work: a plan that police and doctors do not support.
The CLP says the $45m being spent next year will deal with 500 problem drinkers. That is $90 000 for each problem drinker on treatment that experts say will not work. What happens to the other 2000 problem drinkers who were on the Banned Drinker Register? Well, they can drink as much as they like. They can purchase alcohol without restriction. It is not just police, doctors, and alcohol experts who say the CLP plans will not work. The CLP’s member for Arnhem says it will not work. She says this policy is forcing her to decide between her government and her people.
Every promise on police has been broken: no call centres in Alice Springs or Katherine and Police Beats closed. The current Chief Minister promised an extra Police Beat in Alice Springs, instead he has closed the existing one in the mall. There is no funding in this budget for the Nightcliff Police Station upgrade promise. The contract signed with the Nightcliff community has been torn up. The Safe Streets Audit, which was meant to have been completed and acted upon by December last year, has been pushed into next year. The only increase in the Police budget from the Commonwealth government is the increase in funding to the Northern Territory government of $7m to $23m to fund the 90 extra police to deal with any detention centre issues.
The CLP promised boot camps but they scrapped the Balunu camp and we still do not have anything resembling their promise to send kids to boot camp. The budget completely fails to support police and deal with crime.
Education is a massive loser in this budget. In real terms, the Education budget has been cut by $51m. This budget confirms the changes to student/teacher ratios. These changes will result in 130 fewer teachers. Some schools will lose as many as 23 teachers, and all the Education minister can say is it is okay because they will only lose five a year. The budget reduces total pay for teachers and support staff by $34m. This is why the CLP has not signed up to the $300m offer under Gonski. Gonski is about more teachers, but the CLP is cutting teachers; that is why the CLP is refusing to sign up. Schools from Darwin High School and Casuarina Senior College through to our smallest and most remote schools are already suffering from the CLP’s huge education cuts. They are starting to speak out about the daily struggles they face in trying to protect students from the CLP’s cuts.
There are fewer teachers and fewer resources. Under the CLP there is now less education for our children, and all the CLP can say is that our teachers do not work hard enough. That is an absolute disgrace and a clear indication that the CLP is completely out of touch with the priorities and concerns of Territory families.
The CLP’s budget details its plan to cut Indigenous education. It is budgeting to cut the number of Indigenous students in senior schools by 215 in just one year. When Labor came to power in 2001, no student had ever completed secondary school in the bush. The number has increased every year since, but the CLP has decided to turn that around. That is an absolute disgrace. Improving education is the biggest challenge we face in the Northern Territory. By slashing education, this budget sets back the long-term future of the Northern Territory.
The budget confirms that the CLP will hand back some $130m in funding to Canberra that was meant to go towards our public hospital and health system. The CLP does not believe in investing in our public health system. This budget confirms that the Palmerston Hospital has been scrapped. This budget confirms that the planned children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital has been scrapped. How low can you go, scrapping a facility that everyone who has ever had to take their child to Royal Darwin Hospital insists is needed? The cost of running our hospitals increases by between 8% and 12% each year just to provide the same hospital service.
Next year the budget needs to increase by around $50m, yet page 163 of Budget Paper No 3 shows that instead of increasing the hospital budget it has been cut by $1m. Doctor and nurse numbers will need to be reduced to cope with this cut. In nominal terms, the Health budget is up by $43m, but $41m of this is due to the increase to the alcohol and other drugs budget. So, pretty much, their entire increase is to fund a plan that all the experts say will fail. The budget books show that the CLP’s hospital spending blew out by $40m in the last six months, no doubt largely as a result of a dramatic increase in alcohol-related admissions at emergency departments since the BDR was scrapped.
When doctors spoke out and said alcohol admissions at the Alice Springs Hospital Emergency Department had doubled, what was the CLP response? Hide the data. Why did the doctors speak out? Because, the CLP would not listen. The CLP would not listen to doctors who were telling them their policies were clogging our hospitals with drunks. The cuts to our hospitals are just the start of the CLP cuts to Health funding.
The budget rips $8m out of disease control funding. This is the funding used to try to reduce the alarmingly high rates of sexually transmitted diseases we have in the Territory. The latest report from the Centre for Disease Control shows there were 841 sexually transmitted disease notifications in just six months in kids aged between 15 and 19. Ninety per cent of them are Indigenous. Two-thirds of them are girls. You cannot take $8m out and pretend the number of STDs will not increase.
The budget confirms the funding cut will result in the number of treatments at Clinic 34 in Darwin and Alice Springs being reduced from 14 000 to 12 000. It is a disgrace that any member of the CLP supports reducing the prevention of STDs. It is incomprehensible that the CLP’s female Indigenous members have decided to support this funding cut.
There are currently 44 child protection positions vacant in Alice Springs alone. If 44 positions are vacant, then child protection reports are going without investigation. In real terms in this budget, funding to the Office of Children and Families is being cut by $9m. The budget papers confirm this funding cut means 6000 child protection reports will not be investigated next year. The budget books predicted that child protection reports will increase by 2000 up to 10 000, but the number of investigations will drop from 5400 to 4000 – child abuse up, child abuse investigations down.
The CLP ignored the experts and put Children and Families into the Department of Education, then changed its name to Families and Children. Then it changed it back again and now, without telling anyone, without saying so publicly, it has taken the Office of Children and Families back out of Education and made it a stand-alone department again. The CLP has spent far more energy on changing child protection letterhead than on protecting our children. Priorities do not get much more wrong. The CLP has destroyed the Office of Children and Families. Morale is down across the whole of the public service. Child protection is in crisis. The 44 vacant positions in Alice Springs are a direct result of the CLP government.
It is not just the department that has suffered cuts. Our non-government sector provides a wide range of vital child protection services and all of those organisations have had their funding cut. They no longer receive CPI indexation. They have all had to pay the Power and Water price hikes without additional funding. Our children deserve protection. This budget cuts the protection we, as a society, want to see provided to our children.
Business confidence in the Northern Territory government has plummeted by 39%. The CLP has been a disaster for small- and medium-sized business. The Chief Minister outlined his understanding of issues affecting business when he launched his Japanese coup and sabotaged a Territory trade mission for his personal ambitions. The CLP has hit businesses every way it could: power prices through the roof, all rates and charges up. Businesses have been forced to lay off staff: 3600 full-time jobs lost and worse is yet to come.
Under the previous Labor government, Territory small businesses enjoyed the lowest taxes in the country, but not for long, not under the CLP. Just this year the CLP has increased taxes on employers by $24m, up from $176m to $200m: a 13% tax increase. The budget outlines a CLP intention to increase taxation levels to the national average by 2016-17. This will require either significant payroll or stamp duty increases, or the introduction of a land tax. Just this morning at the Property Council breakfast, the Treasurer said he would not rule out a new land tax for the Northern Territory.
Before the election the CLP said it would fight the Commonwealth’s mining tax. We now know why; they wanted to introduce their own, and this budget does that: new mining taxes, implemented without any consultation, which prompted the mining industry to claim this CLP government has no understanding of the industry.
Yesterday, Drew Wagner, Executive Director of the NT Division of the Minerals Council of Australia, slammed the CLP budget. He said:
- The Northern Territory government budget today introduces two new taxes on the NT mining sector - a move that runs contrary to the claims the Top End is open for business.
He concluded his media release by saying:
- The NT government has campaigned that mining is one of the Territory’s three economic hubs. It seems this was just spin.
Madam Speaker, as a former boss of the Minerals Council, it must hurt you to hear your former industry describe your government as ‘closed for business’. There is no understanding of the Territory’s biggest industry. It is little wonder we have lost 3600 jobs since the CLP came to government.
This budget cuts infrastructure spending, which ultimately hurts business now with fewer contracts and into the future with less infrastructure. There is a $64m cut to the infrastructure budget, and the budget papers make it clear that this is just the start. I quote from page 1 of Budget Paper No 4:
- … total infrastructure payments are expected to be $64m less than 2012-13 and will continue to decrease over the forward estimates ...
The CLP promised to bring on Ord Stage 3. The project requires about $0.5bn. In December, the CLP allocated $400 000. They re-announced this $400 000 in this budget. The Chief Minister has said he wants to build the north, yet all he is doing in this budget is cutting the funding in infrastructure required to build the north.
The budget paper forecasts a massive decline in our domestic economy. State Final Demand measures the performance of the domestic economy. The CLP inherited a State Final Demand of positive-26% this financial year. Next year, alarmingly, it plummets to negative-15% and stays negative throughout the forward estimates. The CLP is ensuring Territorians and Territory businesses miss out on our growing economy, thanks to the major project of Ichthys.
Before the election, the CLP signed written contracts with communities across remote areas of the Northern Territory. This budget formally rips up those contracts. This budget failed to deliver on the promises the CLP made for infrastructure in the bush: no new port on the Tiwi Islands, no funding to seal the road to Wadeye, no funding for election promises for road improvements in the Daly and Tiwi regions, no new school or business centre for Borroloola, and this is just the start. The CLP promised its homeland policies would mean people on homelands would enjoy the same standard of living as the rest of the country. This budget confirms that most people on homelands will get absolutely nothing.
Funding for health, schools, and infrastructure in the bush has been cut. I mentioned earlier that the CLP is turning back the clock on Indigenous education. It is cutting the budget for Indigenous enrolment in senior schools by 215 students in just one year. In the Barkly region alone, $2m has been taken out of education. That is preschools, primary schools, middle schools and senior schools that have all had funding cuts.
In northeast Arnhem Land there has been a cut of $7m to acute and non-acute healthcare. Barge landing projects at Ramingining, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku have all been scrapped. There is no new money for serviced land in community housing in remote growth towns to address chronic housing shortages.
There are funding cuts to Indigenous marine ranger groups. Money for Indigenous essential services has been cut from $91m to $71m - less safety and less reliable power, water and sewerage in the bush. The budget confirms the CLP will cut public housing, especially in the bush. It is cutting remote public housing by 107 dwellings next year. The number of refurbishments of remote housing dwellings will drop from 588 this year to 199 next year - fewer houses, more overcrowding.
The CLP’s deceit on the Territory’s financial position is abundantly clear in this budget. The CLP promised to cut debt. The budget formally breaks this promise. Page 4 of the Budget Overview shows they have increased the debt by $1.1bn, up from $3.278bn this year to $4.417bn next year.
Page 28 of Budget Paper No 2 shows the fiscal balance next year will only be reduced by $12m. Last year, GST funding was $2.5bn, next year it will be $2.8bn. The budget confirms $300m will be stripped out of the public service. The financial figures the CLP is using to justify the pain it is inflicting on families and businesses are the same figures it used to promise to cut the cost of living. The same figures it used to promise increased teachers are now being used to sack teachers. The same figures it used to promise more spending on hospitals are now being used to justify scrapping the hospitals.
The Territory’s capacity to manage debt is better now than when Labor came to government in 2001. The CLP used to crow about an interest to revenue ratio of 12%. They said paying 12% of revenue on interest payments was sustainable. The figure is now 9%, but they say they have to pass the burden on to Territory families and business.
They have broken their promise to cut debt because they know our debt levels are both manageable and essential for the future prosperity of the Northern Territory. The greatest threat to the financial future of the Northern Territory is the Liberal agenda under Tony Abbott to strip us of our GST.
The four big Liberal premiers have announced they are in agreement with Tony Abbott to allocate the GST on a per capita basis. Tony Abbott has agreed that a move toward per capita distribution is his preferred approach. That puts $2.2bn of Territory revenue at threat every year. That is how much we could lose under this Liberal plan.
The Labor opposition’s policy alternatives are clear. We would employ more teachers, not sack 130. We would build the Palmerston Hospital and the Royal Darwin Hospital’s children’s wing. We would combat alcohol crime and abuse with policies that police and doctors say would work.
We would return power and water price increases to CPI and not privatise our utility, which would send prices skyrocketing. We will ensure Territorians can again benefit from our strong economy and we would stop the massive job losses the CLP has inflicted.
We would restore confidence to business. We would not implement new taxes without talking to industry. In a developing economy, we would keep taxes the lowest in the country. We would stop the pain. We would govern sustainably and not view Territory families as a cash cow to hurt as much as possible.
We would not rip up contracts in the bush. We would not promise Indigenous Territorians billions of dollars they will never see. We would increase Indigenous education, not cut it. Most importantly, we would take the time to listen to Territorians.
I will quote from the budget reply speech from one year ago. This is what Terry Mills said:
- First priority is to keep people safe; clean up our streets and parks; drive down the cost of living for families; make housing affordable by returning the balance of supply and demand to land release and create new options in the marketplace; create jobs through a strong and well-managed, balanced economy; invest in roads, rail, ports and other income-producing infrastructure; capitalise on our natural resources; and protect our unique lifestyle.
In just that short paragraph there are a dozen promises which have been broken. Our streets and parks are full of more drunks than ever; the cost of living has skyrocketed; house prices and rents are up; there has been no new residential land released; 3600 full-time jobs have been lost; infrastructure funding has been cut and there is no money for the rails and ports. We did not know then that when they said they would capitalise on our natural resources they meant they would hand over our natural resources, water, to their mates. Water worth millions of dollars has been handed to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. The stench is all over this government. The CLP government has been a massive failure.
In closing, this is a true CLP budget. It looks after their mates and abandons families. It leaves our most vulnerable, children and senior Territorians, without a helping hand. This budget formally leaves behind the most disadvantaged people in our society. This is a budget without a heart. I condemn this budget and I condemn the pain this government is so hell-bent on inflicting on Territorians. The Territory has missed an opportunity to build its social and economic strength.
Debate adjourned.
REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 28)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill puts in place a package of measures, as part of the government’s 2013-14 budget, to amend the Mineral Royalty Act and Payroll Tax Act. The primary measures contained in the bill focus on protecting the integrity of the Territory’s mineral royalty regime in order to ensure that all Territorians receive a fair return on the Territory’s mineral wealth through the collection of mineral royalties.
The bill undertakes to implement the following important measures. Firstly, the bill will cap the amount a royalty payer can claim as a transfer pricing margin to a maximum of 5.5% of the value of the relevant mineral. Transfer pricing generally involves an initial sale of minerals between a miner and a related overseas-based trading entity, after which the minerals are usually on-sold to a third-party customer or to a related commodities refiner within the group. The price received by the miner is generally less than the final arm’s-length price received by the trading company from the third-party customer. Accordingly, a profit margin or transfer pricing factor is earned by the trading entity.
Although it is reasonable for a profit margin to be earned by the trading entity in recognition of its specialisation in procuring sales, the danger is that transfer pricing provides a means for miners to procure a special tax benefit by shifting profits to the country with the most favourable tax system. Accounting for transfer pricing is also very administratively burdensome, both for the Northern Territory government and the miner.
The cap of 5.5% will be the general rule applied, except in circumstances where the royalty payer has a relevant transfer pricing arrangement in place with the Australian Taxation Office.
Secondly, the bill will limit the deductibility of head office expenses, management fees and administrative labour costs to those costs incurred by an office located, or for work performed, in the Northern Territory.
The recent Report on GST Revenue Sharing Relativities released by the Commonwealth Grants Commission highlights the fact that the Territory remains one of the lowest taxing jurisdictions in Australia. I note that the Commonwealth Grants Commission report does not take into account the government’s recent revenue raising efforts, implemented as part of the Territory’s 2012 mini-budget. Nevertheless, it is clear that further measures are required to improve the Territory’s overall fiscal and revenue raising position in order to better align the Territory’s taxation level with the average of other Australian jurisdictions.
The 2013-14 budget seeks to continue the government’s responsible fiscal policy and adjustment, as commenced with the mini-budget. The measures contained in this bill are expected to increase revenue by about $10.6m per annum and will assist government to pursue deficit reduction in a sustainable manner in order to return the Territory to a balanced budget by 2017-18.
However, these measures are about more than just ensuring the mining industry contributes fairly to the Territory community. These measures are also essential for protecting the integrity and long-term sustainability of the Territory’s mineral royalty scheme, will reduce red tape and expenses involved in administering the royalty scheme, and may also act as an incentive for large miners to set up offices in the Territory.
The Territory’s mineral royalty regime is unique amongst all states. It is the only regime in Australia to impose royalty on mining profits and applies generally to most mines and minerals across the Territory.
The Territory regime is widely recognised as providing the most fair and economically efficient means of determining mineral royalty as it only imposes royalty on profitable mines, whereas the quantity or value based schemes administered by other jurisdictions continue to draw royalty without regard to a miner’s ability to pay.
Unlike other royalty regimes, the Territory’s royalty scheme also promotes capital investment and encourages exploration activity by acknowledging many facets of the start-up costs new mines incur prior to commencing mining operations.
Together with the significant benefits of efficiency and equity delivered by the Territory’s profit based royalty regime comes a degree of administrative complexity. It is crucial that government continues to provide industry with measured rules and frameworks which take into account the contemporary reality of mining operations.
At the same time, this royalty framework must also be sufficiently robust to prevent potential abuses of the regime. The key measures proposed in this bill reflect the government’s commitment to an equitable and robust royalty regime, and encourage the mining industry to continue its important endeavours that contribute to the long-term benefit of the community and of all Territorians.
When the Mineral Royalty Act was first enacted in 1982, most mining companies operated from within Australia. At this time it was also common practice for a company to conduct every stage of the mining process from initial exploration through to the processing and sale of the final product to customers.
Technological advances and globalisation over the past three decades have created a fundamental shift in the way large multinational miners now structure and conduct business. There has been an increase in related party and cross-border dealings leading to the development of transfer pricing arrangements. Without appropriate mechanisms and rules, transfer pricing arrangements may distort the proper amount of royalty that should be returned to the Territory for the removal of its minerals.
The implications reach far beyond Territory royalties, however, as transfer pricing has taxation and economic influences globally.
The leading authority in the field of transfer pricing, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has committed substantial resources to develop a framework and guidance on transfer pricing issues for revenue authorities of member and non-member countries.
The Australian government incorporated the OECD transfer pricing guidelines into its federal income tax legislation. In addition, in the federal arena there is a bill before the House of Representatives that seeks to further strengthen the Commonwealth’s existing transfer pricing rules.
Many other governments around the world are also seeking to address these issues. It is the process of determining the correct arms-length value to a miner of a mineral commodity which is the subject of transfer pricing arrangements that is problematic for federal and state government’s alike, with costly and protracted disputes often resulting.
The proposed amendments to the Mineral Royalty Act reflect the government’s efforts to simplify the valuation process stemming from a notoriously complex concept. Government believes the mining industry will benefit from the certainty the proposed amendments will deliver when valuing transfer pricing arrangements. The broader community will also benefit from the government’s willingness to take steps to ensure the long-term integrity and sustainability of the Territory’s royalty regime.
The provisions of the bill that address transfer pricing are designed so royalty payers will have several options available to establish the methodology that is applied to calculate the value of a mineral commodity which is the subject of a transfer pricing arrangement.
In recognising the considerable expertise and extensive resources of the Australian Taxation Office in managing transfer pricing arrangements, this bill proposes to allow a mining company to rely on a transfer pricing figure it has established through select review and verification processes undertaken by the ATO in relation to transfer pricing arrangements for income tax purposes. For instance, under the bill’s proposed model, when assessing a miner’s Territory royalty liability, the mineral royalty secretary will accept a submission from a mining company regarding an appropriate transfer pricing methodology where that methodology is based on the ATO’s finalised audit of a transfer pricing arrangement or, alternatively, an advance pricing arrangement between the royalty payer and the Australian Taxation Office.
The bill is designed to recognise that some Territory royalty payers may prefer to avoid the investment and administrative burden which can be involved in establishing one of the previously mentioned ATO accepted transfer pricing methodologies. The government intends to support mining companies in reducing this potential red tape by allowing the mining company to substitute a transfer pricing methodology with the mineral royalty secretary in the absence of an ATO endorsed arrangement.
In delivering this simplified option to mining companies engaged in transfer pricing, the government must also be mindful to protect the integrity of the Territory’s revenue base. For this reason, the bill proposes that the amount of any potential transfer pricing discount claimed by a miner in these circumstances will be capped to a maximum of 5.5% of the final value of the mineral commodity. The final value generally represents the amount obtained by a trading entity when the minerals are, ultimately, sold to a third party customer in an arm’s-length transaction.
The transfer pricing factor recognises that the related trading entities may add some value or incur expenses in the process of on-selling the minerals. However, the value of 5.5% is expressed as a maximum and royalty payers will still be required to establish and substantiate the appropriate transfer pricing factor, subject to the Revenue Office’s normal risk review and compliance program.
A guideline will be issued that details the necessary information for a miner to substantiate a transfer pricing methodology and claim a factor up to 5.5%. In accordance with normal practices, consultation with industry will occur before the final guideline is published.
Further risks to the Territory’s royalty scheme are accounting strategies that shift to the Territory expenses which were incurred by related entities in another jurisdiction. The experience of the Revenue Office suggests these related entities may be based either in other Australian states or overseas, and the external expenses are claimed by the Territory mining operation under the badge of being a deductable operating cost. The bill contains measures to address the risk this type of accounting behaviour poses to the integrity of the royalty base.
This government recognises the crucial role mining companies play in the regional and economic development of the Territory. For this reason, the amendments proposed by the bill are also targeted at encouraging and rewarding those mining companies that genuinely maintain and operate the bulk of their operations in the Territory. An integral component of the Territory’s profit-based royalty regime is a royalty payer’s ability to claim a deduction for legitimate operating costs, which include labour costs, head office expenses, and fees for management and services. Currently, these types of operating costs are claimable if a royalty payer can substantiate the costs are directly attributable to the operation of the individual mining project.
As I have previously outlined, since the introduction of the Mineral Royalty Act there have been dramatic advances in communications and technologies which have led to a globalised mining industry. This has made the determination of allowable operating costs increasingly difficult and administratively complex due to an increasing amount of royalty payers also having business interests outside the Territory. The bill introduces measures that will establish a geographical boundary before labour costs, office expenses, and fees for management services can be claimed as an operating cost. The remaining heads of operating costs remain unchanged by this bill.
For a mining operation to continue to claim labour costs, office expenses, and fees for management services as operating costs, it will be necessary that their claim relates directly to expenses incurred by an office located in the Territory or for work or services performed in the Territory.
These proposed amendments complement the government’s commitment to better ensuring stability and certainty in the collection of the Territory’s own-source revenue.
In order for the government to make meaningful progress on its promise to eliminate the fiscal problems it inherited from its fiscally irresponsible predecessor, the removal of unnecessary risks that undermine the integrity of the Territory’s revenue base is critical. The measures contained within this bill are designed to limit claims for labour costs, head office expenses, and management services to only such claims that have a sufficient nexus to the Territory and will assist in protecting the integrity of the Territory’s royalty regime by preventing royalty payers from shifting costs that are incurred in overseas or interstate jurisdictions into the Territory to reduce the amount of royalty payable.
Just as the government is focused on assisting and rewarding other Territory based businesses for their contribution to growing the Territory economy by creating local jobs and spending, so too does the government intend that these amendments recognise the efforts of mining companies that have an office in the Territory and engage Territory based workers and service providers.
To ensure all royalty payers are treated equally, all amendments to the Mineral Royalty Act will commence from 1 July 2013, regardless of when a miner’s royalty year commences. The bill also contains transitional provisions that will allow apportionment of operating costs where appropriate.
This bill also proposes several minor administrative measures to the Mineral Royalty Act and the Payroll Tax Act to commence from 1 July 2013.
The first measure seeks to clarify that payments to the federal government, pursuant to the mineral resources rent tax and carbon tax schemes, are not allowable deductions as operating costs under the Territory’s royalty regime. This clarification is consistent with the existing operation of provisions within the Mineral Royalty Act which establish that only expenditure necessary or essential for the production of a mineral commodity is allowable as a deduction. Payments in the nature of a tax or levy on output, value, or income and profits are not considered to be essential for production as they are generally incurred after the minerals have been produced and sold.
As both the minerals resource rent tax and carbon tax are relatively recent Commonwealth initiatives, the bill makes it abundantly clear that royalty payers cannot claim payments made in satisfaction of the minerals resource rent tax and carbon tax as deductible operating costs so as to reduce the amount of royalty due to the Territory.
Secondly, the bill amends the secrecy provisions in the Mineral Royalty Act to enable the secretary and other government employees to share information with the Commonwealth on royalty related matters that are incidental to uranium mining.
While the Territory was granted self-government in 1978, the Commonwealth retained ownership of uranium and other atomic substances. This meant the Territory did not have the power to regulate and impose royalty on uranium as it could on other minerals and resources. Royalty arrangements for uranium projects were entered into by the Commonwealth on a project-by-project basis and the Commonwealth paid a grant to the Territory in lieu of royalties.
In 2009, the previous fiscally irresponsible Labor government endorsed the Commonwealth’s proposal to introduce a harmonised profits-based royalty scheme mirrored on the Mineral Royalty Act for all new uranium projects that commenced operation in the Territory. Under the scheme the Territory administers the royalty regime on behalf of the Commonwealth, collecting and retaining royalty payable by uranium miners. A number of important procedural aspects of the scheme are contained in administrative arrangements including the requirement that the Territory report to the Commonwealth the amount of royalties collected and any changes made to the Mineral Royalty Act.
The amendment proposed by the bill is essential to enable Northern Territory Public Sector employees to fulfil the reporting obligations under the uranium royalty scheme without breaching the confidentially provisions currently contained in the Mineral Royalty Act.
The last of these minor administrative measures seeks to align the payroll tax formula in the Payroll Tax Act with the original intent. As part of the 2011-12 budget, the payroll tax rate was reduced to 5.5% and the payroll tax threshold changed to be calculated as a diminishing deduction where businesses with annual wages below $1.5m were not required to pay payroll tax. The deduction reduced by $1 for every $4 in Australian wages paid by an employer above $1.5m.
An anomaly has been identified in the payroll tax formulae which were inserted into the Payroll Tax Act as a result of the changes to the rate and threshold. This relates to the calculation of an employer’s part-year payroll tax liability where they commence or cease employment, or join or leave a payroll tax group. The bill seeks to remedy this deficiency by amending the formulae to produce the intended results.
Minor changes to definitional provisions have also been made to simplify the provisions. As the amendments to the Payroll Tax Act are aimed primarily at clarifying the original intent of the provision and reflect the calculations currently performed by the Territory’s online payroll tax return system used by registered employers, the proposed changes will not adversely affect Territory employers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to the accompanying bill.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Death of Carmelita Sceney, Stuart Sceney,
Kal-Kidan Sceney and Mekdes Sceney
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death, on 1 April 2013, of Carmelita Sceney and Stuart Sceney and their daughters, Kal-Kidan and Mekdes, four special, loved, respected and deeply missed Territorians.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the galleries of the family, friends, and loved ones of this family: Ms Jamila Sceney, Ms Yvonne Dunn, Mr Dennis Dunn, Mr Cadjie Dunn, Mr Dennis Dunn Jnr, Ms Amber Dunn, Mr Anthony Dunn, Mr Henry Dunn, Mrs Marjorie Liddy, Kim and Tania Hill, Dinee Mullet, Mrs Dianne Berto, Ms Anna Berto, Mr Michael Berto, Ms Christine Fitzgerald, Ms Sharon Greenof, Mr Shaun Hardy, Mr Adam Kerinaiua, Miss Sharon Morgan, Mr Mark Motlop, Mr Edward Talbot, Mr Lorenzo Kerinauia, Mrs Marilyn Kerinauia, Mr Ken Davies, Ms Shay Vigona-Goudge.
I also welcome staff and colleagues from Sceney Electrical, and I would like to apologise for those who wish to be here, Mr Tony Berto, Mrs Suzi Berto, and Hon Marion Scrymgour, a past member of this Assembly.
Honourable members, I also inform you that listening and watching via the Internet is the Sceney family in Geelong, Victoria. I extend a welcome to them as well on this very sad occasion.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Carmelita Sceney, Stuart Sceney,
Kal-Kidan Sceney and Mekdes Sceney
Carmelita Sceney, Stuart Sceney,
Kal-Kidan Sceney and Mekdes Sceney
Mr GILES (Chief Minister) (by leave):
Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly extends its deepest condolences to the Sceney and Dunn families on the sudden and tragic loss of their family members on Easter Monday, 1 April 2013.
There are always elements of great sadness attached to every condolence motion delivered in this House. However, most of those tributes are cushioned by the knowledge the person involved has lived a relatively full and wonderful life. There is no such similar comfort for us in this condolence motion today. Four special, loving, and respected Territorians, including two young women, have been taken from us in tragic circumstances and far too early.
On 1 April, Carmelita – Karmi - Sceney, her husband, Stuart, and their beautiful daughters, Kal-Kidan and Mekdes, were killed when their light plane crashed somewhere on the southwest coast of the Northern Territory. It is not for us to speculate as to the cause of this crash, but it seems likely to have been caused by bad weather which was prevalent in the area at that time.
The Sceney/Dunn story is about a family overflowing with love and talent. It is about a family of champion sportspeople, a family who adored the outdoors and who were caring and contributing members of our Territory community. I acknowledge and thank a number of people for the information that follows. Karmi’s sister, Yvonne Dunn, and her brother, Dennis, helped at a time when it must have been so very distressing for them, as did surviving daughter, Jamila, with her beautiful new baby on her lap.
Like her sisters, Jamila was also adopted. Jamila came to Darwin from Atlanta, Georgia in the US at a tender age of just three weeks old. I have used quite a bit of material from the funeral order of service booklet, particularly from Narelle Steel, Stuart’s sister.
This condolence motion acknowledges our collective sadness and is also dedicated to the Sceney/Dunn relatives. It is dedicated, in particular, to Karmi’s wonderful and strong mother, Marjorie, and Stuart’s parents, Daryl and Judith Sceney. It would be wrong to say we understand your pain, as I do not think that is at all possible. However, I can assure you every member of this parliament extends their deepest sympathy to you on behalf of the parliament of the Northern Territory and all Territorians.
Kal and Mekdes had two older sisters in Ethiopia and the family lives in a very poor village with no electronic communication facilities.
I will start with the story of the youngest victim of this accident, Kal-Kidan. Kal, as she was known, was just 12 years old: a gorgeous, bright, energetic young girl. It was July 2004 when Karmi, Stuart, and Jamila travelled to Ethiopia to pick up Kal and her equally beautiful sister Mekdes. The happiness and excitement in the family was, as Jamila said, unbelievable. As Jamila tells it:
- We arrived at the orphanage and met the people who were looking after them. Ten minutes later, two beautiful girls walked out very carefully and very slowly. They were very shy and quiet and a bit uncertain about their new family, but it didn’t take long for them to warm up to us, and they were soon racing around as little kids do.
Kal was quite sick when Karmi and Stuart brought her to Darwin. She had TB and other lung illnesses. Once again, it was the incredible love of her parents that saw her through. Karmi took her to many doctors in the Territory. There was nothing Karmi and Stuart were not prepared to do to ensure Kal grew into greater health.
Kal was absolutely devoted to her dad. When anyone asked if she had a boyfriend, she was quite adamant she was going to marry her dad. As with all the family, Kal loved the football, and she loved going to St Marys Football Club with Stuart and Karmi. She especially loved helping at the barbeque with her dad.
This beautiful girl loved makeup, high heels, pink dresses, and dancing. She was loud, full of life, energy and confidence. Kal wanted to be a nanny or a chef when she grew up.
Kal’s sister, Mekdes, was 15 years of age at the time of the accident. She was almost the total opposite of Kal when it came to personality. She was quiet and reserved around people. She was a fitness fanatic. She only ate healthy foods and preferred water to all other drinks. This young woman adored the Vampire Diaries on television and ended up getting the whole family addicted to the show. The bedroom walls were like those of so many other teenagers with lots of photos.
Amazingly, and unusually, at just 15 years old she had a well-evolved work ethic. She believed she could work to earn money for the things she wanted to buy. On her 15th birthday she wanted only one thing: to go to Woolworths and apply for a job there.
As well as being a wonderful father and husband, 45-year-old Stuart was a St Mary’s Football Club champion and life member. He played in two premiership teams and more than 200 games as a forward or utility player.
Stuart’s love and dedication to the Saints was legendary. When he retired from playing, Stuart became a committee man and a coach’s runner. He was renowned for his barbeque skills at the club. Even though he was retired, he loved to train and always had his boots in his car on game day in the hope he might be asked to play again.
Stuart embraced the Aboriginal ways of his family. Jamila tells of her dad insisting on cooking and trying carpet snake, bats, dugong, mangrove worms and stingray, amongst other things, but it was magpie geese that were his favourite and he had a secret recipe for cooking them.
Stuart was the acknowledged cook in the Sceney household and was very proud of his herb garden. Jamila says he adored basil, lemongrass, coriander, and, especially, extremely hot chilli. Along with Karmi, Stuart loved fishing and would buy every new rod or reel that came out. Yvonne tells the story of Stuart catching a lovely big salmon in the Tiwi’s and then a huge croc taking it right out of his hands.
Stuart did his electrical apprenticeship in Geelong, and when he arrived in Darwin he worked for Mobile Electrics, before starting his own business, Sceney Electrical.
He had a passion for flying and he eventually bought his own plane which he used to access work in remote areas of the Northern Territory. He was known as a conservative pilot, particularly when bad weather threatened.
He was a kind dad and a great boss. Jamila said she never had her pay docked when she turned up for work late at her dad’s electrical company.
Karmi was born at Nguiu on Bathurst Island and was one of 12 children. Her childhood was a happy one, and her father, Dinee, instilled in her that family always came first. This is the quality members of the family have spoken most of when describing Karmi. According to her family, if there was one thing that stood out about Karmi, it is that she was the glue who was always there to help and support members of her family through good times and tough times.
Her love for her children and Stuart was unconditional. Like Stuart, Karmi was a great all-round athlete. She played four sports in the Territory: basketball from 1982 to 1993, netball from 1976 to 1979, softball from 1974 to 1987 and soccer in 1981.
Just for good measure, she also played touch for Darwin, and in basketball she captained the NT premiership team, the Rebels, playing 350 first-grade games and scoring on 3000 points. Karmi’s brother Dennis said his sister just adored sports - any sports at all.
Karmi loved fishing and regularly took their seven metre boat from Darwin to Bathurst. Dennis said no one could match Karmi with a throw net and she could look through muddy water and tell you what fish was lurking there, even though others could not see a single thing. Karmi would walk for miles to get mud crabs and then fearlessly stick her hand down the hole and grab the crab out. It was Stuart, however, who did the cooking, always with plenty of chilli.
Camping was also Karmi’s domain. While the location would be remote and rough, Karmi would set up a five-star camp taking camping to another level. She would always have enough tucker to feed everybody.
But Karmi was more than just a wonderful angler and a camper, she was a senior executive in the Northern Territory Department of Education and worked for more than 10 years in education in the Territory through periods of major reforms.
Karmi was a strongly committed and respected member of the national ministerial Indigenous education working group, driving reforms to the system to improve outcomes for Indigenous students, and was active in implementing the groundbreaking 1976 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
She delivered the voice of the Territory on national and major education initiatives. Karmi cared passionately about children, and what made her so very special was that she not only had a sharp policy mind, but her heart absolutely belonged to all the children. She was a highly-respected public servant.
Most of all, Karmi was an amazing mother. Her daughter Jamila said Karmi grew up very poor and was determined to give her children whatever she had. Jamila said that if you had to choose one word to describe her mum, it would simply be ‘love’.
Karmi’s mum Marjorie says the family was working towards building an airstrip at the outstation on Melville where they would build a house and live together.
How do you possibly do justice to the lives of four beautiful people lost in such a short time? How do we paint the picture? How do we express our sorrow for those lives lost - Kal and Mekdes who will not know the joys and pains of having their own children and watching them grow.
Stuart and Karmi had just become grandparents and now that most special of experiences has been taken away from them. They will not see little Maliah grow up.
To all the Sceney family, and especially Marjorie, Daryl and Judith. you are in our thoughts and prayers. I am confident that your family is strong in all ways, especially in faith. Together I am sure you will get through this unspeakable sadness.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Northern Territory Parliament I express my sincere condolences.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the incredible loss the Territory has suffered with the tragic and untimely deaths of Stu, Karmi, Kal-Kidan and Mekdes. I thank the government for bringing the condolence motion to the parliament to give us the opportunity to pay our deep respects.
To the Sceney and Dunn families, no parent wants to witness the loss of their child before them, so my heartfelt condolences go to Daryl and Judith Sceney, and, of course, to Marjorie Dunn. I cannot begin to understand the grief you must be feeling, Jamila, to have lost, in one tragic accident, your parents and your beautiful sisters - the grandparents of your beautiful daughter, Maliah, and those wonderful aunties.
Listening, at St Mary’s Cathedral, to the beautiful bond of love within your tightly knit family was a truly moving experience. I am a believer that the ones we love so dearly, whilst they might pass this mortal earth, are never truly forever lost to us. I have no doubt you have some very special angels looking over you and your gorgeous daughter.
This condolence is about paying our respects to four beautiful Territorians and recognising their Territory journey. Karmi and Stuart, as we heard at St Mary’s in the eulogies, met each other on New Year’s Eve - how appropriate - in 1995 at their beloved St Mary’s Football Club where Stuart had devoted endless hours. The pair married six years later, on 21 July 2001. While Stu was not from the Territory, he made this place his home after he came here with two mates when they took off on the holiday of a lifetime when they were just in their twenties.
With his parents, Daryl and Judith, living in Geelong, Stu was still very closely connected to the city in which he lived. It was in Geelong where he started his great love of football. He played in the under 10s with the Kangaroos and played senior football with Grovedale, near Geelong, in the Geelong Football League. He continued to play AFL as soon as he arrived in Darwin and was also happy to help in other positions with the club.
Stu worked for Mobile Electrics when he arrived in Darwin. After he met Karmi they started their own business together. Sceney Electrical came to life in 1998 and became a thriving business in Darwin. Karmi gave Stu the confidence to back himself and go for it. Lucky for him he did because now Sceney Electrical is one of the leading electrical engineering construction firms in Darwin, regional Northern Territory, regional Western Australia and the surrounding islands, and it employs eight staff. They carried a reputable business ethic for over 10 years and prided themselves on being the best in the field with excellence and trust.
Karmi was such a sports star. A Territory basketball star, she played 432 games from 1976 to 1994 for Rebels and 33 games for Tracy Village Jets from 1994 to 1996. In 1993, Karmi became the first female player to score 5000 points in the Darwin Basketball Association.
I want to acknowledge her dear friend, Donna Hunter, who has provided me with a lot of background for the condolence motion today.
Karmi was a well-respected and prominent Northern Territory Aboriginal woman who, as we have heard, was born on Nguiu, Bathurst Island, and became one of our highest ranked Indigenous public servants in the Top End. She always had her people and her family in the forefront of her mind in everything she did and what she achieved. Her work spanned many decades, including helping to implement the groundbreaking Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976.
She was a passionate campaigner for education for her people, and was Chairperson of the Northern Territory Area Consultative Committee and worked with the Northern Territory Department of Education in the Indigenous Education branch.
From 1999 to 2006, Karmi was the Chairperson of the Yilli Rreung Regional Council in Darwin and also held the role of Deputy Chairperson of the Indigenous Housing Authority of the NT. She worked previously with the NT Land Councils and the Office of Aboriginal Development with the NT government.
