2014-08-28
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 6 classes from Driver Primary School, accompanied by Brianna Grazioli and Bryan Downing. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I ask that leave of absence be granted to the member for Wanguri today for personal reasons. Before anyone jumps to conclusions, we are not expecting baby Manison any time soon.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we support the motion. We are all aware of the member for Wanguri’s circumstances and I am sure I can comfortably speak for all members of this House in wishing her the very best.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Independents, I also wish the member for Wanguri all the best. If it is a boy, she knows what to call it.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Arafura for personal reasons.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this House censures the Chief Minister and the CLP government for their lies, culture of cover-up and failure to govern with the integrity and honesty Territorians require.
This motion will be no surprise to Territorians. It has been the most disgraceful period of any Chief Minister, and the last 18 months under his failed leadership have left the public wondering where the shreds of integrity exist in government today. We saw, for the third Question Time this week, consistent with Question Time last week, this government, the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General fail and refuse to answer basic questions about the resignation of magistrate Peter Maley, just as last week they failed to grapple and deal with what the public knew was wrong: the homophobic rant by the Deputy Chief Minister. The disgraced member for Fong Lim, if this Chief Minister gets his way, will be returned as Deputy Chief Minister on Monday.
The member for Fong Lim is holding the government to ransom because he has threatened to leave parliament, prompting a by-election in his electorate. There is a stench around this government; there is more to be revealed about the scandalous Peter Maley affair, the scandalous CLP connections and the scandalous government, which risks losing the seat of Fong Lim. If the government risks losing the seat of Fong Lim, it risks entering minority government, the same situation as earlier this year.
That is the real threat the member for Fong Lim is holding over the head of his government. It is a disgrace that a Chief Minister does not have the authority to exert on his parliamentary wing over the choice of a Deputy Chief Minister, and to have a deputy next to him in the Chamber. It is unprecedented in any Australian parliament that there is not a Deputy Chief Minister or a Deputy Premier filling a seat going into a sittings period. It is unprecedented that you leave such an important public office vacant. There is a vacuum of leadership under this Chief Minister.
This censure is about breaching Territorians’ trust. They reasonably expect that a government will operate ethically, free from undue influence, rather than in the interests of a few select mates who exert undue influence on government decision-making through close financial ties.
In the two short years since the CLP came to office there have been persistent conflicts of interest, cover-ups, scandals and blatant lies. The modus operandi of this government is always to deny, cover-up and deceive when unethical, inappropriate or corrupt behaviour is exposed. There is no clearer example of this than the Chief Minister’s persistent denials of links with Foundation 51.
This is what he said in this House:
Deceit like this does not get more brazen. The Chief Minister has clearly known about the nature and activities of this CLP slush fund for a very long time. Not only has he known about it all along, and not only has he lied to Territorians about his knowledge, but he has actively encouraged the CLP and the slush fund directors to operate in the clandestine way they do.
There is a clear pattern in the Chief Minister’s behaviour of denying wrongdoing and misleading parliament when he is exposed, and then covering up his direct involvement. It is clear that this Chief Minister and his crooked CLP government have set about to deliberatively mislead this parliament and deliberately lie to Territorians.
Another example of the CLP’s behaviour is the over-allocation of water from vital Territory aquifers to facilitate the granting of licences to its mates.
Evidence from estimates hearings confirms the Minister for Land Resource Management – although he had previously denied it – was directly involved in the allocation of huge water licences to former CLP candidate Tina MacFarlane and former magistrate, CLP member of parliament and director of Foundation 51, Peter Maley.
In response to a written question, the minister denied he had ever discussed these licences with either Tina MacFarlane or Peter Maley but, under the pressure of questions during estimates, he confirmed he had held discussions, behind closed doors, about the licences and their business interests. On 17 June this year, the member for Katherine said:
He also said:
He was following the lead of his Chief Minister, who denied in parliament any involvement of his Cabinet in the allocation of water licences.
In awarding these licences, the government has ignored the legitimate interests of our stakeholders, including farmers, AFANT, Indigenous communities and the NT Environment Centre.
The appointment of Graeme Lewis as a director of the CLP slush fund, Foundation 51, was a clear conflict of interest from the start. He was appointed as Chair of the government’s Land Development Corporation. E-mails from Mr Lewis tabled in this Assembly, clearly indicate that, despite the denials, Foundation 51 fundraises for the CLP and supported its recent Blain by-election campaign. This is a clear breach of political donation disclosure provisions in Territory and Commonwealth legislation.
Former magistrate Peter Maley admitted recently that he had donated money to Foundation 51, and it is on the public record that he continued his directorship of the organisation whilst sitting as a magistrate. Despite this, the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General have persistently refused to investigate or terminate Mr Maley’s appointment.
We understand the Australian Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission are investigating the CLP’s slush fund, Foundation 51.
There are very close parallels between Foundation 51 and the corrupt activities of Eight by Five, a Liberal Party slush fund recently exposed by ICAC in New South Wales. A common thread between the New South Wales Liberal Party’s slush funds and Foundation 51 is the appointment of political mates to key positions in commercial and regulatory environments.
Let me run through some of the clear conflicts of interest on this list. Graeme Lewis, director of Foundation 51 and member of the CLP management committee, was appointed as Chair of the Land Development Corporation, and Denis Burke, a former CLP Chief Minister and political lobbyist, was appointed as Chair of the Development Consent Authority, causing grave concern in the Territory development community.
The Chief Minister has refused to disclose the details of financial arrangements and secret discussions with former Chief Minister Terry Mills, prior to his appointment to the created position of NT Commissioner to Indonesia and ASEAN, a role with a budget of $750 000 per year, footed by the Territory taxpayer.
This is extraordinary cronyism, which is causing concern across our community. This culture of cover-up and denial has been evident in the last two weeks in relation to the Chief Minister’s failure of leadership in dealing with the appalling behaviour of the member for Fong Lim. The CLP defended the indefensible. The Chief Minister refused to discipline the member for Fong Lim, and it took community outrage for you to even concede that Dave Tollner’s homophobic slur was inappropriate. Now, only a few days later, you are keeping open his return to the position of Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister because you lack leadership and the ability to maintain any standards of decency or governance. If it had not been for the leadership of the members for Goyder and Araluen in speaking out against this appalling behaviour, Dave Tollner would still be the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer.
On top of all this, the Chief Minister has refused to come clean on what he knows about the circumstances of magistrate Peter Maley’s resignation. The Chief Minister and Attorney-General have refused point blank to tell the truth about what they know about these serious matters. Why will they not come clean to Territorians? Why have they refused to conduct an inquiry? We have an inexperienced, arrogant and out of touch Chief Minister leading a government ridden by personal acrimony and dysfunction, imbued with a culture of cover-up. Stop the cover-up!
The CLP should accept the responsibility of cleaning up its party and government, and embark on good governance for the Northern Territory. The first step in this process of rehabilitation would be the removal of the Chief Minister who clearly is not up to the job.
The Chief Minister pretends his government is creating jobs, when unemployment has doubled under his watch. He pretends the carbon tax reduction in power prices is the family saviour, after his government has slugged households with $2000 in tariff increases, and small businesses have been slugged with increases in excess of $4500; that was apparently made up by Labor, despite appearing in a media release from the former CLP Treasurer, the member for Araluen.
He is a Chief Minister who pretends he is getting on with the job of improving education, when the government has slashed the Education budget by $15m. He pretends that only 35 teachers have been sacked from our schools when, during estimates, we discovered that number is at least 125. The Chief Minister pretends it is okay in the schools and that teachers are receiving great support, when the CLP has sacked 60 support staff. The Chief Minister pretends he is helping the most disadvantaged students, when he rejected the funding contained in the Gonski program. That funding would have gone to our most disadvantaged students who attend schools across the remote communities of the Northern Territory. Shame on you, Chief Minister! He pretends that slashing secondary education across remote areas of the Northern Territory is the right thing to do, when the people and families in communities are saying, ‘Leave our secondary education system in the bush. Do not strip it away. Do not have just a boarding school model for the Northern Territory.’ By all means, give our kids choice. Let there be boarding schools, but there should also be secondary education in remote communities across the Territory. You are a disgrace!
The Chief Minister pretends the $11m cut to the Health budget will not mean a cut to services in real terms, because he is busy pretending the reduction in elective surgery waiting lists is all because of him and his government, when it was achieved through federal funding provided under a federal health agreement delivered by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. That is okay, keep pretending. The Territorians accessing our services can see you are lying to them.
You pretend Labor is making up the crisis at Royal Darwin Hospital, when the Australian Medical Association called it that. The Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation said RDH is in crisis. Anyone who attends the Royal Darwin Hospital is spending an extraordinary amount of time in the ED, not through the fault of staff doing an amazing job, but because you, Chief Minister, keep lying about the state of our health system. You have presided over multimillion dollar cuts to the Health budget, whilst finding an extra $33m to add to the Department of the Chief Minister’s budget for one year. What does that department do? It provides advice to you, Chief Minister. It does not provide nurses, doctors or support staff in our hospital system, nor the teachers and support staff in our schools. It simply provides advice to the Chief Minister.
It is okay for you to have a $33m slush fund to pay for the glossy brochures you so desperately cling to during Question Time, and you are okay with the cuts to our schools and to watch our hospital in crisis. You pretend you are getting on with delivering Palmerston Regional Hospital, when the CLP has chosen an unserviced site, a decision that has blown out the hospital project by four years. We needed that hospital to continue on the time line set in place with a serviced site, but in your arrogance you had to choose a different one. You had to do that, despite the needs of the people of Palmerston and the rural area.
It is a disgrace. You put yourself before every Territorian and their needs. It is all about you; it is all about having fun and taking care of your job and your mates, and it is about jobs for the boys. It is all about how you can wash through the CLP’s slush fund money that you need to cling to power. You are a disgrace; you are not a Territorian, you are a blow-in. People say to me, ‘When is that blow-in going away? He does not represent us, he does not talk the way we do. When is he going away?’ It is unbelievable the way people talk about you, Chief Minister, because they can see real arrogance when it shouts at them from the television; they see it and they do not like it.
Territorians want a government that consults with the community. They want a government that puts education priorities ahead of its own $33m glossy brochure fund in the Department of the Chief Minister, and a government that will acknowledge the crisis at RDH. They want a government that admits it made a fundamental error when it stopped the use of the 100-bed medi-hotel, built for purpose to deal with subacute cases and to alleviate crowding at the Royal Darwin Hospital. You will not even state the figure; is it seven alcoholics or 15? In your culture of cover-up, whatever you do, do not state the real figure, but use the Territory-wide figure to say, ‘We have put 400 people through mandatory rehab’. Do not talk about the number of clients in the 100-bed medi-hotel, putting our hospital into crisis.
There are so many things, Chief Minister, that you get so terribly wrong. In planning, you hit the panic button because there was no land release in the booming Darwin and Palmerston environment that you could stamp as a CLP land release, even though you will rename, rebadge and reclaim Labor land releases across Johnston, Zuccoli – Mitchell Creek Green is to come – Muirhead and The Heights. You say, ‘These are our houses’. They are not, and Territorians know the truth. They know Labor planned and funded the infrastructure to turn off those new suburbs. You have desperately tried to find a place where you can say, ‘This is our land release’, and you chose the area we know as Holtze – in your arrogance you called it Palmerston north – and you chose Berrimah. What is happening to the research facilities at Berrimah, Chief Minister?
You are keeping the prison to put our juveniles and alcoholics in. We look forward to seeing your plans on what you can yield from a site that has a research farm and a gaol that will stay, or will we find out, at some stage, that what you have been saying is not true, and that the research farm will go? Who knows with this government, because what it says and what it does are two entirely different things. That is the lack of trust that Territorians have in you.
What you say and how you act do not match up. You will not rule out the return of Dave Tollner as Deputy Chief Minister, even though our community collectively decried his behaviour. You still defended him and will not rule out his return, such is your arrogance to press on with taking care of your mates above the interests of Territorians.
We hear the numbers are being crunched against you – little wonder. The polls tell us what we hear on the ground; you are sliding towards losing government, and there is no handbrake to put on. You are sliding because Territorians see through your lies; they cannot stand your arrogance and they see you do things against their interests.
As a Territory parent, I challenge the CLP government to reinstate education funding. As a person born and raised in Darwin, with family here to use the Royal Darwin Hospital, I challenge you, Chief Minister, to accept that the hospital is in crisis. Do not only bring 30 beds online in September; use the 100 beds at the medi-hostel that you blocked in your arrogance and haste.
You will not even listen to your own community in Alice Springs; you pretend that it is fantastic. You will not acknowledge that 120 businesses in Alice Springs, under your watch, have closed their doors. You will not count the number of empty leases in the Alice Springs mall. You will not acknowledge that one of the biggest manufacturers, OneSteel, has shut up shop in Alice Springs. You will not recognise the 340 business across the Territory which have closed their doors under your watch, because that does not matter to you. That is not what you are looking at; you are too busy trying to brand yourself as the man of northern Australia, a glossy brochure exercise in branding that is as shallow as a petri dish.
There is not a Territorian who does not want to see development; previous CLP and Labor governments have all worked for the development of northern Australia, but in your arrogance it is all about you calling yourself the only person – you said it on television the other day, and it was extraordinary to watch – able to bring these projects. No, Chief Minister, the projects are coming because of the work of those people in the role before you, and because we have the brownfield sites. The projects exist because Labor invested in a Marine Supply Base and the opportunity of chasing Ichthys, as well as investing time and energy to bring Bayu-Undan gas onshore to DLNG.
The conversation started under the previous CLP government, but it was landed by Labor. You are not big enough – you have not put the big boy pants on – to recognise who did the work. You are incapable of that, because it is all about you.