As we have heard, she came from a big family. She was one of 12 children born to her parents, Dennis, now deceased, and Marjorie Dunn. She was a Territorian through and through, growing up on Rossiter Street in Rapid Creek.
That love for sport did not just occur with basketball; she was also an awesome player in softball, netball and soccer. In 1982, she was awarded the Steve Abala Role Model Award for her contribution to sport in the Territory.
She had a strong desire to become a mother. She was always influenced by the motto ‘family comes first’ and supported each and every one of her family members. Her dream came true in 1987 when she adopted her eldest daughter, Jamila, in September. Karmi and Stuart wanted Jamila to have siblings, and they knew Jamila would make a great role model and big sister.
In 2002, Karmi and Stuart began the adoption process of their two beautiful daughters, Mekdes and Kal-Kidan, sisters from Ethiopia. In order to carry out the adoption process they had to complete reams and reams of paperwork and undergo a series of interviews before they were allowed to travel to Ethiopia in 2004. Mekdes was born in 1998 and she was the third youngest of four girls, including Kal-Kidan. Her sister Jamila said of her sister, Mekdes:
- I know Mekdes would have grown to be a beautiful, independent little woman. She had such a beautiful soul, so thoughtful and generous. There was not a selfish thing about her. She cared so much about everyone, especially her family and friends. I have never met a 15-year-old who acted as mature as she did. I would always confide in her and forget how old she was, because she would answer me and it felt like I was talking to a woman.
Mekdes and Kal-Kidan were both aunties to Jamila’s little girl and loved and adored her so dearly. Kal, as she is known by her friends and family, followed her mum and dad’s footsteps and fell in love with football. She thoroughly enjoyed going to the footy with Stu and Karmi. She became a very familiar little operator at the club and knew everyone there.
The girls’ Auntie Narelle. Stu’s sister, shared this of Kal:
- Kal-Kidan had the most beautiful smile. She was loved, full of life, energy and confidence. She loved younger kids, babies, and adored Maliah. Kal was so full of love and just wanted to be loved. When she sat on the couch with you she did not sit next to you, she sat on you. It was as though she just couldn’t get close enough.
Stu and Karmi also shared a love of fishing, as we have heard, which they enjoyed with their children. They were magnificent in finding the fishing hot spots. Of their passion for fishing, Rosanna de Santis said this of her friend Karmi:
- No one could match Karmi with a throw net, and not even a popeye mullet could get away from her. Karmi could see through the muddy water and tell you what fish was there, even though we couldn’t see a thing. Trying to keep up with her as she walked for miles to find crabs was a challenge to all, and she would drop down and stick her hand down a hole and grab the crabs - no hook or spear for Karmi.
- Stuey had legend status at St Mary’s. You could always see and hear Stuey’s emotion whenever he was honoured with an award from his beloved club, as player or committee man, choked up such that he could not speak, but we all knew what he was feeling. He never asked for anything from the club but gave so much over many years. Everyone was happy if Stuey was going out fishing or hunting as he would always bring plenty back for a cook-up at the club. A proud bush master chef too, with his barra and homemade batter in the deep fryer, marinated buffalo or goose on the barbecue, and fresh mud crabs to top it off.
Cramming work and life into every minute, he could not sit or stand around for long without wanting to fix this or that around the clubhouse, barbecue tongs in one hand, screwdriver in the other, a great mate everyone wanted to have around.
- Karmi was a true leader in the community and a great friend and supporter of Stuey and the club where her brothers had also played football for many years. With the children in tow, the family were always a part of activities around the club and always made friends very naturally. Their loss will be felt by many for a long time and their legacy continues in inspiring us to be better people.
Along with that touching tribute from Shaun, Adrian Moscini would like to share his memories with the Sceney/Dunn family. He is the former St Mary’s president and a best mate of the couple. Adrian has known Karmi and her family since 1972. He has great respect for the Dunn family and found Karmi to be their rock. During his time as president, Adrian and his committee had to make some decisions that did not go down well with people. The first person he would contact for assistance and to help explain to people would be Karmi.
St Mary’s has a list of active life members; Karmi and Stuart were both on it. Karmi could have been nominated for the president position if it were not for her work commitments. It would have made her the first woman and first Indigenous woman to be club president.
Stuey became involved in the club in 1994 as a new player. Adrian took Stuey under his wing as they clicked immediately and became best mates. Stu played over 100 games in league and 100 games in reserve. He could be the only one who achieved this. In Stuey’s early years at St Mary’s he played in the league grade and made the weekly side but always missed out on being selected for the grand final team. He was finally selected in the fourth year under a new coach. It was against Waratahs and he was about the 22nd man called on the team sheet. He was happy, to say the least. To top off his first ever league grand final, they won against Waratahs and he did not stop smiling for weeks, even on the end of season team trip.
His last 30 games in the reserves were notched up after his so-called retirement. Stuart would always pack his boots in the boot of the car, arrive early to the reserve change rooms, and hang around just in case the reserve coach needed another player. On his face, when asked if he had his boots, you saw a big grin appear. He would then run out to the car and get his boots.
If Stuart was not playing he was water boy, runner or any job that needed filling. He would always take on the new players coming up as well, taking them out to his block in Dundee and fishing - anything to make them feel at home. The truth was, Stuart never really retired.
Adrian also remembers when he first met the girls. They were shy and did not speak much English. They soon became used to being around the club and the footy lifestyle. They became part of the St Mary’s family, even getting cheeky with Adrian about his hair. They always teased him about his lack of hair.
Donna Hunter was so close to Karmi and went on trips with Karmi, growing up in the sporting arena with basketball, netball and softball. Donna remembers how Karmi would always ask Coach Rose Damaso to be the shooter in netball.
People know of Karmi’s great scoring capability in basketball, but that was not the case in netball and she was banned from shooting as she could not get any in. They say that was because there was no backboard. It always annoyed Karmi not to be allowed to shoot, but she was an awesome goal defence.
Words seem so incredibly inadequate to express the feelings and the tragic sudden loss in the accident of Stuey, Karmi and their daughters, Kal and Mekdes. I was so stunned and deeply shocked to have heard the news and sometimes it still seems hard to grapple with the knowledge it has happened.
On behalf of colleagues in this Chamber, I extend my deepest condolences to the Sceney and Dunn families and their many, many friends who have come here today - some beautiful, awesome Territorians who I know will be genuinely and fondly remembered. Stu and Karmi made incredible imprints on the Territory.
Madam Speaker, my deepest condolences to Jamila and her beautiful little daughter. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this condolence motion on. I also express my deepest sympathies and condolences to Stuey’s and Karmi’s family and all the friends here today. It is a hard thing to talk about someone we knew so well.
The St Mary’s Club is an interesting club. It is like no other that I have been part of. It genuinely is a big family. I do not know too much about Australian Rules Football, and am not a great fan of it to tell you the honest truth, but I am a great fan of the St Mary’s Club. I have listened to the comments about the Dunn family and Dennis Dunn Snr saying that family is everything, and those values are spread through the entire St Mary’s Football Club. It is a genuine family. They are always looking after each other, watching each other’s backs, and are genuinely very decent to each other. Certainly, the club will not be the same without Kal and Mekdes running around enjoying themselves.
Stuey was a champion bloke. When my wife heard about the accident, she looked at me and asked, ‘Do I know Stuart?’ I said, ‘Yes, you know Stuey - Sceney Electrical’. My wife broke down; she is in the property management business and Stuart had been working for her for quite some time. She was cut up about the whole ordeal.
I remember going goose shooting quite often with Stuart, Michael Long, Bryan AhMat and a few others. While Michael, Bryan and I were not afraid to have a bit of fun with each other, Stuart was always very serious about his goose hunting; it was not so easy to have a crack at him. But he was genuinely a top fellow and a bloke you could call on for help and assistance. I fully support the comments of Shaun Hardy and Adrian Moscini about Stuart. He was the sort of fellow you could always count on to back you up or give you support.
I probably knew Karmi best. I originally came to Darwin to play basketball. You could not play basketball in the 1980s without knowing of Karmi Dunn. She was an absolute superstar, and probably one of the greatest female basketball players I have seen anywhere in the country. In my younger days, I travelled around the country a fair bit playing basketball, and I have seen some pretty damn good players. Karmi was up there with the best.
We have heard a lot about Karmi’s scoring record. However, you never really noticed Karmi scoring, as I am sure Donna and the other basketball ladies in the gallery would agree. What was noticeable about Karmi was her presence in the keyway. She was such a strong woman. She owned the boards; she dominated the basketball court. It always came as a surprise at the end of a game when you realised Karmi had scored 25 points because you never noticed her scoring. You would think, ‘Where did that come from?’ Karmi was always doing the hard work, getting rebounds and distributing the ball, but she was obviously a prolific scorer as well.
I have no doubt she was the most deserving recipient of the Steve Abala Role Model Award. The Rebels basketball team that played throughout the 1980s and 1990s, which Karmi was such an integral member of, stuck together like glue, and it was Karmi who lead the charge. Some of the teams they played against were not half bad, but they were no match for the mighty Rebels. They were all top ladies, good fun and a great bunch of people to be associated with.
I am so grateful to have the opportunity to say a couple of words today. I am so proud to be involved in a club like St Mary’s that values people like Stuey and Karmi. They will leave a great hole in that club; there is absolutely no doubt about it. I am proud to see so many people here today. I express my sincere and most heartfelt condolences to the Sceney and Dunn families. Thank you, Chief Minister, for this condolence motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I respectfully contribute to this condolence motion. I do not know the Sceney or Dunn families but I had the privilege of working with Karmi Dunn. It was very much a privilege to work as part of a team in the Indigenous Education Division of the Department of Education in the Northern Territory. I had been in the bush for 20 years so coming to the big end of town and working with an elite group of educators who were designing reforming policy for Indigenous education based on the major review Learning lessons was certainly an experience for me.
There were many great educators on that team but there was one stand out, and that was Karmi Dunn. It was wonderful to work with an intelligent and articulate woman who was a fantastic mentor. I was quite shy and reserved in my new working environment but I celebrated every time Karmi stopped the floor and called a spade a spade. It was terrific to hear Karmi call it out; she did not mince her words.
As a non-Indigenous person, it was wonderful to be able to stand behind that shield of strength and hear it as it is. That influenced not only the policy development, but the team and the outcomes we achieved.
The Learning lessons review was all about reforming Indigenous education and we put together a lot of good policy and plans. The project I was working on was to design the self-managing school. Karmi had a lot of important input into that. She saw me struggling a little in that highly bureaucratic area; she gave me lots of good advice and we designed a fantastic model to be trialled.
Unfortunately, the Country Liberal Party government did not take up that challenge, the project was shut down and I was sent home. I went back to Tennant Creek and joined the Aboriginal hearing program. I was very fortunate to have a little contact with Karmi on a number of occasions over the next few years and was inspired by her knowledge, strength and advice.
I remember very specifically enjoying the stories of culture and family, especially when she talked about challenging her own family members. She talked at length to me about the importance of child protection. She had very firm ideas and views that were the real recipe for change. I am sure in her distinguished career in the public sector with Education that much of that knowledge has translated into the department’s workings and its policy and delivery. As a family, when we heard the news I sat quietly with my wife and reflected on the story I am telling now. Together we did what we could; we sat quietly and said a prayer. For the families, may they rest in peace.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues and convey my condolences to the Dunn and Sceney families and their many friends and colleagues who are here today. I particularly acknowledge Karmi and Stuart’s eldest child, Jamila, and her daughter, Maliah, who have so suddenly and tragically lost their closest family members in this terrible accident. Our thoughts are certainly with you. As the Chief Minister said, Karmi, Stuart, Mekdes and Kal-Kidan were much loved, much respected and, of course, are much missed. My heart goes out to their family and friends.
As the Minister for Education, I pay particular tribute to Karmi and her substantial legacy in the area of Indigenous education. First and foremost, Karmi was a mother, a grandmother, a wife, and a proud Tiwi woman. She was a respected Aboriginal leader and a wonderful mother and, with Stuart, she brought up Jamila, Mekdes and Kal-Kidan to be strong, independent and vibrant people. As many would know, and as the Chief Minister said, Karmi, as a young woman, excelled in every sport she played, demonstrating her skill in representing the Territory in basketball, netball, softball and soccer.
That excellence did not end on the sports field. Over the course of her professional life, Karmi became even better known to Territorians through her work in various fields of government over 30 years, working in key policy areas advancing the cause of Indigenous Territorians. She was a foundation and essential staff member of the former Office of Aboriginal Development. Her old boss, Neville Jones, recalls her commitment as a key liaison officer in negotiating between the NT, the Commonwealth and the Stolen Generations group which finally saw the release of Aboriginal population records, essential information for those affected by that past policy.
In more recent years, Karmi turned her exceptional talents in policy reform, advocacy and leadership to the critical areas of Indigenous education. As a strongly committed and respected member of the national level working groups, Karmi drove reforms impacting the system and local level to improve outcomes for Indigenous students.
On the national stage, Karmi was the voice of the Territory in her advocacy for major initiatives to improve the educational outcomes of young Indigenous people from the early years through to their senior secondary education years and, of course, beyond. She delivered this message across the Territory with passion, intelligence and commitment.
Through her work at the Department of Education and Children’s Services, Karmi was one of the key proponents and leaders for the agency’s Reconciliation Action Plan. The Reconciliation Action Plan is the first by a Northern Territory government department.
She also worked tirelessly driving key initiatives such as developing pathways for assistant teachers and enabling the opportunity for Indigenous people to progress through a Bachelor of Education.
Here in the Territory, Karmi’s beloved home, she engaged with every region and every area of the department, advocating for education for Indigenous students to be built in, not bolted on, to the education service, and for that to be in every classroom for every Indigenous Territorian. Karmi delivered this message across the Northern Territory in a powerful yet gentle way, ensuring people heard the message and acted.
Colleagues have recalled how Karmi would tackle possibly difficult conversations by starting with a ‘Hey, lovie’, immediately putting people at ease before striking to the heart of an issue and making her message clear, but in a very down-to-earth manner. Karmi has been described as a natural leader.
Many people cite her charisma, her sense of humour, and the matter-of-fact way she expressed her opinion but, above all, Karmi had presence. Workmates recall she could walk into a meeting and immediately own it. It was her presence that made people pay attention and listen intently to her key message, and it resulted in the outcome Karmi was seeking. At times, Karmi’s message delivered uncomfortable truths, but mostly with achievable outcomes.
Throughout Karmi’s distinguished career, she has deeply influenced her colleagues in the education field, and it is fair to say her leadership and influence has changed the face of education in the Northern Territory. There can be no better example than her unrelenting advocacy for creating opportunities for local employment whatever the initiative being progressed. Karmi’s insistence on creating employment pathways for local people in education is a legacy to be carried on. Karmi’s legacy is a brighter future for young Territorians.
Jamila, your loss is heartbreaking for all of us. Please know our thoughts are with you and Maliah.
To all the Sceneys and Dunns, you have my deepest sympathies. I hope some of what we all say here today is some comfort to you and, in this, you can find some measure of consolation in today’s tributes to your amazing family.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I knew both Stuart and Karmi through my sporting and family connections. I, like many Territorians, felt the pain on that fateful day. We all mourned and we continue to mourn the loss of a Territory family, and our hearts go out to both families.
Stuart came to Darwin with a few mates on a trip around Australia and never left, and why would he? He loved this place and this is where he met Karmi. What a pair they were! They shared their love for family, sport, fishing, the Territory lifestyle, and cemented their relationship. Everything aligned when they met each other. They grew a family and loved and cared for each other.
Not only was Stuart a legend at St Mary’s, but he was also a much-loved and highly valued member of the Grovedale Football and Cricket Clubs of Geelong, where he was highly regarded as a great team mate, good player, and a ripper bloke.
We have heard Karmi was a Territory basketball legend and my aunties, Eileen and Ethel Cummings, played softball for many years against Karmi. She was a very good player and was also very competitive. She was another Dunn family superstar, a star in her own right, another Indigenous pioneer of sport in the Northern Territory.
When I was growing up in Darwin playing and watching all different sports, one of the biggest highlights for me was the footy season, which meant going to Gardens Oval to watch footy all day. I loved going because all family and friends would go along to catch up with each other. It was a huge social occasion with lots of laughs and fun times for all our families, getting on the ground and having a kick with 200 kids you did not know at quarter and half time. And what about the footy - silky skills, quality players, big torpies, and every now and then a coat hanger tackle or shirt front that fired everyone up, both the crowd and the players.
I remember the Dunns, the Longs, Teddy Liddy, and Stuart leading the field during the domination of St Mary’s at that time. It certainly was a great time if you were a Saints fan, but not very good if you were a Nightcliff or Buffaloes fan like my family. We suffered through those times.
I knew Karmi, her background and her family. My mother, who is in the gallery this afternoon, had many experiences growing up in Darwin with Karmi; their paths always crossed in the very close-knit community Darwin was at that time. My mum told me she and her brothers and sisters were placed on the Tiwi Islands as part of the Stolen Generation and the Tiwi Islanders all acknowledge our connections to family, including Karmi’s mum and wider family. We are truly blessed and proud to have those family connections.
In Karmi’s professional life, I have heard many times of the great respect of this strong, knowledgeable, articulate, local Indigenous woman in Education who was paving the way in the public service. From the Tiwi Islands to Darwin, to Katherine, from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs and all the communities in between, she was known and respected, and she is missed.
Karmi was a proud Tiwi Islander woman who stood up for what she believed in and demonstrated, on many occasions, her strong commitment to advancing all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families through education. On behalf of all my Caucus colleagues and my family, I give our sincerest apologies and condolences on a tragic loss. They will be missed.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I will not be mentioning this wonderful lady by name in this motion as this name is Pukumani, or taboo, in our Tiwi culture at this time.
It is with much sadness that I speak. She was a jewel in the Tiwi family. To lose her power and contribution to Indigenous people is a terrible blow to our large extended family, to the Tiwi people, and to Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory and Australia as a whole. She was a major contributor within the field of Indigenous education and had been a force in a number of vital education initiatives on the Tiwi Islands, including Tiwi College at Pickertaramoor on Melville Island.
Her mother, Marjorie, was of the Pumarji family, she married to Dinee Dunn. Dinee grew up with the Kerinauia family. I was related to Marjorie and call her amo in Tiwi, or grandmother. My mother’s father was a cousin to Marjorie and part of the same tribal group. I feel her passing greatly. I recall first meeting her when her family lived on Bathurst Island. I remember her then as a smart, happy, busy person who went to St John’s College to further her education.
Later on, I became aware of her major involvement and contribution to sport and high ability in mentoring the young Tiwi. As Deputy Chair of the Tiwi Land Council and of Tiwi College, I became very aware of her concern to progress the Tiwi people through education.
Her passion is one that I share. She was one of those rare people who had a wonderful, positive vision for Aboriginal people. She understood the complex demand on Indigenous people as they try to live in two cultures. When we learn something of the contribution of this great Tiwi woman by listening to her words, which I am sure will continue to influence all of us into the future, we survive her passing.
She was able to clearly identify the main challenge facing Indigenous education in the Territory. The problem of distance in the Territory leads to many important challenges, including isolation, students’ mobility and teacher turnover.
This challenge called for a need to look at a way of keeping our teachers for longer, particularly in remote schools. In a clear view, the main way was by growing our own through training Indigenous teachers, as well as including the principle that students need to have high expectation of themselves, and others involved in education.
Second and third was not good enough for her. She wanted all young Indigenous students to understand that they have both rights and obligations, and to have high expectations about their ability and what they could achieve.
As part of such high expectations, she emphasised to those within the Education department and to Indigenous students that they also had a right to demand high quality in the things they were asked to learn and in the way they were taught.
Importantly, her strong message to educators and Indigenous students was that the curriculum and means of teaching must be kept real and relevant to the situations and challenges facing young Indigenous students in their communities.
What a wonderful principle. I am sure that if educators were to follow her advice we would do a lot to remove the disadvantage that confronts Indigenous young people.
Indigenous students, she believed rightly, need to go to school, learn and achieve at school, stay at school and be able to identify work opportunities after school. She was able to express this key principle in ways we could all understand.
She was a wonderful family and community person, who loved her husband Stuart and had a lovely family with Mekdes and Kal-Kidan. She was a wise and intelligent woman. What a loss to all of us. We can be comforted that her life contribution and her wisdom will be passed on.
She has shown us the way. Great people live on because they are able to pass on their values and beliefs to the many they have touched and influenced. Thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I just want to say a few words because much has already been said about the Sceney and Dunn familes. I did not know the Sceney family personally, but I knew the Dunn family through Marjorie Dunn. I first met Marjorie and Dinny Dunn when I started work on Bathurst Island in 1974. They are a wonderful family and, as you have heard today, left a wonderful contribution and legacy to the Northern Territory.
I extend my deepest sympathy to Marjorie especially, because she has been through so many tragedies in her life. What has brought her through all those times is her great strength and Catholic faith. It is that Catholic faith, I know, which will give her some comfort that she will meet those who have passed away from this earth in another place. I give my deepest sympathy to Marjorie at this tragic time and to the rest of the Dunn family and Sceney families.
Even though I did not know them, from what I have heard today they obviously made a great impact on many Territorians, regardless of whether they knew them personally or not. Anyone who went to the funeral at St Mary’s would realise they were wonderful people because they affected so many people’s lives, whether it was through work, sport or family. We should recognise that.
The students at Taminmin College who could not be here today - they were extremely upset at the loss of two of their fellow students - would also like me to express their sincere condolences today.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I too pay my respects and deepest sympathies to Mrs Marjorie Liddy, Jamila, the Dunn family and the Sceney family - particularly the members of the Sceney family who watching via the Internet - friends and colleagues. It is a very sad day indeed, but as we have heard today, the tributes paid to the family members you have lost will live with you forever. To Mrs Marjorie Liddy, I have also been asked to extend my mother, Noel Padgham’s sympathies as she knows you and your husband, Lawrence, very well.
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a sign of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. For the Sceney family, if you are still watching via the Internet, a memorial booklet will be passed through to family in Geelong and in Darwin as well as a DVD of today’s proceedings.
I invite family, friends and members to join guests for afternoon tea in the Main Hall.
MOTOR VEHICLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 27)
(Serial 27)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
Today I introduce a bill that is delivering a commitment by this government to reduce red tape for motorists. One of the CLP’s first actions on coming to government was to address the urgent need for modernisation of MVR services. MVR staff have worked tirelessly over the years to provide services to Territorians. It was clear, however, that the systems and procedures they have been required to operate have not kept pace with modern approaches to regulation, and customers have rightly been frustrated at long waiting times and outdated procedures which no longer made sense.
As part of a range of reforms designed to improve motor vehicle registration and driver licensing services, this government undertook to remove the requirement for light vehicles to carry registration labels. The move is intended to reduce red tape and remove another reason for Territorians to have to visit a Motor Vehicle Registry office to re-register their light vehicle. It is just one part of this government’s commitment to update the operation of the MVR to provide a modern, responsive, and customer-focused service. The Motor Vehicle Registry will still issue reminder notices to Territorians. However, I emphasise in this House that it remains the vehicle owner’s responsibility to ensure their vehicle is appropriately registered.
This reform will further support my commitment to allow the vast majority of registration renewals to be completed online or by phone. Vehicles due for inspection will still need to be inspected by the MVR inspectors, or by one of about 470 authorised inspectors throughout the Territory. However, as a further part of the reform package, from 1 July there will be changes to the frequency of these checks, once again making the system quicker and more accessible. In time, it is envisaged that reminders will be sent electronically and Territorians will be able to access information by phone or online about the registration status of a vehicle. This is already possible in some jurisdictions where sticker-less registration of light vehicles has been implemented. These reforms bring the Territory into line with most other jurisdictions.
This reform does not mean that the government is going soft on unregistered vehicles: to the contrary. In the near future, my government intends to expand the current vehicle impoundment regime to include unregistered vehicles. Police will also continue to actively enforce the registration of Territory vehicles, and will have the means to determine a vehicle’s registration status, sticker-less or otherwise.
This legislative reform is just minor in that the Motor Vehicles Act references the location of the registration label to determine the placement of a defect notice. By removing the requirement for a light vehicle to have a registration label, it has become necessary to amend the act to define the requirements for placement of a defect notice. This amendment will clarify provisions for police and transport inspectors who continue to defect light vehicles that are not roadworthy.
Amendments are also necessary to various provisions of the Motor Vehicle Regulations and Traffic Regulations to remove references to registration labels. Those amendments will be brought into effect to coincide with this amendment.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable member, and I table a copy of the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
PENALTIES AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) BILL
(Serial 32)
(Serial 32)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to complete the process of converting penalties in all NT legislation from dollar amounts to penalty units.
This project was started in 2010 under the former government with the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Act 2010 and the Penalties Amendment (Justice and Treasury Legislation) Act 2010 which converted most of the penalties in the then Department of Justice and Treasury legislation into penalty units.
The Penalties Amendment (Chief Minister’s and Other Portfolios) Act 2011 and Penalties Amendment (Children and Families, Health and Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources) Act 2011 amended the legislation for the Department of the Chief Minister, the then Department of Children and Families, the Department of Health, and the then Department of Resources. In my capacity as the then shadow Attorney-General prior to the election, I supported these penalties amendment bills. The bill I introduce today continues and finalises the project of converting penalties in monetary amounts to penalty units. The purpose of this bill is to amend the remaining penalties in legislation across the statute book.
Some penalties included in the bill come from legislation in portfolios covered by the previous penalties amendment bills I have just read out, because for one reason or another they had not been amended at the time. The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice has now done an audit of the statute book for any remaining penalties to be included in this bill.
The bill amends penalties in the following portfolios: Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Transport; Treasurer; Business; Employment and Training; Attorney-General and Justice; Public Employment; Health; Education; Lands, Planning and the Environment; Mines and Energy; Land Resource Management; Regional Development; Local Government; Sport and Recreation; Parks and Wildlife; and Arts and Museums.
The previous penalties amendment bills provided for penalty increases of no more than 15%. The current bill provides for penalty increases of no more than 25%. The reason for this increase is to take into account the changes in the penalty unit value between 2010 and 2013 so there is a degree of parity between the conversion of the penalties in this bill and those done in 2010.
In previous debates of the penalties amendment bills, I noted the 15% increase was an arbitrary change made by the former government. The 25% increase is also arbitrary but has become necessary as the value of the penalty unit in 2010, when this process started, was $131, and the value today is $141. However, due to the rounding processes, which I will describe later, the increase from 15% to 25% does not necessarily change the penalty unit values for offences with lower penalties.
The conversion process adopted for this bill is the same general process used in previous penalties amendment bills and is as follows.
For the record, I believe, as a result of recent changes, the penalty unit is $144.
The current monetary penalty unit was increased by 25%, converted to penalty units and then, generally, rounded down to the nearest five penalty units to provide for a neat result in the statute books. Where the rounding down to the nearest five penalty units would result in an actual decrease in the penalty, the following principles were applied.
First, the penalty was rounded down to the nearest whole penalty unit that is closest to, but not more than, 25% of the increased value.
Second, where the rounding to the nearest whole number would result in an actual decrease in penalty, the penalty was rounded to the closest 0.5 of a penalty unit.
Third, where the penalty rounded to the nearest 0.5 of a penalty unit would result in an actual decrease in the penalty, the penalty was rounded down to the nearest one-tenth of the penalty unit.
Fourth, if the rounded penalty unit amount was less than 0.5 of a penalty unit, then the penalty was left in dollar amounts.
Acts that do not contain penalties or that contain penalties that have already been converted to penalty units have not been included in this bill.
Some legislation in the statute book was not amended by this bill because it is to be repealed or amended separately as part of a general review of the offences. For example, the following regulations are not included in this bill because they will be repealed by the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2013:
Marine (Crew Accommodation) Regulations
Marine (Hire-and-Drive Vessel) Regulations
Regulation 6 of the Marine (Passenger) Regulations
Marine (Pleasure Craft) Regulations
Marine (Safety) Regulations
Marine (Small Craft) Regulations.
The bill also makes a number of amendments of a statute law revision nature. They include the insertion of the words ‘maximum penalty’ into offence provisions in accordance with section 38C of the Interpretation Act. The legal effect is that the operation of the provision does not change but it becomes clearer.
The statute law revision amendments also include a number of amendments to the expression of some penalty provisions. This will make the offences clearer. For example, it is unclear whether the penalty provision at the foot of section 20(2) of the Animal Welfare Act applies to subsection 2 only for both subsections 1 and 2.
Section 38C(1) of the Interpretation Act provides that where a penalty provision is at the foot of a subsection it can be interpreted that the subsection is an offence. The bill makes clear that the penalty applies to both subsections 1 and 2 as they are both clearly offences.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BILL
(Serial 13)
(Serial 13)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Public and Environmental Health Act to allow the current Public Health Regulations to remain in force until 1 July 2014. This will allow additional time for the finalisation of a comprehensive set of public and environmental health regulations and ensure a seamless transition from the old regulations to the new.
Amending the Public and Environmental Health Act to extend the period of force of the current regulations will ensure there are no issues with legal coverage and provide for the ongoing effective monitoring and management of public and environmental health under this act.
The Public and Environmental Health Act commenced on 1 July 2011, having passed this place on 24 February 2011 with support from the government of the day and the opposition.
The act replaced the antiquated Public Health Act 1952, and is considered a major step forward in public and environmental health legislation reform in the Northern Territory. As the former Minister for Health, and now shadow Minister for Health, Mr Vatskalis, said at the time, the act replaced:
- … outdated, prescriptive public health legislation with a modern, flexible legislative framework which caters for the needs of today’s Territorians and our future generations.
This sentiment was echoed by minister Conlan, who at the time was the shadow Health minister and demonstrated the bipartisan support for the act and its stated objectives, which are to:
protect and promote the health of individuals in communities in the Territory
provide a flexible capacity to protect the health of particular individuals and communities in the Territory from emerging environmental conditions or public and environmental health issues which may impact on their health and wellbeing
enable special action to be taken to protect the health of particular individuals and communities in the Territory who are at public health risk, or are facing particular health problems
improve the public and environmental health outcomes of all Territorians in partnership with individuals and the community
monitor, assess and control environmental conditions, factors and agents, facilities and equipment and activities, services and products which impact on, or may impact on, public and environmental health.
Key to this new regulatory regime is the consolidation of eight important current regulations which, when additional key aspects are added, will form the new consolidated regulations for a wide range of activities that may impact on public and environmental health.
The eight regulations are:
1. Public Health (Shops, Boarding-Houses, Hostels and Hotels Regulations
2. Public Health (Barbers’ Shops) Regulations
To ensure the development of the regulations were kept on track, the act established a sunset clause, meaning the existing eight regulations would fall over on 1 July 2013. It is this date that the government is seeking to extend by 12 months to ensure we maintain regulatory coverage in this important area as the new consolidated regulations are finalised.
It is unfortunate that the regulations could not be finalised within the original two-year time frame the act envisaged. When I sought clarification as to why the time frame has not been kept, I was advised by the Health department that there was a range of reasons, which I will now outline.
The former Territory government did not approve drafting instructions for the regulations until April 2012. That was a full nine months after the act came into force and a year and two months after it was passed by this parliament. Whilst it is fair to assume some time between the passage of legislation and the development of accompanying regulations could be considered to be required, this delay made the finalisation of the new regulations and their full public consultation prior to the end of the current financial year a lot less certain.
Another issue that compounded delay of the development of the regulations was the competing legislative priorities and accompanying resource implications of what is quite a small environmental health team within the department. For example, between April 2012 when the drafting instructions were approved and July last year, the amendments to radiation protection legislation appeared as a national priority which took staff away from work in this area.
Finally, the department also advised that some of the delay has come about given the complexity of merging the existing public health regulations into one set. The latter required significant negotiation, consultation and input across a number of departmental program areas, other agencies and Parliamentary Counsel. As so here we are today
I am advised that the department is on track to finalise the new regulations by the end of this calendar year. Were this bill not to receive the support of this House today, the new consolidated regulations could be fast tracked and put in place by 1 July this year, but, by doing so, full and proper consultation would be compromised. Given the importance of these regulations to the community and numerous industry sectors and businesses, this government does not want to rush that consultation. We want to get the regulations right the first time. That is why this government has introduced this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany it.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Pass Bill through all Stages
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Public and Environmental Health Amendment Bill 2013 (Serial 31) passing through all stages on 16 May 2013.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am presuming if the government wants to pass something on urgency there is very good reason for that to occur.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The reason for urgency was just explained in the second reading speech; the eight regulations I listed cease to be effective from the 1 July 2013. For a number of reasons, the changes or updates were not made before this date. All this legislation is asking is that we have another 12 months to complete that process.
Mr Wood: I missed the first part of your talk, minister. Thank you for that explanation.
Motion agreed to.
ALCOHOL MANDATORY TREATMENT BILL
(Serial 33)
(Serial 33)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
What is before the House today is truly groundbreaking. It is the real opportunity the Territory government wants to extend to some of the most disadvantaged in our community to change their lives to the betterment of not only themselves but their family, loved ones, and the broader community.
The purpose of the bill is to establish a legislative framework for mandated assessment and treatment arrangements for people with chronic drinking problems in public areas. Commitment to an alcohol mandatory treatment regime was part of the commitments made by the Country Liberals prior to the 2012 Northern Territory general election, and is a key strategy to address antisocial behaviour and problem drinking.
Alcohol remains a long-standing health and social problem in the Northern Territory, subject to considerable community debate and public commentary. This government has taken the firm view that alcohol rehabilitation should be the cornerstone of addressing alcohol problems in the community, and that the magnitude of alcohol-related harm experienced by a relative few warrants compulsory assessment and treatment. We believe people suffering from chronic alcohol abuse should be medically treated in the health system rather than thrown into the justice system.
The bill provides a legal basis to compel assessment and treatment for chronic drinkers who are either unlikely or unable to voluntarily access treatment options in the community. No power currently exists to take a person to involuntary assessment or treatment for alcohol misuse without legislation.
The approach taken is framed as a health response to chronic and problem drinkers. In this way, the bill can be described as a civil commitment approach to mandated treatment.
This model has precedents in other jurisdictions and in existing Northern Territory legislation such as the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act. The objects of the bill enshrine the intent to assist and protect those people in our community who are significant misusers of alcohol, and ultimately, those who are close to them, through the delivery of assessment and treatment and aftercare services with the aim of stabilising and improving health, improving social functioning, restoring capacity to make decisions about their alcohol use and improving access to ongoing treatment.
Eligibility for alcohol mandatory treatment is determined through a trigger identified as adults who have been taken into police protective custody three times in a two month period. Once this trigger is met, and at the conclusion of the protective custody period, the person will be transported by police to an assessment facility where they will be detained whilst an assessment is undertaken.
Once detained in the facility the assessment must be undertaken by a clinician against criteria established in the bill confirming that:
the person has an alcohol problem
that as a result of this problem the person has diminished capacity to make decisions about their own or others safety and welfare
the person could benefit from treatment, and
there are no other, less restrictive options available.
Assessment will also provide for a comprehensive health and risk assessment of the person and the opportunity to respond to identified health concerns, particularly supported withdrawal management, assessment of injuries and chronic disease management.
The assessment must be undertaken with a 72-hour period. This ensures there is an imperative to minimise the period of detainment. In exceptional circumstances and where the health and safety of the client is paramount, a further 72-hour period may be used for assessment, subject to notification to the independent Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal.
Based on my discussions with health and service providers, it can be expected that from time to time there may be circumstances where the person has an acute mental or emergency health issue that needs to be addressed. In these cases the bill provides for the assessment process to be paused while these matters are dealt with, with provisions for a resumption of the assessment process.
An application informed by the assessment must be lodged with the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal within 24 hours of completing the assessment.
The assessment will provide recommendations on the most suitable treatment options with an emphasis on therapeutic interventions, work skills and readiness, and health improvement and chronic disease management. The tribunal must make a decision on the application within seven days.
The tribunal is to be appointed by the minister and, at any one time, comprise at least a medical officer or other suitable health practitioner, a legal practitioner and a community member. The tribunal will need capacity to consider up to 800 applications in a year across all regions within the Northern Territory.
After if receives an application, the tribunal can make one of two types of order for up to three months:
1. a mandatory residential order for the person to be detained and treated in a secure treatment centre
2. a mandatory community treatment order which does not include detention.
All orders must include an order for income management, and may include other requirements, including prohibition options.
Within the period of treatment, service providers must establish an aftercare plan for lodgement with the tribunal. This ensures continued services are offered to people after they exit treatment to support gains in treatment. The chief executive will have the power to declare nominated secure treatment centres and community treatment providers within the program. Because the assessment process is critical to the entry process, it will be run by the Department of Health and staffed by its employees in the first instance.
The service system to support the legislation will be developed over a two stage process. At the planned commencement of the legislation on 1 July 2013, it is proposed that the Department of Health will operate the major secure treatment centre from the short-term patient accommodation facilities in Darwin. Non-government organisations in Alice Springs and Katherine will operate secure treatment centres in those locations under Phase 1 of the program.
As anticipated, there will be some public commentary about the perceived lack of individual rights protections in the government’s announced policy on alcohol mandatory treatment. I am confident that the bill, as tabled today, has a range of protections for individuals and provides a balance against the need to protect people from their significantly harmful behaviours with the right to information, engagement, representation and, in some cases, decision-making.
For example, the bill includes the right of appeal, options for individuals to be represented and for consideration of the revocation and variation of orders based on significantly changing circumstances.
The bill establishes arrangements for the oversight of complaints and to support advocacy for clients as well as scrutiny of services and processes to promote service and program quality through an extension of the Community Visitor Program and Community Visitor Panel. This is an important safeguard and accountability measure consistent with the Mental Health and Related Services Act.
I also strongly argue that upholding the right to drink alcohol to the extent that you are taken into police protective custody three times in a two-month period is not a behaviour or outcome that should be highly valued or protected. Evidently, people in these circumstances need intervention. They may not be in a functional position to seek it for themselves.
It should be reiterated that the intent of the legislation is not to be overtly punitive. Offence provisions are proposed in the bill and have been carefully considered.
The proposed offences are for being absent from a treatment order where an order is in place, punishable by 10 penalty units or three months in prison. This time frame is relative to the period of a treatment order.
The other offence applies for intentionally supplying alcohol to a person subject to an order: secondary supply. Five penalty units, or one month’s imprisonment, is proposed. Neither of these offences can be expiated through infringement notices.
This bill will also involve the repeal of the alcohol reform Substance Misuse Alcohol Referral and Assessment Court, alcohol reform Prevention of Alcohol Related Crimes and Substance Misuse Act when it commences.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge those members of the alcohol and other drugs sector, as well as health service providers who have openly shared their views and ideas about mandatory treatment in my meetings and forums with them across the Territory. Their collective experiences in working with people who are severely affected by alcohol and their concerns for these clients have shaped the bill and will continue to inform the service system to support it.
The government welcomes constructive feedback on this bill and we are open to suggestions as to how to improve the mandatory treatment system. The bill and explanatory statement have been loaded on to the department website and Health asks that feedback is provided by the end of May. Interested members of the community can log on and find information about our mandatory treatment plans and view the bill on the department’s website at www.health.nt.gov.au/alcoholmandatorytreatment
In addition, the bill has previously been provided and commented upon by the Information Commissioner and the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner.
In closing, this is important legislation that provides a framework for alcohol mandatory assessment and treatment in the Northern Territory. Alcohol mandatory treatment will include therapeutic treatment, health management, counselling, work and work readiness and reintegration programs, and is a real and meaningful opportunity for individuals to change their lives. I commend this bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Power and Water Corporation’s 2013-14 Statement of Corporate Intent
Power and Water Corporation’s 2013-14 Statement of Corporate Intent
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the Treasurer is unable to be here, so for and on behalf of the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, I table the Power and Water Corporation’s 2013-14 Statement of Corporate Intent, or SCI.
The SCI is the annual performance agreement between the corporation and the shareholding minister on behalf of Territorians as owners of the corporation. Information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the Statement of Corporate Intent being tabled today on the basis it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information which no private sector business would be expected to release.
The financial position of the Power and Water Corporation has deteriorated in recent years and, based on the 2012-13 SCI tabled by the fiscally irresponsible Labor government, was set to worsen over the forward estimates period.
In response to the concerns about the commercial sustainability of the corporation and its longer term viability, a number of important changes in relation to its governance and management were made by the Giles Country Liberal Party government. These actions included the appointment of a new board and chief executive officer of the Corporation.
In March 2013, it was announced that the utilities tariff increases that commenced on 1 January 2013 would be phased in over three years.
Tariff increases for electricity were reduced to 20%, water to 30% and sewerage to 15% to apply from 1 January 2013 with a remaining 10% to come into effect on 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2015.
This decision recognised that the action needed to be taken, but spreading the increase over three years would reduce the impact on household budgets. In addition, the corporation’s new board has identified a range of operating and capital savings that would be achieved over the next five years.
The revised tariff structure, together with efficiencies and subsequent savings identified by the board, should improve its commercial sustainability and reduce its reliance on government support, as reflected in the 2013-14 SCI.
Power and Water Corporation’s 2013-14 SCI shows a substantially improved financial position and outlook when compared to the 2012-13 SCI over the five years from 2012-13 to 2016-17.
Revenues will increase by $164.7m, operating costs will decrease by $180.1m, borrowings will decrease by $818m and nett debt will be $681.7m less.
Revenues will increase as a result of the Giles government’s action to increase tariffs, which was required after the former fiscally irresponsible Labor administration allowed them to fall to almost the lowest amongst jurisdictions and threatened Power and Water Corporation’s financial viability.
Savings will be made as a result of the operational efficiency measures, including improved operating procedures in all business units and a reduction in corporate costs, improved procurement and inventory practices and improved business systems.
The capital and borrowing requirement will decrease as a result of the review of the capital reinvestment program. The board has made some adjustments to better align the capital expenditure with growth requirements, which has resulted in some capital projects being brought forward and a number of projects being deferred where consideration of current capacity and future demand has allowed.
Overall, this aims to reduce the corporation’s capital and borrowing requirement without jeopardising the service reliability for customers.
Throughout the SCI term, further reform initiatives to improve its financial position, operating efficiency and governance structure will be initiated by the corporation and the Territory government.
Under the fiscally irresponsible Labor government, the Power and Water Corporation was never allowed to meet its objectives under the Government Owned Corporations Act and operate at least as efficiently as any comparable business, and maximise the sustainable return to the Territory on its investment. It was a bloated and inefficient organisation, only sustained through taxpayer subsidies. This was a fact not lost on the Moody’s rating agency which recently commented on the need to improve the financial sustainability of the Power and Water Corporation. The Giles government is serious about putting the corporation back on a firmer financial footing. To this end, it is willing to take hard but necessary decisions to bring this about.
Madam Speaker, In accordance with section 39(7)(a), of the Government Owned Corporations Act, and on behalf of the shareholding minister for the corporation, I table the Power and Water Corporation's 2013-14 Statement of Corporate Intent.
TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD AND RAIL
(NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(SERIAL 22)
(NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(SERIAL 22)
Continued from 27 March 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I make comment on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Amendment Bill 2013.
I thank the minister for making staff available, for making us feel welcome, and for the briefing that was provided on this amendment bill which, basically, tidies up this legislation to make it workable, to make it function, and to make a smooth transition in identifying that important competent authority.
I took that information back to the Labor Caucus and we discussed this bill. Of course, the Territory Labor opposition supports the legislation. The amendment proposes that the competent authority for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act will be the Work Health Authority. This will alleviate tying this role to a particular position within the agency. The department of Justice has the opinion that when the package of work health reforms commenced on 1 January 2012, the Work Health Administration Act 2011 removed the position of Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as the position constituting the Work Health Authority, and this may have impacted on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act, section 22. It was explained it is for this reason a validation provision has been included in the amended bill to confirm any actions since 1 January 2012.
Currently, the minister directly appoints a person to constitute the Work Health Authority. If a person is not appointed, the CEO of the agency becomes the competent authority for the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act. By tying the competent authority under the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act to the Work Health Authority, future changes of staff positions within the department will not impact on this authority. As I said, we offer our support to the minister for this legislation.
It was interesting reading the background to this bill, and then discussing with constituents and Caucus colleagues the nature of the transportation of dangerous goods. Coming from the Barkly, Tennant Creek in particular, we have had experiences with dangerous goods travelling by road which have spilled. In the time I have lived in town in the last decade there was a cyanide spill on the Stuart Highway, which was a major spill of a dangerous good and a good example of when things go wrong. The cleanup and the Emergency Services response were impeccable. The material was cleaned up and then had to be transported with contaminated soil to the Warrego site. Whilst there were complications around that as a resolution, it did show Emergency Services and Territory agencies working together to clean up that spill to make safe the highway and the road reserves for Territory road users.
Having that experience in transport and dangerous goods, and looking at and evaluating that process, it was good to be able to apply that knowledge to this bill before the House and to understand the machinations behind it as well as - I say with respect - this housekeeping detail that is being tidied up in the parliament.
It is also good to be able to talk to departmental officers. In my discussions working through assessment of the bill I posed some questions that were taken with interest, but also reflected the possibility of accidents that could occur in the future in the transportation of dangerous goods by road and rail. However, I applied marine as well and am particularly concerned about the transport of nuclear waste.
The bill covers a schedule of dangerous goods, and I thank the department for providing that. In that schedule is the carriage of nuclear material. It is quite straightforward and the bill covers it. Nuclear material is travelling throughout the country regularly and it has cause to travel through the Northern Territory.
An example is the copper concentrate from the Olympic Dam project coming through the Territory to access the port, or material from the Territory’s uranium mines in northeast Arnhem Land coming back through Darwin and through the port. Those processes have been well-documented and well-managed.
However, we have a new challenge on the horizon, which is a higher level nuclear waste that is returning to Australia. In 2014, it is planned to return spent rods produced at Lucas Heights in New South Wales by ship in 2014. It is linked to the proposed first nuclear waste management facility that will be located on the Warlmanpa land trust at Muckaty Station.
As Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility, and Australia’s intermediate level nuclear waste that is coming home by ship, there is a good chance it will steam straight through the Arafura Sea, past the beautiful Tiwi Islands and arrive at East Arm port. From East Arm port it will have to be transported from the vessel onto either road or rail to continue its journey to what is proposed as Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility on the Warlmanpa land trust approximately 100 km north of Tennant Creek.
I made this point to departmental officers and I make this point to Territorians and any Aussies who will listen, because this will be very new for the Territory and has not been seen in an Australian context since that intermediate-level waste left our shore to be stored in appropriate facilities in Europe. To my thinking, this is not a good plan at all. I am out of favour with my federal Labor colleagues because I am part of an opposition to the proposed nuclear waste management facility at Muckaty Station. I have continued to dialogue about this with colleagues and the previous Northern Territory government, and now the Northern Territory opposition has put its position very clearly.
I was very privileged to be with the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Hon Paul Henderson, at a Senate inquiry where I could debate the case of the Barkly constituents and of Territorians opposed to this plan. I was the spokesperson for many people in, not only the Barkly, but across the Territory, to debate fairly and squarely with the federal Labor government about this, offering a good alternative of going back to the drawing board: a position of thinking very clearly about what will be Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility and what I consider to be short-term quick fix that could cause the Northern Territory far greater problems down the track. The federal Labor government has not chosen a resolution to that as yet, however, I continue to lead those in opposition to this plan.
The other interesting element of this case is that those in opposition to the proposed nuclear waste management facility at Muckaty are engaged in a court case with the Northern Land Council. That is in the Federal Court, and we hope there will be a hearing, possibly in Tennant Creek, this year. It is asking a very important question. The traditional owners are divided on the Muckaty proposal. Those opposed to Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility being located at Muckaty have organised a very strong action which is very well-defined, well-informed, well-researched, and a very common sense approach to try to resolve this situation.
It has come to a question that will be heard by a federal judge. Can a small family group of Indigenous traditional owners make a decision about the use of traditional lands that will impact on the wider clan, moiety and tribal groups, not only from within that specified land trust, but also the Aboriginal land trusts that surround the Warlmanpa land trust? It goes to a bigger picture, a bigger story and is a good question, because it will give a very positive road map for using Indigenous land for Indigenous community development in the future. It is a little unfortunate that the Muckaty issue is a very tricky situation because there is a lot of emotion and sentiment in it and, as I said, there is a very well-organised movement against it.
When we are talking about a bill for the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail, the Muckaty question really comes to the forefront for the Northern Territory. The previous Chief Minister, Hon Terry Mills, the member for Blain, gave his support to the federal government’s proposal for the first nuclear waste management facility to be located within the Northern Territory on the Warlmanpa land trust at Muckaty Station. Now that we have a new Chief Minister I would like to hear what the position of the Country Liberal Party and the new Chief Minister is on the question of Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility being located in the Barkly. I encourage all members of the government to ask, ‘What is it? What is it about? Do we support it?’ They should be examining many Indigenous cultural issues as well as the political, economic, and social issues around a decision that could locate this first facility. When I say, ‘Do some research’, I mean look at how intermediate and high level nuclear waste is stored safely. Really drill into that question. You will find those answers in Europe where this waste is currently stored. You will not find the solution in storage sheds above ground on traditional lands in prime cattle country with an aquifer source – a water table within 100 m of the surface - in an area of the Northern Territory that has experienced over 500 earthquakes since the major earthquake in 1988.
You will discover many people who will give you a well-balanced and straightforward explanation about this issue. The group opposed to the Muckaty plan is very well informed. They come from all walks of life and represent very influential organisations across the country, including a very esteemed legal firm from Melbourne which is conducting the case on behalf of the traditional owners.
It is an important question for all Aussies. It is very important for Indigenous members of parliament to find out what is happening and dialogue with the traditional owners who are opposed to the Muckaty solution and relate that back to ancillary challenges to the transportation of the dangerous good by road and rail after it leaves the ship - after it passes through legislation that will cover it in the maritime context - and is handed to stevedores who will load the waste onto road or rail, whatever is decided, and transport it to Muckaty Station should this plan go ahead.
It is a good opportunity to talk about safety, how legislation delivers for Territorians and about a very important federal court case which is being heard, asking that essential question: can one small family group make a decision that will impact on the wider clan, moieties and tribal groups that are interconnected socially, culturally and economically? That question can deliver a very powerful outcome either way.
That question delivered in the affirmative could see Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility located above the ground in some sheds at Muckaty Station. If that question goes the other way and the judge finds it should not be decided by a small group within that total context, then it will lead to an important element of Indigenous self-determination and community development about the use of Aboriginal lands and will provide a very clear road map.
I thank the minister for bringing this legislation to the House. It gave me a great opportunity to share with other Territorians what is happening in this case. I have done a lot of media and research on this and, as I always say, it is not just about Territorians, it is about all Aussies. If we go down this road, and the Country Liberal Party government always reminds us in this House about getting it right, you have to make sure you get it right. They continue to remind us that, apparently, we got everything wrong. You would not want to get this wrong when you are dealing with intermediate level nuclear waste. That is ours, it belongs to us, and it is coming home. It is booked, it is steaming and, if it goes to the plan initiated by the federal Liberal government and enacted by the federal Labor government then it will come home, ladies and gentleman. If anything goes wrong in its transport, or when it is put in a shed on a pristine cattle station north of Tennant Creek, it is not going to be a story of, ‘Oh, well, sorry about that. Now we will put the real plan in place’.
The real deal is not about storing nuclear waste, it is about the safe disposal of nuclear waste, which means a deep geological solution. That is not at Muckaty and that is not in the Northern Territory. The scientists tell us where it could be. If Australia is going down this road, we had better get it right because this stuff does not give second chances.
Madam Speaker, this is not about asbestos, landfill, or the waste we know and transport now under the legislation the minister has brought to this House and is tidying up to make sure the competent authority is tight and secure and everything goes well. This stuff is unforgiving.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I knew this bill might stir some passions about the transport of particular materials, but I did not realise it was going to come on today, otherwise I would have brought my many boxes of material on this issue which I have looked at since being in parliament. Although my good friend from the Barkly has given a good argument about the dangers of moving nuclear waste, one of the reasons we have this issue at Muckaty Station is because all of the states, when they were under Labor premiers, refused to take the waste. It was going to go to Woomera and that was probably a pretty good site. They said, ‘No, it will not go to Woomera’. Western Australia would not take it and the other states would not take it.
I will give you a funny example - I know we are talking about two forms of waste here. There is a site 100 km north of Brisbane - and Brisbane is a bit bigger than Tennant Creek – which is called Esk. It is a small town where a lot of …
Mr Tollner: Water is.
Mr WOOD: Yes, there is a catchment. Wivenhoe Dam is right next door. It is a fairly moderate sized town where many retired people live. There are fruit and vegies and horses in the area, and about 5 km out of town, there is a nuclear waste repository. It is a small building, probably about the size of a three- or four-bedroom house, surrounded by a fence and lawn. Low-level nuclear waste is transported from hospitals and other places in Queensland and deposited on that site. The council workers mow the lawn and that is it.
The difficulty I have with this debate is we have never been able to say we are Australians; we have worried about whether we are South Australians, Northern Territorians, etcetera. There comes a time when we need to do something that is good for the country. Our nuclear waste has come from something that benefits Australians. We have to understand that is why we need a place to store this waste. The argument is that Canberra can override the Territory; therefore, they can put it where they want. I am disappointed that is the case, but am I here as someone who supports the use of nuclear technology for the benefit it brings to Australia, whether it is medical, industrial, environmental, or research into molecular structures? That is exactly what happens as Lucas Heights. I have been to the old Lucas Heights nuclear research station. How many people have been to the old one and how many have been to the new nuclear research station at Lucas Heights? The new one would have to be one of the most fantastic contributions to the Australian economy …
Mr Tollner: So was the old one.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but the new one is mind-boggling because we are leaders in research in molecular science. We use the word ‘nuclear’ so often to scare people off. Much of this debate, unfortunately, relates not to science but to ideology. There are people in our community who are totally opposed to the nuclear cycle regardless of whether it is for medicine, industry, or electricity. I have met them time and time again.
I have had a debate with the gentleman from the Australian Conservation Foundation. He is a nice bloke, but the foundation is not willing to accept nuclear science is something they want. The Arid Lands Environment Centre is totally opposed and has been in Tennant Creek organising some of those opposed to it. They have the right to do that, but they are talking about the ideology and not the science. People have the right to disagree with things we do in this country based on ideology, but they need to say that and not dispute the scientific facts that show that some of these matters are not as alarming and terrible as they tend to make out.
I heard the member for Barkly give some classic arid land issues in regard to the storage of nuclear waste: it would be over a water table, it would affect the cattle, and it is an earthquake zone. If the earthquake zone was that bad, Tennant Creek should be a pile of rubble. It has had some mighty good earthquakes in its past, especially where the old gas pipeline was bent. I imagine you would build a structure that (1) is made in such a way - I would not agree to a structure that was not built this way - that it could withstand a reasonable size earthquake, (2) would not allow any materials to escape from it, and (3) recognises that in the case of low-level waste you are dealing with solids not liquids or gases. That issue is sometimes missed.
It is not as though this stuff all of a sudden flies off into the air when a drum is broken. It is solid material. One of the advantages of storing waste in a particular spot is that it is stationary and you can monitor it.
One of the things we overlook in this world is that we are alarmed about storing something that is smaller than two soccer fields when we spew out masses of pollution into our air which we have no control over. Every car, every company that produces some sort of pollution, every coal fire power station, and every gas coal fire station spews out pollution, including nuclear waste which you get from coal fired power stations, into the atmosphere. Are we getting so alarmed about that? We are hoping that one day we will not have to use those things. Solid nuclear waste can be kept in a place where it can be monitored, where it does not do anything and is stored securely. I would rather have that than all the stuff I have to breathe in every day that we are putting into our atmosphere.
I understand there are concerns about storing nuclear waste. Part of that is the old ‘not in my back yard’. In this case, I understand it is on Aboriginal land and I accept that. What annoyed me at a senate inquiry in Alice Springs was when Senator Ludlam, a person totally opposed to the nuclear cycle - he was Chair of that Senate inquiry and I rang from Darwin and said to them, ‘There is practically nobody living in that area’. I have visited the site on Bootu Creek Road to the railway line, there is no one living there, the closest is about 10 km away on Muckaty Station where there is a little outstation near the homestead. He said, ‘Oh, you believe in terra nullius’. I said, ‘I do’. I was saying very few people live there. Ray Aylett, the station manager, told me there is no water in a lot of the country on the other side of the railway. That is one of the reasons very few people live there. There is no water in that part of the world in the Tanami Desert where the famous Kookaburra crashed.
The reality is we need a place to store it. I do not mind arguments saying there are scientific or cultural reasons for not putting it here or there, but if ideology runs the argument, then I have a problem. If there are some issues about the manner in which it is stored, the risks that could be involved in storing it, or if the owners of the land are not happy with it going there, that is okay. But if it is about people running a different agenda simply because they do not want to have anything to do with a nuclear cycle, then I am not on that side because I see the great benefits this is bringing to us.
Nuclear waste is transported around Australia continually. High-level nuclear waste in the form of iridium comes to Darwin in a little esky once a week on a passenger airline, so why are people still flying? If it is such a terrible risk then you should give up flying. We have very tight controls over the transport of nuclear waste throughout the world. Have there been any major transport issues in regard to nuclear product in the world? You may have issues about Chernobyl and Fukushima, but in relation to the transport of those goods, when has there been a major issue? There are very strict guidelines to the transport of nuclear waste throughout the world.
My understanding, and I may stand corrected in this, of the higher level nuclear waste that will come back from France is that it will be in a solid form, in a glass container, and will be measured in milligrams, or a very small amount. You have to remember that we are getting material back which is nothing like Fukushima. It does not produce electricity; it is there to produce isotopes. So, the amount of waste we receive is not great. The science and the description of what I have seen is that this material will come back in glass containers that cannot be broken because the material is infused into it. It can be dropped in the sea; it can be dropped from heights, and all sorts of things. It is in a special material that bonds that into the material.
Now of course you can say there will be a risk. I remember when yellowcake was first going to be transported from Jabiru. The world was coming to an end. Now we have been transporting yellowcake for years and years. Has anyone had a problem with it? You can see how the mentality of much of Australia has shifted with the continual barrage of people who do not want the nuclear cycle.
Other states which are now mining uranium would like to take that uranium through their ports. People are saying, ‘oh terrible, terrible’, even though it has been going through Darwin for the last 30 years. They do not want it, even though science shows it can be transported safely and is not a health issue if transported correctly. We have a society which sees nuclear energy, because of the continual publicity of various concerns about it - some of those rightly so - but it is not so much about whether that is a good thing and can be remedied. It is simply, ‘We do not want this in Australia’, and many of those people do not want nuclear energy or anything to do with it at all in the world. So you have this battle of an ideology running the agenda, rather than the science and reality of the issues. The transport of materials is very important and low-level waste will be transported if Muckaty is the answer. If we can find another site, if we can convince the government that Woomera is the site, I would be very happy for it to go there because it is probably the better site of all the sites originally identified.
There were quite a number of sites identified throughout Australia and it all came back to the states. At that time they were all Labor states and we got nowhere because parochialism in Australia sometimes goes too far. Politics also drives it. People say they do not want it in their back yard. Obviously they are scared of the political outcry if they believe it should go somewhere where they might lose votes.
You are right, member for Barkly. You raised the issue that these materials need to be transported very carefully. I am not knocking what you said. Of course it has to be done that way. There are international regulations for the transport of nuclear product throughout the world which everyone has to abide by. The record is, and, again, I will stand to be corrected, I have not heard of any major issues with the transport of nuclear material throughout the world, and they are many nuclear power stations in the world.
They are talking about China reducing the amount of pollution. Tim Flannery was on the radio the other day talking about how they are going to use more renewable energy sources. What he forgot to say is – I am not sure what the number is – they are building a considerable number of nuclear power stations because they see that as the only opportunity to bring the pollution from coal fired power stations down fast enough to make a dip in the pollution in their country.
I do not say nuclear is the be all and end all. Nuclear has its problems, just like the motor car had its problems when it first started and other technology had its problems. I hope that as time goes on we improve on these technologies and do not end up being frightened of them but use them for the benefit of mankind.
I am one of those sceptics who does not believe that wind and solar will drive the economy of this world. It will help drive the economy of this world, but when the sun goes down, when the wind stops blowing, you will need a huge amount of batteries to keep the power going to build ships and motor cars, and produce fertiliser. All those things that require large amounts of energy will not, from a practical point of view, drive industry. They will possibly drive domestic consumption, which is a great thing. The less we have to depend on those forms of other energy the better. We need to keep our feet on the ground and stay in touch with reality, but we will still have to transport materials.
We transport coal, gas and fuel, and there are times when I wonder - the triples leaving Berrimah drive out on the outskirts of Palmerston with three tankers full of unleaded petrol. There are always dangers in the transport of materials …
Mr Tollner: A bit more dangerous than a few cups of nuclear waste.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Sometimes we need to keep things in perspective. We allow those vehicles to travel on our road and there is a great risk, to some extent. If they turned over and a spark went off anyone in the vicinity would be killed. So it is important we have legislation, not just about the issue the member for Barkly raised, which is a proper issue to raise, but about the transport of fuel, other forms of waste, and the transport of chemicals, for instance.
Each day a triple goes to Jabiru full of sulphuric acid. That is not something I would like to bump into. I would not have much of a car left if it spilled over my car. It is a dangerous product. It has to be transported according to certain rules and it is important we make sure those rules are policed and we continue to observe those rules because they are there for safety reasons.
It does not matter whether it is nuclear waste, fuel, gas, chemicals or waste materials; we know we need good transport regulations so the community is safe. I hope if there is any transport of nuclear waste it will come under guidelines that have clearly been set out within the regulation. I should not say ‘hope’. I know it will, and I would be satisfied those regulations will keep us safe from any problems with that material.
I am a supporter of Lucas Heights and I have been known to be a supporter of nuclear energy. It always seems strange to me that Ranger Uranium, which produces 1% of the world’s energy and 10% of the world’s uranium in our own back yard, sends all that energy overseas while we use gas. You can say all you like about it being clean; gas is clean in relation to coal, but it is not clean in relation to the amount of carbon dioxide that is spewed into the atmosphere. Nuclear is a clean form of energy. It does have its issues, there is no doubt about that, but sometimes the ideology has driven Australia away from using it, not the science. The science says we could use that as an energy source safely, but there is so much politics and so many people who have a very powerful influence on the media, especially those who are ideologically opposed to nuclear product, that governments are too scared to even give the idea of nuclear energy a fair go.
In relation to Muckaty, I am opposed to anything going on at Muckaty that was not up to a standard which ensured the issues the member for Barkly spoke of could not have any chance, if there was a chance in the first place of the water being contaminated. I do not know how the cattle would be contaminated, unless it somehow got into the water. The cattle could graze next door to it just as they can at Esk. I advise people who do not know about Esk to go there and look at where we store nuclear waste in Queensland. If there was an issue with earthquakes - as I said, Tennant Creek still stands today. That old pub has been there a long time and has been through many earthquakes and stood the test of time. If earthquakes are an issue - and I know the place rattles from time to time - you build a facility that is capable of withstanding an earthquake so the materials are not at risk.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this debate on. I know is has moved from an amendment, but it does give an opportunity for debate in parliament. You can blame the member for Barkly, member for Nhulunbuy; he brought it up. We do not get a chance to debate these things and it is good because, otherwise, we get just a boring old amendment that deals with national regulations, and puts you to sleep ...
Ms Walker: We might get a boring old reply, however.
Mr WOOD: That is right. That is okay if we can produce a bit of energy out of it. Madam Speaker might like to speak on this issue too.
Madam SPEAKER: Madam Speaker might like to speak, but it is not appropriate.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for raising the issue of nuclear power. I have mentioned to a few of my colleagues that we ought to be having a close look at pebble bed reactors. The member for Nhulunbuy might want to have a look at those too, rather than running gas to Nhulunbuy. That is just a personal view. People need to have a look at these nuclear reactors. They are something! I do not know whether the member is aware of them but it is definitely worthwhile having a read about them.
Back to the amendment. The Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act was first passed in 2011 and commenced on 31 March in the same year. The dangerous goods regulated under the act are as follows: Class 2 which is gas; Class 3 flammable liquids; Class 4 flammable solids; Class 5 oxidising substances; Class 6 toxic substances; Class 7 radioactive material, Class 8 corrosive substances; and Class 9 miscellaneous substances.
Section 22 of the act establishes the competent authority for the purpose of the act. Section 22(1) of this act provides for the Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as a competent authority for the act. What we are proposing is that the competent authority becomes the Work Health Authority. This will alleviate tying this role to a particular position within the agency.
When the package of work health reforms commenced on 1 January 2012, the Work Health Administration Act removed the position of Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as the position constituting the Work Health Authority. The Department of Justice had the opinion that this may have impacted on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act, section 22. It is for this reason that the validation provisions have been included in the amendment bill so as to confirm any actions in the interim since 1 January 2012.
The Work Health Administration Act, effective 1 January 2012, provides for a person to be directly appointed by the minister to constitute the Work Health Authority. If a person is not appointed, the Chief Executive Officer of the agency becomes the competent authority for the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act. By tying the competent authority under the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act to the Work Health Authority, any future changes of staff positions within the department will not have any impact on this authority.
In summing up, the object of the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Amendment Bill 2013 is to remove the restriction to the person holding or occupying the position of Executive Director of NT WorkSafe as the competent authority. The bill allows the minister to appoint a person as the competent authority and, in the event such an appointment is not made or is made and later revoked, the competent authority then becomes the Chief Executive Officer of the agency responsible for administrating the legislation.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, what an interesting debate this has been. Thank you to the member for Daly. He was the only bloke who stuck to topic, apart from when I gave the second reading speech. I will probably stray off the subject myself, member for Daly. I also thank the member for Nelson for his contribution and, of course, the wonderful member for Barkly for his support. I thank the opposition from the bottom of my heart for its support of this bill.
A few other things have come up during debate which are probably worthwhile commenting on, spurred on by the member for Barkly and his comments in relation to nuclear waste. He has taken a long time, but it seems the opposition is now talking about a nuclear waste management facility. That is wonderful. For so long we heard talk about a nuclear dump. That, in itself, is a political statement and I congratulate the member for Barkly for taking it seriously and calling it a nuclear waste management facility.
Mr McCarthy: I always have.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely. Good on you mate, because that is exactly what it is.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nelson raised some interesting points. The issue with nuclear waste management in Australia has always been, as the member for Nelson put it, run by politics and ideology as opposed to any considered scientific opinion. I, like the member for Nelson, have been to ANSTO at Lucas Heights on a few occasions. I have seen the old reactor and the new reactor; I have been through the entire facility. When I was first taken through there by the then Director, Ian Smith, he told me that every person he had taken through that facility walked away feeling intensely proud to be an Australian and intensely proud of that facility, except for one. I inquired who that person was, and he said, ‘Bob Brown’. I said, ‘Really, you have taken Bob Brown through here?’ He said, ‘I have shown him everything you guys have seen and he said he was not impressed at all and he ran out’. He is probably the only member of the Greens who has been through ANSTO, so good on Bob Brown, even though a great scientist like Ian Smith could not change his mind.
Getting back to Lucas Heights, it does make you proud to be an Australian. We are world leaders in nuclear science and understanding molecular structures as a result of the facility we have at Lucas Heights. Of course, it is a nuclear reactor. It is probably about the size of your average Whirlpool washing machine; it is not very big at all. It is housed in a large concrete bunker-like building but the reactor itself is tiny. From that reactor there is an enormous amount of research that gives us insight into a range of different aspects of physics, chemistry, biology and energy. It is amazing to see the work that happens there. For a period of time we have been world leaders in this type of research and in our understanding of how nature and science work in the world we live in. That in itself is extraordinary.
The other thing they do at Lucas Heights is provide a range of different isotopes for a range of different reasons. Probably the most obvious is the medical isotopes produced at Lucas Heights. I know there are people who believe in natural remedies for cancer and other diseases. They do not want to have any type of nuclear treatment for cancer; however, by far and away, most people who develop cancer are treated with medical isotopes that emanate from Lucas Heights. It is probably standard medical practice and theory at this point of time in our development as a human species that the most highly regarded treatment for cancer is with the use of medical isotopes.
That facility is particularly important to Australia and our region because when you are transporting medical isotopes they only have a certain life span. It is important that we have this facility in Australia because it allows us to access those medical isotopes in a timely manner so they can be used for treatment.
The people who protest against Muckaty Station know that Australia has signed up to an international agreement that states we have to have a nuclear waste facility to store nuclear waste if we are to maintain our licence to operate Lucas Heights. By stopping a nuclear waste facility, inevitably they shut down Lucas Heights. Their view - this is the extreme green environmentalist view - is that Lucas Heights is something we should not have in Australia and it should be shut down.
That is not a view I support; it is a view I totally abhor because the reality is if you shut down Lucas Heights, you shut down many people’s easy access to medical isotopes that allow them cancer treatment in a timely manner. What is more, whether it is the only one, or one of the very few nuclear reactors producing medical isotopes in the southern hemisphere, if we close it down, we have to line up behind other countries to get medical isotopes for a range of different treatments. If that were to occur, make no mistake, people in Australia would die. It is quite a serious matter.
Mr Wood: They did a year ago when it closed down.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, people were dying; I take the interjection from the member for Nelson.
It is about politics. I ask the member for Barkly to talk to some of his federal colleagues because in 2004, during the federal election, Labor campaigned on it quite heavily. ‘Stop Tollner’s nuclear waste dump’ was one of the slogans used in the Territory, and federal Labor made the commitment that it would not allow a nuclear waste dump to go ahead in the Northern Territory. This is despite the fact that it was a former Senator for the Northern Territory, Bob Collins, Paul Keating and a range of people who, in the 1980s, had organised for the nuclear waste facility to go into Woomera. They had transported thousands of tonnes of radioactive dirt to Woomera in preparation for the nuclear waste facility going there.
But, in 2004, it suited politics to say they would stop the dump from going ahead in the Northern Territory. Well, they did not win that election but they did win in 2007. It is interesting that when you are in opposition, as you probably know, member for Barkly, you can say all sorts of things but when you come into government you have to take account, particularly the national government, of what is in the national interest. Federal Labor quickly came to the realisation that it is in the national interest that we have a national nuclear waste management facility somewhere. Because of the High Court decision that allowed states to reject it, the only place the Commonwealth can store nuclear waste is in the Northern Territory. At the time it was seen as bully boy tactics to locate that facility in the Territory, and I agree that it was.
As Territorians we want to be able to chart our own course and destiny. But I also agree with the member for Nelson. First and foremost we are Australians and as Australians we have a responsibility to act in the interest of Australians. Whether they be in the Northern Territory, Tasmania, New South Wales or Western Australia, it should not really matter.
But, that was imposed upon us. I remember the time exactly. I was in Germany at the time and had been looking at energy systems around the world. I had been through France and was looking at nuclear reactors. It was a big issue at the time, and I received a phone call in Hamburg from Brendan Nelson informing me that the announcement was to be made that the Northern Territory would be the location for the national nuclear waste repository. I said to Brendan, ‘Look mate, can’t you just hold off? I am only overseas for another week. I would like to be in the Northern Territory when the announcement is made.’ Of course they could not hold off. The announcement was made and they nominated three defence sites. All hell had broken loose at that stage because Canberra was stepping all over our rights again.
Nigel Scullion and I, shortly afterwards, got our heads together and said there must be some way to soften the blow, so we crafted legislation. I put forward a private members’ amendment to the legislation in the federal parliament. That amendment, which was passed through both Houses, allowed the Northern Territory government or other landholders to nominate alternate sites to those three defence sites.
Member for Barkly, I do not know if you were elected at that time, you may have been, but Clare Martin was the Chief Minister and the decision made by the Northern Territory government was to bury their heads in the sand and say, ‘We do not care. We do not want this nuclear nonsense here. We are not putting it anywhere.’ The Central Land Council took a similar view, but I was chuffed when the Northern Land Council said it would look at it. Galarrwuy Yunupingu suggested they might be interested in the Nhulunbuy area to store the waste. Then Muckaty people put their hands up and went to ANSTO, checked out Lucas Heights and said, ‘This stuff is not as dangerous as we once thought. Maybe we can.’
They nominated their own site. They volunteered their site and, member for Barkly, the thing that stands out for me with Muckaty is that it is the only site in the history of Australia that has been volunteered. Whilst it was wrong at the start for the federal government to impose this on the Northern Territory, and I take heed of the comment that we should not be the dumping ground for Australia’s problems whether it is nuclear waste or jumping up and down about how we pass euthanasia laws. The Commonwealth should not be able to do that.
In this case, the site was volunteered by the traditional owners at Muckaty Station. The argument you are running is that those people should not be able to volunteer their site without consultation with a much wider group around them. ‘What about all these other people, the cattle and everything that exists around that?’ That is probably true, but my argument to people who put that to me is: show me someone else who is going to volunteer a site, or name a site, that is more appropriate. Do not tell me why we cannot do something, tell me how we can do something somewhere else. But, nobody ever comes at that. Nobody says ‘You can do it here’. They say, ‘Put it back in South Australia’. The South Australians are waving around a High Court judgment to say, ‘No, no, no, we are not having it here’. That is not a response.
Show me somewhere where we can put this because, at the end of the day, this is about politics. It is not about science or engineering; that stuff has been done to death these days. The fact is you can build a nuclear waste management facility on the site of Mount Vesuvius. It does not really matter where you put them. There are no problems with Lucas Heights storing the waste at the moment, apart from the fact that it is too small a location and pretty well 100% of the waste is medical waste or smocks, gloves, or beakers - everyday things.
People tend to get a bit wary about nuclear waste, but I do not think they understand how much nuclear material we are in contact with. All these exit signs you see here, when the lights go out, when the power goes off, those exit signs stay on. You have to ask why that is; how can those lights work when we have no electricity? All of those exit signs have a small nuclear isotope held within them that is there for emergency purposes so when the lights go out we know where the exit is and we can find it in the dark. We see nuclear technology all around us. Many watches these days are run with a small nuclear isotope.
To me, the fear of nuclear is akin to the fear of electricity. Several hundred years ago when people were talking about electricity - electricity killed. People did not want to know anything about electricity. ‘Dangerous stuff. We have a wood fire, that will do. Why would we want electricity?’ Well, the world moves on.
I was glad to hear the member for Daly talk about pebble bed reactors. This is the fourth generation of nuclear reactors. These days there is very little nuclear waste in the world because these new nuclear reactors pretty well burn everything. There is practically no nuclear waste coming out of the new pebble bed reactors. Everything gets burnt. Where we were thinking 10 or 20 years ago about deep underground repositories for high-level nuclear waste, that high-level nuclear waste in storage is being pulled up and stuck in fourth generation pebble bed reactors to be used as fuel. That is why it is stored and not disposed of, member for Barkly. I note you made a point of that in your speech.
There is no harm at all with a nuclear waste facility. We are doing the right thing by Australians by accepting it here. I am bemused that we cannot have a bigger facility in Sydney. People used to say to me, ‘If you do not think it is a problem, why do you not stick it underneath Parliament House in Canberra?’ Well, fine, it would not have bothered me, to be honest. I do not have a great fear of nuclear waste. Our hospital is full of it. When these debates were going on, I was saying Kakadu is full of nuclear waste. I was accused of fear-mongering because I said that. Then, of course, we found out - lo and behold! - there is a heap of nuclear waste sitting in old shipping containers in Kakadu. This stuff is everywhere. At the moment it is being dumped at the rubbish dump and used in landfill. What happens to these exit signs when they are pulled out? They should be going into a nuclear waste repository but, no, if you searched the dump at Shoal Bay you would find a heap of them. It is not something we should be carrying on too much about.
As the member for Nelson said, if a triple road train full of unleaded fuel goes off and hits a spark you have a serious problem, particularly in a built up area. You have a major problem. You have a triple road train full of intermediate or low-level nuclear waste, even high-level waste, topple over and what happens? We sweep it all up. If you have a road train of unleaded go over and a spark fires it up, there is no reason why you would not have hundreds dead. Look at some of the greatest disasters we have had around the world – the Bhopal disaster in Asia where tens of thousands of people died in a fuel explosion. It happens everywhere but we tend to focus on Fukushima, One Mile Island and Chernobyl, which are very isolated incidents. We have very dangerous stuff all around us.
I tend to be quite angry about protestors who want to stop Muckaty Station because they do not have another solution and, ultimately, there goal is to see Lucas Heights and ANSTO closed. If that happened we would see Australians dying much sooner because they do not have access to the technology and treatments available to treat some diseases.
I thank the opposition for their support of this bill. It is a minor administrative change which does not have any great effect on the way the legislation works apart from allowing the department responsible for Work Health to be the officer in charge under the act. In that regard, it does not change a great deal; it just sorts out some of our legislative requitements. I appreciate the support of the opposition.
I appreciate the opposition member, the member Barkly, making the comments he did because, as the member for Nelson said, it has given us an opportunity to speak on something we have not spoken on for quite some time. I appreciate the member for Nelson putting in his two cents worth and, of course, I appreciate the member for Daly sticking to the intent of the motion and talking about the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Business) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
SALE OF LAND (RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARTIES) ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 25)
(Serial 25)
Continued from 28 March 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the opposition does not support this bill which will repeal the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act and with it unravel years of work to develop and implement legislation aimed at providing a better level of consumer protection for the buyers of land or residential properties in the Northern Territory.
Buying property, buying a home, is the single biggest financial commitment a person will undertake in a lifetime. While the current backwards policies of the CLP government are pushing the dream of owning a home further away from reality for so many Territorians, on top of it this new government also wants to remove vendor disclosure legislation, and it will.
Vendor disclosure legislation is designed to protect consumers from being ripped off. If this is the biggest financial undertaking in a person’s lifetime, then there needs to be level of protection associated and commensurate with that investment. The NT was not exactly going out on a limb with vendor disclosure legislation when our Labor government introduced it, given that similar legislation exists in several jurisdictions in Australia: Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, the ACT and Tasmania have also enacted legislation.