For the sake of the Territory, it is time for parliament to censure this incompetent Chief Minister. You cannot keep lying in the Chamber like you do and not be held accountable for it. There are things I would like to say in this debate about how grubby you were during Question Time today, form that you exhibit consistently. I will not, as I have Supreme Court action under way. As a Territorian, I believe in justice, the pursuit of natural justice and the sanctity and integrity of our judicial system. I do not blur the separation of powers as you, Chief Minister, so arrogantly and wrongfully choose to do.
You have brought this censure upon yourself through your actions.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, someone call the doctor; the Leader of the Opposition is on life support. That was one of the most embarrassing contributions I have ever heard in this Chamber. If ever there was an Opposition Leader on their last legs it is you.
Today is the day the member for Casuarina quits parliament. We are supposed to adjourn at 5 pm to speak in acknowledgement of his performance and service over the last 13 years, but instead of holding normal parliamentary debate and acknowledging his hard work, the Opposition Leader has put that in jeopardy.
Everyone who was to come in at 5 pm to listen to adjournment speeches and pay our respects as a House – it has now been thrown out the door, and we know the Leader of the Opposition …
Ms Fyles: Is that all you can say in response?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, I will not have one more interjection. Everyone on the other side was quiet while the Opposition Leader spoke, and I expect the same from that side. Thank you.
Mr GILES: We have a Leader of the Opposition on life support. The member for Casuarina, who should quite rightly be thanked for his performance in this Chamber – we know he is unhappy with the Leader of the Opposition; the eight members on the other side are divided at four all. We now have someone walking out in disgust with the Leader of the Opposition’s performance and, in a last gasp opportunity for vitriol and to drive the knife into the member for Casuarina, the member for Karama has decided to delay his acknowledgements at 5 pm. We must now decide if we should try to rush through things, so we can acknowledge the member for Casuarina on time and support him, or should we play the political game of the dirty, grubby Leader of the Opposition, who spoke lies throughout her speech?
I will tell you the first one – jump up, member for Nightcliff, and say you cannot use the word ‘lie’. Standing orders have been suspended; you must learn that one, surely.
The first lie was about price rises on small households – up by $2000 for electricity. What a complete lie! You know when Delia is lying because her lips are moving. It was disgraceful to hear that.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Surely we would continue to refer to members by their electorate names.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please refer to members by their electorate name, thank you.
Mr GILES: Yes, sorry, that was a slip of the tongue; I should have said ‘Leader of the Opposition’.
You know that whenever she stands to speak it will be a lie. Should I try to debate as a response to this pathetic censure motion or should I say, ‘What a waste of time in parliament’? We will listen to everyone say good things about the member for Casuarina – hopefully later today we can call him Kon, rather than the member for Casuarina – but we would like to say nice things about him at that point in time.
Let us talk about a couple of the other lies, one being the $30m of funding for the Chief Minister’s department. What is it? We have moved the Office of Asian Engagement and Trade from the Department of Business into the Chief Minister’s department. We have created the Northern Australia Development Office, and these things do cost money. The Indigenous economic development role is now in the Chief Minister’s department, along with $10m in additional regional roads infrastructure funding. There is $30m, but it is going towards roads, building businesses, creating economic opportunities, working with Asia and developing trade. It is ridiculous; you must develop a better argument.
You then talked about the cost of living; you did not talk about what we have done to reduce it. You did not talk about us increasing childcare subsidies by 10%; increasing the value of our Sport Voucher Scheme, which was introduced in the first two years of this government – from $75 to $200, with two $100-a-year instalments at the start and the middle of the year; doubling the value of the Back to School voucher; and allocating $132m for land release in this year’s budget – 6500 new blocks to achieve a better balance in the supply and demand equation for land.
No, the Leader of the Opposition did not talk about any of those issues. She also did not talk about things such as when Labor first came to government. I recall the former member for Millner, Matthew Bonson, releasing a flyer about the cost of living when he was standing for the seat of Millner. Amongst other things on the flyer, he said, ‘Labor’s petrol petition – why do we pay so much?’ He also urged people to sign the petrol price petition. That was Matty Bonson’s response to address petrol prices. How successful was he? On the flyer, it also says, ‘Darwin, the dearest for meat, fruit, veggies and petrol’ – again – as well as, ‘Labor takes action.’
What action did Labor take? When we came to government on 25 August 2012, what action had Matty Bonson taken? What action had the former Labor government Treasurer taken? Nothing!
Mr Westra van Holthe: Nothing. They drove up the cost of living.
Mr GILES: They drove up the cost of living, something we inherited. It is something we are taking action on across a range of areas and reducing costs to families, particularly through the work we are doing with the Sport Voucher Scheme, Back to School vouchers, childcare subsidies and land release.
Removing the carbon tax: Labor paraded the carbon tax, which has now been removed by the Coalition, saving a large household $245 per annum on average. That is a good thing. Labor fought hard all the way to stop the removal of the carbon tax.
I hear snide jibes and remarks from the Leader of the Opposition about portfolio or ministerial changes. These things happen in governments all the time. It is not about us, it is about the Territory and Territorians. To keep referring to that means you have lost control of what the game is about. Those of us involved in politics are in a bubble; we see it every day. You must look outside the bubble, Leader of the Opposition, and start recognising that it is about the Territory and Territorians.
That is why Territorians are so happy that we have reduced crime to the lowest level since the 1990s and wiped $1.3bn of Labor debt off our books. Our economy is the second strongest in the nation – jobs and growth. It is about our future, and ensuring our kids and grandkids have a future in the Northern Territory.
I have just referred to the member for Casuarina. The Leader of the Opposition talked the other day about changing ministries; did you know the member for Casuarina has been a minister on 28 occasions during his 13 years in parliament? I will talk about this later, Kon. Congratulations on being a minister, but if the Leader of the Opposition wants to say, ‘You have changed your ministry’, she should look in her own back yard – 28 ministries. You could say it was really 25, because he was given three ministries twice. But …
Mr McCarthy : Are you talking about 13 years or two years?
Mr GILES: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is chiming in. You must pat yourself on the back; this is the only time you will ever be the deputy.
The Leader of the Opposition then had the hide to talk about our northern Australia policy. She criticises it everywhere she goes, and she cannot stand it. She hates the fact that we have a plan for the future. The member for Casuarina supports it; he is a firm believer. He believes in cattle, mining, development, jobs and engagement with Asia. The Leader of the Opposition hates it. Now the member for Casuarina is leaving, who knows if we will keep the Leader of the Opposition or not? We will see which numbers come in. She lost her factional fight during the Casuarina pre-selection process, but we will see if there is someone with the smarts to get rid of the Leader of the Opposition and her deputy.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition do not support the northern Australia agenda, the member for Nhulunbuy hates everything under the sun – including the north Australia policy – the member for Nightcliff hates northern Australia and Ken Vowles is still learning to read about it, but I am sure he will take a similar line to the Leader of the Opposition because he …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62. That comment about the member for Johnston was offensive.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What was the comment? I missed it.
Mr GILES: I said he is still reading about the north Australia policy.
Ms FYLES: No, you said he is still learning to read.
Mr GILES: He is still learning to read about the north Australia development policy.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not find that offensive. Continue, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: I will send you some information on it.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask for a ruling under Standing Order 62; I found that offensive. Also, Standing Order 65 – refer to me by my electorate name.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been withdrawn. Continue, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: They do not support the north Australia policy agenda, and the member for Johnston just showed his ignorance about it. Everyone on this side of the Chamber supports initiatives to develop northern Australia, as do all of the stakeholders involved. The kids and the grandkids who want jobs tomorrow support north Australia development. The mums and dads who want to ensure we have a strong economy in the Northern Territory support it. The Coalition supports it, but who else supports it?
On the agenda for the Australian Labor Party’s Alice Springs branch meeting, held at 5.30 pm on Tuesday 26 August 2014 in Warren Snowdon’s office, under the guidance of president Adam Findlay, secretary Chansey Paech – also a councillor on the Alice Springs Town Council – and treasurer Judy Buckley, was a discussion about northern Australia development initiatives; this was Item 9.3, under general business.
While the Leader of the Opposition and her deputy, the member for Nhulunbuy and the members for Nightcliff and Johnston – I am unsure about the member for Fannie Bay, as he seems to show more intelligence around these policy initiatives. While they do not support it, even the Labor Party in Alice Springs is supporting it, calling for people to chat to them about northern Australia policy initiatives. Labor’s own branch in Alice Springs is supporting it, but the Leader of the Opposition is not. It is no wonder she does not have the support of the ALP in Alice Springs.
Returning to some of the lies the Leader of the Opposition likes to peddle, she is running a line saying 340 businesses are closing across the Territory. That is a lie. Three-hundred-and-forty businesses that have changed names, ownership or some statutory responsibility within their business structure have been picked up in a report. The Leader of the Opposition, who was a former Treasurer and Minister for Business, unashamedly seems to believe these businesses are closing, which they are not. She does not talk about the businesses that are opening and those businesses that are thriving in the Northern Territory.
During her contribution, a last gasp effort of her dying leadership of NT Labor, she made comments that many would take as offensive. I did not take it as offensive, but she made reference to me not being born in the Northern Territory, as if that is a bad thing. Leader of the Opposition, how many people living in the Northern Territory were not born here, and is there anything wrong with that? Is it wrong to be an Australian and move to the Northern Territory? What a derogatory thing to say, and what a sure sign that she is struggling under the mounting pressure of being the Leader of the Opposition, being incompetent in her role and not holding the support of four of the eight people she is supposed to represent. The cracks are showing. She is under extreme pressure, and it is time for her to go.
Member for Fannie Bay, when will you have the numbers again? Perhaps wait until after the Casuarina by-election, and you might achieve them by then. You might be able to convince someone; surely the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows it is time to get rid of her. He might swing his vote to you. Surely, member for Fannie Bay, you can put some intelligence into the other side of the debate.
As I said yesterday during Question Time, Territorians expect us to have good governance, policy, debate and direction. If we were not performing as a government I would take on the commentary, but crime and alcohol consumption are at their lowest levels since the 1990s, we have the biggest land release program in the Territory’s history and we have the second strongest economy.
I am leading the push to bring more gas coming onshore, as well as supply bases; I am the only one who can deliver it. When these things are happening, surely you must say there are good things occurring. You must be questioning why you do not have any policies on your side, apart from what you announced during the week about supporting award wages for prisoners who mow lawns for people in the community. Award wages for prisoners is the Labor Party’s policy. It was not on the agenda of the Labor Party meeting in Alice Springs, but the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to roll out this new gold policy of award wages for prisoners. It is unheard of, but I am not surprised, because she did not back the prison officers when they were under threat and had to use tear gas to save themselves. When prisoners were rioting, they had to use tear gas. No one likes to see tear gas used on kids, but you must protect employees. You would expect any political leader to back the staff and ensure they are safe. She does not back the staff, but decides to back the prisoners and call for award wages. It is outrageous, but I am not surprised, with the union base they operate in the Northern Territory.
That brings me to what we have done in two years. We are a government that likes to be open and transparent, and we are accountable and do not mislead. We call it as we see it. The question about who will be the next deputy leader – there are 13 people on this side. I am not nominating, but I hope all 12 will nominate. We want competition. We will not mislead, and I will talk about some of our successes. Of our successes, what has Labor fought?
Education: there has been a 4.4% increase in the Education budget, with total expenditure reaching $870m, and there is an additional $84m for education infrastructure. We have established a behavioural task force to tackle serious issues like bullying and antisocial behaviour. We have established a commission on Indigenous education, the first of its kind in more than a decade, to improve Indigenous education outcomes. We have made secondary school performance information available to parents, where Labor hid it in the past. We have identified five trial sites where will work to deliver better educational outcomes for some of our remote constituents in the Territory; this will be carried out through the school of the air.
In regard to Health, we will build the Palmerston hospital. We have not put up a fence and a sign, to be left forever. We have started building it on a bigger and better site, including a 24-hour emergency department. There is a two-year construction time line, starting in 2016. The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme has been reviewed, with subsidies increased for Territory families travelling interstate for medical reasons.
Cardiac surgery patients in Darwin and Alice Springs no longer have to travel interstate for CT coronary angiograms. We have allocated $4.46m for an additional 400 elective surgeries, and the Royal Darwin Hospital has also received $22.5m in upgrades, as has Alice Springs Hospital, with $24.9m spent on a new emergency department.
Four hundred people have completed the mandatory alcohol treatment program, helping them to beat the challenges of alcohol abuse and misuse. The program offers three months off the grog, restoring cognitive ability so these people have the opportunity to make decisions about whether they want to go back on the grog or change their lives. Many will go back on the grog, and we will put them back into the program for three months to help restore their cognitive ability again.
It is important to reflect on community safety, because crime is at its lowest level since the 1990s. We have abolished the Banned Drinker Register and introduced Alcohol Protection Orders, which are showing amazing results. Since we started in Tennant Creek, alcohol-based assaults are down 47%. If you were the New South Wales Premier Mike Baird, and you had achieved a 1% drop in alcohol-based violent assaults or crime, you would be singing it from the rooftops, and receiving much praise. We have achieved a 47% drop in Tennant Creek, and what does the member for Barkly have to say about it? Nothing! A 47% drop is amazing.
The Sentenced to a Job program for low-security prisoners: they are working in real jobs and contributing to the community they offended against, which saw them go to gaol.
We are strengthening and prioritising the role of school-based police officers, making sure they know their role is so important, and that their interaction with students to teach them the rights and wrongs in our society – to keep them out of gaol – is so important.
We have introduced tougher sentencing for violent crimes, including one punch legislation. I think we were the first jurisdiction in the nation to introduce one punch legislation, and others are now coming on board. We do not hide our crime statistics. Labor used to hide them; it would not release crime statistics to the public in case there was bad news. Not only are we driving down crime, but we are telling everybody about it. It is open to the public on a website, with monthly data released so people can see what has happened.
We have increased breath-testing programs to catch more drunk drivers, as we know that drink-driving is the biggest killer on the road, along with not wearing a seat belt.