There is clear evidence that these vendor disclosure regimes work to achieve the objectives of the legislation. The CLP’s claims that repealing vendor disclosure legislation in the Territory is about reducing red tape and costs is misguided and ignores the key principle of consumer protection, but fits neatly with the CLP’s core values which deny transparency and accountability.
With the repeal of the act, a move which I suspect has seen no consultation with consumers or lobby groups like the Planning Action Network, we have legislation which will be overturned and which was never given an opportunity to work. Indeed the baby has been thrown out with the bath water and land and home buyers are back to being served poorly by the principle of caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.
This doctrine may well have been useful and may continue to be useful for consumers in other negotiation of purchases, but not for a purchase on the scale of land or residential property. Under a common law caveat emptor regime, the purchaser is required to undertake his or her own investigations of a property being considered …
Sorry, the conversation behind me is a little distracting.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, if you could go to the gallery at the back please.
Ms WALKER: The purchaser is required to undertake his or her own investigations of a property being considered for purchase and the vendor has no legal obligation to unilaterally disclose matters relating to either the quality of the title, or of the condition of the property or structures. Quite clearly, under this doctrine, the vendor and the potential purchaser are not equal players in the sale transaction. The seller knows much more than the buyer does. It is because of the recognition of this disparity that other jurisdictions have enacted legislation to introduce some form of vendor disclosure.
Let us make no mistake, this bill from the CLP takes rights away from home buyers and increases the rights of real estate agents. It transfers rights away from home buyers towards real estate agents and reverses the former Labor government’s legislation to redress that imbalance. It makes it a no-brainer, but that is the modus operandi of this government, making poor decisions which expose Territorians to risk and getting hurt.
The truth is that ‘buyer beware’ no longer serves the interest of purchasers but, sadly, this truth escapes the new CLP government. Because of the financial significance of buying a home, one would imagine that purchasers want to get it right. They want to choose a property that suits their needs and aspirations and they want to pay a fair price. Assessing these factors requires information. There is only so much information which can be gleaned from the usual physical inspection of a property. Without access to information about the property, the buyer is at a significant disadvantage in making decisions about whether to buy a property and in negotiating a fair price. Vendor disclosure aims to address this disadvantage by giving potential purchasers information about the property before they decide whether to buy it or not.
During the years of the former Labor government, much time and energy was invested with stakeholders to eventually develop a bill which would provide a regime of vendor disclosure in the Territory to address the imbalance between sellers and buyers in the residential property market, recognising that caveat emptor alone – ‘buyer beware’ - was inadequate.
Former Labor Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, championed this cause in the early days of Labor’s administration when he raised the matter in his ministerial statement on consumer affairs in February 2003. In 2005 he established the Property Law Taskforce which brought stakeholders together from industry and professional bodies, along with the relevant government agencies. Dr Toyne’s successor, Syd Stirling, also pursued this course of legislative action to protect consumers. During this time the member for Nelson also worked on vendor disclosure and introduced two private member’s bills, though they were defeated.
During this time, the Vendor Disclosure Discussion Paper was drafted by the Department of Justice in March 2006 and invited submissions from interested stakeholders. It is worth revisiting that paper which describes the legislation as follows:
- Under vendor disclosure legislation, the vendor of residential property is required to have readily available to all prospective purchasers of the property all generally relevant information concerning the property that is being sold.
Vendor disclosure legislation usually has the aims of:
- (a) improving the efficiency of the conveyancing system; and
The paper goes on to say:
- Vendor disclosure legislation can be characterised as being:
- (a) consumer protection legislation in so far as it seeks to ensure that the relevant information is made available to the prospective purchaser prior to becoming contractually bound to buy the land, or later so as to give the consumer the right to avoid the contract;
(b) efficiency legislation in so far as it seeks to minimise the amount of searching required and number of reports obtained for the sale of land. It does this by ensuring that the seller gets together a full set of information which he or she is then obliged to provide to the buyer; and
- (c) efficiency legislation in so far as it is intended to minimise the opportunity for gazumping. It does this by reducing the time between when an offer is made and a binding contract is entered into.
Clearly the CLP government does not see vendor disclosure as any of these things or, if it does, it simply sees no need to have it in place. The views of the CLP are well known on this subject. Reading Hansard from 18 February 2010, the second reading debate highlights not just the CLP’s objections, but the flawed assumptions made about the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act which is to be repealed today.
The member for Katherine spoke during that debate - a contribution which was interesting, if a little confused around the intent of the bill and his wrong assumption that the bill was about addressing gazumping. He said:
- … I was mistakenly of the opinion that the legislation … was supposed to be a cure or silver bullet for the practice of gazumping.
The member for Katherine went on to talk about his experience of spending 18 months in the real estate industry in Queensland as a salesman, not that the Territory’s proposed legislation was based on Queensland; in fact, it was far from it. He talked about his view that the practice of gazumping came about because of ‘unethical real estate agents’ who bring the industry into dispute. He said:
- … it is their behaviour which needs to change.
He went on to say:
- Caveat emptor - buyer beware. The vendor of any item, not just real estate, must not misrepresent the nature of the item for sale, but, at the end of the day, it has always been, and it should remain with the purchaser to satisfy themselves they are getting what they want.
That is an interesting statement from the member for Katherine who, the following year, was exposed for his earlier dodgy dealings with a second hand car when he bought a troop carrier from a Katherine dealer and falsely declared the sale date on the registration document and the notice of the disposal, and acted contrary to the police code of conduct in the way he sold the vehicle in an Indigenous community and failed to transfer the registration within 14 days as he was obliged to.
I know the member has deeply regretted this episode, but it highlights, somewhat ironically, that there are unethical salespeople and vendors who will take advantage of unsuspecting buyers for personal gain. How exactly does the buyer beware of unethical characters? The answer in short, and when it comes to buying property, is to have vendor disclosure legislation in place.
Another observation from the member for Katherine’s contribution on that day in February 2010 when he said on the record:
- If you can change the behaviour of real estate agents, that is the way to deal with the issue of gazumping, not by imposing what is effectively a levy on the homeowner or vendor … it will achieve nothing else but add a new tax …
There is absolutely no denying that the provisions of supplying additional information will come at a cost, but at a cost which is kept to a minimum and which provides protection for the consumer whose costs in purchasing a property are far greater.
How interesting that the member for Katherine might make these comments regarding a new tax, given that as the Minister for Mines and Energy, he has just done this very thing in the past fortnight - introduced a levy, a tax, on mining companies to pay for environmental rehabilitation legacy of mines: an announcement which has been widely condemned.
The decision of the CLP government to bring forward a bill to repeal the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act is a backwards move, but not a surprising one from the CLP. While industry sectors may welcome it, it represents a great loss and a return to a position of disadvantage for buyers of residential property who have had a level of protection removed from under their feet by this bill.
Madam Speaker, the opposition does not support this bill which takes the Territory backwards in repealing what is regarded as sensible and contemporary legislation in most other jurisdictions, aimed at protecting consumers making the biggest purchase and financial undertaking of their lives.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nhulunbuy’s comments opposing the government’s decision to repeal the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act. It is disappointing to see this move to repeal the legislation, given its main intent is to ensure that people going through with the purchase of land have full access to information regarding the land and property, helping protect consumers as they are about to enter into what becomes one of the biggest financial investments most people will ever make in their lives.
The intent of this legislation was, in simple terms, to ensure that potential buyers of land would be provided, by the seller, all relevant information concerning the land and property from the outset. This would help a potential buyer to make a fully-informed decision before going through with the sale of a property. There is no doubt there has been a great deal of debate around this subject over many years, both here in the Chamber, as well as out in the real world.
We have all heard stories about people entering into the sale of a property who have made the purchase without knowing the full condition or issues of what they were buying. Sometimes this is not intentional and at other times, unfortunately, it has been. Buying a property can be an extremely daunting process, especially for those who have not done it before. First homebuyers are especially vulnerable if they do not have good support and advice to help them with the checklists of what to do when they go through the sale of property process.
You also hear stories of people feeling pressured to make quick decisions to sign up and purchase a property. Sometimes this happens without all the information at hand and it can be due to dealing with some ruthless operators. This is something none of us want to see but, unfortunately, it can happen.
The bill the government is repealing effectively means buyers have less access to information up-front and fewer safeguards around their purchase. This is more vulnerability for buyers and less protection for them throughout this process. This type of legislation is not unique to the Territory. Similar legislation in some form is in existence in other jurisdictions including New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory.
Why is the government repealing this legislation? The government has stated that it is to reduce red tape for industry and the general public and to keep the costs of housing transactions down. The costs associated with arranging the relevant reports would have had some impact on the cost of the property. However, in most cases the buyer would be paying for these reports anyway. The price impact would have been minimal.
The fact is, the real pressure on the cost of housing is the supply of land. In addition to this, many Territorians who want to get out of a life of renting and into their own homes are, sadly, going to find it much harder under this government. The legislation that would have eventually applied to them has gone out the window, as far fewer of them now have the opportunity to buy their own home. For example, the scrapping of the stamp duty concessions by the government has made it more difficult for first homebuyers, given that they now have far less financial assistance to buy a property. First homeowners now have to find an additional $26 730 in stamp duty concessions because it has been taken away from them. The scrapping of HOMESTART NT has also meant low- to middle-income earners have less opportunity to buy a home.
The government has made it harder for those who want to purchase an established home as a starter to get them into the housing market. Many people want a home that requires a few upgrades and renovations they can do for themselves. Many people also have the desire to live in established suburbs near their family connections, their work, or the school of choice for their children. The new home ownership program, HomeBuild Access, specifies that homebuyers must purchase a property that has not commenced construction prior to 1 January 2013. Given this, if your assistance is to flow through to first homebuyers to help them get a foot in the door into new housing, it is critical that the supply of land continues.
It is disappointing to see the government repealing legislation that will mean less protection in place for people purchasing a home. It is hard to understand why the government does not seem to want to provide protection for consumers in what is, for most, the biggest investment they will make in their life. If the government succeeds in repealing this legislation today, which I greatly suspect it will, it is essential it does not completely walk away from this area of consumer protection around the purchase of land and property.
Perhaps the government will consider looking at what communication strategies can be put in place to ensure homebuyers - with the real focus on first homebuyers - have more information available to better inform them about the processes, what to look out for, and what to go through when they are purchasing a home.
I realise communications staff are pretty stretched at the moment and a few more will lose their jobs; however, if you are taking away the legislation, to give them a little more protection it would be positive to review what information is available to first homebuyers in particular so they can make more informed choices when they are going into the process of buying a property.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have spoken about this issue for many years and have heard the debates of the Attorney-General many times. It is sad that I know whatever words I say today will not change the Attorney-General’s mind; however, I put to the Attorney-General that whilst I believe this legislation, especially the regulations, had some issues, I hope the government does not throw the baby out with the bath water and reconsiders the issue of vendor legislation.
It is not as though it is something new. It occurs in quite a number of the other states in various forms. It is not as though what we have is something that should not be there to protect the consumers. Obviously people in New South Wales and Victoria have said there needs to be this type of legislation. For instance, in Victoria they have a Vendor’s Statement, section 32, and it is compulsory for the vendor to provide a potential purchaser with the Vendor’s Statement before a contract of sale is signed. If the property is being sold at auction, the copy of the Vendor’s Statement and the contract of sale must be available for inspection before the auction. New South Wales has a Schedule 1 prescribed document which is also compulsory. In South Australia they have a Form 1 disclosure statement which is also compulsory. Queensland does not have any requirement at present. In Western Australia there is a seller disclosure statement, but it is not compulsory for the seller to provide that to a potential buyer. Tasmania was renewing its legislation recently; I am not sure what stage that is at. In the Australian Capital Territory there is a requirement for documentation for the sale of residential property or land. It is compulsory for the vendor to provide a potential purchaser with the required documents before the property is offered for sale.
We are not talking about something that is out of step with the rest of Australia. I hope this is not being knocked on the head because Territorians like to do things out of step with the rest of Australia. The whole reason for this debate was the protection of consumers and to get away from caveat emptor. I have heard the minister give us the historical background of it, which may enlighten us as to why it exists, but from a consumer’s point of view, a consumer purchasing a house is normally spending the largest amount of money they will ever spend on any one item. There is certainly a need for honesty in selling and that is where the shift should be. The person selling the land should come up with various documents showing either the deficiencies or benefits of buying this property.
Unfortunately, - I have read the minister’s second reading - it became bogged down in the regulations. I do not think the bill itself is the problem. It is not a large bill; it is not hard to read, but when I went to the regulations it became lost. It was not me saying that; I spoke to the manager of Home Star Rating Australia about this last year. This man, Ray, certainly has much experience in building and he said there were problems with the practicality of the regulations. I took that back to the government and asked them to discuss this with him. To my disappointment, I found out the other day when I rang him and asked if he had any contact from the government - this man is a very experienced person in the building trade, especially in energy ratings – he said he had not been contacted.
You might be right, minister, in relation to whether some people did not have their heart in it. I know the regulations went to the Department of Justice. The legal eagles got hold of it and what should have come out in a simple form instead came out in a complicated form.
A classic example is this. I thought someone who was selling a house would be required to say they had a certificate of occupancy. However, what came from this was that they wanted a building status report, which is a far more complicated thing to come up with. If you sold a building and you knew that the chook shed out the back did not have an occupancy certificate, you simply said that. It was not an issue of getting into trouble from the building board; it was simply saying that if you bought this house there was a certificate of occupancy. If there had been some changes to the building then you had to at least tell people that a room had been added. The intent was to have some very basic information up front so anybody, at the time the property was advertised or went up for auction, would be able to go to the seller or the seller’s agent and collect a series of documents that were basic to the requirements for anyone wanting to purchase that land.
Minister, you said in your media release that:
- … while noble in its intentions, this legislation would have done nothing to assist those selling or buying a home …
I disagree. I believe it would have done something. It would have made sure the seller told the buyer exactly what the issues were with this property or if there were some defects, such as not having a certificate of occupancy. The purchases could have been told those simple things up front.
You also said:
- … it would have put significant pressure on Territorians wanting to sell their homes and greatly increase the time the process takes.
It may have taken a little time but it would also take time for the purchaser to find all these certificates. There would be one application for all these documents and then all the purchaser would be required to do is say, ‘I am interested in buying this property’, and there would be a requirement to give them those documents up front.
In some ways that would save costs. The minister said in the second reading that getting rid of the sale of land act would keep costs down. If it costs the vendor a certain amount of money to acquire those documents, naturally he could have added that on to the purchase price. Someone has to pay for the documents, whether it is the vendor or the purchaser. It is not going to change except that you would have it all up front and this would make it much more efficient.
The minister also said:
- There is also a real concern that vendors may be required, under the current act, to disclose information which is beyond his or her knowledge which cannot be easily obtained.
That may be the issue about what is in the regulation and what is required. If there were problems in the existing regulations that made it very difficult to obtain that information then why do we not look at changing the regulations?
Do not throw out the legislation; let us look at the regulations and see if we can make it work, if that is the issue. You also said this issue can be covered by other means. I am not sure that is the case. The contract of sale does not force the vendor to have documents ready unless the purchaser ticks off certain boxes.
It may work in some cases and in other cases it may not, but this piece of legislation was trying to protect people from unscrupulous vendors. You have to look at it in the context that in many cases the purchasers of houses will be doing this for the first time and will have little experience in dealing with the purchase of land. There is a requirement that some of the onus about what matters apply to this parcel of land should be provided at the point of sale.
I know the minister will have all his answers to that, but I put it to the minister that I have stood on peoples’ blocks of land while there is water running through their lounge room. They can sell that block of land today to someone else without any issue and do not to have to say, ‘Water goes through the lounge room on this block of land in a good Wet Season’. In the case of the member for Daly, it probably goes through his lounge room every three years. There are blocks of land in my area where people have passed on the problem because there is no requirement to say these blocks are subject to flooding.
The minister might think I am coming from some highfalutin philosophical point of view, and to some extent I am. But I am also coming from a point of view that I know, and have seen for myself, that so many people in my electorate have suffered because there was no recourse when it came to buying land where the vendor was not required to tell people about the block of land. It is unfortunate that they got bogged down.
You were very close to the mark, minister, that some people did not want it, but I had an independent from Home Star Rating Australia give me his independent assessment. He said there were a number of issues that were too complicated in relation to the regulations.
I say to the minister, I am not going to win the debate today and I will not fall on my sword about it. I am disappointed that this sort of legislation is disappearing off the books today. I ask the minister if he would at least consider a form of vendor disclosure that would be relatively simple to achieve, and requires the owner of a property to at least provide certain basic requirements up front before someone purchases the block of land. That does not mean purchasers cannot do some of that work themselves or double check that information is correct, but the vendor would be under some sort of penalty if they gave the purchaser incorrect information. That is what will make sure this legislation works.
I know other states have had some difficulty with vendor disclosure legislation. In 2010 there was a review of vendor disclosure for residential property sales in New South Wales by Matt Brown MP. I am not sure of the full outcomes since that was brought up. It raises a number of issues, but perhaps we could nitpick the legislation of other states and come up with something that is workable and practical, because that was the intent. The regulations went off somewhere to those people who wanted to make it a very legalised document. My intent was to make it practical, simple and reasonable to protect the purchaser.
The minister for Lands and Planning has told us how many houses he will put on the market. In many cases the people who buy them will be first homeowners. Perhaps most of them will be in Darwin, so you expect them to not have too many problems with the parcel of land. However, there might be some, for instance, within the tidal surge. Is there a requirement for the owner of the land to tell people the block of land is within the tidal surge of Darwin? As far as I know there is no requirement. I am not even sure if it is in those boxes in the contract of sale. They are the simple things that need to be up front so people can still buy a block of land in the tidal surge, can still buy a mango farm at Daly River which they know goes under water; they are willing to put up with that.
I want to see some honesty in the selling. That is really the intent. I have read all the arguments from the minister. In final summary, yes, you do not think it is good legislation, but I hope you might at least consider something to replace it with in the future and still achieve the ideals it was intended to achieve.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have listened to all members here today and I want to touch on a few things. In relation to the member for Nhulunbuy, my response has been partly given by the member for Nelson. Basically, one could be forgiven, listening to the member for Nhulunbuy, for thinking we are repealing an act that is operational and are stripping away something which currently protects purchasers of houses in the property market. That is not the case; this act never became operational.
We are repealing legislation which, while passed through this House, never operated in the Northern Territory, for the reasons outlined by the member for Nelson: the regulatory environment grown out of the legislation was causing increasing difficulty and the former government would have been aware of that through the enormous push back from REINT and other such organisations in relation to the operation of this legislation.
Words like ‘disaster’, ‘bureaucratic nightmare’, ‘impost’ and similar synonymous terms were woven into nearly every conversation I had with the profession that dealt with this legislation, and this was before the legislation became an operational law in the Northern Territory. Since the passage of this legislation, Northern Territorians have operated under the system that they have operated under for decades. That system continues to operate to this day, and does so in an effective way. I do not think there was ever a criticism from members opposite that the old system was ineffective. However, this is a consumer affairs argument that is being run, and it is certainly the motivation behind this bill.
A little history though: this bill was born out of the crisis the former Labor government had. One of the things the member for Nelson particularly wanted to pursue was gazumping legislation, and he often would refer to it as that. I heard the member for Nhulunbuy make references to gazumping, quoting the member for Katherine. If memory serves me, that is precisely what the member for Katherine was referring to: that the origin of this particular legislation was gazumping legislation.
That is certainly not what is in this legislation. Anybody who closely examines gazumping realises, for a number of reasons, not least of which is the operation of the Statute of Frauds or its current equivalent in the Northern Territory legislation, that you cannot be contractually bound for a sale of contract of land unless it is a written document, and for good reason. The Statute of Frauds goes back to the 1600s or thereabouts. Even 450 years ago sale of land contracts were so inherently difficult to resolve in regard to promises and otherwise that the parliament of the day in England determined it was necessary to reduce these contracts to writing to save the confusion which surrounded them, which is why we have written contracts.
That being the case, you cannot be contractually bound unless you have a written contract; hence, things like the Agents Licensing Act, which is the standard form contract. It does not automatically follow that people are not protected in the law of contract without referring to legislative instruments particularly.
We shifted away from gazumping because of the difficulties in trying to water down that absolute point of obligation which the Statute of Frauds or its current form – what is the current form of it in the Territory? It is in the Land Title Act. Essentially, the idea of the Statute of Frauds is in the Land Title Act where it demands you have a written contract. If you try to introduce gazumping legislation, the problem you were trying to sort out 450 years ago is reintroduced. You have an environment which is fairly nebulous as to when you are contractually bound. Getting to that point you then step away from it and say, ‘If we cannot fix gazumping, we will do vendor disclosure’. I understand that. There was no attempt by the member for Nelson at the time to obfuscate the difficulty with gazumping. He then said, ‘We need some form of vendor disclosure’.
We are now talking about an environment where we are arguing about a matter of degrees. If you take the idea of an arrangement between two parties to one extreme or the other, the most extreme example of an arrangement between two parties is some type of threat or menace. ‘You will do this otherwise I will do something horrible to you.’ That is hardly what you would describe as a contract and could hardly be described as a meeting of the minds, but that is an arrangement between two people. At the other extreme, the other person who would have been the victim in that case is the offender and the offender, in the first instance, would become the victim.
Those are two arrangements on the extreme. An example of those types of arrangements is peace treaties after a successful invasion. ‘You will sign this peace treaty by virtue of the fact you lost the war when we invaded.’ There are some good examples of that. After the Zulu war of the late 1800s, Cetshwayo was condemned to having to sign. However, the interesting thing about a treaty of that nature is that by sliding the document across the table at the person saying, ‘Sign this, you are the loser’, you are still, by implication, acknowledging the prior ownership.
That is the extreme example, but let us go into the world of contract. In that world such an arrangement would never be enforceable because contract implies something in its very nature: that it is an agreement between parties. You have one party sitting over here, one party sitting over there; they have a chat and form a relationship. They do that through a series of steps; they make offers, there is acceptance.
In the case where an offer is accepted in a land environment, you then write that down and autograph it and there is your contract of sale. However, that does not mean that contract is automatically written in blood. There are a number of remedies available to a person under the common law of contract, without looking at the legislative instruments. There are a number of remedies under contract law which deal with errors, problems and difficulties in these areas.
I draw honourable members to the contents page of Carter, Peden & Tolhurst’s Contract Law in Australia, on page vii, Part V – Viatating Factors:
Contracts Induced by Misleading Conduct
Misleading Conduct Under Statutes
Contractual Mistakes
Documents Mistakenly Signed
Duress
Undue Influence
Unconscionable Conduct
These are the factors where a person could say, ‘This is not the contract I agreed to’; non est factum is the Latin expression in that case. There was an honest and reasonable mistake. There was undue influence in a number of ways. Those laws are quite protective. If you look at the law surrounding promissory estoppel, you will find a number of cases which deal with these sorts of mistakes. Contract law in Australia, whilst it is still common law, has developed an equitable flavour. Whilst it has had that flavour, remedies such as specific performance are clearly equitable remedies which contract law provides.
Even without looking at a piece of legislation, there are a number of areas where a contract would be supported in the courts of Australia or a contracting party would be supported in the courts of Australia if they were able to demonstrate any number of items of conduct which confronted the common law of making contracts in Australia. Having made that observation, it is also important that when parties enter into a contract with each other, and do so in a written form when it comes to the sale of property - an example is this contract of sale from the Agents Licensing Act - then it must be a reflection of the intention of the parties who are signing because even the vendor deserves protection from the purchaser if the purchaser is in some way miscreant in their attitude towards the contract. There have to be ways, and there are ways, to enforce the terms of contracts to protect vendors as well as purchasers.
There seems to be an assumption that permeates the world that anybody selling somebody something is in some way beholden morally to the person they are selling to on a number of levels. Equity recognises that to a degree, but it has now become more pronounced that everybody who sells, whether they are a business or a private vendor, is beholden to this glorious exercise of self-effacing honesty in all their dealings. We expect certain standards, but we also have to understand that then places enormous responsibilities on vendors, generally speaking. It is not often the case that the vendor is necessarily financially better off than the purchaser. Whilst the vendor might end up financially better off, there are many examples where the cost imposts of having these inspections done will be a real impost on the vendor.
The argument I put to honourable members is that this is just an issue of balance. It is a fine balance and the argument is where …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, as it is 5.30 pm, do you wish to adjourn your comments for a later time?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have some way to go yet.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Being 5.30 pm it is now General Business.
MOTION
Child Protection – Condemnation of Government
Child Protection – Condemnation of Government
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns this government for:
slashing child protection resources in the Northern Territory budget by $9m
child protection notifications increasing from 8000 to 10 000 next year, but only 4000 being investigated
stripping resources from non-government organisations providing vital child protection services
putting child protection into Education, changing its name and then taking it out again, and changing letterhead three times
closing down independent scrutiny of child protection
destroying morale in Child Protection and having 44 positions vacant in Alice Springs.
The Northern Territory budget handed down yesterday was not good news for child protection in the Territory. The budget acknowledged that, sadly, child abuse and neglect levels are predicted to increase, but the CLP is cutting funds to child protection services.
Page 253 of Budget Paper 3 shows a real budget cut of nearly $9m to the Office of Children and Families. That is $9m less to provide essential services to Territory children. Page 254 of Budget Paper 3, shows that 6000 child protection reports will go without investigation next year.
The budget anticipates that reports of child abuse and neglect will increase from 8000 to 10 000 in just one year, yet the number of investigations will drop from 5400 to 4000. These figures cause alarm and concern: an increase in notifications but less funding and fewer resources and investigations.
There are currently 44 child protection vacancies in the Alice Springs Office of Children and Families alone. Child abuse is being swept under the carpet. You cannot have one-third of positions unfilled in an office and provide acceptable levels of services to Territory children. We know that since the CLP came to government frontline staff in child protection have been sacked, contracts have not been renewed, positions have been left vacant, and senior staff have been sacked. From all of this, children are the ones who suffer. At the same time, we will see child protection notifications increase but we will see a decrease in the number of notifications investigated.
The CLP government seems to think that child protection is about picking out the best bits, the easy bits, the bits that do not need much funding. We saw this with this government’s response to the independent board of inquiry’s recommendations. The previous minister said the CLP would not accept all of the recommendations but would work towards the Growing them strong, together recommendations, using the report as a guide for ongoing policy, procedural and system improvements, but it would not restrict them. Was this an out clause? One must ask.
The alarm bells are ringing with 10 000 child protection notifications but only 4000 notifications completed. What are the criteria for investigating some cases and not others? Already, in your budget papers, we have been told that child protections investigations being finalised this year are tracking below the estimated figure. It is not hard to look at all of these cuts in Children and Families and worry that they are not directly related to the dropping number of investigations being completed.
The budget paper talks about strengthening the child protection system but there is no evidence of this. Under the CLP we saw, for 27 years, neglect of our child protection system as evidenced in the State of Denial report. The CLP has made two major reforms to child protection since coming to government. They moved it to the Department of Education and they took it out again. This agency swapping has cost thousands of dollars and delivered nothing.
The CLP has spent more effort on changing letterhead three times than on protecting children. In December, former minister Lambley justified the move into Education saying:
- Strategic priorities and actions are being defined to focus a collective effort on the safety, wellbeing and education of children across the Territory …
She went on to say:
- I felt it was time to take the reform of the child protection system to a different level by combining it into education, integrating the two departments. There are some incredible synergies, efficiencies and benefits that children will be a part of in the near future. I am excited about this new model, and so is Education, and Children and Families.
Minster Lambley was then dumped and minister Anderson took over, but there has been no explanation as to why the agency has been removed from Education. Here we are less than six months later with the department quietly slipped into being a stand-alone office. In fact, we only found out second hand about this change back to a stand-alone Office of Children and Families. Is it an office within a department? A stand-alone department? A stand-alone office? It is all very confusing and not open and accountable, which you so often speak of. Minister, you spoke so highly only a few months ago of this merger, and I quote from the Parliamentary Record:
- … this government amalgamated child protection with education and it is a fantastic way to go. We have schools in major communities and on homelands. Teachers have six-and-a-half hours with the children every day. The focus we have of amalgamating child protection with education is the best way to protect children. The two will interact closely and well together.
What happened to that plan? You have just quietly slipped Children and Families back into its own office. What happened to the plans for a strategy? When this merger was announced you said:
- I have spoken to the Deputy Chief Minister and the minister responsible for this area about an education strategy. We will issue an education strategy to ensure we talk to all the mums and dads about getting the kids to school, about child protection, about how kids are safe at home, and how kids are safe at school. Under this reform we will start to see results.
We have seen no strategy, no results, just child protection cases going uninvestigated with large numbers of staff vacancies in offices. Your government has treated staff with contempt, moving the Office of Children and Families into Education and taking it out again. What does this do for staff morale? You have sacked staff, including very experienced senior professionals. We have lost knowledge and skills. Child protection services in the Territory are in chaos. We have heard reports that the minister has offended staff, creating division in her own department, saying very unsavoury things and making personal attacks on the character and diligence of staff, behaving in ways that are very unbecoming of a minister of the Crown, and hardly the leadership required in this difficult area.
The current minister is even more divisive than the previous one. Minster Lambley, this year, tried to politicise a tragic death. Yesterday, we saw your Chief Minister speak to the NT News about allowing children in the child protection system to be available for adoption: a simplistic answer that shows his ignorance. We have 820 children in care today. It is the courts that, appropriately, make the decisions for these children and their welfare. Supporting our child protection system with the resources through the care, supporting families in crisis to out-of-home care, and appropriate information from sharing government agencies is the answer. Let us not forget that it was the Labor government that established and resourced CATforce, police and child protection working together. Punishing people for crimes against children is definitely part of the answer. Where appropriate, adoption may be part of it too, but to propose that adoption is the answer is ridiculous.
The Board of Inquiry conducted the most comprehensive inquiry into child protection in the Northern Territory’s history. There was expert advice that held back nothing, with 156 submissions received from a range of organisations, individuals, and government departments, including the then CLP opposition. The Board of Inquiry also incorporated recommendations from other reports including the High Risk Audit and the Tolhurst review into intake services.
I remind the House that the Board of Inquiry report took nearly 12 months to complete and was the most thorough investigation into child protection and child services the Northern Territory has ever seen. It comprised of 147 recommendations made by three experts: Howard Bath, Rod Rosebery and Muriel Bamblett. All provided independent and expert advice, knowledge, and submissions on what works and what does not. It was not a political piece of work, it was independently authored by experts, aimed solely at supporting Territory families and ensuring the safety of our children.
All the recommendations were being implemented and, as I have called for before in this House, the recommendations must be followed through by the new government. In fact it was you, minister Anderson, who congratulated the minister at the time for taking on the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry. Yet since you have become minister you have done nothing in this space. I remind you of what you said in 2010 about the Board of Inquiry:
- The recommendations from this inquiry are vital to the next generation and future generations of the Northern Territory.
Since coming to power the CLP has decimated child protection resources. You have removed independent oversight of child protection, including scrapping of the Coordinator-General. You have moved Child Protection into the Department of Education and out again. You have cut the children and family support budget by 24%. An amount of $4.8 million has been cut from Child Protection and Youth Services. You have slashed funding to non-government organisations. You sacked the Chief Executive Officer, despite saying she was doing a good job, paid her out, and re-employed her as the Chief Executive of Transport. You sacked the child protection executive team as well as swapping and changing Child Protection in and out of Education. The increased funding to this sector under the previous Labor government must be reinstated, but under the Giles CLP government budget we see none of this, only cuts to the NGO sector.
Minister Lambley told the House previously regarding the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry:
- Regarding a new watchdog for the Office of Children and Families, I dismissed the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee and am looking into alternatives.
Yet to date, after eight months of government, we have seen no alternative independent monitoring of child protection in the Northern Territory. Nothing!
The external and independent monitoring committee was a unique blend of local and interstate experts working in the area of children’s services, able to pass on specialised knowledge as well as being able to share other strategies that were working well in child protection across other parts of Australia. You, as a government, claimed to be accountable in child services but there is no oversight; we have seen nothing.
The act recognises the Children’s Commissioner as the appropriate statutory office to assess, investigate and report on issues relating to vulnerable children. It reinforces the skill and expertise of the Children’s Commissioner in this regard but, as your government has previously suggested in this House, to take this a step further to monitor the act and report on performance data such as child protection data, investigations, substantiations and out-of-home care, we have concern. The Children’s Commissioner’s role is to be the voice of vulnerable children, not to be reporting to you. However, we have seen nothing.
The government has thrown the advice of experts out the window, ignoring well-considered opinions and recommendations in reports. One of the key recommendations of the Board of Inquiry themes was the dual pathway model, involving NGOs, to support families, which is a modern child protection practice we see throughout the rest of this nation when it comes to protecting our children. Yet your government’s budget has slashed funding to our NGO sector.
One of the main recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report was to fund and develop the establishment of a peak NGO on child and family safety. Your government has decimated safety. Where is its funding? What has happened to its director? A peak body for Indigenous children in care, a voice silenced by the CLP. These organisations provide support and represent workers in organisations on the ground providing valuable services to our most vulnerable.
The budget yesterday ripped $8m out of disease control funding. You might ask what this has to do with child protection. Everything. It is vital funding used to reduce the alarmingly high rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the Territory. The latest report from the Centre for Disease Control shows there were 841 sexually transmitted disease notifications in just six months in children aged between 15 and 19, 90% of them Indigenous, two thirds of them girls. You cannot take out $8m and pretend the number of sexually transmitted diseases will not increase. The budget confirms the funding cut will result in the direct number of treatments at Clinic 34 in Darwin and Alice Springs being cut by 2000, from 14 000 to 12 000, a direct correlation between your budget cuts and services. It is a disgrace that any member of the CLP supports reducing the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. It is incomprehensible that the Indigenous female CLP members have decided to support this funding cut.
Ms Anderson: Well speak off the cuff. You were an advisor. Know your core business! Shame job.
Ms FYLES: I must touch on the sad domestic violence rates we have in the Territory which are continuing to rise. We see Indigenous women hospitalised due to assault at a rate far higher than non-Indigenous women. Between 2009 and 2010 - I do not have to tell the minister these statistics, she knows them, she spoke about them in Melbourne - 840 Aboriginal women were admitted to hospital after being assaulted compared to just 27 non-Indigenous women. We are exposing our children to this violence. It is tragic, and it has lifelong consequences.
The Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee sponsored the report into children and youth suicide which strongly endorsed the Board of Inquiry recommendations into the NT child protection system. This CLP government has thrown all this out the door. Minister for Children and Families, you say we must not muck around with child protection, but from your government we have only seen cuts to the public sector and slashing of the NGO budget. We have seen you throw out the recommendations of the most comprehensive inquiry into child protection in the Territory’s history. That is your choice. Where is the policy? We have seen nothing. In eight months in government we have seen one ministerial statement on child protection from your government, and that was from the previous minister.
Ms Anderson: Another one coming. Be careful.
Ms FYLES: Where are your policies? Where is your direction? You sit here and laugh at me; these are your families, your people that you stand here and talk about.
Ms Anderson: You are reading, not speaking off the cuff, as a senior advisor.
Ms FYLES: I do not doubt …
Ms Anderson: You don’t know your core business. Shame.
Ms FYLES: Minister, it is my business. I am the Opposition’s spokesperson. I do not doubt your passion for your portfolio but your haphazard approach without a clear plan is worrying.
Ms Anderson: Ten years as a senior advisor.
Ms FYLES: After eight months, the Territory wants to see something. Twenty seven years and we saw a budget of $7m. After eight months, we have seen nothing. We fear that it is going back to that.
Minister, I remind you that Territory child protection issues are mainly around neglect. As a society, we are trying to overcome and change decades of neglect. We do not have time to pause for a period of consolidation for you to think up a plan. We have lost momentum in eight months.
Mrs Lambley interjecting.
Ms FYLES: The children of the Northern Territory are counting on you and I note the interjections from the members opposite laughing at me.
Minister, you need to get on with supporting our child protection system. The Office of Children and Families needs you to be a leader. The system is failing under your government. We are heading back, racing back to the good old days of the CLP when child protection had a minor budget of some millions. Your side talks of a new period, a new policy platform, but I question just what is different about the way you intend to progress things this time. The only ministerial statement we have seen from your government on the issue of child services lacks detail. There is no oversight or accountability, unlike the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee had, which was made up of independent experts from around Australia giving up their time to help the Territory.
Minister, I quote back to you from this House:
- People expect you to come back and implement something. People expect you to be harder because at the heart of all of this we are talking about children, the most vulnerable children of the Northern Territory.
Yes, minister. People do expect you to do something but from you we have seen nothing so far. You speak of nurture and love and the need to care for our children. These feel like hollow words. We need a strategy. We need you to step up. Previously in the parliament you have spoken about what we need to do to ensure families stay together, to reconnect, but it is your Chief Minister, your leader, who is talking about the adoption of children in care.
Minister, you speak so often of the need to talk in Cabinet and talk in the lobby. The time for talking is over. We need to act. You need to act. You are the minister and, under your watch, our child protection system is in crisis. The budget cut of $9m to Children and Families is terrible. We need to have a strong system in place to support families and early intervention. We need to have a strong department with good policies to ensure the welfare of our children.
Minister, I note your previous concerns around substance abuse, yet it is your government that has allowed 2500 people to start drinking again. Your government has allowed children to become victims of alcohol again by letting these people drink. You previously said:
- There has to be a really sad case when we start seeing that, as debaters, as politicians in this House, one section of our population is slipping, going in a different way. How do we pull that back? We need to pull it back.
That sector is slipping under your watch. This budget, which you allowed to be put in place in Budget Cabinet, is letting children slip - a budget of dysfunction with no support to our most vulnerable children.
You once said in debate in this House:
- People in power have a great responsibility to protect the vulnerable, the young, the innocence of our children.
Yet, as a minister, you have allowed for the budget to be cut and for investigations to go uncompleted.
I commend the motion to the House.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, the majority of the points made by the opposition, directed at my colleague, the member for Namatjira, were quite veiled. We have only been in government for eight months, you have had 12 years of debating, trying to sort out a problem that …
Ms Fyles: We sorted it out. We had a plan. Where is yours?
Ms LEE: Yes, you had a plan, like everyone else here has a plan. We have plans too and you are not the only one with a voice in this House. Yes, we are Indigenous. Yes, pretty much …
Ms Fyles: It is nothing to do with that, it is a plan for the children.
Ms LEE: It is the same as any non-Indigenous child who is in protective care now. It is very similar. The stories out there - we understand the majority of them are Indigenous kids. It is sad, because we have to live with it. Because we are in government, we are, in the best interest of these kids, trying our best to work together, in conjunction with NGOs, the community members, and the families who are suffering …
Ms Fyles: You cut the funding.
Ms LEE: … because their kids are in care. There are numerous reasons and stories behind why kids are in care.
Ms Fyles: Absolutely.
Ms LEE: There are even stories that kids were put into care because they had an ear infection. They were taken away from their parents and put into care and the situation got even worse. Have you considered that?