We have installed CCTV cameras in many additional locations across the Territory, with 182 now operating. I look forward to announcing an increased roll-out into the future. It is not only about performance; we are also providing greater levels of resources to the security area.
Police all receive iPads so they have more opportunities to be out of the office and still access the computer system while on the beat, whether that is riding horses, being on motorbikes, in cars, walking or even on our new Segways. They have greater access to information to keep them out of the office and on the beat, which officers enjoy.
Labor likes to say nothing has been done in the bush. The bush is receiving all of our attention all of the time, and I will give a few examples of what we have done.
The Homelands Extra Allowance program: I wrote this policy in opposition; I looked at how we supported people living on homelands and outstations. Off the top of my head there were three categories of how homelands and outstations were funded. It was based on homes being one-, two-, or three-bedroom. A one-bedroom home was given about $685 per annum. I cannot remember the price of the two-bedroom home, but the three-bedroom home received around $1200 per annum. That funding was to support repairs and maintenance and capital upgrades.
Many would say outstations and homelands are on Aboriginal land, so they should have nothing to do with government and people should look after homes themselves. I understand why people say that, but I do not support that philosophical approach. There are roughly 5000 homeland/outstation dwellings in the Northern Territory, and if we do not support those dwellings with repairs and maintenance from an asset management point of view, and they deteriorate to the point of being no longer habitable, all of a sudden we will have families from 5000 homes entering the public housing system, if they cannot get into private or community housing. That presents an economic challenge for government in how to fund that, so it is better for us to look at funding those outstations and homelands houses properly, so they remain habitable.
We can provide a more supportive environment for families, people can choose to live on-country and not come into an urban location, and it also helps us in the longer run with the need for greater levels of investment in those 5000 homes. We sought to identify funding for that. I ran an economic analysis over repairs and maintenance funding across the Northern Territory, picked the Tennant Creek model, under which an average spend was, I think, about $5200 – this was spent per annum on an average home there – and we applied that formula across the Northern Territory.
It does not matter if you have a one-, two- or three-bedroom home, you are now supported through a $5200 one-off grant each year that can be rolled over to support capital management through upgrades, whether it is kitchens and bathrooms or replacements.
We have provided that $5200 so people have that more supportive environment. That is unheard of, going from $685 to $5200 a year, and is a massive increase for those homelands and outstations. It is an enormous capital investment, but we know the importance of people wanting to live on their homelands, remain on-country and live on their outstations, rather than in a dilapidated dwelling that is unhealthy, has inadequate environmental health infrastructure and is not a safe environment for kids. We have provided that supportive environment, and it is one example of what we have done in the bush.
We have also made structural changes to the Pastoral Act so pastoralists can invest in non-pastoral activities such as horticulture, growing fruit and veggies and sandalwood. It is the greatest change to the pastoral industry for a long time. We have said that pastoralists can have a lease on non-pastoral activity for 30 years – with a 30-year option – which means there is now not only a new alternate business investment model, but there can be a tradeable commodity, should pastoralists wish to sell it, based on infrastructure investment. It is a fantastic outcome.
Let us look at what we have done about the cost of living, for families and for the Territory lifestyle.
Every submission that comes to Cabinet has a cost of living measurement indicator. We consider if we are increasing or decreasing the cost of living. When the Cabinet submission came in regarding the doubling of the Back to School vouchers, it reduced the cost of living by $75. It was a fantastic investment. The value of sports vouchers has now increased from $75 to $200, putting downward pressure on the cost of living for parents and families across the Territory. There was the 10% increase in childcare subsidies, as well as broadening the scope of who they are supplied to.
We have started Festivals NT, an exciting new concept for events across the Northern Territory, included extra funding for the Darwin Festival, but also trying to link that to Asia and a greater level of Asian content, because Asia is our closest neighbour.
We have introduced a speed limit trial north of Alice Springs, as well as opened motor vehicle registries on Saturdays. We have also introduced online registration and a greater level of online transaction opportunities for those people attending the MVR or seeking to use MVR services, in order for them to have that access on weekends, not only during the week.
We have brought national and international sporting events to the Northern Territory, not only to watch them, but so we can participate and those sporting codes can invest in the Territory, potentially providing a pathway for Territorians to compete at a national elite level.
We have opened recreational fishing in Chambers and Finke Bays with the buy-back of commercial licences, something which was unpopular but which supported lifestyle opportunities for Territory anglers.
We established an independent NT Environmental Protection Authority, which runs the ruler over developments in the Northern Territory to ensure we are not developing willy-nilly and that we have a framework around environmental aspects to protect the Northern Territory into the future.
They are just a few of the commitments and new initiatives of the Giles Country Liberals government. It is fantastic to be part of such a team. In regard to the potential opposite, I shudder to think what would happen if Labor was in government. Crime would be through the roof, it would not be safe to walk the streets in Alice Springs again and it would not be safe in Tennant Creek or Katherine. Debt would be spiralling out of control, and investment in infrastructure would be stalling because of debt interest repayments. We would have more issues such as Territory government assets being handed over for free to union mates, such as what happened under the Stella Maris deal. They would remember the Stella Maris deal, when a $3m government asset was given to union mates with the flick of a pen by the Deputy Opposition Leader when he was the minister for Lands and Planning, on the eve of the 2012 election – a most despicable act.
Yet, Labor members like to criticise upstanding citizens such as the new appointee to the DCA, who went through a rigorous application process – I think there were seven applicants – and who came highly recommended as the best candidate. They also criticised the recommendation received by Cabinet, through the Attorney-General framework, regarding the appointment of Peter Maley. We received that recommendation, supported by the Attorney-General, and instead of being congratulated on the hard work they did in the past and will do in the future, candidates are attacked for their political thoughts, not because of their performance or ability.
The Leader of the Opposition, on some sort of life support vessel, trying to cling to her job in a last-gasp effort, delivered a rambling statement to parliament that made no sense at all, all the while checking for the member for Fannie Bay turning up with a knife to try to take her position. Member for Fannie Bay, you should do it.
This censure motion will not be supported. In fact, if I had my time again I would probably amend it to censure the Leader of the Opposition for her failure as an Opposition Leader in the Northern Territory.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, before we proceed I want to point out to members – I thought the Speaker had clarified this during the March sittings – that when there is a censure motion the standing orders are not suspended. The standing orders are suspended to allow the moving of the motion. Once the motion has been moved the standing orders prevail. I would like to point out to everyone that the standing orders are still there.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we are censuring the Chief Minister and this government for their lies, culture of cover-up and failure to govern with the integrity and honesty Territorians require.
This is a matter of trust. Territorians no longer trust this government to govern, to keep its promises, to do the right thing and to tell the truth.
The Leader of the Opposition told us of this government’s litany of failures and the reasons why this Assembly must censure the Chief Minister. I will focus on the poor judgment this government has exhibited over the two years – it is two years this week – since it was elected. I am, talking about the Maley affair, but what is it?
The following facts are not disputed. Peter Maley is a former CLP member of parliament, a personal friend of the member for Port Darwin, and was a director of Foundation 51, which has links to the CLP. He made a financial donation to the member for Port Darwin; the member for Port Darwin submitted Peter Maley’s name to Cabinet for appointment as a magistrate. Peter Maley was appointed a magistrate by Cabinet. The NT Bar Association asked for an independent inquiry into magistrate Maley’s conduct, but the Attorney-General and Chief Minister said no to this request. The NT News put 13 questions to magistrate Maley about some serious allegations; he has resigned. The Attorney-General said he was aware of the serious allegations.
As we know, Peter Maley was a CLP member of this House, which we have no problem with. In 2012 Mr Maley made a $5000 donation to the member for Port Darwin’s campaign, which was duly declared, and the opposition has no problem with that. The Attorney-General has confessed that Peter Maley is a friend, which we also have no problem with; the Territory is a small place. We know Peter Maley supervised the member for Port Darwin in his law firm while the future Attorney-General worked his way through his Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice – no problem.
In September last year Peter Maley was appointed as a magistrate. Who sponsored the submission brought to Cabinet? It was the Attorney-General, and he admitted this during estimates this year. I quote from the estimates transcript:
The member for Port Darwin excused himself from the vote, but he would never be rolled by Cabinet. The mere sponsoring of the Cabinet submission was tantamount to a vote. The member for Port Darwin’s Cabinet colleagues received a note from him, the first law officer, and he absented himself from the room, but his note remained. Those Cabinet ministers have a relationship with the Attorney-General, as they should, and in front of them was a note from the member for Port Darwin, based on which Mr Maley became magistrate Maley.
The member for Port Darwin wrote the note that saw his mate become an NT magistrate. Mr Maley helped the member for Port Darwin get elected and he helped him achieve his diploma. The Cabinet submission going in under the member for Port Darwin’s name made it a done deal.
In September last year solicitor Peter Maley accepted his commission and became a judicial officer, but it is soon apparent that he is not aware of how he should be conducting himself as a judicial officer. Every judicial officer in the land knows, or should know, of the Guide to Judicial Conduct (Second Edition). It is published on behalf of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia, including the NT Chief Justice. It is the bible on how judicial officers should act, and it is unequivocal. It says:
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to table this. I understand it is available online, but I have the formal copy in my electorate office.
Mr Elferink: I just want to read it. I am not trying to be smart; I need something to refer to while I am talking.
Mr GUNNER: The document says:
It obviously contains more than that. Point 2.2, ‘Judicial independence’ says:
Two months before the Blain by-election, Peter Maley crossed a more serious line. In January this year he became a director of Foundation 51. It is here in black and white. ASIC confirms that magistrate Maley was a director of the CLP’s slush fund, so why should we be concerned, as an opposition and as Territorians, about the Attorney-General’s lack of judgment, the Chief Minister’s lack of judgement and that magistrate Maley donated to and was a member of the CLP, as well as campaigning and fundraising for the party?
It is because it breaks every principle of independence that judicial officers are supposed to uphold. It is a breach of the guide to judicial conduct, the code of ethics and the doctrine of the separation of powers. It jeopardises the independence of the NT judiciary.
Do not take this from me as an ordinary member of parliament. Let us look at the concerns of the profession, the custodians of the integrity of the system. Members of the profession raised seven issues:
I held those documents up before.
Those were the serious concerns of the NT Bar Association, which begged for an independent inquiry, but this was refused by the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister.
After eight months in office, the penny dropped, and Peter Maley suddenly knew something was wrong; his resignation letter from the CLP and Foundation 51 acknowledged as much. I will quote from magistrate Maley’s statement, ‘I have resigned from the Country Liberals. I have informed Graeme Lewis that I will no longer have any involvement with Foundation 51. After careful consideration, I now recognise it is not appropriate for judicial officers to be a continuing part of the political process.’
Despite the magistrate acknowledging that and resigning, the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister were defending magistrate Maley’s actions, saying he should be welcomed as a member of a political party and allowed to campaign.
After months of withstanding pressure and hanging on to his judicial office by his fingernails, suddenly, Mr Maley resigned in a dead of night phone call to the Attorney-General. Why would he do that? After just 11 months, why would he suddenly pull the pin? He cleared the decks. He was no longer a member of the CLP; we know this from the party president, Ross Connolly, and magistrate Maley’s resignation. He was no longer a director of Foundation 51, and we know that from his statement.
According to the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General, he was a great magistrate doing a fine job, but he quit. Why? It is not in his nature. What is the truth? He said it is because he wants to return to private practice, but there is a road block there. If you look at the guide to judicial conduct, the one that was ignored, it is a no-no between one and five years. The Chief Minister and the Attorney-General know the real reason; the Attorney-General admitted it in this House and the media yesterday. It is not believable that Peter Maley resigned on the phone and did not tell the Attorney-General why.
The NT News is skewering you; it is a death by 1000 cuts. However, we have always preferred a Shakespearian death to a Hollywood one. Today, we learned that on 26 May this year Peter Maley was e-mailing a client. Why does a magistrate have a client? He wrote to the client that government would take on board ‘what business people like you and I say’. What have you taken on board, Chief Minister? What meetings have taken place? What lobbying has been done on behalf of his clients? How many ministers have met with him? What are you hiding?
On this side of the parliament, we have a hunch. We know that you are trying to save your skins over there, but the truth will come out. What did this government know? When did this government know it? What does it know about the serious allegations that have been put to the magistrate by the NT News? How complicit is the government in those allegations? We know the truth on this will come out. We know the NT News put 13 questions to magistrate Maley, and we know that the NT News is aware of the allegations. Magistrate Maley is obviously aware of the allegations, and has now resigned. The Attorney-General said in this House and in the media yesterday that he was aware of the allegations. Yet despite being aware of those allegations and the NT Bar Association’s concerns, he said no to an independent inquiry. We know the truth on this will come out; it always does. We on this side cannot wait to hear it.
Debate suspended.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If anyone wishes to make an accusation that the Speaker or Deputy Speaker are influenced by anything the Chief Minister says, I ask them to repeat it when they are called upon, rather than under their breath.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not normally vote on censure motions, but this gives me an opportunity to say a few words.
There was a famous comedy group around in the early 1930s, probably the 1920s as well, called Laurel and Hardy. I will quote from one of their movies called Chickens Come Home from 1931:
I will talk about the Peter Maley issue from my point of view, and tell you why the government has lost the plot. During the last election Peter Maley, who I have known for many years, stood at the Kormilda College election booth with his CLP mates, the member for Fong Lim, and our federal member, Senator Scullion. I was surprised – I thought they were good people – when they pulled out my how-to-vote card as people crossed the line and said, ‘If you vote for Gerry Wood, you vote for Labor’, which was an outright lie. That method was used at other polling booths, and I was disgusted.
My wife is not a political person, but she was upset at that polling booth because she had known Peter Maley for a long time. My sister, who travels from down south every time there is an election, stood up to those three people and told them that they were lying; she was trembling after she said it. That was my first knowledge of Peter Maley being involved in CLP politics.