Ms Fyles: These are experts who look into these things.
Ms LEE: Exactly! That is the line we get back from the opposition, they are experts. Not everybody is an expert in our field. There are many things I am not an expert on, but I am not here to say what is right or wrong. I am here to brainstorm and work my way around it like everybody else would.
There is a story behind the 44 positions in Alice Springs which you are talking about.
Ms Fyles: A third of the office.
Ms LEE: It is quite the opposite of how you are describing it. We have a story on our side of the fence as well. We are doing the best we can. The minister is doing the best she can and I congratulate her on her efforts. What I am seeing her doing - there will be a few changes and you will be pretty shocked because she is actually doing.
For example - you want to talk about something good, you want to talk about grassroots people because the majority of them in there are Indigenous, for one. Your ministers in that area when Labor was in power did not understand the cultural complexities and put those safeguards in place for these kids. They were not in there when we got in. You are talking about kids’ safety, yet you were putting these kids in care at risk. That is shocking. The safeguards and triggers were not in place and that is what we are working on because we understand our culture and tradition.
The culture and tradition of Indigenous people, regardless of whether you are from Arnhem Land, Victoria River Downs or Central Australia, has to be implemented into this legislation and policy because it can affect a child’s wellbeing. You did not adapt to the core problems. You were putting these kids at risk, but did anybody ask any of the Indigenous people? No. How do you think that affects us, coming in here telling you these triggers were not in place then and now we are finding it there? We have to do something about it – congratulations. Yet, you want to try to run the minister down. Nobody on that side ever came up with it. Maybe they were not so Indigenous back then because they did not think about it. They did not care about the kids. All they cared about was sitting in here, being elected time after time and getting the money in their bank every fortnight. That is not good enough for me. I do not care about that. I am the one who will see these kids growing up in a world, opposite to that of my kids, without the freedom and everything else they deserve.
I have to make sacrifices just like every other mother but these kids did not have that. It is sad for us to go home and see that because we have to go home and see it every day. We have to see the parents, walking down the street, getting drunk. We know them. You were a minster, Kon. You should have known that. Did you care? Did you ever think about talking to the traditional owners about the safeguards and putting them in place? You could not tell me that then? You probably had no idea of what I am telling you now. Even if I break it down for you, you still would not know what I am talking about.
That is not transparency. That is not making your work as effective as we are trying to do now, working with the minister to try to get those safeguards in place for these kids because it is vital. It was never there, and that is an embarrassment; it is shocking. Have any of your former Indigenous members ever worked with you to show you that direction and shed some light on how you can really protect these kids while they are in custody? Look at the options. There are two worlds. There is the Western world, but there is our world, the Madayin law. I come from that. My father is a chief of the Madayin law. The member for Nhulunbuy would know what I am talking about since she represents the Yolngu people.
Those safeguards were not in place. It is embarrassing for me to stand here and say that. It brings tears to my eyes to think about that. Safeguards were not in place to put a child into a culturally appropriate safe place. It was never there for these kids and that is a shame job. You are the former government and former minister of that department. You should be ashamed. Yet, you are getting your little rookie to downgrade the minister who is now trying to put the safeguards in place so these kids can be well protected. Nobody understood the cultural complex around that. Even the department did know about it. That is an embarrassment.
It is all right for you to comment on the kids in the urban areas around the suburbs. That applies to them, but in the bush it is a different setting. You have to look at where you place these kids. The different levels, the further down you go – it is dangerous to that child’s wellbeing. I bet you did not know that.
Yes, we are working together in the right direction. I congratulate the minister; she is an awesome minister. She does the best she can. There are four of us in here; we all work together. Yes, it might seem like a joke. We have our little mate at the top there, Gary. He is good too; he shows us the other side of the light. How cool is that?
Talking about child protection, you are talking about our kids: our nieces and nephews, my sister’s kids and my brother’s kids. It is a very sensitive issue to bring into this House, but trying to run down a government which has only been in for eight months? Seriously? You had 11 years to fix that problem and you could not come up with a culturally appropriate way to put a kid into a safe place. That is an embarrassment. That is a failure from your side of the table.
Now, we are putting the safeguards in place with the trigger modes because we are not there to take the kids away and put them in care until they are 18 years old. Are you trying to build another Stolen Generation with these kids? We have to sort that out because that is not what the parents want. The majority of parents are trying everything in their ability to get their kids back. They are going through counselling, rehabilitation, you name it. I have friends who are in this situation. Do you? You probably do not because everybody in your electorate is pretty wealthy. In my world, they are pretty poor and they have to live with this kind of stuff.
We in this House are fortunate. I wish I could say the same for the people outside this House. They are left behind; they are struggling to get their kids back because of the failure of the former government and the former minister.
You run down the minister just for having the department for eight months. You put a motion against her, step her down, and run her down in the House saying this and that. To me …
Ms Fyles: She is the minister, she needs to step up.
Ms LEE: I do not care what you say to me. That is not good enough because you have no idea after 11 years. I worked in health for 10 of those 11 years, and I have seen from both sides of the story exactly what was going on, on the ground. You call yourself front line! We are protected in this House. We do not have the time to talk to the NGOs. We do not even have the time to sit under a tree.
Ms Fyles: I do. I was talking to one yesterday.
Ms LEE: In Darwin you do. You go to Gapuwiyak. They told me all about how cool you all acted out there with your fancy little skirts and tops trying to run me down in my own stomping ground where everybody is related to me. Man, you have done a good job. I commend you on that one. The only thing you cannot do, which I cannot do, is speak the language. You cannot even interpret what they are saying. They told me that because they are my brothers and sisters. You did not realise that. One person you were talking to told me everything you guys were saying about me. Well that is fine; say it all you want. Do you think they will care? Seriously, you cannot see things through their eyes the way we can because we come from there. As much as I try to explain the life we come from, they will never understand.
However, you can sit there and compassionately talk about this. It should be spoken about in this House. Child protection is everybody’s business.
It is not only us; it is your business too. You have the right to say what you say, but there are always two sides of every story. Accusing a minster of doing this and that when - I do not know where you get your information from. Do your homework. They are happy to have you back on level five for another briefing, this time from the Chief Executive probably. We will probably break it down on a whiteboard so you can understand it a little better.
Ms Fyles: We had one last week.
Ms LEE: I know, and I heard it did not get through to you. That is shocking.
Imagine the difference the safeguards coming into place now will make in a year. We put the triggers in place - the safeguards - because we understand the cultural complexities. We might see a difference in the system because before, from what I understand, the minister did not control the department, the department controlled the minster. That is not my colleague’s way of living.
The Labor government failed on staff turnover. It is a long-term inherited problem, particularly in Alice Springs. A staff turnover of 98 is shocking. If you are going to have child protection services offices there, you need grassroots people. When I walked through the department the first time the minster and I did our laps around the departments, the majority of them were not even Territorians. They were not grassroots people. How many safe houses did they have for these kids? How many carers did they have? Hardly any. Since the minister had the portfolio - how many did you recruit? Was it 20 or 21?
Ms Anderson: No, five.
Ms LEE: Twenty-five carers. What did you do in the past? You basically stripped your carers down to their skins one by one and they left. They did not want to talk to you any longer. Closed the door. No, you had to look for somebody else.
What the workers had to do in the department, from my understanding after going through this thing for a couple of months, is use their own families to care for these kids because they had to go home and do their own stuff. They had kids to go home to too. That is how bad the department was. It was shocking to a breaking point, basically. It was controlled. There were people in there - just like when you were at school being bullied, the same thing happened in the departments. You could not see that and you let it happen. You are talking about the protection of kids when the staff are being bullied? Where is the protection for kids when the staff cannot do their job because they are being bullied every day by a standover person in that department? That is shocking and devastating. You are talking about 90% of Indigenous kids in care? Did she say 90%? I do not recall what she said; I did not even write it down. It did not matter to me, but I know there was a high number. It is common knowledge. Maybe I should write down everything you say and pay attention to it because we could probably use it in the future, couldn’t we? Maybe if we are ever in opposition when she is still around.
Ms Anderson: She might be Chief Minister yet.
Ms LEE: Yes, she might be the next Chief Minister. I forgot about that. You never know.
You have done quite the opposite to us. We are still coming to terms on how to fix your big mess up. It is a big black hole in that department. It is like having a table made of glass and it is shattered with sticky tape here, there and everywhere, trying to keep it in place. That is what it looks like. If this was described to you - if they told you that then, yet you did not fix it; all you did was put sticky tape here and there. That is devastating.
You accuse the minister for the past eight months, yet that department was already fractured to a point where I do not even know whether we will repair it in time, it is that bad. At least we are working in that direction. We had to make sacrifices like everybody else because the standover tactics you created in that department were not funny. It was basically throwing local staff who had the knowledge and background of the region of the Northern Territory out of that office. That is what was happening.
The rate of Indigenous people employed in the department dropped completely. We walked through that department - and you are talking about Indigenous kids - where were the Indigenous workers in that office? They were all low grade Indigenous employees in that department. They were not in higher positions; they were not even in senior positions. That is embarrassing. You are talking to us about adoption and all this kind of stuff. That is hypocritical because when you are looking at where the future is for Indigenous people, Indigenous people are the ones who are supposed to help you; they should be your frontline workers, yet they were not. They were left to sit in the corner and were forgotten by everybody else while foreigners came in and took their jobs. Yes, we are a multicultural Australia but where is the respect for Indigenous people in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory?
These people were shafted to the lowest state. Some even left because they could not take the bullying anymore. There was nothing there for them; there was no support. When I went out that is exactly what I was told. I found them sitting right up in the corner of the department and there were only two in every place we went to. That is shocking. You have 90% of Indigenous kids in care and only two Indigenous staff in every office. You are implementing foreign laws on how to protect these kids. We have our own race in the Northern Territory; we have our own laws. We respect the Kiwis and their laws, but we are Aboriginal Northern Territory people. We have our own law and where is the law to protect those kids? Where is the traditional law of this land to protect those kids? There were not even safeguards in there to protect those kids. There were none. Not one. It was just the western law mixed with everything else to make an example of the kids in care. ‘We will use a bit of this. We will use a bit of that’. That is like taking an apple from here, an apple from there and putting it in one department to see how it goes.
You are going to play those games with the lives of little kids who are being abused and traumatised. That is the last thing we want for our kids. We lived with that for decades. We have heard different speeches about hope. Hope is frail out there. These kids are fragile, to a point that we cannot speak about it anymore because all that is coming through my ears is talk, but I am not seeing any action. For eight months we have been trying to make something work by working together. We had to fix the problem in the department before we could push anything from here out there because the department was the biggest screw up anybody could have thought of. If we took the rest of the team out there you would be shocked.
If the people from the outside have to look at where their kids are going, who these case workers were, their backgrounds, what cultural background any of them have, they would be shocked to understand there is nothing there to protect and educate these kids. We have created a system that works and is getting there. Roll your eye all you want. I can see the little attitude swinging. I hope these guys come up with something because I do not need a piece of paper. I am standing here talking off the cuff. How good is that?
The member for Stuart has a lot to say on this, as do the members for Arafura and Araluen. I think the Deputy Chair has something to say as well. Of course child protection is our priority. My children are my priority. The most disgusting thing is to sit there. You received a briefing from her department but you still cannot make sense of it. I had the same briefing and I can make sense of it. If there is something I think is not in there, I will ask the minister. I will write up a scenario and I will ask her until she can define it for me because I want to know the ins and outs too. I want to be well informed just like everybody else. You cannot even interpret that. You are better off going back up there and getting another briefing.
I am pretty confident my colleague has a really good speech to throw back at you, and I cannot wait. I want to hear that because it will be explosive.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I did not want to speak about this area - my colleague made the point very well - but after listening to the member for Arnhem I would like to make some comments.
We all come from somewhere else. We all come from another country. I come from a different country to yours and I have history and stories and background that you would not understand unless I explained it to you. One thing I learnt is the best way to understand each other is to find a common ground to join our cultures: our country.
I sat in your father’s country with your father. We are from different countries but we found a common element and a common ground to understand each other and talk to each other. We talked to each other and did not put the differences in front of us; we put the things that connect us in front of us to find some solutions. I remember very well the day when we both visited the Mt Todd mine and he explained to me the significance of the area and the problems it created for the Jawoyn people. I understood what he was talking about, member for Arnhem.
I will respond to some of the comments the member for Arnhem has made because, obviously, the story she has been told is not accurate. It was the CLP government, in 2001, that left a budget of $7m for child protection. It was the CLP government in 2001 that had 100 workers only for the whole of the Territory and it was the CLP government and its policy about child protection that was criticised by a peak Indigenous organisation that had abandoned all children in need in remote areas and concentrated on children in the urban areas. Since then, it has changed a lot. Member for Arnhem, I suggest you talk to some people who know the story and you will find out what you have been told is probably far from the truth.
As for what we have done since then, the number of people working in the department has increased five times to in excess of 500 people. In 2011-12, one in five of the people working in the department were Indigenous. Not only were Indigenous people working in the department, but we made sure they were put through university to become fully-qualified child protection officers in the department in order to address this issue with cultural understanding. We knew very well that people who come from somewhere else - and I am not talking about another country, I am talking about other areas in Australia – will not have an understanding of the cultural differences of people from remote areas within the Northern Territory. That is why we wanted these people to become frontline officers; to address these sad cultural issues.
Also, member for Arnhem, it was your so-called good minister who had been advocating to abolish the Aboriginal placement. She preferred to put kids with white families rather than kin. We resisted that time after time. Do not tell us it was everybody else’s fault but yours. You have been in government for eight months. Unfortunately, you are busier trying to find out who will be your next leader, rather than focusing on the department of Children to protect your children - our children. These are not black children or white children, they are our children. I borrow this phrase from the member for Namatjira. Many times I have heard her say there should not be a white way or a black way, it should be our way. The child, irrespective of the colour, is our child, a Territory child.
I learnt this lesson very early when I came to the Territory and my son asked to bring his friend to play at home. I said ‘All right, bring him home. What is his name?’ ‘Matthew.’ Matthew arrived, and he and was one of the few Larrakia kids, very dark. I said, ‘Oh, your friend is Aboriginal’, and he turned around and surprised me when he said, ‘No, he is only a kid’. My son, a five-year-old, gave me one of the biggest lessons of my life. That was not an Aboriginal child; that was a kid - a child. I do not care if a kid comes from Papunya, Beswick, Nhulunbuy or Nakara, they are still a kid irrespective of their cultural background and colour.
Our responsibility, as ministers, whoever the minister is, is to protect children. I had my differences before with the member for Araluen, but I always believed that she believed in child protection. She made some criticism of us and I accepted it at that time. I am also entitled to, and I will, criticise ministers, whoever they are, for things they have done. It was wrong to decide to stand up in this parliament and say you are not going to be bound by the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry which the CLP at the time pushed for. We allocated a significant amount of money for it. When the CLP came to government, it sacked the implementation committee and announced it would not be bound by the Board of Inquiry. Now it continues with the department which has been decimated.
You cannot have 44 vacancies in a branch of the department and expect it to operate and function properly. Politics is politics, and I accept that. We had the story of the black hole and everything else, but we also heard many times that somehow, the then minister, which was me, asked the department to hire 90 people without any funding.
At estimates last year I presented my case and said that in 2012-13 our government had allocated $33.7m to continue the implementation of the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry. Within this $33m, $11.2m was to support new frontline workers, which would cover more than 90 people in the department. So, there was no black hole in the department, the money was there; it was part of the $135m we had allocated over four years on top of the $177m per year allocated in the departmental budget.
I was also very disappointed today to read in the media that the current minister for Child Protection said it was a fault from within the department that there was a black hole. You cannot accuse the department of creating the black hole. First of all, there was no such black hole, and no bureaucrat will ever dare to do something against the policy of the government.
Another thing I will strongly suggest is, again, it is a very sensitive area; it affects the lives of children today and will affect them for many years to come. Any kid who is neglected today - and most of the cases are neglect; they are not the severe cases we have seen in another places. It is parents who do not care and use the money on alcohol or drugs while the children are starving. The children then get sick and do not go to school. In the majority of cases it is neglect.
At the same time, we cannot blame the department, member for Arnhem. We have to remember the department is at the very end of the child protection issue. Much of the time it is our fault; it is our community if the people live together. It is always easier to blame somebody else, but the reality is: what is the community doing about the children in the community? What are the parents doing about the children in their care? What are the people around the parents doing about protecting these children? The department, unfortunately, comes at the very end, which is sometimes too late. At the same time, we cannot talk about - I have a point about cultural understanding, which is very important, and why I instigated what a previous CLP minister instigated with health.
When we have the health issues, and many people come from overseas and interstate, the biggest argument with Indigenous people was that they did not have any cultural understanding. The then CLP Minister for Health decided to have a parallel stream of Indigenous health in one of the streams you worked in, I worked there too: Indigenous control of Aboriginal Medical Services - Danila Dilba, some in Nhulunbuy, Katherine West, and Katherine East. Indigenous controlled medical services employ Indigenous people as health workers to bridge that gap in cultural understanding. I advocated and succeeded in getting money for SAF,T, the Indigenous peak body for child protection. Unfortunately, your government cut the funding. Unfortunately, because of your government, the person who was in charge of SAF,T has resigned. My prediction is that this organisation will fold and we will not have anything like Indigenous controlled medical or child protection services.
Of course, we can blame each other; it is very easy to do. My advice is that no minister is wise to visit a place and say, ‘I will only meet with a certain group of people. Because I am Indigenous I will only meet with Indigenous people. Because I am white, I will only meet with white people.’ A minister is responsible for all the people working in the department irrespective of their background, colour or religion. They are public servants and have to comply. Public servants are working under rules the government puts in place and the minister has the obligation to meet with everybody. It does not look good. A minister is a leader, and a leader has to show leadership. You have to take the people with you because if you do not you will not succeed.
We know that since the new minister took over there has been a significant turnover of staff. Many people lost their jobs. The first was the CEO of the department, Clare Gardiner-Barnes, who did an excellent job for the department. I do not know why she was sacked; I am not privy to that. There are many rumours but I do not want to go there.
A new minister comes in. The previous minister, the member for Araluen, left. It was a difficult job. It was amalgamated with the Education department, despite the policy before the election that the departments should be separate, despite the previous announcement that there would be a separate budget and it would be strengthened, it was amalgamated with the Education department. That was a big mistake. I realised this early as a minister and tried to take it out of the Department of Health, and I succeeded. Now it is the Office of Children and Families, a good start, but there is more work to be done.
At the same time, you cannot have an organisation and try to build it by sacking not only the CEO, but the Deputy CEO and a number of other people. It is not really the people who undermine the department; there may be other reasons for that. You have to be very careful before you strip the department of corporate knowledge and leave such big gaps that it is impossible to fill them in time in order to bring the department up to scratch.
Can you imagine the morale of the people in the department when they see a significant number of people at the top disappear because they have been sacked or sent to another department? Who is going to lead this department? The minister cannot lead, that is not the role of the minister. The minister and the government decide policy; they do not decide the day to day running of the department.
We have to be very focused in child protection. It is not like any other department where you can make a mistake and then correct it. A mistake in child protection will reverberate for a long time to come. A mistake with child safety will affect families and children for years to come.
The Stolen Generation is a very good example. People who were taken away from their parents 40 or 50 years ago still suffer the consequences. I was really disappointed and alarmed to hear the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory advocate a policy of taking kids again and putting them in forced adoptions because we cannot put them anywhere.
Instead of cutting $9m from the department, it might be a good idea to put this money there to encourage Indigenous people to become foster parents by providing better pay - as we proposed - by providing better training - as we proposed - and train Indigenous people and put them in Indigenous-controlled child protection services to address the significant issue with Indigenous kids. This is the way to go rather than take the kid out, take them with you, chuck them with a white family, and take them away from their culture. If you tried to do that with some of the people of my background they would be up in arms. If you said, ‘I am going to take a kid out of this family and not place them with a Greek aunty or uncle, but give them to someone else’, boy, you have another thing coming. The dynamite would not be thrown at Easter time; it would be thrown at you. Instead of having this crazy idea, which I suspect was more to distract from the terrible budget the Treasurer put in the House on Tuesday, this created …
Members interjecting.
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Can we have quiet while the member is speaking?
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Instead of making this kind of explosive announcement that creates angst and alarm, it might be a good idea to sit down and talk properly about how we are going to strengthen the child protection system.
As the Minister for Child Protection - the member for Araluen shared the same sentiment with me - there were many nights I stayed awake because of the issues facing me; it was one of the most difficult portfolios I had. It was not because there was no money; it was because I was dealing with people’s lives: families, the breakdown of families, and children. It is not about black children or a white children. At the end of the day, they are our children.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I respond to the motion on child protection put before us the member for Nightcliff. I thank her for bringing this motion forward. I have listened to her speech and the member for Casuarina’s in support of the opposition’s line on this. It is really important at this point in the debate that we all take a deep breath and reflect on where we have been and where we are now with child protection. I know the member for Casuarina likes to talk about pre-2001, during the time of the Country Liberal government, but you cannot talk about child protection today without referring to the period in which Labor managed, or rather, mismanaged, child protection.
During the 11 years of the Labor government, we saw the child protection industry slump to an all-time low, an historic meltdown. To talk about the performance of this current government over the last eight-and-a-half months without reference to where we have been for the previous 11 years is extremely cheeky and is poor form.
I first met the member for Nightcliff because she was the advisor to the former Minister for Child Protection, the member for Casuarina. She worked in his office for many years, so there is no excuse for her not knowing the corporate history of Labor’s failure in child protection. To hide behind her very precisely scripted notes without uttering a word unless it was on them and failing to mention this abhorrent history due to Labor’s mismanagement is very poor form and is unprofessional for anyone who enters this Chamber and calls themselves a member of parliament. What happened during those 11 years has been well documented and spoken about many times in this Chamber.
During the 11 years of Labor from 2001 to August last year we saw six independent inquiries into child protection outlining the abject failure of Labor to properly manage it. They were given many warnings about how they were travelling. State of Denial was the first report. Years later came the Little Children are Sacred report. The last report, which was tabled one week after I started as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, was the Growing them strong, together report - the Board of Inquiry report.
I remember very well when that report was brought down on 18 October because I was immediately thrust into the limelight and made shadow minister for Child Protection. My first job was to read these two very comprehensive volumes called the Little Children are Sacred report and become familiar with the failures of the Labor government in child protection at a very intimate level. I familiarised myself with what had gone on in this space. It painted a very sad and tragic picture, as the member for Casuarina just discussed.
This is an extremely difficult area to work in. I acknowledge openly and honestly that it has taken most jurisdictions within Australia decades to get on the right track, and it is just as easy to fall off that track as it is to get on it again. I acknowledge that it is a very tough business; it is very difficult to get it right and the former Labor government illustrated to all of us in the Northern Territory just how you can get it wrong for year after year.
That is the context we are talking about when we talk about child protection in the Northern Territory - 11 years of failure. Yes, they did pull up their socks in the last 12 to 18 months; they had no choice in the matter. They had to look at the Growing them strong, together report because, as the member for Nightcliff told us very clearly, it spelled out just where they went wrong.
The chapters in this document talk about failures in the statutory intervention process; they refer to the out-of-home care system, which we inherited, as a dinosaur and a system in a state of neglect needing a vast amount of reform and improvement. The legislation we inherited from the former Labor government has not been substantially updated for many years. It was outdated. It did not reflect the current business of child protection; I will talk about what I did in that space during my time as minister for Child Protection. The report noted that the workforce of the child protection industry, employed by the Northern Territory Labor government, was in a state of collapse and was absolutely demoralised.
The staff turnover rates were very high and, interestingly, the member for Nightcliff has given us a figure she has plucked out of thin air saying the staffing level in Central Australia is down by 35%. Table 12.3 on page 476 of the Growing them strong, together report outlines that in 2008 and 2009 in Central Australia the percentage annual turnover was 35.14%. If that is the current case, and I cannot dispute it because I do not know exactly what it is, it is no better or worse than where you left in 2008-09. I suspect the member for Nightcliff has used her discretion in making up that figure because I do not know where she would get it from. How would she know that? I suggest she does not know it but has made it up.
The Growing them strong, together report was a dismal report card, issued in October 2010, showing the failure of the former Labor government in the area of child protection: a big fat F! We heard from the wonderful people who put that report together, who the member for Nightcliff recognised, that there was a tsunami of need within child protection which was not addressed by the former Labor government. Things were in a diabolical state. Things could not get worse, so they had to regroup and try to look at this systematic failure in child protection.
The former Labor government took this document and called it the bible of child protection. Their lack of imagination and credibility, and their deep embarrassment around this, meant the way they functioned in this space was 100% directed by this document. They accepted every recommendation without query or question. I remember very clearly the former Labor Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, stood in this parliament and said, ‘Yes, we accept all 147 recommendations’, and that was it.
They did not scrutinise the report. It is a brilliant document, but some things should have been scrutinised because there were substantial costs associated with some of the recommendations. By the time the report got to us some of the recommendations were obsolete; they are certainly obsolete now, two-and-a-half years down the track. When we got to government we did scrutinise it. We were not hindered by this terrible history of failure in the space of child protection. We were not bringing with us this legacy, this embarrassment. We could look at the business of child protection with fresh eyes, and that is what we did. We looked at the report and how the former Labor government was undertaking the business of child protection, and it was pitiful. The reports we got from within the organisation said nothing could be done without reference to a recommendation number, and the day-to-day activities were absolutely stuck to this document.
We unharnessed ourselves from this document. We acknowledged 100% that it had true value in reforming the child protection system in the Northern Territory, but we were not going to use it as a bible. We saw that as unnecessary and a symptom of a very pitiful and deeply embarrassed former Labor government. We looked at it and made some intelligent decisions about how to proceed. During the six months I was minister for Child Protection, there were decisions I made in regard to the Board of Inquiry recommendations which I feel no shame for. They were intelligent, well-thought-out decisions based on the fact that this document is now almost three years old. As I said before, some of the recommendations were outdated, obsolete, no longer relevant, some were before the court for court determinations, and some were, practically speaking, too expensive to implement.
Do not forget we inherited a huge debt from the former Labor government: a debt that was unsustainable. We have had to work very hard at tightening our belt and reining in spending. We could not do what the former Labor Minister for Child Protection did and employ 90 frontline staff with no money allocated to their employment. This was one of the most serious legacy items we inherited from the former Labor government: 90 unfunded child protection positions, an absolute disgrace. At the time we discovered it we scratched our heads and thought, ‘How on earth does the Labor Minister for Child Protection get away with such serious mismanagement?’ However, we honoured that legacy. We knew those positions had to remain where they were for the child protection system to continue to operate.
When the member for Nightcliff talks about our lack of commitment to the Board of Inquiry recommendations, it is simply not true. We are committed to reforming the child protection system and we use this document, but it is not our bible. We on this side of the Chamber have brains in our heads and make good decisions based on common sense, intelligent arguments, and evidence. We have adhered to most of the recommendations - around 90%. The other 10% we have let go and given, in this Chamber, clear and rational explanations as to why we have decided to not proceed with various recommendations.
Our link with education, uniting the education department and the child protection system - what better way to get to children who are abused and neglected, particularly in remote areas of the Northern Territory, than using the education system. The way to overcome one of the main stumbling blocks to helping kids in these very remote areas was to recognise that in all these areas there are schools. One of the main reasons for uniting these two agencies was to develop synergies, develop opportunities for all agencies - Child Protection, Children and Families and Education - to provide better services for children in those areas. It was not exclusively for children and families in remote areas, but also in the suburbs of Darwin. By linking them together you have closer scrutiny, more people watching how these kids are developing, whether they are thriving and if they have any health problems. Early intervention and prevention works better when these two agencies work hand in hand, but all we have heard from the opposition is criticism because they are so ignorant they cannot understand the possibilities when these two agencies combine and the potential …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing order 62: Offensive or Unbecoming Words. I ask that the member withdraws.
Mrs Lambley: Which word was that, member for Barkly?
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Which word was that again, member?
Mr McCARTHY: There have been a few, Mr Deputy Speaker. The last one was calling members on this side ignorant.
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: I do not see that as a point of order.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The member for Barkly likes to do that when I speak because he does not like what he is hearing. I will withdraw that. If it makes him feel bad, so be it. I withdraw the word ‘ignorant’. It is plain to see and hear that the truth really does hurt. This is a very bad story about the former Labor government. I will continue though.
The synergies between Education and Children and Families are potentially enormous. Improving school attendance, those two agencies working together to get more kids to attend school on a regular basis.
Improved educational outcomes for children in care: this is a very important area. Believe it or not, many of the children in the care and protection of the Chief Executive of the agency are still not attending school regularly. This is a way to enhance that.
Improved prevention and early intervention strategies that reduce the need for statutory child protection intervention: If children are being monitored from an early age by the school, Child Protection, and the health clinic, it means better outcomes in monitoring the progress of kids physically, mentally and socially. So, combining those two departments can only bring positive results to the children and families of the Northern Territory. But the Labor opposition does not get it. They cannot get it because it must indicate to them that thinking outside the square could possibly be a good thing on some occasions which is outrageous, really isn’t it?
Eighty-five per cent of children that come into the child protection system are Aboriginal. So, having a new female Aboriginal minister with years of experience as an ATSIC commissioner and years within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly taking on the responsibility of child protection is an exciting era for all Territorians. Minister Anderson has embraced this opportunity to stamp herself on the area of child protection. She is very familiar with how it operates and she is putting her own reforms in place which are exciting but they do involve change. Change is resisted by some people and obviously change is seen as a bit of a problem from the opposition which is interpreting this change we are bringing about as some sort of threat to the outcomes of child protection. This is unfounded and irrational. We have also started to look at redrafting the Care and Protection of Children Act, bringing it up to date and putting our stamp on it as the new Country Liberal government.
Ms ANDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAMBLEY: The redrafting of the Care and Protection of Children Act is an important reform which I commenced, and I have been assured that the new Minister for Children and Families is continuing with it. Within that, we are looking at things like children who have been in out-of-home care for a long period of time in long-term placements within the foster care system. These children are well cared for, generally, but we want to look at that and optimise the benefits to these children and families who have had a long-term relationship.
We are not talking about rolling out adoption, forced adoptions, or all this nonsense we are hearing about and reading in the paper. We are looking at trying to provide a more stable and secure environment for kids in long-term foster care. We make no secret about that. We think this will be a positive thing, mainly for the child but also for the biological family and the foster family, knowing the child will not be pushed around from pillar to post and that there is real security there. Getting all parties to agree to a long-term productive, supportive environment and home for that child is what counts. That is ultimately the most important thing. There are many changes to child protection that we are considering as a new Country Liberal government. We want to improve the outcomes for children and families in the Northern Territory. By scrutinising the act and making amendments and changes, we hope that will flow on and improve the lives of Aboriginal children.
The member for Nightcliff alleged that we have closed down independent scrutiny of child protection. Gee whiz, this is another area which indicates great hypocrisy from the former Labor government, now the opposition. If anyone shut down independent scrutiny of child protection, it was the former Labor government. It got rid of the Ombudsman. She was sent on her way. She did an amazing job at scrutinising child protection for many years. She came out with a rather damning report, I think in 2011, and was given her marching orders very promptly. The former Labor government did not want the Ombudsman to tell them they were continuing to do a very poor job in the child protection space.
The Children’s Commissioner was not given a gig to scrutinise or monitor the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report recommendations, as was recommended within the report. That was too close to home. He was also given his marching orders and told they would sort something out. Instead, they set up the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, which I have spoken about many times, made up of a group of esteemed and highly competent professional people, but it was a toothless tiger. It was given no grunt at all. There was no real scrutiny or scientific analysis of how Labor was tracking in the child protection space.
Accusing us of closing down independent scrutiny by winding up the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee is an absolute joke. That committee never scrutinised; it was just a feel good committee made up of incredibly smart people who made the former Minister for Child Protection feel good about what he was doing. It was not threatening and did not provide anything I can remember in the way of negative feedback. It was all, ‘You’re doing a great job’. For people on the ground and people like me who were trying to scrutinise the Labor Party’s performance in this space, it was very disappointing.
We have asked the Children’s Commissioner to step into this space and take on a greater role of independently scrutinising how we are going in child protection. He has had a huge role, a wonderful role, in scrutinising the government with the Little Children are Sacred report, which I think has come to an end or comes to an end very soon, so he has some capacity to do that. During the last conversation I had with Dr Howard Bath, the Children’s Commissioner, he indicated he was very happy to do that.
The story of child protection in the Northern Territory is not what the opposition would have you believe. Omitting to mention the last 11 years and concentrating on the last eight-and-a-half months in a very negative way is a very poor portrayal of what has been happening.
This new government is committed to the Office of Children and Families. It is a very hard area to work in, as the member for Casuarina said, but we are determined to improve it. We are redrafting the act and making changes. We have made decisions which may not have been welcomed by some parties, but that is life. To make improvements sometimes you have to make some very difficult decisions.
I commend the new Minister for Children and Families, minister Anderson, for her great enthusiasm and commitment in this area. She will do a good job, I have no doubt, and I support her 100%.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, in the Northern Territory any person who believes a child is being, or has been, abused or neglected is required by law to report their concern. People do not need to prove abuse or neglect; they need only report their concern. The Care and Protection of Children Act provides legal protection against civil or criminal liability for people who make reports in good faith. The act also makes it clear that making a report does not breach any requirement of confidentiality and professional ethics.
Every year, the Northern Territory Families and Children Child Protection Branch takes over 3000 phone calls from people who are concerned about the care a child is receiving. All of these calls are subject to a thorough assessment process. About 1400 of these calls lead to further investigation of child circumstances, meeting the needs of children and making sure they are safe in their families. This is shared responsibility between individuals, the family, the community and the government. When adults caring for children do not follow through their own responsibilities or are abusive, then it is the child protection system under the Giles government that becomes responsible for taking action.
The main function of child protection is to investigate matters where it is alleged that a child is at risk of harm, and refer children and families to services that assist in providing ongoing safety and the wellbeing of children. It is not true to say that child protection resources are being slashed in the Northern Territory budget by $9m.
Another area in which the Giles government has made major progress is a partnership with other government agencies and the NGO sectors. The department works very closely with NGOs to ensure it aligns service deliveries and encourages input into best ideas and practice. NGOs providing direct service in this area have not had their funding cut. This is another of many misleading statements made by the opposition, designed to confuse Territorians about the real picture.
Our programs are child focused and are based on a fundamental belief that children have the right to physical and psychological safety. Preventing child abuse and neglect is our highest priority. We believe our children have a right to be safe and keeping them safe is everyone’s responsibility. This advance under the Giles government is making service delivery across the board much more effective and targeted. The Giles government will identify best practice to prevent and reduce child maltreatment in a vulnerable and high-risk situation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened to the Minster for Health talking about the history of child protection in the Northern Territory. There is no doubt that, for quite a number of years, things were not good in the Northern Territory. Otherwise, you would not have the Little Children Are Sacred report which was part of a lever into intervention in the Northern Territory by the federal government. The federal government at that time claimed the Northern Territory Chief Minister had not acted quickly enough in relation to that report, and stepped in with, to some extent, some fairly draconian methods of trying to turn things around. After that we had the Growing them strong, together report, and you need a bit of history in relation to that report.
The then member for Greatorex Jodeen Carney, was very concerned about some aspects of child welfare in the Northern Territory, and had been for a long time. The minister then was Malarndirri McCarthy, who decided she would have a review which would only cover a very small area. We ended up with a full-blown review at that time because of NAPCAN. NAPCAN, as you might know, is a non-government organisation in the Northern Territory and Australia-wide which says in its strategy:
- NAPCAN seeks to motivate and empower all our adults to bring about the changes that will prevent child abuse.
The minister just said the government should not have made a broad decision to take up all the recommendations of that report. On the surface, that is not such a silly thing to say, but you have to look at history when the current government was in opposition and the current opposition was in government; you can see the government was under an enormous amount of pressure. First, it had the Little Children are Sacred report, then the intervention, then this fairly damning report produced by independent people. People say this is the Labor party’s report, but it was produced by Dr Howard Bath and two other independent people; I believe there was an Indigenous lady from Victoria and somebody else. You could not get a more independent group of people to put this report together.
Naturally, the government said it accepted these reports, because (1) it was produced by an independent group, and (2) there was enormous pressure from the opposition at the time which was looking at the government and saying things were crook. They were crook, I am not denying that. The government, of course, tried to do what it saw as the right thing because it was under pressure; so it accepted all the recommendations. It is a bit harsh to say, in hindsight, ‘They should not have accepted all those recommendations’. The government was under pressure to do something and to offset some of that pressure it said, ‘We have a report; we need to accept all the recommendations, let us go from there’.
Fair enough, the new government is in power and says some of the recommendations do not make sense. However, by scrapping the independent monitoring committee you have nobody to say to you, as a government, ‘That was not a good idea’ or ‘That was a good idea’. Until I heard today that the minister has asked the Children’s Commissioner to be the independent scrutineer of the recommendations, I was a little concerned that the government was dropping off whatever it felt like and there was no independent body to say, ‘That was a good idea’.
We need to put things in perspective. It is easy to throw mud around, but this is a very important issue. Yes, it is obvious from the two reports that things were not good and you can blame the government for that. At least the government eventually had two solid reports to try to improve things. I believe the Minister for Health admitted this is not just a Territory-wide issue, this is Australia-wide. I think Tasmania came up with a shocking report into child abuse. We are not alone in this; that does not mean that is an excuse for it, but if people think the Northern Territory government at the time was the only one that had these issues then that is just political baloney. It was important that through that crisis time we came up with some serious changes to child welfare.
The minister also mentioned the Ombudsman. There were politics in all of that; the Ombudsman did not get along too well with the government at the time. I do not believe that was entirely the reason they decided to change some of her duties. There was obviously a difference of opinion between the Children’s Commissioner and the Ombudsman on some things, but you have to remember that the Ombudsman does not take all that work. There is a Health Commissioner who does similar work to the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner does similar work to the Ombudsman. There is no reason why the government cannot appoint different Ombudsmen. After all, we have an Ombudsman of Telecommunications and an Ombudsman of Banking. There is no reason why you cannot have an Ombudsman of children’s welfare, an Ombudsman of Health and an Ombudsman who deals with more general matters, including the police.
Whilst there was a bit of tension between the government and the Ombudsman at the time, the decision to have a specialist – and I have a great deal of time for Dr Howard Bath; he is such a wonderful man with a lot of experience, and he is independent. He is willing to say whether governments are going down the right path. Whether they be Labor or Country Liberals, he will tell them because that is the sort of man he is. It was a good decision, regardless of what I think about some of the politics in the area, for the government of the day to elect Howard Bath as the Children’s Commissioner/Ombudsman.
The minister also mentioned adoption of children. The Chief Minister was quoted on the front page of the NT News yesterday as saying the welfare of the child is more important. I hope I do not verbal him here, because I do not have the quote. He said that if a child needs to be cared for, it that means an Aboriginal child goes to a non-Aboriginal person, well so be it, because the child’s welfare is the most important thing.
I was not sure whether the Minister for Health was agreeing with him or whether the statement by the Chief Minister on the front page of the NT News is government policy. I do not know. I put out a media release supporting what the Chief Minister said because he made good sense. I remember when Marion Scrymgour, who was the chair of one of our committees, was in Alice Springs and she mentioned something similar. The issue of the Stolen Generation came straight back at her. It was a terrible thing for them to say about the minister, as she was trying to do what you are talking about today, find solutions for children who do not have a good home life. It is a real problem trying to find families in the Northern Territory who will look after these children. It is an issue that probably needs more debate in this parliament because if we do not help children early in their upbringing then we will have problems later on.
That brings me to the subject of NAPCAN. The minister said they knocked off a few recommendations that did not make sense, or they might have been unpopular. NAPCAN was essential to the existence of the Growing them strong, together report because it was through its lobbying that the minister was convinced the report was needed. One of the key issues NAPCAN highlighted is that you need to focus on parenting. I say this time and again because early intervention will save you, if you want to talk in dollar terms, lots of money later when trying to look after people in prison. That is a fact; we know that. If you can intervene early - and the minister’s argument is the department should be attached to the schools because, theoretically, we are trying to intervene early. We do not only need early intervention in school, we need early intervention in parenting. If two 16-year-old people have a baby, it is likely that their parenting skills are not great. One of the recommendations in this report was an emphasis on parenting. NAPCAN is one of the groups that does exactly that. I remember going to Canteen Creek a couple of years ago - the home of the Canteen Creek Blues on the Gap.
Mr McCarthy interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Gee whiz. I remember going crook at the government of the day, the Labor government, for spending $95 000 on the Crusty Demons. I said they could have spent $95 000 on fixing the Canteen Creek Football ground, because it was a shocker. There was not a blade of grass within cooee. That is where they should have spent their money; it would have been of more value.
I went out there – what does the big sign say? Canteen Creek, home of NAPCAN, and it has the Aboriginal name for Canteen Creek. Sorry, I cannot remember what it is; it is probably written in a language I cannot read anyway. You know my favourite complaint is that Ampilatwatja is unreadable. NAPCAN was in those communities talking about parenting and raising kids. This is not just a government issue. There is room for non-government organisations, and we have taken one of those organisations that has been in the Northern Territory for years out of the equation by reducing its funding. I am not sure how much it has been reduced by.
I will read a little about NAPCAN so you get an understanding. This is the mission of NAPCAN:
- The mission of NAPCAN (National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect) is to advocate on behalf of children and young people and to promote positive change in attitudes, behaviour, policies, practices and the law to prevent abuse and neglect and ensure the safety and wellbeing of all Australian children.
In the last year, more than 30 000 individual Australian children were found to have been abused or neglected. A tragic number of children died, thousands of children were seriously injured and tens of thousands of children were physically, psychologically and emotionally damaged.
Child abuse occurs right across Australian society and the long-term personal, social and economic costs of child abuse and neglect are immense.
NAPCAN believes that it is time to draw the line in the sand and break this cycle of abuse.
NAPCAN works with researchers, professionals, government, business, the media and committed individuals to bring about this change.
It was working with the media on a program to help develop media approaches to the issue of child abuse in communities, but the government cut it off halfway through the contract.
History gets a little warped at times. We always fall into this idea that - I can be guilty of it too - my attempts at fixing things are better than yours. My law is better than your law. I can put more people in gaol than you can because I am tougher on crime. Some of these issues show the weakness of the Westminster system because, as the member for Port Darwin keeps telling me, this is an adversarial system. Why do we have to be adversarial about child welfare? What does a child have to do with an adversarial system? The last thing they want is an adversarial system, they want a loving system. We have a system which says we have to debate things like we are enemies. It is sometimes sad that such a small parliament cannot work together on some of these issues, like alcohol, child abuse, education and children not turning up for school. No one has a magic elixir because they are in government or in opposition. It is disappointing, at times, that we spend our time arguing about who is better than who instead of coming up with solutions that will improve the lot or people, especially children, in the Northern Territory.
I will take it as anecdotal that there has been a drop in morale within the staff. What I have heard is that there have been so many changes it has been difficult for staff to know whether they are coming or going. Even the CEO, who was sacked, has come back in another job - a little like when the Treasurer was sacked and came back in another job. If the government thinks the person is not good enough for the job, then why would they give that person a job somewhere else? Those things send messages that things are not quite right.
I am interested – and it might come up in estimates - to see how many jobs have changed hands, and how many people have left the department. If you are going to have a system that will make a difference to child welfare, the last thing you want is disruptive and disillusioned staff. You want them to be permanent and you want them to be happy because it is a very difficult job. It is not an easy department to work in. I take my hat off to the people who work in these areas, because they see some pretty terrible things and probably face a fair amount of abuse themselves. They have a tough job, so we need to ensure they have plenty of support and, if there are cutbacks, those cutbacks do not cause problems within the department that mean it is harder to operate. People say they will ensure frontline staff are not cut back, but if there is no one behind them for support, because they have been cut out of the system, then morale could easily drop off.
It would be good to hear – and, as I said, perhaps it will come out in the Estimates Committee - what the state of affairs is of the department when it comes to staffing. How many people still have their jobs? How many people have left? What is the length of time staff have stayed on? It may even be worth asking how many staff from overseas are still working. The minister mentioned there were 90 staff employed and there was no money to pay them, but I remember the opposition saying, ‘You have to do something urgently, the situation is terrible’. The government said, ‘Let us advertise’. We had New Zealander’s, English people, and Irish people coming as part of the attack on the problems of child welfare in the Northern Territory. How long they lasted for, I do not know. Maybe they used it as a lever to get into Australia and found another job; I am not sure. They were approaches made at the time, and the new government criticises them for that. Maybe it is fair enough if there was not enough money but, on the other hand, the government was being criticised for not having enough staff to do the job. You have to put these things into perspective.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I made these comments because this is an important issue. It would be much healthier if we could work together on these matters because children’s welfare should be more important than politics. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, that is what we should be working towards.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to the motion, put forward by the member for Nightcliff, that this Assembly condemns the government for ‘slashing child protection resources in the Northern Territory budget by $9m’. First, it is untrue. Second, that figure does not appear anywhere in the budget.
‘Child Protection notifications will increase from 8000 to 10 000 next year, but only 4000 will be investigated’ – it is unclear what the opposition member is condemning the government for. The opposition member commented on projections but made no statement and did not ask a question. This vague and unfocused allegation has no bearing on any professional work done by the department.
‘Stripping resources from non-government organisations providing vital child protections services’ – we are doing the opposite. We have left funding to NGOs providing direct services untouched.
‘Putting child protection into Education, changing the name and then taking it out again, and changing the letterhead three times.’ Again, what does this have to do with the budget? When circumstances change, sometimes the names change.
‘Closing down independent scrutiny of child protection’ - quite the opposite. We are drafting legislation to increase the scrutiny and powers of the Children’s Commissioner. The changes will include a level of independence and power to scrutinise OCF independently and fearlessly.
The opposition was too afraid of independent scrutiny, destroying morale in child protection and having 44 positions vacant in Alice Springs.
Staff turnover is a long-term inherent problem, particularly in Alice Springs, but it has improved from 2008-09, when there was a 78% turnover of staff.
An amount of $25.1m has now been directed into frontline services in OCF. We talk about how child protection is everyone’s business; we all know it is everyone’s business, especially ours as Aboriginal people because we live with this problem. It is in our faces every day, and I can tell you these children are left to fend for themselves and there is no adult, no counsellor, nobody there who wants to help these children when they need it. We all say it is everyone’s business, but we are not there for them when they need us to ask them if they are all right, if they want us to help them. We are not there to hold their hands or feed them. If child protection is everyone’s business then it is very hard for us to listen to everybody else talk about child welfare because we see it every day - the abuse, the neglect - and nobody seems to want to do anything for these children except talk about them. It is all about talking, talking, talking, more talking, more policies, and more jobs for people who do not have a clue about these kids, their background and their culture. This is pure neglect.
The member for Casuarina talks about previous Country Liberal governments, but when I was growing up and they were in government, I did not see any of this abuse amongst our people or our children. Things were tougher then. I did not see any of these kids being abused, neglected, or wandering the streets on their own or in gangs. I did not come across that when I was growing up or living amongst the children we talk about or their parents and grandparents. This abuse was not around then; this neglect was not around then.
We all know it is a very difficult business and every government has struggled with the demands of this crucial and vitally important work. We, as a government, should be getting together to ensure we create a better lifestyle for these children.
Member for Nightcliff, you have a beautiful baby. Your baby is how many months now?
Ms Fyles: One year.
Mrs PRICE: I have seen children younger than him who are full of sores: scabies. Their whole bodies are riddled with all sorts of nasty things. These parents - they are probably younger than you -do not realise they are abusing their child by not taking them to the hospital or clinic. They do not worry about that. We need to start looking at the parents of these children who are being neglected, because it is their children we are talking about. Let us start talking to them. Let us start saying to them, ‘Where is your child? How is your child today? What have you done with your child today? Do you know where he or she is?’ They are the questions we should be asking because these children just wander the streets of Tennant Creek, Mutitjulu, Galiwinku, Wadeye, and Yuendumu without a responsible person in sight asking them or telling them to go home, telling them to look after themselves or asking their family members, ‘Where is your child? Go and get your child, look after your child, and protect your child’.
Our government is strongly focused on child protection service delivery, which is crucial work, together with the children and families in need. We want to make sure that is embedded in our policies, in our heads and in the heads of all the parents who do not realise how important they are to their children, because that is what is missing with these mums and dads who neglect their children. We have to start talking to them and being tough in making sure they understand that if they neglect their children, they are doing the wrong thing by them.
This government is commencing a major review of the Care and Protection of Children Act. We will closely scrutinise this act. Specific elements of the legislation will be fast-tracked to effectively reform this sensitive area. We strive to improve overall child protection practice in the Territory. The opposition took no such action in their extensive time in power. Instead, they built expensive buildings such as the Secure Care Facility without bothering to develop the legislation which allowed for the use of it. Government is redirecting funding to frontline services, putting the money where it matters the most.
What is most important is keeping families together: keeping children with their parents in a safe environment. These children are neglected, abused and do not have the structure a normal family has. These children are left on their own. In Yuendumu, where I am from, none of the kids sit around at a table by 6 o’clock to have a family meal. There is no security for these children. They are wandering the streets of Yuendumu, Nyirripi or Lajamanu. If we, as government, want to do something to help these children, we all have to work together and find a common ground, as the member for Casuarina said earlier. We all have to work together, as the member for Nelson said, because these children, especially for we Aboriginal members, are our families. We want them to be future leaders; we want them to have the best education and the best health so they can be the proud race they are.
We want to make sure, as a government, we give them that opportunity. We have a minister who is Indigenous and who is surrounded by these problems we talk about in parliament. She has first-hand knowledge of what happens. We all know, as Aboriginal people, how serious this has become that our own people do not know how to care for their children.
I want to go back to when Mantatjara Wilson - a wonderful, strong, compassionate women I called mother - told the world about the crimes against her children on national TV in 2007 with tears streaming down her face. The left wing activists moved to undermine her. They went into communities not to protect the kids but to find women who would oppose her. They talked about outrage and shame, not because of the crimes we all know about, but because someone was brave enough to tell the world about them and ask for help. That was what they called shameful.
We had the intervention because it became so bad that nobody wanted to talk about it except that one woman. Nobody wanted to listen to her, and she was telling the truth about our children being abused and neglected. Who was in government then? Who was the Chief Minster then? Why did they not do anything about it? Why did they not talk to Mandajarra, sit down with her and say, ‘Let us talk about this; let us do something together. We are here to help you.’ What happened? Why was that not even considered? Here we are today and we are still talking about the abuse of our children. We are still running around chasing our tails. Anything that comes up here you want to criticise, yet these kids are still being abused.
Our Chief Minister made a comment about adopting children. I have seen decent white people who wanted to adopt one of my granddaughters. We said, ‘Yes, we would love you to take her on board’. But, guess what? FACS said, ‘Oh no, you can’t take her away. What about her culture?’ It turns out this is what our culture is doing to her. Do not tell us we should be mindful that she might lose her culture. Did they take any notice of us? No, and the same cycle has been repeated with her child. That was 10 to 11 years ago, when the Labor government was in power. This was happening then but today it is worse because I see children being neglected right in front of me. It is a disgrace. We put all this money and effort into recruit people from all over the world who know nothing about our culture or the Northern Territory. Why can we not employ our own people? We have plenty of people in the Northern Territory, black and white, who have lived here, have the skills, know these children, and would be best able to give advice or the care we really want to see given to our children.
Madam Speaker, we all have a child somewhere we know of, and we have children ourselves. I have grandchildren as well, and I want to ensure these children receive the best of care, which they deserve because we are all Australian citizens. We should not forget that when we are arguing about budgets, policies, and everything else that divides us. We should not create that division. We should be all thinking one thing: the child needs the best care, the child needs protection, and child welfare should come first. We have children, we are related to families who have children, we know people who have children, and we grew up with that protection. Why can we not help get that back? I am going to make sure we bring that back: the protection, love and care our people gave to us. I want to see that back on the table because that is how Alison, Larisa, Francis and I were created. That is not happening. What we need to do if we care about these children is give that tough love. Do not make it too soft because it is really bad out there. We, as a government, need to be able to give that support.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, the first point I want to make is in relation to the first bullet point in this motion, ‘Slashing Child Protection resources in the Northern Territory Budget by $9m’. You do not have to look too hard at the budget papers to realise this organisation has undergone some restructuring in recent times. In fact, it is implied in the negative spin in further bullet points that there have been restructures in this area.
One of two things is happening, as far as the member for Nightcliff is concerned in sponsoring this debate. Either she simply does not know how the budget works and how restructures move around output groups, which is very common – it happened under the Labor government all the time - or she is aware of it and has engaged in nothing more than skulduggery and fear mongering. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and think it is the former rather than the latter. I put that down to a modicum of inexperience.
Government budgets are not easy to read; it took me a number of years to get my head around how these things work. But do not ever, on the face of it, think to yourself, ‘Oh good, we have a point of attack’, simply because some numbers change over years to years.
I also point out that the $9m figure the member is relying on is a forecast produced in a Labor budget in prior years. You are trying to compare apples with oranges because you are relying on a document you produced, misreading a document the current Treasurer has produced and, from that, deducing by some sort of syllogism that you can find a cut of $9m. That is incorrect at best and, at worst, disingenuous. The fact remains that this government has committed a great deal of money in this space; however, that money is not exclusively the solution. There is a long-standing thought I used to hear all the time from that side of the House, ‘What are you doing about child welfare?’ The answer was, ‘We are spending money’. Governments can spend lots of money, but it takes ministers to drive their departments with clear unambiguous policy and direction to make things happen.
What is happening in Corrections at the moment, which I talked about in Question Time today, is something I am proud of. The Sentenced to a Job program of placing prisoners in jobs is being done at no expense to the taxpayer; it is not costing a cent. It is being paid for, essentially, by the prisoners. When I get into the parole environment and we start putting group housing together for parolees you will see – this will come out in more detail in the future - this is something I as the minister, at the request of the Chief Minister, am driving in my department. The effect is that group housing for parolees which I hope to have rolled out in the next 12 to 18 months will be paid for by the prisoners. The cost to the taxpayer will be zero.
I am a firm believer in this simple idea: if you demand something from somebody they will rise up and meet that demand because you have placed the responsibility to meet in on their shoulders. When you expect nothing from somebody, you will generally get nothing in return. This is not just true for prisoners; this is a human condition.
When I was the member for Macdonnell I saw some photographs of some school kids in a place called Titjikala in the 1950s; the member for Namatjira is familiar with Titjikala. I was struck by these photographs because these kids were all from the local community and were on their way to school. They were wearing black shorts and white shirts. Stop there for a second. A white shirt in Central Australia? That is exactly what they had on, and the white shirts were spotlessly clean, as were the black shorts, as were the kids, with the exception of their feet. They had bare feet and they were dirty around the feet. That happens when you walk in the dirt. They had short back and sides and were clearly in good physical condition.
The places they lived in were rudimentary in the 1950s compared to much of what is available now, but there was a demand placed on those kids and their parents that certain benchmarks be met in how they turned out at school, and they turned out accordingly. Was it paternalistic? Yes, it was. Was it all brilliant; was it a great way to run a community? No, it was not because there were legacy items we found out about in later years. However, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when we decided to go into a national bout of self-flagellating guilt about the dreadful things we had done to Aboriginal people, we threw out all the bath water and all the babies that were in it.
Ntaria, another community many members in this House are familiar with, once had a carpentry workshop, a tannery and a butcher shop; I should know because I used the band saw in the butcher shop when cutting up Barney the bull, but that is another story. It used to grow about 60 tonnes of fresh fruit and vegetables every year which was sold into Alice Springs. Was it a paternalistic Lutheran community? Yes, it was. Do I approve of paternalism as a policy? No, but I believe you can still demand things from people.
I have seen photographs from the Lutheran missions in the Ntaria area dating back to the late 1800s and early 1900s which show traditional people who lived in that area as strong, vibrant, healthy people. What on Earth has happened? We have spent all this money - billions upon billions of dollars thrown at the problem of the conditions we see in our remote communities for no discernible advantage. I would go so far as to say it has caused a retardation of opportunity and results for many people in these remote communities.
The one constant that finds its way through this sad state of affairs is that we have, through policies from the 1970s onwards, said to these people, ‘We expect nothing from you’. I do not object to apologising to Aboriginal people for the conduct of imperialism and colonialism in the past. There is good cause to apologise in many respects, but having made that observation, it does not automatically follow that these people are abrogated of the responsibility of daily living. Yet, every single policy we roll out when we talk about policy in this place says to the people who live in these remote communities, ‘You have no responsibility’. ‘You want a house? We will build you one. You want a free income? We will give you one. But we expect nothing from you, and in expecting nothing from you, we will get it back from you in spades.’ Unfortunately, that is what happens.
The problem is that when you continue to do that as a matter of policy, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because every time you see something awful you want to fix it. Solution? Throw money at the problem and expect nothing from the person, because we want to help them. It is a genuine motive. I do not believe that governments in the past have been motivated by villainy in their attempts to do what they have been doing in remote communities, no matter what flavour of government they are. But the motive is genuine because it is, in essence, charitable. We want to help people; that is a natural part of who we are and of being human. But the point is, when you help a person or a group of people and expect nothing from them and get nothing, you should get to a point where you say, ‘Hang on. You have a certain amount of responsibility in this domain’. If you do not get that from them, the response should be, ‘Hang on. You have to lift yourself up and do it yourself’. One of the fortunate things in the Ntaria area was there was no choice but for local people to get involved in their own wellbeing because the capacity of the Lutheran missions was tiny. One pastor there for 30 years: people like Pastor Albrecht. They could not fix all of these problems. So they said to the local people, ‘Guys, if you want something, you are going to have to do it. We will help you get organised but you have to provide the labour.’ So they provided labour and, as a consequence of that, they were actively involved in their own community.
It is for that reason that the traditional people of that time said to their kids, ‘We know the importance of education; get to school’. Was school this multi-million dollar affair with roll in and out hot and cold running teachers? No, it was not. It was the pastor’s wife or some other well-meaning priest, often under a tree, or in a rudimentary school building. Yet, the first time I worked in Ntaria, which was around 1984, I met some of the old people and saw their handwriting; their handwriting made my handwriting look awful. The quality of their handwriting and their general literacy was excellent.
I remember one old fellow, who came to the police station when I was there, wanted to re-registered his car. I was a young constable and this vehicle never got out of second gear; it never left Ntaria. I looked out of the window and said, ‘You want to register it?’ Well, woe betide me! He was cross at me because I did not inspect his vehicle. He dragged me out of the station and I did a full inspection on the vehicle. The vehicle was fine, as I knew it would be. But this old fellow had standards and he knew his vehicle had to be at this standard. That was an expectation that had been placed on him by the law and he knew what that expectation was. Because of his habits in life, he had lifted himself up to that because somebody demanded of him that if he drove a car it had to be of a certain standard.
It is not that hard, yet we are terrified because of this historical cringe as non-Aboriginal people that we carry around flagellating ourselves with guilt. That guilt is blinding us to the reality that we have to get to a point of demanding something from people in terms of them looking after their own welfare. This is one of the many reasons I am so critical of welfare and will talk about it again and again. By cashing this habit up we are underwriting, in cash terms, the ongoing neglect of children. Rather than saying to these people, ‘Come and fix your problem’, and demanding it often, expecting it often, we expect nothing. So, we end up at a point where, after two decades of our charity, we wake up one morning and realise there are all these kids running out of control.
It is not something that is exclusive to Central Australia. You can see the same thing happening in Brixton in London; you find it throughout Europe. Wherever there is this welfare system it percolates through and produces similar results. The drug problems of Harlem in New York City are generated by the same sort of attitudes.
Whilst we continue to do this, motivated by our most charitable motivations, we have to understand we have to place perimeters and expectations on the subjects of our charity. I imagine that the Good Samaritan in the biblical story would have been less patient with the fellow he helped if that fellow continued to engage in conduct which left him injured on the side of the road. There are limits to what we should do. There are limits to the amount of charity we can deliver, and for good reason, because it is not too long before people start taking advantage.
The second component - and this is where I picked up on the member for Stuart’s comments - is the business about placement of children. I heard on the news the other night the Chief Minister’s comments being debated in the public domain. There was a lady - I forget her name, on ABC saying, ‘Oh no, we are going to put Indigenous kids with Indigenous families’. Fair enough. I understand the rationale behind that. I remember a similar debate in the United States a few years ago when there was a push to only put black kids with black families. Some people were arguing it should be unlawful to place a black kid in need of care with a white family, so there was this sort of racial cringe in the United States in a similar fashion.
Whilst I understand the rationale behind it, it misses the fundamental point that there has to be a hierarchy of needs when it comes to a child’s welfare. I think all members would be aware of the concept called Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. On the bottom rung is food and shelter: the stuff of life. At the top rung is self-actualisation. We should be unafraid to say there should be a hierarchy of needs when it comes to child protection.
The first thing we should be making sure of is that a kid has care and protection. The cultural stuff, which comes lower in the list of needs, is a secondary responsibility. Whilst it might be important, in truth, the welfare and health of the child and the child’s physical health and mental health has to be paramount.
This is where the argument about the cultural aspects comes in. There is no way I will be part of a government that sells a child down the river because they allow a child to be demonstrably abandoned and to have proper care withheld for a cultural reason.
Surely the health and wellbeing of the child is paramount. Where there is an environment where a child can be loved, I am sure that love as a concept is colour blind. We saw that in this House today.
We should have a child protection system that works very hard to create expectations of those people who do not properly look after their kids. There are number of ways it can be done, and I know the minister is working very hard to roll those sorts of things out. But I remain convinced that our current policies, particularly at the federal level, and those in the past in the Territory, whilst noble and intent in their charitable disposition, are destructive in implementation. As I said before, if you expect nothing from people they will give it back to you in abundance.
Ms ANDERSON (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, this is a very important motion. As everybody in this House this evening said, we are about the protection of children.
Member for Nightcliff, I thank you for bringing this motion forward. However, it alarms me that you, as a senior advisor to the minister of the Office of Children and Families, have to read from your written work when you worked in the very department with the minister on Level 5. I cannot believe it. You should know this as your core business.
It is really important that we address these issues in a civil manner, so I am not going to be agitated or aggravated in this debate this evening, because it is about outlining where we can do things better. Yes, all across Australia child protection is an issue; it is not just an issue in the Northern Territory. In some cases it has been worse in the Northern Territory, compared to other states, under your watch.
When the CLP was the first government, governing the Northern Territory in its very early years, there was a lower population and less money. The population grew, you came in and, of course, you invested much more money, but that investment also came from the Commonwealth. There is lots of money coming in from the Commonwealth that goes into child protection.
I take this opportunity to send a message to my people, Aboriginal people: once proud people who looked after and educated their children. As the members for Stuart, Arafura, Arnhem and Port Darwin said, once proud people - what is happening to us?
The member for Nightcliff has asked me to be a leader and I have done that since I took over this ministry. I have visited every OCF office in the Northern Territory, expect for two, which will be visited. I went to the Hermannsburg sports weekend, where for the very first time OCF had a stand. That initiative was instigated by me, the minister. I took staff out from Hermannsburg on two occasions: on the Friday before the sports weekend and gave them a dummy run on how to engage with people, what to say to them, and what kind of material to take to interact and engage with people. Then, over the sports weekend, we were there talking about how important it is, member for Nightcliff, for our people to come back and ask for their children, look after their children, and make sure the system allows for the parents to be engaged.
I know there was a Commonwealth program you would know about, the RAFCW program, which the former minister, the member for Casuarina, launched. The RAFCW program has not had any support in the two-and-a-half years it has existed. I have a photograph of a RAFCW. Since I have become a minister I have visited the community of Ti Tree, where the photo of the RAFCW was taken, sitting on a chair with a chair in front of her that held her computer and no table. I believe in the last couple of weeks that RAFCW received a table. But for two-and-a-half years these very important programs the Commonwealth funded, while you were governing, were not looked after and supported properly. This is the interface we have through the Aboriginal RAFCWs and the practitioners to ensure the interaction between communities and parents is vital. The RAFCWs jobs are important for the practitioners because through them the practitioners can engage with families and communities through language, and identify the families in those communities. It was a real pity to see this program neglected and not supported properly.
Look at the former minister’s statements and media releases he continuously put out saying, ‘We will grow our own’. I even have an estimates paper which says they would grow their own. Well, you did not grow your own. You did not support the RAFCWs, you did not grow any kind of Aboriginal employment, nothing whatsoever in Office of Children and Families. The Aboriginal staff were struggling. The Aboriginal RAFCWs, the vital piece of interaction and engagement with Aboriginal communities and mothers and fathers in remote Aboriginal communities, were unsupported. It is a real shame, member for Nightcliff, that it happened on your watch.
This clearly is a failure of your government and your former minister. We have taken over this agency with many problems, and I give thanks to my colleague, the member for Araluen, who started many of the reforms we spoke about in the Chamber this evening. We are hands-on ministers; we have a hands-on Chief Minister, as you can see. We will go to these agencies; we are interested in these agencies. It is not about keeping our hands off saying, ‘They are the policy people; we are the government’. We are going in to ensure we identify the problems because that is the only way you are going to get things right for Aboriginal kids or Territory kids. It really was a mess, member for Nightcliff. I wonder how these people got away with it. How did you get away with it when you stood in this Chamber and continuously harped on in every debate about how well you were doing? Did you not ever think that one day you would be sitting across the other side and we would start searching to see what had really happened?
The member for Casuarina, the former minister, was saying that these matters are so sensitive to Indigenous people. If it was so sensitive, member for Nightcliff, why did you close down Karu and not replace it with anything? You did not replace it with ACCA for 10 years, member for Nightcliff, and that really is a shame. In all our debates on child protection we need to go down the path of trying to identify the problem and find solutions for it, because at the end of the day we are talking about Territory children. Long after we have gone these children will be the future of this Territory. We want to ensure we engage with them socially, mentally, physically and economically. We want to ensure they get the best healthcare, the best education, and are engaged in society through a good quality education. It is not about us not keeping our eye on the ball. This is a government that is focused and will lead our agencies to get the results.
Member for Nightcliff, as I said at the beginning, this is a problem area. For every step you take in this agency you will take three backwards. That is a fact. We are dealing with an agency that deals with vulnerable children. We have to get all the things right on the ground. NGOs are not statutory bodies, they are funded by government to fill in the gaps where government cannot. That is why we pay them. They should be at the front line developing the communities, interacting with the communities and with the parents: all the things we spoke about in this Chamber tonight - making sure that parents, families and the communities are engaged to understand that their children are important and they are the future of their communities, and to love them. You cannot tell me that a drunken Aboriginal woman does not love her child because she does.
I showed a photo to someone today of my young sister who grew up in the Todd River. Her mother was a drunk, but at no stage did that young child leave the mother. She loved her mother and the drunken mother loved her child. Love is unconditional. We love children no matter who they are and where they come from. This is the system we need to fix to help the people. Sometimes we just think these people are lazy, and that they are gamblers and drinkers, but do we ever say there might be underlying issues that might be pushing them to neglect their children? They might not have a house or an income.
There is a range of issues we have to consider when we are looking at child protection. A child is one small part of a bigger picture in the remote Aboriginal community. Unlike the non-Indigenous family, which is the nuclear family, we do not have nuclear families. We have a mother, mother, mother, mother, mother. We have a father, father, father, father, father, father. We have a sister, sister, sister, sister, sister and a brother, brother, brother, brother. So, through all the reforms, we will look at out-of-home care, kinship care and NGOs. We will scrutinise NGOs because they will not be duplicating programs, providing the same service for 14 kids in the same place and just wasting money. An example is the Tangentyere Night Patrol, the Congress Night Patrol, and the department’s own YSOS, all in Alice Springs, all chasing the same kids in the same area. We need to make sure there is one program doing that. The other two should be working with the families and children.
We will scrutinise the NGOs, member for Nightcliff, because we want to start seeing results. We want to make sure there are fewer children coming into care and that those who are coming into care are being looked after. We want to make sure that through all our reforms we are helping Territory children and we are not taking them from what is deemed as an unsafe community or parenting situation to put them in an agency that is also unsafe.
We will make sure that through the education strategies we have that parents and the community will be educated in how to understand and love their children. Take them back to what the members for Stuart and Port Darwin were talking about: how we grew up in loving and working families. We did not live in $600 000 houses; we lived in humpies, but we went to school every day and we knew we were inside that little humpy with our mum and dad and our siblings.
I ask my own people in this journey to make sure they direct their children to be loving children, and that they give and show those children the love and respect their parents showed them, and if they have a problem with drugs or alcoholism, that they go and talk to someone. When an OCF worker, practitioner or RAFCW goes there, that they talk to these people and say, ‘Can you help me? I want to get my child back, but I have these problems. Can you help me with an intensive family support program to get out of my habit of dealing drugs and abusing alcohol so I can have my child back?’ Those are systems we will put in place because we are not scared to act. We will not be sacred to act to protect Territory children; that is a fact. We will not be diverted. There are so many things because 85% of children in the care of the department are Indigenous. We need to ensure we get the message back out to our remote communities to make sure they grow up and be mums and dads again.
Like the member for Stuart said, if a child has a child then we need to intervene very early because we know they do not have the parenting skills, and their mum and dad may have passed away or moved on. We need to be alert and mindful and to understand, through our Indigenous workers, that those are symptoms we are looking for. Seeing a 14 or 15-year-old who is expecting should alert you. This young girl will not have all the parenting skills needed to raise a child. Maybe she will have problems when she stops breastfeeding the baby. We need to put programs into place early, and you can only do that if you look after the workers you have: the frontline practitioners who we are supporting. We are not ashamed to say we will support our frontline service.
We will make sure we interact and engage with our RAFCWs. We will make sure they get all the support they need because they will be the interface to Aboriginal communities and to those parents and children. They are the identifiers of a child in the community when the practitioner comes out. It is only through that person that they can go to the right house and see the right family and the right child.
To come in as a new government, eight months in, and see these vital parts of the agency sitting there unsupported - this will not happen under our watch. We have already started working with the agency and taking direction. The RAFCWs must be helped, they must be supported. They are the vital link to the agency for the practitioners to help our young children and make sure they have a future.
Member for Nightcliff, there are many things we can talk about, but we have talked about this issue for many parliaments now. There will be a statement brought to this House by this government on child protection and the safety of children.
One of the other things you spoke about, member for Nightcliff, was the $9m. You need to go back to reading the budget papers properly and understand there are programs such as women’s policy, youth justice and youth services which have gone, with the money, outside of OCF to other agencies. That is where you are getting the $9m. I urge you to ring my office and ask the questions if you are unsure about whether these services have gone. You were there on International Women’s Day. You saw me, in this House, launch an online agency for women’s policy. Something should have clicked. The online agency was in OCF – something must have happened there, but it is obvious that it did click with you. Because this is a very sensitive issue, I will not be too critical of the things you have raised. We should not be critical of each other when we are talking about the protection of children.
Member for Nightcliff, as I said earlier, non-government organisations are vital partners to any government agency – you would know that - but they need to be scrutinised, and they need to play in the area ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension for the minister, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Non-government organisations are vital; they are partners to any kind of agency, but they have to play in the area where there are gaps for the department and the community. They are not a statutory body to be playing in the area where the Office of Children and Families is. We want them to play in the area of community development, family support, and family development. This is where we will start to see small results in our communities with our parents when these non-government organisations start getting into that space of educating parents and communities about their children.
I often pull up at Kentucky Cross in Alice Springs, as I have named it: the Kentucky Fried Chicken corner. I see young kids running around in the street and I see YSOS chasing the same group of 20. Tangentyere Night Patrol drives along, chasing the same 20. Then you see Congress Night Patrol coming, or the bus, to pick up the same 20. I think to myself ‘What a waste’, because you could have one of those NGOs in that space and have the other two taking some of those children back to their town camps and their parents’ homes, and sitting down for an hour or two and talking to the parents about how important it is to ensure they know where their children are. Where is my daughter tonight? Where is my son tonight? Are they safe? Are they warm? Have they eaten? Those are the things NGOs must do: community development, family development, and intensive family support.
That is where we will start seeing, hopefully in the future, fewer kids coming into care. However, when we are removing children we must also ensure they come to the safe place. We do not want children coming from a place that is deemed unsafe and being placed somewhere where it is unsafe.
Through all of our reforms, you will be shocked, member for Nightcliff, to see the journey and opportunities we will take to make life easier for one child, for the children of the Northern Territory. As I said, they are our future. I hope you come on this journey of reform with us. You will see the reforms.
I thank my colleague, the Minister for Health, because it was this government and the member for Araluen who saw the need for the changes to very old legislation, seeing the failures of the past, and what we can do in the future. How can we change that road? How can we make that road happier and safe for a child? How can we make the transition from a remote Aboriginal community to a foster carer, to OCF, safer and happier for that child?
It is ultimately our responsibility, as debaters and politicians in this House, to ensure we are vigilant about the safety of the child at all times. This government is not about putting culture before the safety of the child. The OCF has always been, and always will be, under our watch, about the safety of the child. Culture comes second. We must ensure, wherever we move the child, it is about the safety of the child, ensuring that child’s happiness is there and ensuring the transition from one place to another is about that child’s love and happiness. It is what we expect of our own children, what our own children expect of us.
Member for Nightcliff, I urge my people to start loving and looking after their children. If you are on alcohol or anything like that, there are many places in the Northern Territory where you can ask for help if you are on drugs. If you are living rough and have children, or are homeless, there are places where you can ask for help but make sure you put your children first, make sure they are safe, make sure they are fed, and make sure they always have a home.
We were once a proud people. Let us go back to being those proud, tough people in the Northern Territory by looking after our children. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution tonight. We all have unique stories we bring to this motion, but this is about your budget. Budget Paper No 3 shows 6000 child protection reports will go without investigation next year.
This motion is about your government slashing the child protection budget by $9m, child protection notifications increasing from 8000 to 10 000 next year but only 4000 being investigated, stripping resources from our non-government organisations that are providing vital services to child protection, putting child protection into Education and changing its name, taking it out again, changing the letterhead three times, and shutting down independent scrutiny of child protection. You speak of trying your best. This is not a sports carnival, this is people’s lives, their futures, and you need to show us your policy, your direction. This debate is about you, the Northern Territory government, and your plans to support children.
You said tonight, member for Arafura, there have been no cuts. The NGO sector was cut by $4.8m by your government last year. I have met with foster carers and they are worried. They want to know what the policy is. You speak of staff morale being low. No wonder, you have sacked the executive. There are 44 positions vacant in Alice Springs.
You spoke of culture, member for Arnhem. Have you read the board of inquiry report and recommendations? They speak of culturally appropriate care - kinship care. Where is your policy? That is what this debate is about.
You speak of culture being resourced through SAF,T. One of the main recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report was to fund and develop the establishment of an ongoing peak NGO on child and family safety for Indigenous people. Your government has decimated SAF,T. Again, where is the funding? What has happened to its director?
Legislation and plans - we keep hearing these things but there is nothing concrete. You talk of child protection being shattered. We were trying to fix it; we were on a path and we had plans. From you we have seen nothing but talk. You speak of reforms but we have seen nothing concrete.
Months ago we called on the last minister to reinstate the board of inquiry recommendations but she dismissed that saying they would develop their own. That is why I am again calling on your government to reinstate those recommendations. They were the most comprehensive plans we had seen in child protection in the Territory’s history. Show us your policy.
The member for Araluen spoke tonight about the links with Education, which I find puzzling. Your new acting Chief Executive told me in a briefing last week that the merger with Education was the same as having Children and Families with Health. Your acting Chief Executive said it needs to be a stand-alone agency.
The member for Araluen said it can only bring positive results. It sounds like it is still with Education. I genuinely question the status of the department. The Health minister is saying it is a merged agency, the acting Chief Executive is saying it is separate. What is it? Where does it sit? No wonder staff morale is so low, they do not even know.
The member for Stuart spoke with such passion about the heartbreak and neglect. We are not debating neglect. We want to see the government’s plans. I appreciate, member for Stuart, the way you articulate your story in this parliament.
We are not arguing about the services you say we need. We all know it is dual pathway models; it is ACCAs; it is modern child protection. We are talking about your government. Where is its plan? You have cut the early intervention, the support services you speak about.
We had a department we invested in. There was a plan. Where is yours? You are the government. We have been calling for eight months. The member for Araluen gives me a delightful seven weeks - two-and-a-half months. Now it is eight months yet we see nothing. There are 44 positions vacant. It is about the government cutting funding and not resourcing the department, the public service, to do the job.
I am very puzzled. The member for Araluen accused me earlier tonight of making up 44 vacancies. It is here in a media release. Jenni Collard:
- The Acting Chief Executive of the Office of Children and Families says a mobile team of child protection workers from Darwin is helping address a staff shortage in Alice Springs.
Forty-four positions are vacant in the office …
I would like that clarified by the member for Araluen.
Six thousand child abuse reports will not be investigated, that is what we are talking about. It is in your own budget papers; I did not make it up. The government is saying it is not there. Six thousand child abuse reports with no investigation! This agency swapping has cost thousands and delivered nothing.
You speak about cultural respect. I am not talking about that; I am talking about the budget, I am talking about documents. I am talking about a minister in Budget Cabinet who allowed child protection to be cut. Cultural background is important, but the welfare of children is the most important thing. A statutory law states that. In fact, one of your colleagues read it out to me. How can it be enforced if cases are not being investigated? One-third of the Alice Springs Office of Children and Families is vacant. We have that in writing.
Minister Anderson, your dialogue around NGOs is confusing to say the least. In modern child protection practices, NGOs play a vital role; it is called the dual pathway model. Everybody knows about it. Tonight you say they play a vital role but need to be scrutinised. That is an unfair comment. They are funded by government through formal legal arrangements. You need to work out what you want and get them to do it. If you have other worries they are separate. These are professional organisations and I believe that is an insult.