We know – it is on the record – that Mr Maley donated to the Attorney-General as part of the same election campaign, and that has been declared by the Attorney-General. Peter Maley was then appointed as a magistrate by the newly-elected government in September last year. There is still a question about which committee elected him. We have not heard the names of the people on the committee that made the appointment.
Peter Maley was, whilst a magistrate, involved in party politics – I cannot believe that – during the Blain by-election. The Legislative Assembly passed a motion during this sittings period to inquire into political donations, and a few days after that Peter Maley resigned. No reasons were stated for his resignation, except for the Attorney-General saying, as quoted in the NT News, that he wanted to return to private practice.
The NT News also sent detailed questions to Mr Maley related to events before he was appointed to the bench and, according to the NT News, he responded with a threat to sue for aggravated damages if the story was printed.
I have been on the receiving end of letters which have said, ‘If you say any more, we will sue you’. Those types of comments mean two things, that there is an issue someone does not want to be aired in public or someone is trying to frighten you off.
The government, regardless of whether you believe everything is above board in relation to this matter – to the average punter who has seen and heard all of this, it looks like a farce brought on by what has become part of this government’s trademark: employing people who are members of the CLP in many influential arms of the government, and now it has come back to bite it.
I do not know why Mr Maley resigned, but if you want to clear the air, some further statements must be made, otherwise this will continue.
Perceptions in the community mean a lot more than what we say in here. The perception is that the government has gotten itself into another fine mess, and only has itself to blame.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, the approach to this motion by the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat superficial in that she started well and then petered out for a conversation around the room. Is there real passion in this censure motion? I suspect not. It is all part of political manoeuvring.
I listened to many complaints and manoeuvring comments in relation to the soon to be former magistrate, Mr Peter Maley, and I will make these observations. The process in which he was selected was unusual in that I was not involved in the committee’s decision, other than to establish the committee itself. The magistrate who took on the role very quickly built a reputation as a good, fair magistrate; I received that feedback. Did he make mistakes of judgement about his roles in the CLP? Perhaps he did, but that is now largely academic because he has resigned.
The arguments put forward by members of the NT Bar Association were about Mr Maley’s continued role in the Country Liberals, in spite of the fact he resigned his membership. It was an exercise in overreach, because by the time it was over, Mr Lawrence had declared – this was acknowledged in a question by the Leader of the Opposition – that democracy was dead in the Northern Territory and the rule of law no longer existed, or words to that effect.
I could not help but think of the irony, for a person to suggest during Question Time that democracy is dead; you have missed the point.
I will not revisit any more of that, as enough has been said and people will have formed their own opinions. That is that.
I will talk about opposition members’ comments about the separation of powers. There were quotes provided from the Guide to Judicial Conduct about how judicial officers should conduct themselves, and it is a document that sets a very high bar, but I would like you to think about that in the context of the community in which we live as well, in one important way. A city of 150 000 people is a village when you compare it to some of the larger jurisdictions down south. The level of separation encouraged in that document qualifies it in terms of judgement. The doctrine of the separation of powers, at its most fundamental expression, is that a judge, or somebody who is a member of the judiciary, cannot be employed in the executive, nor can they hold a seat in a parliament. A person who is a member of the executive, namely a paid public servant, cannot be a judicial officer, nor can that person sit in a parliament.
As a member of parliament I cannot take the king’s shilling, which means that if I was to work on behalf of the Crown – for example if I became a part-time officer in the Army Reserve – I could not be paid because of the position I hold in the Legislative Assembly.
The doctrine of the separation of powers was something that grew from the English system of conventions over many hundreds of years and was adopted by a French philosopher, Montesquieu, who looked at it very closely and then sought to describe it as being separate in a different way. That is the way it is expressed in the United States, where the head of state is elected, whereas our head of state is the Crown through the Governor-General and the Administrator. Being an elected head of state they can choose their own ministry or Cabinet, who are not ministers as you and I would recognise them. They are essentially CEOs of departments; they are part of the executive, completely separate from the judiciary.
The President of the United States does not walk into Congress but by way of special invitation. Members of Congress cannot be part of the executive in the United States and be on the judiciary; it is a very clear set of delineations. In the Westminster system, through growing up over years and through a series of conventions, it is not as clearly articulated, and by virtue of the fact that you have members of the executive council occupying seats in this House, it is a different system that has developed as a result of the establishment of conventions.
Many people are surprised to learn that England does not have a written constitution. It has a series of doctrines and conventions. One of those doctrines is the doctrine of responsible government, which means that members of the executive – in a sense, they are ministers of the Crown who provide advice to the Crown – are held accountable to the people through also being members of parliament.
People would be surprised to discover that in the Australian Constitution you can be a minister of the Crown without being a member of parliament for as much as, I think, three months, so there are ways that conventions are observed. Over time, this has been extrapolated to create even greater distances between the branches, but you cannot get to the point in our system where the distance between the branches is so extreme that they stop talking to each other.
If you were to use that yard stick – and it is the one suggested by the member for Fannie Bay – if I was invited to a CLANT conference, and the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory was there arguing against mandatory sentencing in an effort to influence the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, you could argue that it was an attempt to breach the separation of powers in trying to bring pressure to bear on the Attorney-General. That would be errant nonsense; of course I expect jurists to speak to me about matters of social policy, as they do all the time.
Am I allowed to socially engage with members of the judiciary? I heard the member for Fannie Bay suggest that I should not be able to, and they should not be able to engage with me. What does it mean when I have dinner with a number of magistrates, at their invitation? It means that I have dinner and a social engagement but, during that dinner, issues of social public policy come up, and they make suggestions and provide ideas. That is not a breach of the separation of powers, but is it strictly within the bounds of the Guide to Judicial Conduct, as interpreted by the member for Fannie Bay? It is not at all.
The member for Fannie Bay and others have interpreted how the separation of powers works. He created such a rarefied example of it that, in a community of 150 000 people, in a Territory of 250 000 people, it is almost impossible to meet the expectations of the member for Fannie Bay. Should he ever become a minister of the Crown, I suspect that whenever a jurist comes within 200 yards of him, he will place a bucket on his head and pretend not to see them.
Moving on to other comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, I am very irritated by the attack on what we are doing in the Corrections system in the Northern Territory. I fully endorse the irritation of the Chief Minister, who answered the first question during Question Time on that topic, which the Leader of the Opposition has called slave labour. When Labor was in government, prisoners were paid between $22 and $44 per week to clean gutters and parks and work in people’s gardens. It was a good program, and we extended it. To them, that is not slave labour, that is part of, when you are in government, saying to a person, ‘You are accountable for your actions; you will do penance and pay back to the society you have wronged.’ Acknowledging that, and expanding that program, was something this government chose to do. The now well- established Sentenced to a Job program, through which many people go to work for full-time wages every day, is a program that continues to enjoy success. I acknowledge and thank the members opposite, historically, for their support of the program, but that seems to be waning.
We have reached the stage where the members opposite have said that any person who is working must automatically be paid award wages when they are in the prison system. That is a long bow to draw. We provide labour from the prison system into the commercial space, a commodity that there continues to be a shortage of, particularly in a number of industries in the Northern Territory. We know that because many of those jobs are not filled by Territorians; they are filled by backpackers and 457 visa workers. Of all the money that is earned by these people, some of it is spent in the Northern Territory, the rest is saved and there are no jobs, whilst Aboriginal people continue to languish, unemployed, in gaols and their communities.
From time to time, sadly, people come through the gaol system. We can stick them in a cell and do nothing with them except feed them, clothe them and then lead them to the front door at the expiration of their sentence, open it in front of them and let them step through before it hits them on the backside, and they are just as unemployed and unemployable as the day they arrived. How is that a good outcome?
The former minister for Corrections acknowledged this and, to his credit, started some work release programs, of which there could have been many more. When I became the Minister for Correctional Services, not only did I think work should be part of the prison system, I thought it should be the core of it.
I am often asked how many Aboriginal people are in custody, and the answer is 80% to 85%, depending on the time of the week. The better question to ask is: how many people were unemployed and welfare-dependent at the time of their offending? The former question smacks of eugenics, whilst the latter question smacks of humanity. Unemployed people who are welfare-dependent are over-represented in a more pronounced way than Aboriginal people in the Corrections system. We should attend to the strongest correlation when comparing the two.
Aboriginality does not factor into the Sentenced to a Job program. If you are Aboriginal, female, male, Muslim, Buddhist or a Christian you will not be measured by that. You will be measured by whether or not you are doing what is necessary to achieve a full-time, fully-paying job in the community.
When I took over the Corrections system the number of open-rated prisoners – those prisoners established as being capable of leaving custody and trusted to do so – was about 50. Prison behaviour has changed since the opportunity for real training and real jobs in real workplaces has come up. We have not allowed the standard of measuring an open-rated prisoner to change. From day one I said that the classification system is at the heart of this whole thing, and integral to its continued success.
The continued success of the program is also reflected in an important way, in that without changing the classification system we have gone from about 50 open-rated prisoners to 350, because these people suddenly realise that whilst they are in gaol they have an opportunity to achieve full-time work. Some of these people also have an opportunity to be trained.
We told Sunbuild that we wanted to undertake some training and build some cattle yards, and we won a contract worth about $250 000 for the AACo abattoir in the Livingstone area. The only other tenderer for that contract was a Chinese company. The work could have gone to China, and the steel and equipment would have been purchased in China or, alternatively, the work could have gone to the Northern Territory as a training package. For that reason we have substantially increased the recruitment of people who are trade-skilled to become teachers of people in the Corrections system.
If we are offering labour to the community, the business model we use in value-adding that labour product with training makes sense. Once a person is trained in how to use a welder, in the business of constructing cattle yards or in whatever product is required, in partnership with local companies in competition with companies outside of this jurisdiction, that has to be so much better. All of a sudden we have achieved $250 000 worth of training, enthusiastically paid for by a company that wants to obtain its social licence, as well as the head contractor, AACo, wanting to support its social licence by helping people in the Corrections system. Is it more complex than putting a person in gaol? My word it is. Is it difficult and time-consuming to organise? Yes, it is, but initial figures from the Sentenced to a Job program demonstrate that the number of active recidivists who have come through it is substantially lower, so much so that I hope that we can coax a doctoral student in the not so distant future to do their thesis on what we are doing in the Sentenced to a Job domain.
I remain positive about what we do and what this government is doing. It is churlish for the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss it as slave labour when it is helping people to receive training, skills and full-time paid work, which the Leader of the Opposition says that she believes in.
I am proud of what we have achieved. I am proud of what we are doing, and this censure motion is errant nonsense.
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly establish the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee pursuant to terms circulated. I understand the Labor Party supports this, so what more can I say? This is the fulfilment of a promise made that when structural separation occurred the appropriate review processes would be adhered to, therefore, I have nothing more to say, and I will leave it to the opposition.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the member for Wanguri, as the shadow minister and a member of the Public Accounts Committee, has taken most interest in when the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing was to occur. We welcome the establishment of the committee and look forward to examining the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation.
There are many unanswered questions about the government’s management of the three GOCs. Whilst not an exhaustive list, issues that impact directly on Territory families and businesses include tariff increases for electricity, water and sewerage; the implications of the CLP’s privatisation agenda; higher prices and reduced reliability; the implementation of the Utility Commission’s recommendations arising from the disastrous System Black in March; the full cost of splitting the Power and Water Corporation, and the implications for consumers; the impact of network charges and how they will be managed under the new administrative arrangements of the three GOCs; the impact of the Power and Water Corporation’s split on Indigenous Essential Services and remote customers; and the government’s agenda for the Territory to enter the National Energy Market.
Now that the disgraced former Treasurer is languishing on the backbench, can the minister inform the House who will be the shareholding minister until the member for Fong Lim returns to his old job? I think that is decided on Monday. We thank the minister for establishing the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, and we support the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, to answer the question from the member opposite, the Chief Minister will make that determination once the Country Liberals determine who will be the deputy leader. Once the portfolios have been divvied up, the appropriate minister will be described by the Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I think this will be the shortest motion in the history of this parliament. I move that the Assembly amends its resolution of 26 March 2014 establishing the Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder by deleting ‘October’ in paragraph six and inserting instead the word ‘November’. I proceed without explanation.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): I have spoken to our members of the committee about this request. We support the motion, and we can move a quicker motion one day.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the paintball provisions in the Firearms Act. In 2007 the Firearms Act established paintball licensing in the Northern Territory. Paintball is now offered as a recreational sporting activity by three operators in the Northern Territory.
A review of paintball legislation was conducted in 2012 and updated in 2013.
This included interviews with local paintball operators, who all supported a reduced age limit. Both reviews have recommended that the age of paintball participation be reduced to the age of 14 years, with parental consent.
The purpose of the bill is to reduce the age of participation in paintball to 14 and older, with parental consent required between the ages of 14 and 18 years. The amendment brings the Northern Territory into comparative alignment with other jurisdictions, where the age of participation in most states and territories is under the age of 18. Western Australia and South Australia allow 12-year-olds to participate in this sport, but the NT police review recommended we change the age to 14.
The industry is already heavily regulated for safety, and operators will be required to ensure that the personal protective equipment they provide is age appropriate.
This bill supports the expansion of paintball businesses in the Northern Territory. It also supports the Northern Territory government’s commitment, as part of the Framing the Future blueprint, to improving business productivity and competitiveness, and supporting an active lifestyle in the Territory.
The government believes the change will expand the range of recreational activities for young Territorians, at the same time as making the Territory’s three paintball businesses more sustainable. Paintball is an increasingly popular outdoor activity for young people, and improving the business opportunities for paintball operators adds diversity to recreational options in the Territory.
Local operators have expressed strong support for the change, telling the government that they frequently have to turn young people away under the current arrangements. They have told the government that broadening the demographic of those able to participate will make their businesses more viable. This change is a win for young people and for business.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL
(Serial 95)
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 main purpose of this bill is to make consequential amendments to various Northern Territory laws, including updating superseded references and correcting typographical and grammatical errors and omissions. None of the amendments contained in the bill constitute changes in government policies or programs.
The bill follows the general pattern of statute law revision bills in revising and correcting the laws of the Northern Territory in minor respects. The bill provides for a comprehensive statute law revision of acts and regulations, including the:
Administration and Probate Act
Adult Guardianship Act
Advance Personal Planning Act and Regulations
Associations Act and Regulations
Building Regulations and Building (RBI and Fidelity Fund Schemes) Regulations
Bushfires Act and Regulations
Carers Recognition Act
Commercial and Private Agents Licensing Act
Commercial Passengers (Road) Transport Act
Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act
Crimes at Sea Act
Cross-border Justice Act
Darwin Port Corporation Act
Director of Public Prosecutions Act
Disability Services Act
Education (College and School Councils) Regulations
Evidence Act
Firearms Regulations
Fisheries Regulations
Gaming Machine Act
Gene Technology (Northern Territory) Act
Health and Community Services Complaints Act
Health Practitioners Act
Housing Act
Interpretation Act
Law of Property Act
Legal Profession Act and Regulations
Local Government (Accounting) Regulations
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) (Natural Uniform Legislation) Act
Mental Health and Related Services Act
Mineral Royalty Act
Misuse of Drugs Act
National Gas (Northern Territory) Act
Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act
Pastoral Land Act
Pearl Oyster Culture Industry Management Plan
Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act
Police Administration Act
Private Hospitals Act
Public and Environmental Health Act
Public Trustee Act
Racing and Betting Act
Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act
Serious Crime Control Regulations
Serious Sex Offenders Act
Stamp Duty Act
Status of Children Act
Surveillance Devices Act
Taxation Administration Act
Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
Terrorism (Emergency) Powers Act
Traffic Regulations
Transplantation and Anatomy Act
Uncollected Goods Regulations
Unlawful Betting Act
Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act
Waste Management and Pollution Control Act and Waste Management and Pollution Control (Administration) Regulations and
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
Most of the amendments in the bill are generally self-explanatory. However, I draw your attention to some of the amendments. Regulation 39C(3) of the Building Regulations; regulation 14(1)(d)(i) of the Education (College and School Councils) Regulations; section 146(1) of the Gaming Machine Act; regulation 5(2)(b) of the Local Government (Accounting) Regulations; and regulation 3 of the Advance Personal Planning Regulations are all amended to include the Institute of Public Accountants in their definitions of ‘accountant’. The Institute of Public Accountants is already included in the Associations Act, the Unit Titles (Management Modules) Regulations and the Unit Title Scheme (Management Modules) Regulations. These changes were made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 and it was suggested that there should be consistency across the statute book.
As a professional body of accountants in Australia, membership of the Institute of Public Accountants is equivalent to that of other bodies referred to in the legislation, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and the CPA Australia.
The Bushfires Act and Bushfires Regulations are amended to replace any reference to the ‘director’ with ‘chief executive officer’. This reflects changes in administrative arrangements, as the Director of the Parks and Wildlife Commission is no longer the appropriate office to have these powers. As such, the powers will be vested in the chief executive officer of the agency administering the act.
Amendments to the Crimes at Sea Act are based on amendments made to the corresponding Commonwealth and New South Wales crimes at sea legislation, including the repeal of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Cth).
The National Gas (Northern Territory) Act and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are amended to reflect the renaming of the Commonwealth Petroleum Act to the Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act (Cth).
Further, the bill repeals the following laws, which are redundant because the laws either relate to legislation that has been repealed or contain amending provisions that have been spent:
various ‘Amendment of Alice Springs (Control of Public Places) By-Laws’
Care and Protection of Children (Children’s Services) Regulations 2009 and amending regulations
New Tax System Price Exploitation Code (Northern Territory) Act 1999
Petroleum Products Subsidy Ordinance 1965 and amending legislation, and
Sentencing of Juveniles (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide the chairperson of the Northern Territory parole board with greater discretion regarding the attendance of members at parole board meetings. The bill will assist the parole board to fulfil its responsibilities to prisoners, victims and the community. The bill enables the chairperson to authorise a psychologist or medical practitioner who has already been appointed as a member of the parole board under section 3B(1)(d) to attend general meetings.
As it stands, the appointed psychologist or medical practitioner can only attend meetings that are scheduled to consider matters about a prisoner who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder. This will now allow the chairperson to utilise the expertise of those members appointed to the parole board in other serious matters where prisoners have received lengthy sentences of imprisonment for offences such as manslaughter and serious sexual offences.
With the introduction of self-government, the Parole of Prisoners Act commenced on 3 September 1979, replacing the Parole of Prisoners Ordinance 1971. Since commencement of this legislation there have been many changes to the operation of the parole board. The biggest changes of an operational nature are the increasing number of matters before the parole board for its consideration.
The pressure of increasing numbers was addressed by changes passed in October 2013 to increase the number of members of the parole board from 10 to 18. This increase in membership provides the chairperson with the flexibility to schedule two meetings a month. The two meeting model has been in operation now for five months.
With this legislation we seek to address the other major issue for the parole board; the increasing complexity of assessing the risk of recidivism and formulating appropriate conditions of parole for prisoners who have served lengthy sentences of imprisonment.
There is now much a greater recognition of the cognitive disabilities experienced by many prisoners who have committed serious offences. There are numerous factors which contribute to these disabilities, including foetal alcohol syndrome, exposure to domestic violence at a young age, substance misuse and the failure to thrive. Many prisoners who suffer from cognitive disabilities also suffer from a range of personality disorders. Consequently, making an accurate assessment of the crimogenic needs and risks of these prisoners and formulating the appropriate conditions of parole may be a very complex matter, and members of the parole board who are either a psychologist or medical practitioner are ideally qualified to assist the parole board in making such decisions.
Joint case management has also become a major issue. The prisoner may be engaged with other statutory systems such as child protection or mental health. Joint case management aims to ensure that there is a balance between the requirements of each agency, the needs of the parolee and the safety of the community.
Once again, members of the parole board who are either psychologists or medical practitioners are able to assist in formulating conditions of parole and management and supervision plans that ensure there are consistent messages, and that there is not a negative interaction between the case plans of the various agencies.
The use of psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ reports as part of sentencing and prisoner management is becoming more common. As a result, the parole board has increased access to specialist information about prisoners who are being considered for parole. This information can be complex, and if the proposed amendments are made the parole board will have the assistance of specialist input to ensure accurate interpretation.
Decisions made by the parole board have an impact on the community as a whole. These changes to the Parole of Prisoners Act will ensure that members of the parole board have access to appropriate specialist assistance in matters involving serious criminal offences, and that the interests of the community are protected. They will assist in ensuring that the Northern Territory does not experience the problems that have occurred interstate as a result of both the release of prisoners who should not have been released parole and the inadequate management of prisoners who have been released on parole.
The parole board is a critical element of the criminal justice system, and I believe it is essential that they are supported in this important role. I have taken advice from the Hon Justice Stephen Southwood, chairperson of the parole board. The chairperson identifies that there are an increasing number of matters before the parole board each month, which involve complexities that I have referred to, and where the parole board would be assisted by those members of the board who have specialised training and experience in dealing with these complexities. Consistent with the recent amendments to the Parole of Prisoners Act, this will ensure that there are no delays in considering matters before the parole board while clarification is sought about the content of expert reports and the assessments contained in them. It will also enable the parole board to expeditiously determine what are appropriate conditions of parole and how best to ensure the safety of the community and the best outcome for prisoners.
It is necessary to pass these amendments as soon as possible to prevent any hardship being caused to the board. This hardship is manifest in a number of ways; for prisoners it appears as delays in their applications; for victims it is the waiting on tenterhooks with each delay to hear an outcome; for the parole board it adds to an already increasing number of matters at each meeting.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, In accordance with section 39(7)(a) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, as shareholding minister for the corporations I table the Power Retail Corporation, Power Generation Corporation and Power and Water Corporation interim 2014-15 Statements of Corporate Intent.
The SCI is the annual performance agreement between a government owned corporation and the shareholding minister on behalf of all Territorians as owners of the corporations.
Information of a commercially-sensitive nature has been removed from the SCIs tabled today on the basis that it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporations by disclosing commercially-sensitive information that no private sector business would be expected to release.
In early 2013 the Northern Territory government announced a package of reforms for the Territory electricity industry to improve its efficiency, as well as to facilitate greater levels of private sector investment. To achieve this, the Northern Territory government announced in September 2013 that it was separating the contestable generation and retail business units from the regulated network and water and sewerage functions of the Power and Water Corporation to create three stand-alone government-owned corporations.
Following the passage of the structural separation legislation in the Northern Territory parliament on 6 May 2014, the Power Retail Corporation and the Power Generation Corporation commenced operations on 1 July 2014 under the trading names Jacana Energy and Territory Generation, or the shortened trading name T-Gen.
Jacana Energy has taken up the functions previously performed by the Power and Water Corporation retail business unit, while T-Gen now undertakes the functions of the generation business unit. The residual Power and Water Corporation will continue to operate the electricity network, as well as provide water and sewerage services and deliver the Indigenous Essential Services program.
Under section 39(2)(c) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, the board of a government owned corporation is required to provide an SCI to the shareholding minister one month before the financial year it relates to or at the date agreed by the board and the shareholding minister. Given the large body of work, prior- and post-commencement of the financial year, to facilitate structural separation it was agreed with the boards of the three government owned corporations to delay the delivery and tabling of the SCIs until they had established starting financial positions. A post-structural separation due diligence exercise is being performed by the corporation’s respective boards to ensure they are in the best possible position to provide efficient electricity. As such, the SCIs I table today are interim in nature and do not yet fully reflect stand-alone corporations. The financial positions underpinning the SCIs are to be updated once the respective boards have completed their post-structural separation due diligence processes. These interim SCIs demonstrate that the boards of Jacana Energy, T-Gen and the Power and Water Corporation are focused on delivering their core business activities.
Under the old vertically integrated monopoly model such focus would not have been possible, due to the complexity of governing a multifaceted entity comprised of different business lines, each possessing its own unique challenges. This specialised focus will mean the boards can better drive efficiencies within their respective businesses. As Jacana Energy, T-Gen and the Power and Water Corporation become more efficient, so too will the electricity they supply, produce and transport. The aim of these reforms is to improve the financial transparency and accountability of the Territory’s owned utilities, which should ultimately deliver benefits for consumers.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I table the two-year report into the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act.
This report is somewhat damning of the plastic bag legislation not achieving its intention of reducing the amount of landfill. It is rather sad, because this is one of those areas where, again, the previous government, much like the cash for cans legislation, was very well intended. I have read this report time and time again; the surveys undertaken indicate people are accustomed to paying an extra 15c or 20c for a bag today, and some of the comments were that bags are of a better quality for shopping, etcetera. I recall the minister at the time saying that one of the intended outcomes was to improve the environment through less plastic entering landfill.
There has been an increase of over seven million reusable bags which, according to this report, need to be used a massive 10 times before they benefit the environment. This report also indicates that less than half of the bags are being used to the point where they benefit the community. In real terms there is more plastic in circulation, not less. That is worse for the environment, not better, and that is not good enough. This is a result of decisions made with good intentions, without any regard for what those intentions were supposed to achieve.
As legislators we are responsible for ensuring that changes we make to the law are for the benefit of Territorians, not to push a political barrow chasing green credentials. The same thing occurred with the Container Deposit Scheme, which was built on the back of a green agenda designed to benefit Labor at the ballot box, rather than the environment. It looks like the plastic bag scheme is another green basket case where we will be left to clean up the mess, just like cash for cans.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: this government does not chase green credentials. We get on with looking after the environment. There is a big difference between looking like you care for the environment and actually doing the job. The government is committed to delivering the latter, unlike those opposite, who only look to appease interest groups at the expense of the environment. This government will now work with the Northern Territory EPA – another environmental initiative of this government that is delivering results – to see how we can fix the mess. We have already done it with the Container Deposit Scheme, and we will do it again with the plastic bag ban.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, this does not mean we will, all of a sudden, throw this legislation out. It means we need to look at the legislation and, as with cash for cans, do what we have to do to see if it can meet the intended outcomes. As I said, I have repeatedly read this independent report, and the EPA has had it as well. Every time I read the report I think about minister Hampton’s statement, which said that the legislation was well intended. I understand that, but as the shadow Environment minister at the time I asked minister Hampton, ‘Have you considered other methods around the world? Have you considered other methods of reducing the amount of plastic bags going to landfill?’ Just like the cash for cans legislation, it appeared that the decision had been made and they were going to go ahead with it, whether it would work or not. I clearly remember minister Hampton saying at the time that it would lead to less plastic going to landfill.
There was not a very effective way of measuring the amount of plastic going to landfill at the time. I asked questions about how much plastic was currently entering landfill, and how much plastic would not go to landfill after the legislation was introduced. I wanted answers to my questions through this review.
How successful has this campaign been in reducing the amount of plastic entering landfill? It has not been a success. This legislation has led to Territorians paying more today for bags every time they go shopping, and the shops making a little money out of it. They love the scheme – not that they will tell you – but you must look at retail sales. Some of the figures we have seen indicate that the sale of plastic bags, like bin liners, has grown significantly since this legislation was introduced. These bags are costing between 3 c and 5 c to produce, and the companies are selling them for 15 c, so they are making a profit on each one. Many of these bags are being used once, perhaps twice. As I said earlier, these heavy-duty plastic bags must be used at least 10 times each before they provide a return to the environment. I do not know how many times people use these plastic bags, but I guarantee, given the figures, that the majority of the population do not use them anywhere near 10 times.