The Northern Territory budget handed down yesterday was not good news for child protection in the Northern Territory. The budget acknowledges that, sadly, child abuse and neglect levels are predicted to increase, but the CLP government is cutting funding to child protection services. It is in the budget books. Page 253 of Budget Paper No 3 shows a real budget cut of nearly $9m to the Office of Children and Families. Page 254 of Budget Paper No 3 shows 6000 child protection reports will go without investigation next year. The budget anticipates the reports of child abuse will increase from 8000 to 10 000 in one year. However, the number of investigations will drop by 1400, from 5400 to 4000. These figures are alarming; they cause concern. Any increase in notifications does, but less funding, fewer resources, less investigation?
We on this side of the House are asking to see your plans and policies. After eight months we see nothing. We are worried things have stalled.
You talk about programs to support families, NGO mentoring, but your government is not supporting these programs. You have cut early intervention services. The NGOs were cut last year. You talk about supporting frontline practitioners, but how are you doing this? We need a strong department. We need independent scrutiny. We hear things are not working; things are failing in Children and Families. That is clear from the budget papers, from what we hear about staff morale, and from 44 staff vacancies in the Alice Springs office. The government says we need to talk. We believe we need to see policies and direction and, after eight months, we have seen nothing.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 12
- Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Mr Manison Mr Finocchiaro
Mr Vatskalis Mr Higgins
Mr Vowles Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Walker Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Homelands in the Northern Territory
Homelands in the Northern Territory
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the government for promising homelands residents they will receive $5200 from the government while implementing a policy which means most will get nothing, and for its failure to support access to education and economic development opportunities for homelands residents.
I bring this motion before the House following an announcement by the CLP government on 2 May in relation to the future of homelands and outstations. It was something of a Clayton’s announcement given there was nothing which had not already been announced by the member for Namatjira, and recognising all the hard yards in the lead-up to the election had been done by the former Labor government under the A Working Future policy announced by the member for Namatjira when member for Macdonnell and the Labor Minister for Indigenous Policy. I have a 20 May 2009 media release by the member for Namatjira and the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, where she said:
- … we will see a fundamental shift in the delivery of services and infrastructure in remote communities.
It will lift development, create jobs and bring Indigenous Territorians into the Territory’s broader economic development.
A Working Future means exactly that - a future for Indigenous Territorians living in remote communities.
It is about a decent lifestyle, jobs, education for our kids, better health and services that are equal with the rest of country Australia ...
What a great policy that was. Obviously, it is the platform for the policy announced at GanGan
However, the major, yet vaguest, part of that announcement on 2 May - from the sound Labor policy which has been, in many ways, simply a cut and paste into the CLP’s policy books - was the promise of $5200 to fix houses. The CLP government has allocated this money to every eligible dwelling - key word being ‘eligible’, as it was in Labor’s policy - across 10 000 homelands and outstations, with some 560 or so dwellings across those remote communities.
It sounds good on the surface; however, there are many strings attached to the Homelands Extra Allowance which will mean many homelands and outstation residents will miss out, and this policy is not worth the paper it is written on.
Speaking of policy on paper, the roadshow announcement at GanGan was not supported by a single piece of paper made available to the hundred or so clan leaders and their families from the Laynha Homelands who attended the meeting at GanGan, with the Chair of Laynha actually asking to see it ‘in black and white’. What were they thinking of attending a launch of a policy announcement empty handed?
The new government has had plenty of time to organise this communication, noting this was third time lucky for this meeting to occur in the Laynhapuy Homelands. The planned November and January meetings were cancelled by the former Chief Minister and the member for Namatjira.
As the local member, I was pleased to be at GanGan for the announcement - or non-announcement - having received a warm invitation from the senior man at that community, Dr Gawirrin Gumana, one of the most senior men in Arnhem Land, both in age and cultural authority. Being a bit of a stickler for protocol, I also sought permission of the Laynhapuy Homelands Corporation Acting CEO that the board was comfortable with me attending. I was pleased to receive a positive response to my request to attend as an observer, which was all I wanted to do. I did not need to be there to talk. Obviously, this was an opportunity for the government to be talking and I wanted to listen to what was said.
I took the opportunity to travel to GanGan the afternoon before - approximately a three-hour drive from Nhulunbuy. I had pre-arranged to camp at the community. I had a lovely evening with the community, and the following morning had the opportunity to sit in on the board meeting called for everybody attending the meeting the Chief Minister was to address. I appreciated the opportunity to listen to people’s concerns.
On the day of the launch, the Chief Minister, the member for Namatjira, and other people travelling with them, including media, took questions from the crowd, following a couple of fairly underwhelming speeches from the Chief Minster and the member for Namatjira. This gathering of people from GanGan wanted to hear about, most importantly, how they could access the money, when available, which led to some very interesting dialogue around eligibility criteria for the Homelands Extra Allowance.
Kids attending school is a reasonable expectation. Demonstrating the homeland residence is a primary residence and there is no other government-provided accommodation is also very reasonable. That was part of Labor’s homelands policy which we revised from the A Working Future policy with many good, well-researched ideas and what the CLP’s policy has, basically, built upon.
In relation to the questions people were asking, there was some confusion. In regard to setting eligibility criteria, where the opposition has issue with this policy is the means testing. It was a key element at that meeting and the member for Namatjira failed to touch upon it in her address to those gathered at GanGan. She did not mention to the crowd it was means tested. When people asked questions she talked about children needing to go school, adults needing to be engaged in some type of economic activity within the community, but she did not mention means testing.
Not only was that policy not available at the meeting, neither was the application form to apply for Homelands Extra Allowance money. This form is still not available. I have seen a draft copy of the form and know some people have been endeavouring to fill out the details required in the draft copy, but it says draft so you would expect a final to be coming. It was confirmed today with a call to the 1800 homelands information number. There was advice from a very helpful fellow who said the application forms were not yet available as they were going through legal checks. This is prudent. The final draft of this form will be available in 10 days’ time. If that is the case, I am unsure why people have been given the draft form to make a head start.
At the meeting at GanGan, and in reference to accessing the grant money, the member for Namatjira said to people, ‘This money is available from today’. Clearly, that was not the case on 2 May. How could it have been available on 2 May when people did not have access to the forms?
In a moment I will talk about the challenges associated with completing the form. The form has three pages. We all know filling out forms can be a bit challenging, but I want to know who is checking and verifying the accuracy and authenticity of the information provided. Details are required of householders from basic details of birth date, address, names - all in English, mind you. There is a requirement to understand people’s earnings, what activity they are involved in, and who exactly is living in the house. ‘Do you have government supported accommodation?’ Some questions are easier to deal with than others. Who will assist homeland residents, knowing many adults will struggle to complete the form and provide the level of information required? I do not object to an administrative paper trail, but am a little fearful this will become bogged down in process.
The member for Namatjira made it clear she was a stickler for things being done via a process when she said at the meeting, ‘They just give that money to anybody’. This was in relation to the process needing to be tightened up. Further to that she said, ‘No more ticking the boxes and getting away with it’. All those naughty homelands people just ticking boxes and getting away with it!
What prevents homelands and outstation residents just ticking the boxes now? Who is checking and verifying these forms? Is the administration of this grant scheme going to see precious R&M money lost as people become bogged down in administrative process? Many homelands residents will struggle on their own to complete these forms without access.
The draft application form I have requires applicants from homelands or outstations to supply documentation, including identification. I am sure the member is aware how hard it is for Indigenous people to obtain identification like birth certificates, although it does not specify what identification is required. What would be acceptable identification? Here is a suggestion for the member for Namatjira: why not offer a period of free birth certificates, as Labor did when we were preparing for the implementation of the Banned Drinker Register. I know communities that seized the opportunity, not because they wanted to access or purchase alcohol, but because it was a golden opportunity to get free access to a birth certificate with accurate information and correct spelling and all those things we know are so challenging for people in remote communities. It is a key to accessing a driver’s licence or a bank account.
For the people at Mapuru, when the opportunity came for free driver’s licences, every child and person in that community rechecked their birth certificate and most were replaced, including some relatively newborn babies.
The Labor government, the architect of the foundation of this policy, agreed there needed to be some eligibility criteria but not by means testing. I am fully aware of the difficult area homelands dwelling sits in around land tenure; however, tenants in public housing are required to meet eligibility criteria, including an income threshold to become a tenant. Ongoing provision of repairs and maintenance, on what is not their asset in normal public housing, is not means tested.
Here some of the most impoverished people who are often, but not always, located in remote communities where the cost of living and accessing services is higher than anywhere else, are means tested to access the $5200 dangled before their eyes. How will the means testing work? What is the threshold income point from which residents will start to lose the full amount of earning via Centrelink payments, a job, not to mention royalties? Information on how these applications will be assessed is not made clear to people. There is nothing wrong with criteria. An incentive-based eligibility criterion - children should be going to school - is okay, but means testing is grossly unfair and will see too many people miss out on this grant.
One man from Barrkira asked - there were many questions - about accessing this promised $5200. He made the observation it was, as he described, peanuts. I guess it is all relative whether you regard $5200 as a good sum of money or peanuts; however, Labor’s policy recognised there are dwellings out there where $5200 is peanuts, which is why Labor’s policy offer was between $5000 and $20 000. This recognised there was clearly a need for greater financial assistance. None of that recognition is in the CLP policy. It is a flat $5200 around eligibility criteria, which will make it difficult for many people to access.
Nor is there acknowledgement that Labor’s detailed homelands policy was borne out of three years of hard work to consult with homelands people across the Northern Territory. This was to gather information by compiling a comprehensive audit and report on the state of every homeland and outstation, the infrastructure, including housing, and the needs of every homeland and outstation. This exhaustive body of work had never been undertaken previously and one which, as was confirmed in my briefing in the minister’s office in November, ‘informed where we are now’.
With all that work already done for the CLP when entering government last August, the reality is people are confused about the CLP’s new policy. I and other fears that accessing the $5200 will be a road to frustration and disappointment.
I move to economic activity on homelands and outstations. It is all very well for the CLP to say, ‘We support jobs, jobs, jobs’, but what are the structures behind that? How will they make jobs and training happen? What will they do to build on the good work Labor had started? I have heard time and again from members opposite that spending money is not an outcome. What are the programs? What initiatives are in place? Who is being employed and what will they be delivering?
Jobs, jobs, jobs is what the Chief Minister wanted to talk about at GanGan. I guess it was fairly predictable he would take the opportunity to criticise Labor policy. His dishonesty and pure politicking was somewhat unbecoming for a new Chief Minister trying to groom himself as statesmanlike and presidential in style. He looked a bit silly talking about Labor’s under-investment in homelands, preaching, as he was, from a homeland which has benefitted from Labor investment and, what is more, standing on the veranda of a BER-funded training centre with the Labor-funded ranger station alongside and the Labor-funded health clinic a little further along. Next to that, let us not forget the newly opened shop the Chief Minister would have driven straight past on his way in from the airstrip. Perhaps he stopped there to buy a Coke. The shop has only been open for a few months. What was especially disappointing from the Chief Minister was his old trick of delivering mixed messages. Twice he said, ‘We are getting rid of the shires’.
That was his promise pre-election. At that time he was getting rid of ‘toxic’ shires, as he described them. Once installed as Minister for Local Government, and after his realisation that Labor’s local government reforms and shires needed to be retained, he changed his language saying he would not be getting rid of shires or going back to community government council but reviewing shires in the same way Labor had committed to reviewing them. However, there he was shooting his mouth off, telling clan leaders and their families and the Balanda present, the CLP was getting rid of shires. A bit of wedge driving with this deceit perhaps, who knows?
Eight months into government and already we see failure to support economic development in homelands and, with it, failure to support homelands education in any true sense. These go hand in hand: education, pathways to jobs and economic activity have to go hand in hand.
The Chief Minister was asked at GanGan about Northern Territory government support to work with the federal government for a federally funded boarding facility to be delivered at the homeland of Garthalala - one of three in the Northern Territory - to which he replied the federal government had pulled out.
I can only presume the Chief Minister took these people and the questioner, Ms Yananymul Mununggurr, for fools with his reply because he was left looking somewhat stumped when this woman advised the withdrawal for support had come from the former CLP Chief Minister via a letter - talk about gazumped.
The Chief Minister said he would look into that letter and knew nothing about it. Homelands people want him to provide full support for the aspirations of the Lanhapuy homelands people who want this facility. Garthalala was identified as able to deliver it because they already have a successful boarding facility for students in a secondary program - Stage 1 and Stage 2. It is an opportunity to grow, consolidate and support a full-time school which, for a few years, has already operated a successful boarding facility.
The member for Namatjira has condemned homeland learning centres which can only provide visiting teachers two to three days a week, with local teachers and aides taking classes on the other days. Here is a perfect opportunity for the member for Namatjira to support a full-time boarding school at Garthalala, or are she and the Chief Minister working in the background against the wishes of the Lanhapuy homelands people, not to mention the KPMG study which supported Garthalala to deliver something closer to Nhulunbuy, in the vicinity of the Garma site perhaps. Is there another deal brewing which the Lanhypuy homelands people are not aware of?
What is the CLP government doing to lobby the federal government given three of the Territory’s DEEWR funded, Indigenous Economic Advisor positions have finished? One was based in Tennant Creek, one in Katherine, and one in Nhulunbuy which wound up, sadly, a few weeks ago.
I pay tribute to the gentleman who did the job in Nhulunbuy and who, like his colleagues in other regions, was working with success to assist Indigenous people to devise and build business plans and feasibility studies, and to access Indigenous business developments plans and the funding that goes with it.
The federal government’s RJCP contract announcements are beginning to roll out. We need officers on the ground to build mutual trust and relationships to assist Indigenous people in remote areas and on homelands to create economic activity and jobs.
I know from his days in opposition the now Chief Minister thought fibre artists - basket weavers - something of a joke. He needs to recognise there are unique jobs in homelands and products people want to buy, such as the tourism packages offered by Lirrwi Yolngu Tourism Aboriginal Corporation across the Laynha and and Marthakal homelands. Given the member for Namatjira’s visit to GanGan was only brief, I hope she found time on her way to or from the airstrip to call in on the Miyalk Yirralka Rangers who were busy from first thing that morning until late that afternoon making and packaging medicinal bush soaps and chest rubs. They told me they were hoping the minister would stop to talk with them and they could show her the good work they do.
That group of female rangers has tapped into a niche market and there is much demand for their product which they look after end to end - from collection of the native organic material, the preparation and mixing of products, pouring into moulds, and eventually wrapping and handwriting labels.
It typifies a business which has grown out of caring for country and ancestral lands, caring for homelands, and an industry which, like ranger programs, can only truly be done by Indigenous people. In the six or so years they have been operating, Yirralka Rangers have grown from one Yolngu employee to more than 40.
On that note, I place on the record my disappointment in a letter I recently received from the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. I wrote pleading for him to reconsider a decision to remove from northeast Arnhem Land two senior parks and wildlife rangers, one of whom has been dedicated to working with Dhimurru and the Indigenous protected area they look after, and the second senior ranger, who has been working with Yirralka Rangers looking after a massive Indigenous protected area. Sadly, the response I received was in the negative; those positions will be going on 30 June. It is really a cost-shifting exercise. Those two senior rangers are being redeployed to other parts of the Northern Territory. For those two Indigenous ranger groups it will mean the loss of a valuable and supportive resource which is required, as far as they are concerned, to continue building those ranger organisations, recognising they provide such valuable work.
In growing our regions and jobs in regions and, typically, those organisations like ranger groups that employ Indigenous people, the loss of those two roles is quite significant. I hope there might be a rethink about that. I know those positions were tied to certain program funding, but I still believe there is a case to be fought there.
Further, while we are talking about Parks and Wildlife, I want to talk about the Learning on Country program. This program has evolved as a trial with very good support from the federal government and the previous Territory Labor government and, presumably under this current government, to link with education to provide pathways into ranger jobs, but not exclusively so. Currently, the trial is across Shepherdson College at Galiwinku, Maningrida School, Yirrkala School and the Laynha and Marthakal Homelands.
This is one of many economic opportunities established under Labor for people in homelands. There are similar stories in other parts of the Northern Territory. However, I know stimulating jobs and training in some parts of the Territory can be extremely challenging where there are limitations in the job market. Let us not forget there is choice and opportunity for people who are prepared to leave their community. However, I am mindful of those people I know who worry that when their young ones go away, they grow away.
Good luck to the CLP government in supporting Indigenous people living in remote areas and outstations whose aspirations are to remain on country, to live in good homes, to attend schools where education - according to the aspirations of the minister - would be the same as in Sydney and Melbourne, and where there are jobs to be developed and grown. So far, we have seen nothing to demonstrate results and the commitments and promises taken to the August election by the CLP.
The member for Namatjira has a reputation for chopping and changing. As I said at the outset, it was she who, as a Labor minister, launched the A Working Future policy which included plotting the direction for homelands and growth towns. She spoke passionately about this policy, only to walk away from it when things were not going her way. Yes, she does chop and change. This is the person who said the member for Blain was a fantastic Chief Minister and had her full support. That pledge of support splashed across the NT News in full colour photographs with arms wrapped around one another all changed the following week. Having described the member for Braitling as just a ‘boy’, a week later he had her full support as another fantastic Chief Minister, despite all her earlier insults.
Madam Speaker, I hope, for the future of the Territory’s homelands and outstations, the people who live there, raise their families there, and want jobs on their country, that the Chief Minister and the member for Namatjira can deliver because, so far, they have failed people. They are far too preoccupied with in-fighting than getting on with the job they were elected to do: support people in the bush no matter where they live across the Territory …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, it is 9 pm. Have you concluded your comments?
Ms WALKER: Thank you.
Debate suspended.
SALE OF LAND (RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARTIES) ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 25)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, 1677 was the Statute of Frauds but I will not dwell on that too long. Suffice to say, that was the time when contracts for sale had to be written. I would be tempted to quote from the Statute of Frauds; however, it would not particularly enliven this debate.
I was trying to describe a circumstance in which a balance needs to be struck between the rights of the vendor and the rights of the purchaser of any particular property. The way the member for Nelson would have us see the world is that is a moral responsibility, which implies an equitable approach to contracting. That is not necessarily correct. Our side of the argument would be there is a legal responsibility to ensure you comply with the law.
The best way to comply with the law without mandating preconditions into contracts is to allow the contract as much liberty as it needs to survive. I point honourable members to the standard form contract to which the member for Nelson referred on several occasions. Nothing prevents a person adding or subtracting items from these contractual arrangements. A person may require a number of reports to be completed in the standard form contract which is a pest report, a condition report, building status report, plumbing report, electrical report, gas fitting certificate compliance, sacred site certificate or body corporate inspection record. This is not an exclusive list.
If a purchaser wants to be protected from a possible shortcoming, they can add into the standard form contract a term upon which the contract will live or die which that person may consider important. That person could ask questions about whether they are in a flood zone, tidal zone, etcetera, and have that made part of the contract. If it becomes a term of the contract, that term will be upheld in any subsequent challenge either through the payment of damages or, depending on the remedy available, having the contract declared void or void ab initio. A number of remedies are available to the courts.
The honourable member has suggested on many occasions this disclosure is necessary because people might not know the right questions to ask. That is why you employ lawyers.
Several people in this House have said this is the biggest purchase many people will make and that is true. If it is the biggest purchase many people will make then there is a due diligence process available to a purchaser when they are purchasing a property. It is sufficient the law continues to operate the way it does now.
Personally, I have received no negative comment since announcing the legislation would not be in force. Subsequent to my tabling the bill in this House, my phone has hardly rung hot with people saying this is a bad idea. It has certainly not been relayed to me. If my office has received any complaints I am not aware of it. Many people in this industry have welcomed repeal of this because they felt the legislation was too burdensome. I had some notes here which I will see if I can find. Unfortunately, I have misplaced them.
The member for Nelson said this had become somehow too regulatorily bound up in the process of having the regulations created. Regulations, by necessity, are a product of the legislation which covers them. They do not operate independently of legislation. When regulators or lawyers are looking at particular sections of legislation and determining what regulatory environment that legislation should look like, those regulations are a child of that parent act. If those regulations become excessively burdensome and cumbersome, it is probably because there is a flaw in the legislation which causes a legalistic response. You cannot necessarily blame lawyers for doing their job, but it is clearly a shortcoming in the legislation.
I take on board the plea from the member for Nelson in relation to vendor disclosure. If the member for Nelson come to me with a model which is straightforward and captures his original intent - which clearly the regulations did not - he is welcome to do so at any time. However, as this legislation stands it has not yet come into force; it has not protected a single person in the two years it has existed. It never became operational, partly because of the difficulty in the regulations. I imagine, in spite of the former government’s position on this, it had more to do with its reluctance to introduce it than anything else.
There is an element of caveat emptor in any purchase. However, there are numerous protections in place for somebody who is misled, misrepresented, enters into an illegal contract, or any other vitiating factor which affects the operation of contract.
The non-enlivening of this bill in it becoming law has not changed the landscape of property settlements in the Northern Territory, and that world has continued to operate successfully without the excessive interference of government. Being a good Liberal, keeping the excessive interference of government away from people’s right to make decisions is something I stood for in the original debate when this legislation was introduced in the House a few years ago. I objected to it then, I object to it now, and those arguments have pretty much been done to death.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney General and Justice)(by Leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this will be my last chance to speak on repeal of the bill.
The minister mentioned he had not been overwhelmed with people disappointed the bill was being repealed. The bill had not commenced so they probably did not know it existed. My concern is people will not be told what they should because they will not know what questions to ask.
With that in mind, I am looking at bringing forward a motion which may help people whose blocks are affected by flooding or tidal surge. This has concerned me in the rural area for some time because some people have spent large amounts of money. For instance, there are two people on Power Road. A young bloke came to see me and said, ‘I have spent $200 000 on this block. I was told by the real estate agent it got a bit wet here and a bit damp’. Something like 90% of the block went under water. Another person bought a block lower than that and built a house on it. It went under water two years ago; they were lucky the house was on stilts. The information they had from the department was partly to blame.
If we do not have vendor disclosure so the truth about these blocks is not discovered because there is no requirement on the previous owner to say the land goes under water, we need another method to protect people.
One thing I will be putting forward for discussion is the requirement that on the title there is some identification of the surge line or the seepage or flood line, depending on where the block is. People, when they buy a block and check out the title, then not only know there are easements on the block, but a section of land could be inundated.
It is sad that, after many years of trying, this bill is dead. I do think about being a Liberal, a socialist or whatever, I go on what is fair and reasonable. I do not want to be stuck in political boxes. Perhaps my religious upbringing comes forward where one should look after their neighbour. If their neighbour is ripped off when buying land and they have to suffer for it later because they did not have the right information, so be it. That is what I was trying to do; nothing more, nothing less.
If the legislation was faulty it should have been repaired, not thrown out. Obviously, that is not the course the government wants to take. It is very unlikely we will see this legislation come through again, even though many states in Australia have something similar.
I will look at other means of trying to protect people. I understand the rural area is only a small part of the Northern Territory, but I have seen many cases. It might only be 10 cases, but it is enough for me to realise people had spent their hard earned money and had to decide whether to sell the land without telling the purchaser it goes under water - a difficult situation for them.
It is an attempt to overcome some of those difficulties. I will be looking at other ways to do it in the hope I can get the government’s support when I bring those ideas to parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I pick up on the comments of the member for Nelson. I draw the honourable member’s attention to section 34(1) of the Land Title Act which says:
- … if a minister of the Commonwealth has administrative responsibility for the first grant or transfer of land from the Crown, the minister may lodge with the Registrar-General a memorandum if he or she is of the opinion that characteristics of or relating to the land may adversely affect its use or occupation.
It then goes on to describe it. Basically, it covers off on that suggestion - mosquitos, crocodiles, those types of things.
I am not necessarily adverse, prima facie, to your suggestion. If that is what you want to protect people from, that is a much better approach than creating vendor disclosure legislation. Of course, it is something I would have to talk to my Cabinet colleagues about. I am not committing the government to a position, but if that is what you are trying to outline, we can deal with that. That is probably not a difficult proposition. On the face of it, and with those qualifications, I am prepared to countenance the idea so much as looking at it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION (2013-14) BILL
(Serial 26)
(Serial 26)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Treasurer for bringing down a responsible budget and note this budget is projected to be balanced by 2017-18. In congratulating the Treasurer, we need to look at the lead-up to this budget; that is, we have been left with a $5.5bn debt by the country’s worst Treasurer we have ever had, the member for Karama.
The member for Namatjira referred to the local media as the ninth Labor member. I reiterate that statement, which was quite correct. Misleading information has been produced by the media. One piece said no one on this side of the House had any involvement in small business. I have much experience. I have had the Daly River Mango Farm for the last 15 years. Not only is it a horticultural business, it is a caravan park. I have a liquor licence and boat hire, so I am quite au fait with small business. For someone in small business to look at a budget projecting a deficit of any amount that is growing is not good. Any debt that is growing is gradually eating away at your asset.
I meet annually, if not more often, with our bank manager. One of the key things he looks at is our cash flow. If I ever presented him a cash flow where the amount of money I was spending every year was getting higher and higher, and the debt was getting bigger and bigger, he would eventually realise the asset would be worthless to pay out the debt. The debt would be bigger than the asset and any return we would get on it.
When people think about the growing debt we were left with, they need to look at it in that perspective. It is the same as borrowing more and more money every year on your house without the income to pay it back.
Labor complains about reduced spending. Tonight we have heard them complain about expenditure cuts, but none have mentioned where we have increased it.
The Labor opposition needs to consider where the money comes from? It does not come out of the public service; it comes from small business generating income, and that is where we need to concentrate. We do not need to concentrate on increasing our public sector spending; we need to increase income so we can afford to pay for our public sector.
Look at Labor federally. They paid too much attention to spending. What were the big items they mentioned yesterday? Gonski and NDIS. Nowhere did they talk about producing an income to support the $20bn deficit they are projecting. People need to look at the income.
Certainty for small businesses needs to be looked at so we can produce income in the Territory, and that is what this budget is trying to do: look at ways to help small business, which will then increase the income available to this government so we can service this debt, plus increase some of the expenditure we want across our public sector.
I turn to the budget speech. I will highlight a few things which show our expenditure. Budget 2013-14 includes an $8m boost for tourism, providing a total of $15m to extend the Territory’s international marketing activities in partnership with tourism retailers, airlines, and other partners. Tourism is one of the key hub economies we have been talking about. It is one of the three big income earners for the Northern Territory. To expend money in that area is boosting our small business.
In the fisheries area, we have $3m additional funding over two years for commercial fisheries development. We have $1.184m for infrastructure. Infrastructure is one of the key things, especially in regional areas. What is needed in regional areas for tourism, horticulture and primary industries is roads, roads and roads.
The next thing is $368m specifically aimed at regional development. That also includes another $30m for regional roads maintenance. In my electorate of Daly we specifically mention the Victoria Daly shire. In addition to the $30m, we have another $94.9m on maintenance. That was an increase in maintenance.
Looking at transport, look at the road to Dundee. The previous member for Daly took the money for the road to Dundee and spent it on the bridge over the Daly - the bridge to nowhere. The bridge cost $25m to $30m and it does not go anywhere. Snowdon came out, made a big speech and said the bridge would mean access to Wadeye was cut for only five days a year. It was cut for at least six weeks this year. As soon as the river gets over 6 m you cannot go anywhere.
The previous member moved that money from the Fog Bay Road to the Daly. We have to re-do that money so we have allocated $5m to upgrade the Charlotte River Crossing on the Fog Bay Road. I welcome that. That is a boost to tourism as well. Access during the Wet Season is cut at the Charlotte and the only stream crossing left is the Leviathan.
Another amount in relation to transport is $0.3m ongoing for marine safety. Anyone who does much boating around the Daly would know the more boats we have on the Daly the more potential for accidents, and people need to be aware of the need for marine safety. I welcome that contribution.
We have heard much about local government shires and the lack of services. I welcome an increase of $5m into the operational funding of our shires.
The next thing we have is Territory lifestyle. We have $55m for the sustainable management of the recreational fishing sector, and $0.3m to implement a recreational fishing development plan. Many people think amateur fishermen are just people in the northern suburbs. That is wrong. Amateur fishermen include much of the tourism infrastructure we have. The Daly has more caravan parks than Katherine and is based purely on fishing. At our caravan park we can have anything up to 300 people a night so this becomes critical to us.
I move on to regional highlights and look specifically at the Top End. The Top End is made up of tourism, horticulture, and mining, which contribute significantly into the region’s economic development. The Daly River gets a specific mention for recreational fishing, but in the Top End rural area Charles Darwin University and Batchelor Institute have been allocated $5.87m.
We have $0.81m to operate the Douglas Daly Research Farm. This is not in the Daly, it is in Stuart, but is a boost to the region.
We have allocated $0.81m to support the livestock industry, and $0.36m to increase the uptake of sustainable cropping practices. We have $0.31m to operate the Beatrice Hill Research Farm, all of which are in my electorate. We have $80 000 to support plant industry by protecting market access minimising the establishment of exotic pests and diseases.
There is $50 000 to increase productivity for the mango industry. I have a mango farm so that is a good boost for the industry. You do not make much money out of mangoes, I can tell you.
When we talk about safety, we have $12.9m to provide for police. One mentioned is at Peppimenarti, in my electorate. At the moment police live in demountables, so anything to help them would be good.
We have $17m for strengthening and widening sections of the Arnhem Highway. That will interest Madam Speaker and me. It cuts through both our electorates. I have already mentioned the extension to the Charlotte River crossing on Fog Bay Road.
I can continue through all areas where we are increasing spending. They are targeted to help small business.
Look at the range of programs helping our Indigenous people with employment. In the Top End rural areas we have $0.18m for the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program, which will help many Indigenous communities. We have $0.17m ongoing funding for the Gamba Grass Assistance Program which will help our bushfire people.
Back to School - education. In the Palmerston and Litchfield area there is $1.3m for the back to school vouchers of $150. We have $1.3m to fund isolated children’s education through distance education. We have $6.1m for the Territory Wildlife Park at Berry Springs, and $0.74m for a new bus service from Palmerston to the suburbs of Rosebery, Bellamack and Zuccoli. I wish we were going all the way to Batchelor but we are not.
The last thing I want to mention in regard to regional areas is $30m for regional roads program. That is the $10m we have added each year. We have $188.6m under the 10-year National Partnership Agreement on Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory to improve Indigenous outcomes. I am unsure how we can increase the amount of development we are trying to create across the Territory.
In closing, we need to increase our private sector because that funds government. Most of the areas I highlighted where we are spending money are aimed at assisting the private sector. I am glad we are doing this. We are increasing tourism, spending money in primary industries, and protecting the environment. There is some money in the budget to help with water in Adelaide River. There is also a stack of money for monitoring the water, and I presume much of that will be around the Daly River.
We have good regional development recognition and it is not just Darwin. The member for Nelson said the budget stops at the Berrimah Line. I was worried that might have been the case. But I can see that a lot of money is being spent south of the Berrimah Line and I thank the Treasurer for that.
This is a responsible budget. I thank the Treasurer and all his staff - I know the hard work they have done - and I thank the public sector for their involvement in drawing up this budget in a very short time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for his proof of the pudding. In the case of Litchfield, the Berrimah Lines starts at one end of Litchfield then moves on. Yes, the bush electorates have done very well, but I ask the member for Daly to look at what has been achieved within the Litchfield boundary. Nothing, and that concerns me. Being a rural community of 20 000 people with two local members in the government makes it twice as disappointing.
I am happy for money to be spent out bush, but when you consider the government took away a number of funding promises made by the previous government - the swimming pool and money for Freds Pass - then gave us a very little in the budget, you have to wonder. We received some shade cloth for the Howard Springs Nature Park. That is for cooling off the rock pools, and we have some - in your electorate, member for Daly - improvements for the sign at Strauss Airstrip. If I wanted to save time, I could say thank you very much and good night, because that is all we have.
When the Treasurer spoke about the Howard Springs Nature Park I had to laugh because previously in parliament he went off like a half-cooked chook putting down the Howard Springs Nature Park. His description of Howard Springs Reserve after it was cleaned up was:
- That looks like a of mad dictator’s scorched earth policy principle now. It is nothing like what it used to be; it used to be a beautiful waterhole where you could swim and kick back with a barbecue. Half the trees are gone and there are no fish now. He …
‘He’, is referring to me:
… blames it on pigs or bats. For whatever reason, they had to send bulldozers which ruined the place.
Then he said:
- They seem to like him in Howard Springs.
I am amazed at that type of speech in parliament. It shows a complete ignorance of the facts. The Howard Springs Nature Park had difficulty with water quality suitable for swimming. A community board looked at options, and that community board, plus Parks and Wildlife, agreed they would try to clean the reserve. They would cut back trees to reduce litter, put new sand on the bottom, then see if the water quality came up to standard. That is the reason there were changes to the park. Now the park has come back. It is beautiful and green, has a fantastic adventure playground, barbecues and shade for families, and a rock pool and waterfall. The shade will be important for the park as it gets too hot for young kids sitting in the shallow pools. Users of the park have asked Parks and Wildlife to do this.
It is a great improvement on what were already great improvements to the nature park. I recommend to the Treasurer that he, instead of always having a go at me and going off half-cocked, look at some of these places. It is not always about me; the community did this. A group of local people were appointed to the Howard Springs Reserve committee and made decisions about the future of the park along with Parks and Wildlife. Life goes on. The Treasurer makes it up sometimes for the sake of grandstanding, but I digress.
In the rural area, the electorate of Nelson received the shade cloth, the member for Daly got signs at Strauss, and the member for Goyder got nothing. I hear millions being discussed by the member for Daly and he thinks things are okay. I do not.
The Litchfield Shire has 20 000 people. It has the INPEX gas plant, the INPEX village, the AACo abattoir, the Coolalinga housing estate and shopping centre and the new prison the Treasurer refers to as the Taj Mahal in the member for Nelson’s backyard. I asked him to visit the prison with Ken Middlebrook, move on from the penal settlements of Tasmania, and see what is there.
A huge upgrade of Robertson Barracks is to occur. Millions of dollars will be spent moving the logistics section out to Robertson Barracks and a second entrance will be built. That is all Commonwealth money.
The extractive mining industry is centred in Litchfield. Most of what you see in Darwin and Palmerston depends on what comes out of the Howard Springs area in sand or gravel or, further down the quarries, crushed rock. We also have a new 80 lot subdivision approved at Girraween. There are some issues in relation to ownership of the lagoon, but that subdivision has been approved and I hope will start this Dry Season.
We must not forget thousands of jobs have been created through the different projects that are occurring.
Litchfield is also the home of the Berrimah Police Station, the power houses at Channel Island and Weddell, the ConocoPhillips LNG plant, the helium plant next door, and Darwin River Dam. It has a thriving mango, Asian vegetable, and cut flower industry as well as nurseries, some of which export plants interstate and overseas. It has two of the biggest high schools in the Territory - Taminmin College and Good Shepherd Lutheran College - and eight primary schools. It has a recreation reserve at Freds Pass which is home to over 30 user groups, which I believe is bigger than Marrara. It has the Mickett Creek Shooting Complex, Crocodylus Park, the Jumping Crocodile Cruises at Adelaide River, Knuckey Lagoon and Bees Creek crocodile farms, the Barramundi Farm at Adelaide River, the Knuckey Lagoon Conservation Reserve, the Howard Springs Nature Park, the Berry Springs Nature Park, the Tree Point Conservation Area, and the Territory Wildlife Park. It has the Coastal Plains Research Station and Windows on the Wetlands. It has World War II heritage - Strauss, Hughes, Livingstone and Sattler Airstrips. It has the Kamfari, the National Polocrosse championships, and two cable ski parks. It has the Shoal Bay Receiving Station, Humpty Doo Station at Middle Point and, of course, Robertson Barracks. It has industrial development at Holtze and Humpty Doo. It has 20 000 people living within its boundaries, making it the fourth largest municipality in the Northern Territory.
What was there in the budget for this vibrant and growing region of the Territory? Stuff all! Do the people of the rural area deserve this treatment? I do not believe so. This is what the government should have looked at, not in one year, but these are the issues the fast growing area needs. We have land which could be developed in the Humpty Doo district centre for housing and a retirement village - nothing in the budget. We are screaming for someone to invest in a retirement village in the rural area. Rural people do not want to live in Tiwi or Bellamack; they want to stay in their own community. There is land available and I hope we will be touring with the minister for Lands soon to see if that could be developed without using much government funds, because the private sector could be the main way to go.
We need an ambulance based at Humpty Doo - there is nothing in the budget. We have a fire brigade, we have a police station. With the amount of traffic moving up and down the Arnhem Highway, especially now with the growth of INPEX, there is need for an ambulance based at Humpty Doo – nothing in the budget.
We desperately need industrial land at Humpty Doo. Again, hopefully, I can show the minister because there is an opportunity for private industry to do it at a reasonable price. That would depend on what the government was willing to sell the land for. However, there is a definite need because recently there were two exceptional development permits the minister would have seen, one on the Stuart Highway and the other in Humpty Doo. These businesses have been told they are operating illegally under the present zoning. There is no land in Humpty Doo for them to move to, so they had to apply for an exceptional development permit. A construction company has been told to get off their 20 acre block and they have nowhere to go. There is a definite need for industrial land at Humpty Doo - nothing in the budget.
We need financial support for the Freds Pass Reserve to ensure it attracts as many people as possible to participate in sport, especially our youth. We can argue the toss over why the government took away the $2.7m left from the $3.6m promised over three years by the previous government. Yes, there may have been problems with acquittal of funds, but the government could have said, ‘We will not give you any more funds until you get your act together’. Instead, they took the money away. It would be good if the government gave a small amount of money to help with the operation of Freds Pass Reserve. I see it as part of an early intervention program as well - kids can run around.
When governments invest in things like Freds Pass Reserve, they encourage more youth to use the facilities and there is less chance the kids will get into trouble. At the moment there is a shortfall in funds for Freds Pass. It needed major upgrades to some of the buildings and some of the money promised would have gone towards that. It is getting a bit hard for Freds Pass Reserve to continue without upping the cost which will be borne by the user groups, meaning there could be less people using the facility.
We need a swimming pool. I recently did a tour of the INPEX development and am certainly very impressed. Besides having two air conditioned basketball courts, a gymnasium, a cycle room, a weights area, a recreation facility with music room, theatre and computer room, it has a tavern and the kitchen can serve about 1700 people at one time. They had a 25 m swimming pool built in about four months. I am unsure of the price but will be trying to find out. It was pretty easy for INPEX; they built it in a short time.
We were promised a pool. The pool is gone and it is especially disappointing considering the Coolalinga residential area will probably have about 400 to 500 people. It is full steam ahead at Coolalinga. I call it a mini-suburb with houses and duplexes going up overnight. It will not be long before the whole area is full and a swimming pool near the Coolalinga area would have been an ideal place for locals, especially those using Freds Pass.
The government says not to swim in creeks and rivers because crocodiles eat you. People want to cool off and not everyone has a pool. There is no pool in the rural area so people need a safe place to swim and to learn to swim. Sporting bodies could use a pool for training, even develop a swimming club, schools could use it, tourists and locals could cool off, seniors could use it for exercise, and people could have fun, but there is nothing in the budget.
Anyone who has ridden a bike recently would have noticed how many people use the bicycle path from Palmerston to Howard Springs. It has become extremely popular and has even added to the economy of the bakery at Howard Springs. People go there on a Saturday and Sunday morning in their lycra …
A member: Terry!
Mr WOOD: I have not seen Terry there yet. Tony might have been there. You mixed up Terry and Tony; however, they go for coffee and pies - work it off on the way home. The bicycle path has become an important part of the overall community and it would have been terrific to see something in the budget to take the bicycle path down to Coolalinga. That would connect the new supermarket shopping centre and residential area with Howard Springs and Palmerston by a bicycle path. Money has been set aside in town. Terrific! Darwin to Woolner and around Leanyer gets bicycle paths but the good old rural area – it took 20 years to get that bicycle path - is, once again, off the agenda. It is disappointing there is nothing in the budget.
The government is looking for affordable land. I have heard the minister say how much land he has found. The previous government had issues with the forestry land due to native title. You can blame the government sometimes, but they did try to go through native title procedures. That took until late 2011 and when I put to the government you could open up the forestry land, the department of Environment said, ‘We will not allow septic tanks in the area’. That killed that, but there are still opportunities there.
I have spoken to the CEO of Lands, Planning and the Environment, John Coleman. There is a 300 mm water pipe going to the prison and land there suitable for small rural subdivisions of 1 ha with town water which would not cost much money. Rural subdivisions do not cost as much as suburban subdivisions because they do not need storm water or sewerage.
We are looking forward to a trip with the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment because I would like - forget the politics - to see blocks opened up in the rural area at an affordable price. Many young people from the rural area are living in the granny flat, or granny is living in the flat and they are living in the house because they cannot afford to buy a block. You can do something quickly; this does not need a huge discussion because plans for that area have been set down for quite a while. It is not as though we are making it up as we go along. The land is zoned rural residential.
There was nothing in the budget either. If I had seen something to suggest the government would invest some money there that would have been good.
I realise I will hear from every speaker on the government side that the world is coming to an end because Labor put you into deficit and that deficit has to be paid. I do not have a problem with getting out of deficit; it is right and proper. My criticism has always been the speed at which you want to do it. I remember listening to an American economist talking about problems - they have some big debts. He said the danger of bringing in restorative measures is they could bring about an opposite reaction to the economy. Instead of it moving along, it shrinks because everyone is apprehensive about the future. Whilst we have to be prudent about the way we spend money, on the other hand, being a growing economy we sometimes have to spend money to make money go further.
There are undoubtedly some good things in the budget but I am annoyed, when you hear what the member for Daly said about his electorate and Litchfield is the fastest growing area and probably the biggest economic driver at the moment in the Northern Territory in regard to projects, to get two new items in the budget: shade cloth and some signs at Strauss. It does not go down too well. When you have two members of the government sharing the rural area it is extremely disappointing. I am unsure if the government takes us all for granted, but I have been around a long time.
In the rural area previous governments did not get a good deal. If people say, ‘You took advantage of the agreement you had with the previous Chief Minister’ - to some extent I did. However, if you look at the things promised, most of those were not in my electorate. Even the bicycle path was in the member for Brennan’s electorate, except for the final part going into Howard Springs. The upgrades to Freds Pass were all in the member for Goyder’s electorate. I was not necessarily looking for things for my electorate; I was looking for things to improve the rural area but, unfortunately, this year we missed out.
I do not agree with the Treasurer when he says there is no Berrimah Line. It starts at Berrimah and finishes at the boundary of Litchfield, and that is the problem. We have been forgotten and do not need this type of budget every year. I hope something changes next year so we get our fair share.
In relation to the budget as a whole, I have been going through the budget speeches instead of the budget papers - I have not had much time. I am glad the Chief Minister announced there will be money for Foodbank Northern Territory, a really important body. It is run by one of the churches and is a centre for food that supermarkets do not want. Food can be taken to Foodbank, which it then distributes to charities such as St Vincent de Paul, the Salvos or whoever. I am pleased the Chief Minister has announced $400 000 for 2013-14 and $160 000 for 2014-15 and 2015-16. He said more than 90 registered organisations distribute in excess of 100 tonnes of food per annum, which equates to more than 150 000 meals. That is a good thing from the government.
There is discussion about Palmerston hospital. The government has made the right decision on scoping Palmerston hospital. I have previously said the hospital was in the wrong place and should be on the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway. The government has other ideas about where it might go. I have always felt the proposed site was too small. I had discussions with the architect who told me car parking was an issue. I do not want to see a repeat of RDH, where car parking is a real problem.
We have to look long term. I am not in the government and sometimes government members do not see me as flavour of the month, but I would be happy to be part of any discussions because this hospital will be for the rural area as well as Palmerston.
I mentioned last year I had discussions with someone from the hospital board. When it comes to the future of RDH, they were concerned the cost of refurbishment was nearly as much as pulling it down. That person looked at whether Berrimah Farm was a suitable site, or somewhere in between. People are ooing and ahhing, but that does not mean the RDH site disappears from use. There are many other facilities there. The idea of whether we have one or two hospitals, where they are located, who they are expected to serve and what facilities they will have is worthy of a scoping study.
I thank the Minister for Education, who has come in for some criticism. I am worried about where teachers from our secondary schools are going, but he said he does not want anyone selling sausages to pay utility costs for schools. That is fair enough. For money schools have raised for improvements to disappear into paying for electricity is very poor. In the number of school council meetings I attend people were not really happy. They were unsure of what the future would be. Some schools wanted to take fairly vocal action; others wanted to sit still for a while. Minster, the decision for the government to cover those costs is good.
That does not mean you just hand out money. The increase in power prices has people thinking about what to turn off or leave on. I nearly make the effort to turn the TV off at the switch. A bloke said to me recently, ‘The light in your fridge costs $88 a year?’ He worked it out. I am not going to take the light bulb out of my fridge; I would not be able to see what I was taking out. He wanted to show every bit of electricity used costs money. It has made people much more conscious about wasting electricity.
There was also mention of transportable classrooms, minister, in your speech. There are supposed to be new classrooms at Girraween Primary School but it has been slow. The school is bursting at the seams. I would appreciate it if you could you find out how that is going because things need to happen faster. That school is probably the biggest primary school in the rural area, having surpassed Humpty Doo. It was due for new classrooms but there was a delay. Because of the expanding nature of the school, perhaps you could get back to us. It might have been fixed, but I was under the impression it was bogged down.
The First Home Owner Grant - 2000 new affordable houses. The government comes under criticism again, and I criticised it a number of times saying it did not release enough land. The then Treasurer was saying they did not want to release too much land because of the impact on prices. I accused it of being the CLP in sheep’s clothing because the CLP would not want to upset the market. What are the government’s thoughts on releasing a great deal of land in relation to the market? The market has room to move up and down without too much harm. Has the government taken that into consideration when it mentioned - you were looking at nearly 2000 houses, minister?
Unless you have affordable land you will not have affordable housing. It is relatively easy to pick up blocks of land in the northern suburbs or Palmerston which have not been used because the infrastructure goes right past. I know from the cost of putting Zuccoli or Johnston together on fairly tough country that it is not cheap to put the headworks and infrastructure in.
Governments normally pay for the headworks, so it will be interesting to see, in some of your new developments for Palmerston, what that will cost and how much that will reflect in the cost of turning off land. For instance, land sold at Coolalinga in a private development for around $340 000 a block - pretty expensive. The private developer had to put in his own sewerage system; however, it gives you an idea that the price means it is just about impossible for a young family to put a reasonable house up. How will you come up with affordable housing, not so much on the existing blocks because that will be reasonably easy, but on greenfield sites?
Weddell - not a thing. It should be kept on the agenda. We need a city we can be proud of. We need a new city and the rural area should not be used as an excuse not to develop Weddell. Weddell should still be going ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but Weddell should still be there. The previous government did a lot of work on it. I hope that work is not thrown down the drain, because I went to some of the discussions about the future of Weddell and thought they were excellent. Other people might have other ideas, but if any of those ideas means blocking up the Elizabeth River, I am not for it.
I am concerned about the super shires because the government, when in opposition, said they were toxic. They now have two choices, neither of which are the right way to go. That might be other people’s opinion …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member for Nelson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan. What concerns me about the super shires is we have been given two options: a regional authority and a regional council. I do not know why ‘regional’ is being used. Local government is about local government; regional councils are normally an amalgamation of local government. They are not the same. The issue we have had with local government is lack of community. In other words, we made them so big that communities felt they were no longer part of it.
The government has said it will give them extra money for operational funds. That is a sign they do not have enough money. Most councils survive on rates and Commonwealth funding. That is what Litchfield, Palmerston, Darwin, and Alice Springs run on. The bigger shires need some extra help, but where is the discussion in all this? That is part of the problem. There is no ability for councils to raise sufficient funds through rates, as normal councils do, to help make them sustainable. There are issues about Aboriginal land and rates. If most of the land in the shire is Aboriginal Land Trust, unless you have Northern Territory Housing land there, you will not receive rates. That major issue seems to have been forgotten.
There is also the issue of the community being able to have more say. What is in the new super shires consultation document is only a refurbished version of the community boards. There does not seem to be discussion about whether we could have smaller shires. We have said we will keep them as they are, give them a new name, and they will have more responsibility. Do they want more responsibility? Shires were meant to be about essential services not about government. They were meant to ensure the rubbish was picked up, the roads were fixed, the grass was cut and trees were planted. That was the basic stuff they needed to do. We have now given them more and more things. The previous government gave them heaps of things, which is part of the problem. They have been given too much responsibility for things that are the government’s responsibility. In other words, they have been told to run before walking. We need to ask, ‘Do they need to have all those items as part of their core functions?’
Much noise was made by government when in opposition about the state of the super shires. They have come up with a package which does not say much - only two options. It should have a dozen options because people need to talk about the possibilities. Could Vic Daly be divided into this or that? Should the centre of Daly be at Wadeye instead of Katherine, etcetera? How will we raise more rates? That discussion is important.
Money is being put into SIHIP. I laugh a little because when Labor was in government and building houses there was so much criticism from this side of the House. In fact, the Council of Territory Cooperation was going out regularly. I am disappointed the government got rid of the Council of Territory Cooperation. We now have no other committee to do these things. Theoretically, we have the PAC. The CTC could decide to investigate how money was being spent or the condition of houses. Unfortunately, we have been here nearly nine months and do not have an environment committee or any other committees except the basic committees. The CTC, for all its faults - and it had some faults - was a bipartisan committee which enabled all members of parliament to, as a group, look at any issue it wanted, whether it was Mataranka cattle, domestic violence figures, or housing in Aboriginal communities. It was able to do that and report back to parliament. We do not have any of that; we do not have anyone reporting.
The government is investing $139.6m into remote Indigenous housing capital works and $32.25m into repairs and maintenance. That is a good reason for a committee. Let us see if that money is being well-spent because the previous opposition said it was not. It was not value for money, I heard that time and time again. Now the boot is on the other foot. You criticised the previous government, have you done any better with the money? Have you got better value for money? Sometimes it is not so simple when you see what has to be done to bring houses up to standard. I might ask the question later, but I am interested to know.
I do not see it here, but someone mentioned upgrade of Tiger Brennan Drive into town. When will that start, if the duplication is planned, and will the rail corridor be included? You do not have to build the rail now, but will they clear the land so the rail corridor, meant to go into Darwin, is built now so it is not forgotten? You have a parcel of land included in this duplication and, regardless of whether it is only 4 m wide, it needs to be included as a future rail corridor. I do not see anything about that.
The clock appears to be stuck, Mr Clerk.
The issue of tax on mining companies needs discussion. I understand the mining companies are not opposed to it; their biggest gripe is nobody discussed it with them. When the government is talking about a three-hub economy and one is mining, you are not sending out the right signal if you say they have to pay tax to fix up legacy mines and you want extra monies in royalties. If you want them to be part of the three-hub economy, you need to talk to them.
Fishing is a wonderful thing. I am still opposed to the decision to close Chambers Bay - a very poor decision. It is difficult to believe the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has amateur fishing in his portfolio as well as commercial fishing. They are two different groups. I do not have a boat and like to buy my fish at Fisherman’s Wharf. I expect it to be wild catch fish and do not expect it to be too expensive. The government said it will reduce the cost of living by removing Chambers Bay from the commercial fishing area and asking fisherman to go further out. Surely that must have some effect on the price of fish. It is a bad decision.
In regard to horticulture, we should spread our horticultural industries further. However, I become alarmed when the minister says, ‘We have to let these people have more water’. I have no problem with that, but if it is not done scientifically and with due diligence, we end up as silly as the people who took water out of the Murray River years ago. They took too much out when they, possibly, had an excuse because they did not have the knowledge or the science. Today we have the science and need to ensure, if we are giving people water licences, we have the water to do it, it is shared equitably amongst the people in that area, and we do not end up with an unsustainable horticultural industry.
We need to learn from our mistakes. I am all for people getting water, but would hate to see it happen just so someone can say, ‘We are for business in the Northern Territory’. I would rather someone say, ‘We are giving you water because we know you can use it wisely and we have enough to give you. We are supportive of sustainable agricultural business in the Northern Territory.’ That is the important thing.
It is good to see the minister has put some money into the Ord River Scheme, an area that needs looking at. I do not know where that is going, and it would be good if the minister gave us an update on what is happening in relation to the sugar farm on the Western Australian side and the possibility of cotton on the Northern Territory side.
There are good things in the budget; there is no doubt about it. The bush seats have received their reward for the government winning the election. Rural seats in the Litchfield area have received nothing. Darwin has received a reasonable number of things, but the government should not ignore the rural area. It has kids, seniors and needs; please do not ignore that. We would like our fair share of the budget considering we are the economic hub of the Northern Territory at the moment. That is certainly not reflected in the budget today. There are some good things in the budget, but they are not for people in the rural area of Litchfield.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support the budget. The Country Liberal government is taking responsibility for tackling Labor’s terrible legacy of debt, helping to grow the economy, and providing real opportunity for all Territorians. The Territory has only a limited number of ways to raise revenue compared with the bigger states. This is an important reason why we have to be good economic and financial managers and not spend like drunken sailors.
The Gillard government has cut more than $100m in GST funding from the Territory budget for 2013-14. It has been hard enough to deal with the crisis spending of the Territory Labor government, but we have also had to deal with the unpredictable and irresponsible financial decision-making of the federal Labor government in Canberra.
Everyone knows what happens when we spend far beyond our revenue. Like individuals and families, we are forced to borrow if we spend beyond our means. While some borrowing is not necessarily bad for economic management, it depends on how we borrow and what we spend borrowed money on.
Sensible, capable economic managers worry about spending tax dollars paid by taxpayers. We should not borrow beyond our capacity to pay the debt back. If we borrow like Labor, we badly affect the choice of future Territorians because much of our revenue will be tied up in paying back very high interest on the debt. Also, if we spend our borrowings on things which do not benefit future young Territorians, we will have spent it on the wrong things.
Labor did this as well. It used valuable borrowings to spend on things that should have been borrowed from our own revenue. The Territory government’s debt level under Labor became the highest of any state and Territory in the nation on a per capita basis. The interest cost we are forced to pay on this borrowing, which Labor agreed to, is a dead weight on all Territorians and stops us choosing the important things government expenditure is needed for.
An important example is badly needed government spending on health and education. It is also about us, as a government, being able to prepare enough land for housing development. As a result, under Labor rent and housing prices in the Territory reached very high levels. The problem is even worse in remote communities where land and housing shortages are being experienced by many individuals and organisations.
Such high housing prices are an important part of a family budget. They have become so high it has started to affect whether some people can continue living in the Territory. This is a serious state of affairs because we need more people to live in the Territory, not fewer, and we need the skills they can bring to assist our development further.
While the Territory economy is growing quickly, Labor had no plan to cope with this rapid development. This will have a major impact on the lifestyle of all Territorians. Labor seemed blind to the price impact of growth, was happy to rely on a fly-in fly-out workforce, and did not worry about the impact on the lifestyle of all Territorians.
The Country Liberal government attempted to deal quickly with the skyrocketing debt accumulated under Labor by introducing the mini-budget. Very importantly, it was pointed out such a high level of debt threatened the existence of an independent Northern Territory government as it was likely to balloon to $5.5bn over the forward estimates. No revenue would be available to the NT government to spend on other important emerging initiatives such as living standards and the condition of people living in remote communities of the Northern Territory, which I represent. For example, Labor is prepared to gamble with the future of the Territory, especially in remote regions.
The growing Labor debt reduced the ability of the Labor government to properly provide services to the most disadvantaged people in Australia: Aboriginal Australians living in remote regions of the Northern Territory. Consequently, those of us who live in remote regions know of the terrible, substandard services that continued under Labor in housing, roads, lack of choice in basic goods and service - and the very high price of these goods - restricted services in health and education, lack of opportunity for real work, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide amongst young people.
This is not to be tremendously thankful to the wonderful, dedicated people who work in remote communities and wish to, and do, contribute to the best of their ability. What I, and they, continually worry about is why they have to provide these services with one hand tied behind their back. Far too many of our people in remote regions are living in conditions of poverty, poor health, high crime, and high alcohol and other forms of substance abuse. This has caused a terrible toll in Aboriginal remote communities that would not be tolerated in non-Indigenous communities.
The Territory Labor government was on the spot; however, problems became worse. This government will work a policy proposal with the community to targets these problems directly. While I believe in the words of Dr King, ‘I have a dream’, it is now up to us to show young Aboriginal people can also dare to have a dream, and that we have planned a budgetary requirement in a fair and responsible manner.
Since coming to government, I have found how little the Labor Party cared about us and how little the budget was used to assist those in remote regions. They were not only spending money on things which did not benefit us, they then borrowed more and more so now we, as a new and responsible government, have to clean up the mess.
We also have to find new ways to help Indigenous people in remote communities. We will do this because we know how important it is. We will also do this because we really care about the people living in remote communities.
It is now clear that Labor had no care and no interest in our people. I have heard such people referred to as ‘chardonnay socialites’ and understand what this means. This budget aims to work towards overcoming the irresponsible and self-interest excesses of Labor. It has also been carefully designed to promote opportunity responsibly for all Territorians and further develop the Territory in a fair, just and equitable manner.
Madam Speaker, I commend the budget to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, today in Question Time I said I had never referred to teacher’s downtime in any interview, which is incorrect. I mentioned downtime in a telephone interview with Nicole Mills from the NT News. However, although my comments have been inferred by local media, the unions and, of course, the opposition, I have never called teachers lazy, and I never will because I do not believe it. I know how hard they work. I appreciate the level of responsibility and the scope of the role the modern teacher plays in our community.
In fact, today, a teacher not only needs to teach, they also are expected to be a counsellor, social worker, mediator, leader, friend and, in some sad cases, they are a student’s only friend.
Given the sincere respect I have for our teachers and the work they do, after many years of supporting out schools well before politics, I was very disappointed to see the word ‘lazy’ on the front page of the NT News last week and intimated in the cartoon that day. I consider the article written by Nicole Mills to be fair; however, the inference has created a perception within the education community, captured and fuelled by the opposition and the union, which is simply not true.
Now I have corrected the record, I need to put some context around my use of the term downtime and my understanding of it within the context of schools.
First, it needs to be said that hard-working teachers spend much of their time outside the classroom undertaking a range of teaching-related tasks such as classroom preparation, curriculum preparation, report writing, and marking, just to name a few, not to mention after school activities like school camps - I have been on a few myself - sporting or musical events, even just marking the day’s work. This is often referred to as downtime and does not mean a teacher is not working. I know many teachers who not only work before and after normal hours, but spend hundreds of hours of their own time each year on work-related jobs.
When I referred to downtime I was comparing teacher ratios between high schools and primary schools. There is far more flexibility in a high school compared to a primary school given the big difference in teacher ratios. There is far less opportunity in a primary school for a teacher to be given downtime than in a high school environment because of the difference in ratios.
High schools may use the additional teachers as they see fit but, again, the ratios are far different in middle and secondary education facilities compared to primary schools. This was the context of my argument. Thank you.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about an event I attended recently, as did your good self. I attended the launch, along with my colleague the member for Daly, Gary Higgins, of the Northern Territory Vietnamese Horticultural Association at a private property at the east of Humpty Doo.
The evening was delightful, complete with meeting the new committee, speeches in both English and Vietnamese, delicious food, tiny bottles of beer especially imported from Vietnam, and the ubiquitous karaoke. The tiny bottles of beer were about 250 ml.
The association already has 30 members from about 100 farming families in the Top End. I am sure more members will join once they know about the group and the good work they do and will do.
Farmers from non-English speaking backgrounds are a rapidly growing sector, none more so than in the Territory. The sector will continue to grow as will the challenges facing the industry and farmers.
During the evening the new executive committee was introduced one by one. They are a mixture of farmers from across the Top End of the Northern Territory. They come from different parts of the rural area, including farmers from Humpty Doo, Acacia Hills, Berry Springs, Lambells Lagoon and Herbert. The association was initiated by the farmers themselves as they want to provide better services to the Vietnamese farmers, particularly when they face serious challenges such as language barriers and sourcing good labour. As many of the farmers do not speak English, or very little English, negotiating prices for their products can be difficult and they may not get the best price. Also, as mentioned, sourcing good labour can be difficult and dealing with the labour hire companies can also present challenges as these companies may not understand the needs of the farmers.
Another area the farmers have to work with is the regulator of farming and what their farming activities involve. That is mostly the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. The department works well with the farmers; however, there remain some issues, such as language, that can prove a barrier to good work and understanding.
This area of regulation is particularly important. The rules and regulations around farming can be difficult to understand for people who have English as a second language, such as handling of chemicals, soil and water management, pest control and OH&S to name some. Then there are transportation issues, labour hire rules, and freight and pricing which can present enormous challenges. These are some clear reasons why forming their own group to work with and get farmers together makes very good sense.
As happens with other industry groups, and I am sure will happen with this group, there will be farm days and field days where the farmers get together, swap techniques, talk about their growing technology and, perhaps, their secrets. They can talk about where they have been successful, where they have had failures, and why. Generally, they can share experiences and learn from each other and, perhaps, from departmental and other experts in the field.
The evening was pulled together by a remarkable woman, Thanh Thai, who did a superb job of translation coordination with grace, dignity and professionalism. The new president is David Dinh, who is a wonderful advocate for his people and a tireless worker for the Vietnamese community and farming generally. I am sure with these two people at the helm of this group all will go well for the farmers and the farming industry, and ultimately, all of us, as what they grow is first quality, healthy, and nutritious.
The contribution of Vietnamese farmers should not be underestimated as last year they grew one million trays of mangoes and produced over $10m worth in Asian greens and vegetables. Vietnamese farmers in the Top End make up about 20% of the horticultural industry. No other group of people are at that level and it is a remarkable achievement.
The other contribution is these hard-working people have opened up land. They have developed and improved the land, and brought much value to the land and, of course, much wealth to the economy. They need our support and encouragement and definitely have mine. I know they also have support from the member for Daly.
In forming the new association, I am sure they will work with the NT Farmers Association. Grant Fenton was at the evening and is keen for his group, the Farmers Association, to work cooperatively with the Vietnamese Horticultural Association towards common goals and outcomes.
Both groups have the same focus, the same mission, and that is to provide first-class services to their members and first-class products to the markets, not only in the Northern Territory, but elsewhere in Australia. I congratulate the new group, the Vietnamese Horticultural Association, and also the farmers and people who put on such a lovely evening for everyone to enjoy. Well done!
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight in adjournment I want to catch everyone up on several things I have been up to and thank a couple of people.
The Palmerston Senior College Special Education unit celebrated Harmony Day in a very big way. I was, unfortunately, unable to attend but my electorate officer, Angie, went on my behalf and said it was outstanding, which I can imagine. Hats off to everyone at the Special Education centre. Each class was assigned a country and they dressed up in cultural dress, prepared food of that culture, decorated their classrooms, and there was a fashion parade. It sounded like a really wonderful time and the photographs look amazing. Well done!
I attended Gray Primary School for Harmony Day. I was fortunate to be taken under the wing by one of the preschool teachers, Michelle, who let me come in with a group of preschool students and make beautiful paper chains. All the paper chains had different flags of various nations around the world. That was a lovely, busy week. A tribute to Gray Primary School for such a wonderful Harmony Day event. Gray Primary School is a multicultural school. When you attend a school assembly there, it is really amazing to see all the children. Many children have English as a second language, there is a high number of Indigenous students, and a large number of students who have migrated from Asian countries.
The Palmerston Markets started three weeks ago and have been great. I missed having something as interactive as that to do on a Friday night. Renae is doing a wonderful job as this year’s market coordinator and has a new committee behind her. They have chopped things up a bit, changed the format, and are focusing on lots of entertainment for families and kids so they can sit on the grassed area and enjoy the night.
Our Country Liberals’ stand is there as always. Natasha Griggs, our member for Solomon, is in full campaign swing so if you get in early you will at least get a balloon from her.
The Palmerston Markets are going well. Again, thank you to the Palmerston Market committee, which does an amazing job. It is a huge market season, a huge market to pull off and, for volunteers, not a bad effort at all.
I touched on the federal campaign. Luke Gosling, Labor candidate for Solomon, can stop doorknocking in my electorate and spreading lies about the Palmerston hospital because everything he is saying is untrue. He is not here to defend himself, but I do not appreciate what he is peddling in my electorate.
June is coming up, which is SIDS and Kids month. Everyone loves Red Nose Day, but please remember the entire month of June is dedicated to SIDS and Kids. This is their one shot in the whole year to raise enough money to support bereaved families. SIDS and Kids covers families and people who are grieving over children from when they were in the womb through to becoming an adult, so they have a huge field to cover. They do an amazing job, and in recent weeks we have been packing up all the boxes in Rapid Creek Village and getting them off to businesses. If you see any SIDS and Kids merchandise, please purchase it, drop a donation in, or volunteer to help because there will be lots of stalls at the Palmerston shops and all over the place. Get in touch with SIDS and Kids if you would like to help.
I say a huge thank you to Fiona Peters and Deb Gardiner-Munro, the most amazing women. They work tirelessly forever and a day for SIDS and Kids. They live and breathe that organisation and without them there would be no SIDS and Kids NT. Thank you very much to those wonderful women.
On the weekend just gone we had the Mother’s Day Classic which raised money for breast cancer. It was a wonderfully organised event; the organisers did an exceptional job. Thousands of women were there in full force. Lake Alexander was covered in pink.
I thank my mum for getting involved in dressing me, my electorate officer, and herself up. She bought pink tiaras for the occasion and pink zinc cream, which went down quite well. We managed to have quite a few photos taken on the day. It was good fun and all for a very good cause.
I also thank Linda Heidstra, Kathryn Ward, Jenny Washington and the whole AIOP - Australian Institute of Office Professionals - for their annual breakfast last week. They always do an exceptional job with the breakfast. It was formerly Secretary’s Day, which some people might remember. It was excellent. The guest speaker was Geraldine Cox, who started the Sunrise orphanages in Cambodia. She was a very interesting guest speaker and an exceptional breakfast was put on. Thank you to those lovely ladies, who are on a number of committees. Their CVs would be a mile long. Thank you for your contribution to our not-for-profit organisations and our incorporated associations throughout the Top End.
Of course, my favourite is the Italian Festival. I thank Madam Speaker for allowing the Italian Festival use of Parliament House lawns. It will be a knockout event. The Italian community has not rallied together and put on a festival like this since I was about four years old when we had Pasta in the Park at the back of Fannie Bay shops. Territorians who have been around long enough will remember it as an awesome night. I can still remember the beautiful calamari and all types of things. You will feel that sense of nostalgia on Saturday. I seek leave to table the program so the highlights are forever recorded.
Leave granted.
What a wonderful event it will be. My Kitchen Rules will be there, which is a huge coup. We will have bocce, flag throwing, tarantella dancing, and there is some wonderful stuff for the children - mask making and all types of things. It is a genuine family day out, so please come along because we might not have one for another 25 years, depending on how it goes. If you all rock up we might have it again next year or the year after. Please come along. It has been cooking for two years and I cannot believe it is three sleeps away.
Over the weekend, Driver Primary School, which has a Stephanie Alexander farm, had a working bee. I thank Sherida, Sharon and Karen, stalwarts of Driver farm. They are amazing women who are always teaching the kids discipline on the farm, about food and nutrition, and all the other things that go with looking after a garden. I had a really good morning. Thank you to the Marines who shovelled dirt and compost with us. It was great to see so many kids involved. In fact, we had to send a few home because they got out of bed so early they forgot to tell their mums and dads they were coming to help on the farm. We had to sort out some issues there but, otherwise, it was mums and dads. It was really good. Driver school has a strong, healthy community spirit and I enjoy being there whenever I can.
After quickly going home to shower and wash off the dirt, I went to the Red Cross shop in Palmerston because we were celebrating World Red Cross Day.
On 8 May every year World Red Cross Day is celebrated in honour of Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross many moons ago. It was great to see many people I usually connect with in the electorate, such as Jerry and Mary, Anne and Dave, and all the usual suspects lurking around Drysdale doing things for our community. Unfortunately, we did not have many people through the doors that day, so the Red Cross shop did not make much money, and this was its big fundraising opportunity for the year. We still had a great time, had plenty of sausages, and the kids had a great time. Minnie and Mickey Mouse were there, and quite a few tears, surprisingly, coming out of that - less hugs and more tears than anticipated. Nonetheless, it was a well-organised market day and I enjoyed it very much.
Madam Speaker, soccer season has commenced again and every Sunday you will find me at the Palmerston Football Club where they host tons of juniors’ games. I thank Katy, Bill, Henry, Troy, Howard, Tony and anyone I may have forgotten. They do an amazing job. We are such a professional outfit. I say we because I am the patron, so I feel I am part of the team. They are pumping food out of the canteen to raise money to keep the venue organised. It is an outstanding outfit and I encourage all parents to sign kids up to the Palmerston Football Club - perhaps use the school sports voucher. That is it for now.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale. I will see you at the Italian Festival.
Ms Finocchiaro: Good.
Mr VOWLES: Looking forward to it.
Tonight I speak about an issue I have spoken of many times in this House and will continue to talk about until the CLP make good on their promise to the people of Millner. I refer to the CLP’s commitment to the residents who live along Rapid Creek Road and surrounding streets of my electorate of Johnston.
In February 2011, great distress was experienced by landowners and residents when, in the middle of the night, many had to evacuate their properties due to the rising creek levels causing flooding of their homes. This was a terrifying event for the residents.
As an election commitment, the former Labor government set aside $2.5m as the first payment to address the issue. Similarly, on 20 August, the CLP issued a media release stating:
- The Country Liberals have announced a $1.5m down payment on flood mitigation works around Rapid Creek. Country Liberals Leader, Terry Mills, said regular flooding in the Rapid Creek corridor damaged property and affected families and households in Millner and Rapid Creek.
The funding is a first step towards reducing the flood risk during extreme weather events in the Top End.
The media release went on to say:
- The $1.5m commitment will be a first step towards funding future works pending the outcome of the hydrology review.
Of course, we would have liked the CLP to match our $2.5m, but were happy they would set aside money to address the issue, and $1.5m was a great start.
Post-election, with a CLP in government, how their tune has changed. In the mini-budget in December last year, the CLP broke their promise to the residents of Millner and Johnston. Instead of $1.5m, the commitment had halved to $750 000. Terry Mills said at the time:
- A preliminary report has been recommended - further investigation into the flood water levels and potential impact. This information is required before an appropriate solution can be determined that will benefit the community.
In December last year, I received a letter from the then Chief Minister who said:
- A flood study was initiated in response to the Rapid Creek floods in February 2011. The flood study draft report was provided to the previous government in mid-May 2012. Following review of this report, the previous government initiated a flood mitigation option study and the preliminary report was provided to them in August. The flood study report raised concerns regarding creek and floodplain levels and recommended a re-survey of the area. This survey is complete, and new flood maps will be developed with a view to release both the report and the flood extent mapping in December 2012. This release will be followed by community consultation to ensure a thorough understanding of the new inundation mapping and the potential impacts on the effected community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the CLP government said it would release a flood study report and a new flood map in December. As far as I am aware, neither has been released.
On 1 May, new Chief Minister, Adam Giles, was asked on radio what action he was taking on the issue of flooding at Rapid Creek. Instead of referring to action or dollar amounts, he referred to more investigations. The former Labor Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, said the flood studies were happening in 2011 and a draft report was available in May 2012. While I never saw the final report, I was briefed that the report was finalised and the election commitment of $2.5m would be a down payment to start work immediately if Labor won the election.
Here we are in May 2013 with Millner residents still none the wiser, with this now not new government being in power for nine months and no action. The former Labor Chief Minister promised to consult with the residents of Millner; this government has not. The new Chief Minister continues to keep residents in the dark about what the government is doing. In Budget 2013-14, the only mention of Rapid Creek is the following from page 215 of Budget Paper No 3:
- The increase in Land and Economic Development output is due to additional funding in 2013-14 for a capital grant for the Kilgariff headworks, offset by one-off funding in 2012-13 to undertake investigative studies for Rapid Creek flood mitigation.
The residents of Millner remain frustrated and have every reason to be. The facts speak for themselves. The CLP promised $1.5m. The CLP has broken the promise and halved the commitment. The CLP promised a report and maps to be released in December 2012. The CLP has still not released a report or any maps. The CLP promised to consult with residents. The CLP has not kept residents informed about what it is doing. The CLP says it takes this issue seriously. Not a single cent has been put aside in Budget 2013-14 by the government to address this problem.
There are too many broken promises. The people of Millner and Johnston deserve better and I will keep fighting and highlighting this issue until something is done.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I respond to the rather bizarre questions and allegations from the member for Namatjira in the adjournment debate on Tuesday, 14 May 2013. I will quote from Hansard where the member for Namatjira said:
- … I rise to respond to an allegation made by the member for Barkly in this place on 27 March. He stated:
I have ministerial correspondence lodged with ministers in the areas of Power and Water; Lands, Planning and the Environment; Transport, Tourism, Regional Development, Corrections and Infrastructure all awaiting responses on issues raised by Barkly constituents.
- So, before the member for Barkly chastises my office and my department again, I would be grateful if he could check his facts.
For the member for Namatjira, the Minister for Regional Development, the correspondence she is unable to find - it is important we determine that here - is a petition lodged by petitioners from Tennant Creek, Ali Curung, Elliott and Borroloola. The petition was lodged in the parliament in February and petitioners from the Barkly electorate are still awaiting a response. The petition was:
- To the Honourable Terry Mills MLA Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
- We the undersigned respectfully showeth our support for the proposed Barkly Regional Sports Infrastructure Program in the Growth Towns of Borroloola, Elliott and Ali Curung.
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory Government commit to funding the construction of Regional Sports Infrastructure in the form of Australian Rules Football ovals with supporting Bush Camping Grounds that will facilitate the operation of Regional Football Games, Arts and Culture Festivals and Regional School Sports Carnivals in Barkly Growth Towns. This commitment to Regional Development should be delivered in the forward Budgets 2013-16 in the Growth Towns of Borroloola, Elliott and Ali Curung and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I thank staff from the minister’s office for the search they conducted and for raising the issue that this petition has not yet found its way to the Department of Regional Development. It went to the previous Chief Minister. I hope the new Chief Minister has called for ministerial information on this issue and worked with the Minister for Regional Development to address the issue. It might be a yes, it might be a no, but the petitioners from Borroloola, Elliott, Ali Curung and Tennant Creek would like an answer from the Minister for Regional Development.
In relation to the other correspondence - it started with correspondence to the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment on 17 September regarding Crown land in Tennant Creek. The next correspondence was to the Minister for Essential Services on 21 September 2012. A reply to that was received in April 2013. The people of Barkly waited seven months for that reply.
There was also correspondence to the Minister for Health from me on 5 November 2012 regarding dental services. Thank you, minister; there was a reply.
There was correspondence to the Minister for Arts and Museums on 5 November 2012 regarding signage at the Defence of Darwin Experience. No response from the Minister for Arts and Museums; however, thank you to the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment who organised a response with a successful outcome.
There was further correspondence from me to the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment on 8 November regarding Crown Land in Tennant Creek. Thank you for the response, minister. There was further correspondence from me to the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment on 5 November regarding the Defence of Darwin Experience. Thank you very much, minister, for your kind work on that one.
There was a series of correspondence sent from me as member for Barkly to the Minister for Transport in March 2013 regarding remote airstrips, speed limits and road reserves. I also forwarded correspondence to the Minister for Corrections in March 2013. I received a response; thank you, minister. I look forward to progress on that project suggestion.
There was correspondence sent to the Minister for Tourism and Major Events from me, member for Barkly, in March 2013 which I spoke about last night. I am awaiting a response to my latest correspondence to the Minister for Infrastructure sent in May 2013.
For the Minister for Regional Development’s information, I will describe what the petitioners are trying to do. They want to set up regional sports infrastructure which not only involves a sporting oval but accompanying bush camping grounds as well. This is not big dollars we are talking about; this is real doable work in the regions. It will enable the Barkly Australian Football League to play home and away games. On any Saturday we could, for instance, have Ti Tree, Ali Curung, Canteen Creek and Epenarra all playing a normal round of football at Ali Curung. At the moment, the infrastructure is poor and does not confirm with occupation health and safety standards. Therefore, you cannot run the official Barkly league on that oval.
It will also, minister, start to wash the cash through the growth town of Ali Curung, instead of coming into Tennant Creek. It will also save family drama when football players come to Tennant Creek on the weekend and do not go home. This can lead to a chain of events that go horribly wrong and some people even end up in gaol. We are talking about Elliott and Ali Curung. Borroloola wants to get involved. The people are very supportive of this idea and it is doable.
We are not talking about huge money. It is specific regional development initiatives not only for football; it can be about arts and culture, you could have a rock ‘n’ roll show.
Something I am keen to revive, and people in the Barkly are keen to support, is regional school sports carnivals. You need the basic infrastructure of a sporting ground and an associated bush camping ground. These projects in the three growth towns in the Barkly would go a long way to delivering sport and recreation outcomes, great community development outcomes, and improved community safety. They would develop the economies of the regional centres as well.
When you think about the economies, member for Namatjira and Minister for Regional Development, it would be wonderful to inject funds. When Ali Curung plays a home game, not only will they be playing in front of 400 spectators, which might have an impact on their self-esteem, they will also be attracting other teams and spectators to their town for the weekend. That money will not go to hotels or to purchasing alcohol in roadhouses. It will be washed through the growth towns.
Leave alcohol in the equation though, because when you go to Elliott the teams will have to deal with the alcohol issue, likewise in Borroloola. That is part of normalising the use of alcohol as opposed to being inflicted with alcohol abuse.
Minister for Regional Development, that is the correspondence I was talking about. I hope you chat to the Chief Minister about this. It would be nice if you got off your vindictive brumby of a horse and live up to being a minister of the Crown, which has the definition of serving the people.
I do not appreciate your cheap shots, nor do the people of Barkly. How about you get a work ethic and start to face the delivery end of your portfolios. You are welcome any time in the Barkly, minister. I, and other people, talk about you all the time so please come on down. We would love to see you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016