One of the schemes I asked minister Hampton to look at was one operating in Ireland, where there was a fee placed on bags, but it did not go back to the shopping centres or the retailers; it went towards environmental work. Under the Irish scheme the fee that was attached to every plastic bag sold went into a fund that directly supported environmental initiatives. There has been a remarkable turnaround in Ireland, with a reduction in plastic bag use; it is a phenomenal difference where once, every fence in windy areas of the country was covered with throwaway, single-use plastic bags. Today it is a different environment, with far less plastic entering landfill because of that initiative, and the environment directly benefits through the fund that was created, rather than the money returning to retailers.
Retailers, whether they are large ones like Coles or Woolworths, do not care how many bags are used today. They promote the use of as many bags as possible. Why? Because they make money out of them. But that does not directly help the environment.
This does not mean that this government will say that legislation is no good and throw it out. We will see what we can do about it. Firstly, I will prepare a report, based on this review’s findings, for Cabinet, and put it to Cabinet members that we must find a way to reduce the number of plastic bags entering landfill. If we must amend this legislation to achieve it, that should be our aim.
The community also needs to be involved in this, because the findings of this report indicate that most people are used to it, which is not hard to understand when the initiative has been in place for two years. People become accustomed to things after a period of time; people are now even used to cash for cans, whether they like the scheme or not.
We have worked hard to fix the legislation to ensure its continued success, and it is the same with the plastic bag component of this legislation. It is not reaching the intended outcomes that were first raised. It is well-intended legislation, but the mechanisms have not lead to an improvement in our environment.
We must, as a government and a community, ensure the intent of this legislation, the previous government and the previous minister, who I commend for trying to reduce the amount of plastic entering landfill – if the legislation that we enacted in this House is not working as intended, what should we do? Should we accept that people are used to it now, so keep it going and to hell with the environment? That is not good enough. If there is a way to strengthen or amend this legislation to reduce the amount of plastic going to our landfill, and we have the interests of the environment at heart, we should do it.
I table the review provided by RawTec for everyone to read. I hope when people have read it they will understand what I am trying to achieve. I am not trying to take away the intent of the original legislation of the previous government, but if the method is not working let us find one that will reduce the amount of plastic entering landfill.
MOTION
Note Paper – Stella Maris Inquiry Report
Continued from 19 June 2014.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, on 19 June this year I made a statement and laid on the table the Stella Maris inquiry report. At that time I moved that the paper be printed and sought leave to continue my remarks at a later time, which I do today.
The Stella Maris inquiry has revealed Labor’s true colours in giving its union mates a rent-free lease for a $3m CBD property. It was a grubby, underhanded deal that amounts to an outrageous betrayal of trust. On 5 December 2013 the Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to establish the inquiry into Stella Maris under the Inquires Act. On 18 December 2013 Her Honour the Administrator, Sally Thomas AC, appointed Mr John Lawler to conduct the inquiry into Stella Maris.
Mr Lawler is eminently qualified to lead the inquiry after 34 years in law enforcement and the past five years as Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission. This is a man who Labor’s attending counsel has smeared as biased.
Commissioner Lawler commenced work on the inquiry into Stella Maris on 13 January 2014, and delivered the inquiry report to the Administrator on 26 May 2014. The inquiry included a search warrant being executed at the offices of Unions NT, where documentation relevant to the inquiry was accessed. There was a call for public submissions to the inquiry, and public hearings were held across nine days in February 2014, five days in March 2014 and one day in April 2014. A number of summonses were also served on NT government agencies for relevant documentation.
Witnesses who appeared before the inquiry included former members of the Legislative Assembly, former ministerial advisors, current and former NT public servants and representatives from local government, community organisations and interest groups.
One former government minister, and the current Deputy Opposition Leader, Gerry McCarthy MLA, was recalled for misleading the inquiry. Commissioner Lawler undertook a comprehensive and broad inquiry into the decision by the former minister for Lands and Planning, Gerry McCarthy, to grant a lease over the Stella Maris site to Unions NT the day before the caretaker period of the 2012 election.
The report, titled Inquiry into Stella Maris – 2014, was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 19 June 2014. Commissioner Lawler produced 20 findings and 21 recommendations. I encourage those of you who have not read the report to read it online on the inquiry website. It is damning of the actions of those opposite.
The online version allows the reader to also become a listener. Through the use of enabling technology you can listen to the full evidence given by each witness to the inquiry, or by clicking on a footnote you can listen to the audio of short extracts of evidence that relate to specific sections of the report.
Firstly, let me draw the House’s attention to the main findings of the inquiry. The commissioner found that the decision to conduct the inquiry could have been avoided if the then minister for Lands and Planning and his office had followed transparent, due and proper processes when offering the community land grant for the site to Unions NT. This is a reference to Gerry McCarthy. The commissioner found that the Cabinet decision was a fait accompli. That means that the decision had been made even before it reached Cabinet. The commissioner found that Cabinet was not fully aware at the time of making Cabinet decision 4856 – which it should have been – of the real intentions of Unions NT or the likely financial benefit to be achieved by Unions NT through the offering of the Crown lease over the site.
The best estimate of the value of the 10-year lease to the Northern Territory government was $600 000. That means that the Labor Cabinet was not presented with all the facts, as it should have been in any good governance process. It gave its union mates a $600 000 present.
Another finding was that minister Gerry McCarthy’s offer of a community land grant to Unions NT on 3 August 2012 for a Crown lease on the site was arguably unreasonable in the administrative law sense, and would be susceptible to challenge before the Supreme Court on that basis.
Further, having considered all the factors in relation to the decision, Gerry McCarthy’s conduct was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest. It also found that the way minister Delia Lawrie involved herself in the process was not proper, and was unfair to the public and other community groups.
In reference to ministerial advisor Wolf Loenneker’s conduct, the commissioner found that his behaviour fell well short of the high standards expected of a senior ministerial adviser, and his decision-making was conflicted. The Unions NT executive had a responsibility to ensure that the application submitted on its behalf to the ministers was of a high standard and reflected Unions NT's true intentions, but it did not.
The commissioner found that there was a distinct lack of publicly available information about the decision, and this information void reflects poorly on the government. It is not an example of an open and transparent decision-making process.
Far from clearing the former government, as Labor claims, these findings put Gerry McCarthy and Delia Lawrie at the centre of this deal. It was a deal cooked up between Labor and its union mates, prior to the 2012 election, that the Stella Maris inquiry found was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest. Not once have Delia Lawrie or Gerry McCarthy apologised to Territorians or taken responsibility for their actions. Unions NT has refused at every turn to relinquish its questionable lease.
This government has carefully considered all the recommendations made by commissioner Lawler. I will go through every recommendation, and our response to each one. The relevant ministers will then update the House on the current status of each recommendation.
The commissioner made the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1:
Recommendation 2:
Recommendation 3:
Recommendation 4:
Recommendation 5:
This recommendation is supported in principle, and on the same basis as the previous recommendations. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment will update the House on the status of this recommendation.
Recommendation 6:
Given it is recommended that the matter be considered by the Assembly, privileges issues are a matter for the Assembly to determine. If so required the Assembly, through the Speaker, the Privileges Committee or the Clerk, should seek legal advice from the Solicitor-General.
Recommendation 7:
This recommendation is not accepted. While the commissioner’s recommendation is based upon aiding accountability, seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all test of reasonableness to every ministerial decision-making process would be completely unworkable. It would almost certainly lead to a series of challenges on the grounds of failing to take into account relevant considerations, and it would be inconsistent with the notion of ministerial responsibility and representative government.
Recommendation 8:
This recommendation is accepted.
Recommendation 9:
This recommendation is accepted.
Recommendation 10:
Recommendation 11:
This recommendation is also accepted.
Recommendation 12:
Pursuant to the Administrative Arrangement Orders of the Chief Minister, I have responsibility for the Inquiries Act. My department will now undertake a review of the act, and present recommendations to Cabinet for consideration by April 2015.
Recommendation 13:
This recommendation is accepted, and its implementation is well advanced. The Cabinet Office is currently finalising the new draft Cabinet handbook for consideration at some time next month.
Recommendation 14:
This recommendation is accepted, and as advised the new draft Cabinet handbook is nearing completion.
Recommendation 15:
This recommendation is accepted, and will be incorporated into the new draft Cabinet handbook.
Recommendation 16:
This recommendation is accepted, and the Cabinet Office will undertake the review.
Recommendation 17:
This recommendation is accepted. The Minister for Public Employment will update the House on this recommendation during the debate.
I also update the House on a decision that my office has taken as the employer of all ministerial staff. Recommendation 14 referred to an updated Ministerial Code of Conduct. We have taken this recommendation seriously and reviewed the code of conduct that applies to ministerial staff. The existing code of conduct has been replaced with a statement of service standards for ministerial staff. The statement of service articulates 21 standards that ministerial employees are expected to uphold, including three that relate specifically to engaging with the public service.
Ministerial staff and consultants employed under the Contracts Act must not knowingly or intentionally encourage or induce a public official, by their decisions, directions or conduct, to breach the law or parliamentary obligations, or fail to comply with an applicable code of ethical conduct.
The new service standards acknowledge that ministerial staff do not have the power to direct NTPS employees in their own right, and that NTPS employees are not subject to their direction. It recognises that executive decisions are the preserve of ministers and public servants, and not ministerial staff acting in their own right.
Recommendation 18:
Recommendation 19:
Recommendation 20:
This recommendation is accepted. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment will speak about the improvements being undertaken in his department later in this debate.
Recommendation 21:
This recommendation is accepted.
The Stella Maris inquiry has revealed the sort of grubby politics that we can expect from the Labor Party. It is a sad chapter in the Northern Territory’s history, but thanks to the hard work of commissioner John Lawler we now have a clear picture of what took place in those days prior to the 2012 election, and the lengths the Labor Party is willing to go to in order to look after its union mates. It is a sad indictment of a political party that claims to be our future. Instead, Labor represents no policies and a complete lack of morality.
We are still waiting for the Labor Party and Unions NT to hand the keys of Stella Maris back to Territorians. It is simply unacceptable that they have not heeded the advice of the independent commissioner. This is a matter of trust. Our community puts enormous trust in institutions. We trust that our courts will operate without fear or favour, our police are being firm but fair and our politicians will make decisions in the interests of the whole community, not just one section of it, and not only for Unions NT, as Labor did.
This report has opened the door of Labor’s Cabinet room, and found that the community was completely misguided and misrepresented. It describes the decision-making by Labor politicians on Stella Maris as not proper and unfair to the public, and that the code of conduct of members of the Labor Cabinet was not accountable and not responsible, nor in the public interest. It shows how a meeting of only four of eight Cabinet members helped them to manipulate our system of government to their own ends, and deliver a $600 000 gift to union buddies.
This report provides a glimpse of the inner machinations of the Labor Party, and what lengths it will go to in dirty, dodgy deals to support its union mates. It shows how the Labor Cabinet operated. It shows that the Labor Party abused the trust of Territorians. This report provides a rare insight into the normally secretive workings of Cabinet.
The highest decision-making body of executive government is the Cabinet. The room in which Cabinet sits is off-limits to all but a few. Its inner workings are known to an even smaller number. What we have with this report is proof that trust was abused by Delia Lawrie and Gerry McCarthy. How many times did this happen? We will probably never know.
I thank John Lawler for chairing this inquiry, and the Assembly for its support in asking for this inquiry to be undertaken. We know, as a result of this report, that Labor simply cannot be trusted. The Labor Party has failed the most basic test with Stella Maris, and that is honesty.
Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have taken senior counsel’s advice on how this matter should be handled by parliament. It is inappropriate for this Chamber to debate anything in relation to the Stella Maris report.
There is Supreme Court action under way which goes to the heart of the validity of this report. It would be inappropriate for parliament to consider the matters related to the inquiry at the same time as the Supreme Court.
It would be inappropriate for parliament, or a committee of parliament, to consider the matters related to the inquiry at the same time as the Supreme Court.
I have taken action in the Supreme Court on a matter of procedural fairness. I quote from the writ, ‘A declaration that, in reporting adversely to the plaintiff in his report entitled Inquiry into Stella Maris 2014 (the report) – purportedly pursuant to section 4A(3) of the Inquiries Act – the defendant failed to observe the requirements of procedural fairness:
2. ‘An order that the defendant pays the plaintiff’s costs in these proceedings.
3. ‘Such further or other orders as the court deems fit.’
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, as the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I first became aware of the lease proposed to Unions NT when a development application came across my desk. From that moment, I knew something was not right. It was a gut feeling, one of those things that you either grow up having or not.
I undertook some research and was shocked by what I found. The letter of offer, signed by the then Minister for Lands and Planning, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was dated, signed, accepted and paid for in the last days before the Territory election was called.
Everyone knows how these things usually work. Briefs are signed, returned to the department and distributed in an orderly and accountable fashion. Some of these things can take weeks, and bigger things can take months because of what is involved. For an offer like this to be made, accepted and signed in that short period of time means that the former minister, the member for Barkly, had to rush around town, see his union mates in Woods Street, and then hand deliver the paperwork to the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment – very unorthodox. I guess he was only following orders from the then Deputy Chief Minister, as she secured favours from her union mates.
The Country Liberals are undoing this deal. As recommended by the commissioner, I am pleased to advise that in accordance with section 12(2) of the Crown Lands Act, I have given approval for Lot 5260 to be released to an expression of interest process. Releasing land for significant sites such as this one should be undertaken in an open, transparent and accountable process; this was a clear outcome of the inquiry.
Importantly, Unions NT has not responded to repeated letters sent from the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, asking it to relinquish its interest, whether perceived or real, in this site. Notwithstanding the lack of response, the Stella Maris inquiry report recommended that this site be released through a formal expression of interest process; I am doing this, and following the recommendation.
I approved the site being released for community and commercial development. The process opened last week, and will close on 17 October 2014. This will allow time for community groups and others to put forward an expression of interest for the use and development of the site. In accordance with the report’s recommendations, the expression of interest process allows proponents to approach the council in relation to the inclusion of the adjoining Lot 6597, commonly referred to as Travellers’ Walk, so as to enhance community access and the overall utility of the site.
The significance of Travellers’ Walk will not be compromised, and I thank the Darwin city council for its assistance in this regard. The department will establish a broad-based panel, including community representatives, to assess the expressions of interest as outlined in the report recommendations. This department will establish the panel and hold those representations to ensure that it is an open and accountable process. This site is proximate to the vibrant Waterfront locality and the CBD. It is a unique site, and one that will allow for enhanced community use and access.
The Territory’s vision for the site is a low-scale community and commercial development. Development will promote access to and preserve the heritage value of the site, as well as enhance and integrate community access to Travellers’ Walk. I look forward to hearing the outcomes of this process, and the interest in the site.
To further expand on the process expressions of interest are designed to identify a suitable development plan for Lot 5260, taking into account its location and constraints, as well as the opportunities presented by engaging with the Darwin city council in relation to Lot 6597.
Following assessment of the proposals a preferred proponent may, at the discretion of the Territory, be selected to proceed to negotiations with the government. The Territory may seek additional information or presentations from all or any of the proponents, at its discretion.
Much has been achieved by the department prior to, and since the conclusion of, the inquiry’s report. The department has restructured its organisation to create a secretariat and policy unit and developed an internal policy group, led by executives, that is responsible for reviewing and recommending policies to government for approval. This group will also oversee policy development and coordinate legislative changes where required. It will undertake work to identify the many policies that provide the framework for land and regulatory dealings, and has developed a database to record and monitor the currency of policies. This includes a review of delegations, which is in progress. The department has provided regular reporting on applications and land releases through its Apex database, and is now turning its mind to better utilising mechanisms and assimilating with the Integrated Land Information Systems (ILIS) for an advanced level of reporting.
The department has reviewed and implemented the internal checklist and business processes for direct sales and community land grants. Importantly, it includes hold points for signing by managers and the director to ensure good governance in land allocation. The department has reviewed its induction program, which includes provision for staff to be inducted into legislation and policy relating to land release and the application and community land grant process.
The department trialled an online land application system for implementation; the aforementioned system complements the work I have outlined, as it relates to transparency and good governance. This online system supports the recommendations of the inquiry report, in that only the applicant will be able to access and lodge the necessary application online.
The department will be holding formal training for staff in October, and internal workshops will be held across the agency on good policy development and implementation, as well as record keeping.
The department has also reviewed its land grant policy and business processes, and will be providing recommendations to me for consideration, on the conclusion of the work. It is intended for the business process to be included in regulation. Updates to brochures and public information will be provided once approved. The department is well advanced in implementing the recommendations and actions listed in the report that impact on it. This important work is continuing as a priority.
The most important lesson from this matter is that it is necessary for government to operate in an open, transparent manner. This is critical for ensuring public confidence in government decisions, whether in the context of dealing with community groups or the business sector. It is vital that governments act according to basic principles of fairness, and be seen to be doing so.
We all live in a world based on perceptions and on what is reported, whether it is truthful or not. Governments of all persuasions work under difficult circumstances at times; there are discussions held around the barbecue, and those fertilised by oppositions and people who are not of your persuasion or working towards your interests. Wherever possible, a government should ensure that its processes are accountable, and that they can be openly scrutinised by the general public. Governments of all persuasions, not only in the Northern Territory but across this country and the world, face different times today compared to 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Modern technology: iPhones and cameras are used everywhere, and microphones are on wherever you go. There were shonky deals done in the past that cannot, and should not, be done today.
All in this House stand for goodness, for Territorians, and they expect a government to do the right thing. I cannot honestly say that every single person who has worked in this House before, or in any other government across Australia, has always worked in the best interests of their jurisdiction. Perhaps they have been corrupted, biased in their thoughts or even manipulated in some way, and maybe finances have been involved, but in life, once you have reached that level, there is no going back. I expect everyone in this House to play with a straight bat. Our laws, regulations and communities demand it. Regarding accountability and openness, in today’s society, with what can be obtained through FOI legislation and, as I said, what is available through phones, microphones and modern technology, it would be vain of people to think they can get away with things, particularly in the long term, as matters will always come back to haunt you, no matter what you say, do or hear.
As I said before, this was a file that came across my desk soon after I took over the Lands, Planning and the Environment portfolio. It did not seem right, and the inquiry has vindicated those initial thoughts. We expect a lot from our elected members and our government, and it is not too much for the community to expect this Country Liberals government to take the recommendations of this inquiry and do what it can to improve processes – whether they are in Lands and Planning or any other department – and be seen to be doing the right thing. Thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate, read this document a number of times, listened to the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not know anything about the legal ramifications that she spoke of. Obviously, they are matters for the Leader of the Opposition, so my comments will be about what I read in documents leading up to this inquiry. I hope the government will put as much effort into the political donations inquiry as it has into this one. If the government wants to be balanced it must make the same effort.
I support the inquiry and its recommendations. I am concerned and disappointed, having listened to the Chief Minister, that Recommendations 18 and 19 will not be accepted. The minister for Lands and Planning might remember one night when I raised a few issues about a proposal to subdivide some land – I hope the minister takes this the right way; Recommendation 18 mentions appointing an integrity commissioner, who would have been an ideal person to investigate whether the minister had a conflict of interest. I received this document on the night we were debating it, and that was one of the first recommendations I read. I have only heard a few words from the Chief Minister about why he will not accept that recommendation. We must look at this a little more deeply to see whether the reasons for rejecting it are valid. If we had an integrity commissioner a minister could ask for an independent assessment of a decision they were to make. I understand that ministers must take ministerial responsibility. Sometimes it might be worth checking that what you will do is correct, and that there is no conflict of interest before going down that path. I am disappointed about that point.
The minister for Lands and Planning spoke about perceptions; that is something that I raised during the censure motion debate. Perceptions are what people see. In this case the Labor government rushed something through. The recommendations in this report clearly state that there was not sufficient transparency. Finding 4 says:
I read that because in an earlier debate people referred to Gerry Obeid and Delia Obeid. This is not that type of debate. The Obeid scandal was about people making many millions of dollars profiteering from particular decisions. This is not the same, and that is clearly reflected in Finding 4.
Finding 9 says:
That is repeated for minister Lawrie at that stage, but you must put some of these findings into context. The report says that if the government of the day had done this in a particular manner, this issue would probably not have come before parliament in the first place.
The report says that if the process had occurred in a much more open and transparent way, which could have included Unions NT asking for the land, it might have been resolved. Finding 2 says:
I am not sure that the argument is necessarily against Unions NT having that land. It is entitled to ask for land like anyone else. I presume that it put its case based not only on being regarded as a non-profit organisation – even though it makes money – but also on having a connection with the land. That is fine, but there were other people interested in that land, and there are people concerned about it being developed.
I note that the minister mentioned that when this is released for expressions of interest – he used the words ‘and the development of the land’. I am interested to know whether the minister for Lands and Planning, when he said ‘development of the land’, meant that a multistorey block of flats could go up on that site? Is the site protected from development? That was not clear, and was one of the concerns of people like Margaret Clinch at PLan, in that it should not be developed and sold to a private developer, but should be retained as community purpose land.
I interjected, minister, when you were talking about Travellers’ Walk. Margaret Clinch fought for years to retain that walkway, and you must remember that many people fought the CLP government on the development of the escarpment, which was originally meant to be a green belt around the edge of the Esplanade. There is now a bit of a green belt there, as well as many high-rise units which rose up in the days of the CLP. That should never have happened in the first place.
I am only trying to bring this back to what the general population wants to hear. There were many figures bandied around – $3m – all of these figures are exaggerated. You can say someone has a lease for 50 years at $60 000 per year, which means it is worth umpteen million dollars. You quote the big figure, but you do not quote the $60 000 a year figure. It is done to overemphasise an argument about someone. That was not fair, and it was part of a political process, because there was a political reason, as well as a proper governance reason, for the inquiry occurring. We must split the political reason for pushing this, which can be seen in the language used as being against trying to fix some of the issues the commissioner identified in the system. That is the area I am more concerned about. The commissioner has tried to bring in changes to ensure this cannot happen again.
I emphasise again that there were things said – you must read the document carefully because people were accused of things. It was unfair, because the document that the government brought forward does not say that.
For instance, the commissioner said:
I have heard whispers about corruption. In Finding 1 the commissioner states that we do not have a statutory definition of corrupt conduct, but you must read the entire page to understand where that is coming from. The minister for Lands and Planning at the time, as well as the Opposition Leader, did not make any personal gain. One could argue that they had a conflict of interest when they decided on this, because the unions are closely affiliated with the Labor Party; that may be the case, and that is why this was not undertaken in a proper, transparent way.
We must balance things a bit to make sure that the government, when it is criticising Labor for the decision – the inquiry has shown that there were issues that were not dealt with as well as they should have been. I could mention some parcels of land that I know were given out in days gone by, by the CLP government, and I asked questions like, ‘How come?’ But no one held an inquiry into those actions.
The commissioner mentioned that people had talked about other parcels of land. This was not in the terms of reference given to him. Term of reference 7 says:
He could have looked at any other cases that were worth considering.
There is nothing wrong with this inquiry in the sense that it clears the air, and if there are recommendations from this inquiry that improve governance, the way we do things and that make sure any government, when it is making decisions, is at arm’s length. That was the criticism I had of the minister for Lands and Planning. There was a block of land in the rural area which the DCA twice decided could not be developed, and the minister used a section of the Planning Act in order to act as the Development Consent Authority. I objected to that because I thought at that time – and I still do – that the minister had a conflict of interest. The Development Consent Authority is used to keep the minister away from making decisions that could be perceived as political or for someone’s gain. That is why it is important to have correct processes.
I reiterate that it is disappointing that the government spent money on these recommendations; when it comes to what I thought was a very important recommendation. I am open to a different view on it, but one of the key recommendations was about appointing an integrity commissioner. It seems that when we get down to some of the things that would help ensure that government operates properly and in a much more open and transparent way, which is what much of this debate today is about, the minister has decided that they will not accept those recommendations. That is disappointing.
We are two years on from the previous government being in power. People will gain mileage out of this, whichever way they think. I will repeat that the government at that time did not do this through what I call an open and transparent process which was fair to everybody. It would not have mattered to me, as I did not know this was happening. I expect any government offering a sale or the use of a parcel of land to publish advertisements, and give people the opportunity to put their two bob’s worth in as to why they would like that block of land.
I should make it clear that the minister was within his rights; he had the power to do what he did. The issue is not about whether he has broken the law, but it comes back to perception. That is the problem we have with the present government in some of the things that are being debated today. The best way to overcome perception issues is by having systems which are public and transparent. That way, you can ensure that your decisions are being scrutinised, not only by this House, but by the media and the general public. That means we have a healthy democracy and will hopefully reach proper and fair decisions through that process.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this statement. We have gone to all the trouble of doing this, but the minister has now said that this is a draft. I thought this was it, but I heard the word ‘draft’ at the beginning, which did not make sense to me.
The other issue was in relation to what the government is doing about Recommendation 6, which is to do with a members’ code of conduct and ethical standards. I read the members’ code of conduct and ethical standards. I am not a lawyer, but I wonder how the government is trying to put this matter into that area, as I could not see it in there. Obviously, the minister cannot see it either, as he has sent it to the Solicitor-General. It would be interesting to know a little more detail about that section. There was a lot of media hype about it at the time – going off to the Privileges Committee – yet all I heard today was that their advice will be based on what the Solicitor-General recommends. We have had this document for quite a while, and I would have expected some feedback on that recommendation. After all, the minister for Lands and Planning has been giving us his update on these recommendations, but I do not know where that is at.
I hope this document helps to improve the way we govern, and that we move on. The people involved should not be dragged along month after month. We must go through this document, pick up its recommendations and work towards better governance.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the comments made by the Chief Minister about the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s dodgy deal to hand a $3m asset to their union mates, making the point that, at the time, the member for Karama was the Deputy Chief Minister, and the member for Barkly was the minister responsible for this debacle. It is shameful.
As members of parliament we carry a level of trust from the constituency we represent. In government we carry the trust of all Territorians. When the Labor Party was in government it broke that trust, and it took the change of government to uncover how deceitful it was being to Territorians.
Our community puts enormous trust in its institutions. We trust that our police are acting in the public interest to keep our society safe, our teachers will provide good education to our children, our doctors and nurses will provide care for the sick and our politicians will make fair decisions in the interest of the whole Territory, not just a section of it or for union mates.
Trust implies a sense of hope that this is the way our society works and, at the same time, acknowledges that the community does not oversee every decision, ruling or arrest. This report exposes how the trust the community had in the member for Karama’s former Labor government was broken. It was abused. The people were wronged by the members for Karama and Barkly in that position of trust.
Now is the time that the members for Karama and Barkly are answerable, and now is the time that we, as a society, should say no to the type of behaviour shown by the Labor government through this debacle.
The report describes the decision-making by Labor politicians on Stella Maris as ‘not proper’. The report goes as far as to say the decision-making, ‘was unfair to the public’.
Again, that shows that Territorians’ trust which was placed in the Labor government, and particularly those two members, was broken. Further, the report says that the conduct of members of the Labor government was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest.
We know that Labor will say that it committed no crime and did nothing wrong. In its members’ eyes giving their main supporter a $3m asset is fine, the fact that it did not go to public tender is fine and the cover-up is fine. However, members for Barkly and Karama, it is not fine. All this does is prove how you failed to appreciate the trust that people placed in your government.
Stella Maris exposed Labor’s desire to advance its political interests over the wider interest, and is telling of how the former government operated. I cannot stress how deceitful this deal was. I repeat, a $3m public asset was gifted to Unions NT in a 10-year rent-free deal without a public expression of interest process.
An independent inquiry led by commissioner John Lawler found that Labor’s actions in stitching up the deal were not accountable, responsible or in the public interest. Despite the report and its recommendations, Unions NT has chosen to ignore numerous calls to relinquish its interest in the site.
I commend the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for readvertising the site and calling for an expression of interest. In his media release he said:
It was pleasing to see the EOI process begin last Friday, and I look forward to hearing about who the successful tenderer is.
Our government will not be gifting Stella Maris to any group under the table. There is a public process under way, and we are proud of this. It is a symbol of the trust that we have reinstated with the Territory public. I hope to see community groups and organisations putting forward their proposals for this iconic site. It is important that it is used to benefit the wider community.
There is something else that I need to say, and it is a repeat of the call the Chief Minister has now made. The least the members for Karama and Barkly could do is apologise for this action, and I join the Chief Minister in calling for that public apology. I have some simple advice for the members for Karama and Barkly. A simple, ‘I am sorry’ to the people of the Northern Territory would go a long way in rebuilding that lost trust; in fact, it was not lost, it was stolen from Territorians.
Being unaccountable and not acting in the public interest, coupled with the failure to acknowledge this and to apologise, are not becoming of the Northern Territory parliament. Frankly, those members involved in this matter shame themselves and the party they represent.
As a government, we will see the keys of Stella Maris put in the hands of the community.
To sum up, I quote the words that commissioner Lawler wrote to the Administrator upon presentation of this report. He said:
I hope the members for Barkly and Karama and the Labor Party have learned their lesson from this. It is not okay to do these dodgy deals under the table without any element of transparency or scrutiny; it was the wrong thing to do. They should be ashamed of themselves; the actions of those two politicians have made me ashamed of parliamentarians in the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, it is appalling that the government is even considering sending this matter to privileges while it is before the courts. How will the government look if the court quashes the Stella Maris report – effectively rendering it null and void – but it then moves against two members of parliament, based on the report?
The Assembly should wait; the court will hear the issue in due course, and the Assembly will have time, if it so desires and the Stella Maris report is found to be valid, to consider these matters then.
It is worth putting on the record that none of the cases of contempt or privilege referred to in the House of Representatives Practice concern the exercise of executive power. This Assembly would be setting a precedent that the national parliament has never considered, and those opposite need to consider that.
Precedence for the Privileges Committee, historically, has always been in connection with something affecting the House or members in their capacity, as such. The Stella Maris decision of the previous Cabinet does not satisfy this test.
Like my colleagues on this side, I am saddened by the route this government is taking in considering the Privileges Committee. The government squandered $500 000 on the Stella Maris inquiry, money which could have been spent on schoolteachers or hospital beds. Instead, it was spent on finding that a decision of the previous government was entirely lawful. It was a political stunt from the outset, and the statement and report from the Chief Minister today clearly show that the government has learned nothing from the fizzer that was the Stella Maris inquiry.
This House should resoundingly reject the statement and the report from the Chief Minister.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, after hearing what the Chief Minister said about the Stella Maris deal I feel somewhat embarrassed to be in the same room as some of those opposite.
During my time as a police officer I served as a Fraud Squad detective. I joined the police force – serving for 27 years – because I had a great sense of justice and fairness.
I looked at a range of issues when I was a Fraud Squad detective, and when I look at the Stella Maris case I think, ‘Gee, that smells a lot’. We have heard speakers from both sides, with the opposition saying what a waste of time and money it has been. I beg to differ, and I hope the members saying that go back and read the report to see what it says.
It beggars belief that a Treasurer and minister for Lands and Planning could circumvent the executive decision-making process in the way he did, and give their union mates a $600 000 handout. The member for Nhulunbuy said, ‘$500 000 is a waste of money’. Imagine what could have been done with that. You could have done a few things; the deal was worth $600 000, if it had been done properly. What could the government do with $600 000? One looks at the amount of debt that Labor left the Northern Territory in; it could have reduced it by $600 000 by making a fair deal, but that was not the case.
It beggars belief that senior elected representatives of the Northern Territory community could put their integrity in the bottom drawer in this way. As an elected member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly it gives me a great deal of pride to serve the people of the Northern Territory and my electorate, and I consider it an honour to do so. In doing that there is an expectation that I will be fair and just, and those are qualities that have guided me through my life. They are the qualities that I gained, and that were drummed into me, by my parents and family, all the way through my childhood. When I became a police officer in Western Australia, again ideas of justice and fairness were drummed into me. I have heard other people comment that the opposition will say, ‘Oh, but we did no wrong, we did not commit a crime and we did not do this and that’.
It was a dirty, dodgy deal that was exposed. In my former life I looked at the various behavioural patterns of people who did these sorts of things, and quite often it was not the first and sometimes not the last time they would make such deals. This was done on the day before the government went into caretaker mode. A deal was made, things were signed off, and so much of the process and the checks and balances of government was circumvented. Why would you do that the day before, except to look after your mates and make a backroom deal, in the expectation that it would not be made public.
In my former life as a police officer, I found that many people did things because they believed that no one would find out. Things are great until it all turns pear-shaped; in this instance it has turned pear-shaped. That can be a bit sad for some people because when they believe that they will not be caught they suddenly have to stump up and be responsible for your actions. Inquiries like this hold people accountable for their actions.
When I look at the timing of the actions of the former Treasurer and current Leader of the Opposition, as well as the former government minister and now Deputy Opposition Leader, it is apparent they had decided that the approaching election was not theirs to win, and they had to have the grubby deal signed off as a matter of urgency before the government went into caretaker mode.
I ask those listening to and reading this to take note of those particular words, because this action was an enormous, sad betrayal of public trust. To give your mates a deal like that in those circumstances smells. I say again that it is an enormous betrayal of public trust; if I had done that I could not sleep at night. I would not be sitting over there, holding my head up high and saying, ‘I have done nothing wrong’. It was a shonky deal and, again, with what I have been taught through my family, as an individual, a community member and through my former life as a school-based police officer teaching 40 000 kids in 19 years – I taught students those things, and I hope that other people in this room would teach the same things if they worked with young people. I look at what people might be teaching them; they might teach them one set of rules, and then act differently. There are people on the other side who have teaching backgrounds. I hope they were teaching young people about fairness, justice and a sense of right and wrong, yet when it comes to this it has gone out of the window. Perhaps they do not take their own advice, which does not surprise me with some of the things I heard from those opposite. This clearly demonstrates that they feel no remorse for their actions.
I heard the member for Nhulunbuy say that this is nothing, and the government should be ashamed. I find that appalling, her saying that the government should be ashamed for the rotten, stinky deal the opposition made. Why should we feel ashamed about that? No doubt they are on that side, and I do not blame them. I said the other day in this House that I am a compassionate guy. I understand that if they have been caught, people will be embarrassed, and will probably do what they can to take the attention away from themselves; that is human nature. There is an old saying in the real world about fessing up if your hand is in the cookie jar, but so many people say, ‘It was not my hand in the cookie jar’. When you say, ‘There is a photograph of you with your hand in the cookie jar’, they still say, ‘It is not a photo of me’. One expects that, but at some stage people must really look in the mirror, and see if they have a conscience. It would be interesting to hear what answer they would give us.
The Lawler inquiry has clearly identified the culpability of the former Treasurer and minister for Lands and Planning. The fact that they sit opposite in denial is an even greater reason for concern for Territorians. How can you ever trust them in government? Day after day I listen to the opposition criticise the government; they say all sorts of things that they would like the public to understand. This morning the member for Port Darwin clearly indicated that they say what they want the public to believe. They have said that people are talking about this; the only people talking about this are across the Chamber. They are the only people who are saying that it was a great deal to give the unions a $3m property, and rip the taxpayer off for $600 000; that is okay, fair and that this government should be ashamed because they did that. That is appalling.
Their lack of remorse and denial of the truth is a good reason for asking if they are the representatives that we want in parliament? Those opposite need to get up every morning, look in the mirror and ask, ‘Am I the person that everybody wants to be in parliament?’ I leave that question for them to answer. If I was to take a straw poll of everyone who has been made aware of the unfair, unethical and grubby nature of the deal done for Labor’s union mates, the answer to that question would be a resounding no, and that these are not the type of people the public wants to represent it in the Northern Territory parliament. If they had any decency, they would resign, but perhaps not. The very least they can do, as the member for Katherine indicated, is apologise.
I have heard Labor frequently call on people from this side, such as the member for Port Darwin. He is a friend of a person who has done nothing wrong in the legal system. The Attorney-General has been the victim of a political witch-hunt, and they have called on him to resign. How dare he be friends with a – now former – magistrate? How dare he do that? What has he done wrong legally? Nothing! It is a political witch-hunt. That is someone they are attacking for political reasons.
There is a clear indication that a dirty, dodgy deal has been done, yet they apply double standards in this House. Why do they not call on themselves? They should look in the mirror and say, ‘Gee, I should resign’. Again, I find it appalling that they call on people over here who have done nothing wrong to resign, and say that they should be sacked. What is the Leader of the Opposition doing? Is her team saying how strange this is, and that they should be copping some flack over this issue? Have they said that she should resign? Is she calling for her own resignation? Does she look in the mirror and say, ‘I should resign today because I was part of a rotten, dirty, dodgy deal’? I do not think so, because those opposite think that they have done nothing.
I ask people who are listening to this or who read Hansard to ask the question and figure out the answer. It is the people who will decide what is and is not a dirty, rotten, dodgy deal. I do not know if I would want to do any polling on that, because they may not like the answer.
The Chief Minister advised the House that Unions NT has refused to relinquish its interest in the Stella Maris property. That action brings into question the integrity of the management of that organisation. There is a report, and you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that there is something wrong with this deal, yet Unions NT has not handed in the keys. Its representatives might like to look in the mirror and make some judgments about themselves first thing in the morning, and ask, ‘Am I doing the right thing by myself, my work colleagues, the people in the community and the Northern Territory?’ If they say, ‘Yes, I am’, I would be disappointed, and it is tragic if people think like that. I call upon Unions NT to relinquish its interests in that property. In continuing to refuse to take the honourable course of action, that organisation seems to have sunk to the same grubby level as the architects of this underhand, unfair violation of public trust, which took place outside of the public interest.
Sadly, I feel ashamed for members of the House who performed those actions. If they have a conscience they must have a good look at how they conduct themselves, not only in this Chamber, but in the greater community.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support the motion, and I am not constrained in the same way as the Leader of the Opposition. Certain things must put on the record to put this matter into perspective.
The Stella Maris inquiry was set up as a political stunt to try to damage the former government. Let us consider what the commissioner found. There was no corrupt conduct, no conflict of interest, no one gained financially and the decision was entirely lawful. The inquiry set up to damage the previous government was a fizzer. This government spent $500 000 in an elaborate stunt to damage the former government, and it did not receive value for money.
When the commissioner did not give it the result it needed the government had to find a way to save face. The Stella Maris inquiry was an own goal. The government spent $500 000 to be told that the former Cabinet acted entirely lawfully. The last recourse the government has is the Privileges Committee, but even then there is doubt over the constitutionality of whether this should be heard by privileges.
The Stella Maris decision was taken by the executive government of the day, not the parliament. The Privileges Committee has no right to second guess what takes place in Cabinet. It also points to whether the members’ code of conduct act of 2008 applies to the executive government. The opposition has been advised that it is a constitutional impossibility for the members’ code of conduct to apply to ministers. This has never been tested. In any event the code of conduct was not breached by any member of the previous Cabinet.
This government is clutching at straws with this, and I strongly urge the Assembly to end this political stunt and reject this report.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, the brevity of submissions to this House is a measure of culpability and, inversely and directly proportional to it, these people demonstrate a level of culpability in relation to their defence today. Having listened to the members opposite deliver some very tightly read statements, drafted, I suspect, by a lawyer somewhere in relation to this, the defence is hardly strident. There are double standards, because what we have is a report of the Stella Maris inquiry. I congratulate commissioner Lawler on his work, but I am intrigued, however, about some of the elements of this report, and the relationship between the Woods Street address and the Stella Maris site.
The Woods Street address, which was occupied prior to the unions wanting to move into the Stella Maris site, was subject to a number of titles. A number of titles rested with the union movement; however, one of the titles on the site rests with an organisation called Harold Nelson Holdings Pty Ltd. Harold Nelson Holdings Pty Ltd was mentioned during another debate in relation to political donations.
Harold Nelson Holdings is the financial arm of the Northern Territory Labor Party. It is curious how they want to talk about our relationship with Foundation 51; they will be disappointed in the proximity that they seem to think exists there. I understand that Harold Nelson Holdings and the Labor Party have a close relationship, and it would be a tragedy to see this group of people from the union movement move out of the Woods Street address, and conveniently find themselves in a place where they could have digs for a number of years – how long was the lease for Stella Maris?
Mr Styles: 10 years
Mr ELFERINK: It was 10 years at a peppercorn rent, giving it a CBD address. The units on the Woods Street site would then become available for redevelopment.
I listened to the member for Nelson say that there was no personal gain, but there was gain for the Australian Labor Party and the union movement, because it would have enabled them to redevelop the site. It is funny how the champions of the worker would appear to quickly become the champions of capital development. It is funny how they can change their spots from time to time.
Labor sidestepped process over the Stella Maris site, which is what this inquiry is about, because it shows an opposition that is more than prepared and happy, when in government, to sidestep processes completely.
The lectures about transparency we have received from the members opposite become utterly opaque when you consider the brevity of their submissions to this inquiry. I imagine that there will be observers of this inquiry who will be listening closely to what is said in this House, and those observers will doubtlessly be listening closely to what is said by government members more than the members opposite.
It is clear that the Stella Maris report has returned a series of findings which demonstrate that the government of the day was happy to sidestep processes that it argues for. The Stella Maris inquiry reveals that Labor, an alternative government of the Northern Territory, will sidestep processes if there is something in it for them, or alternatively, for its union mates.
I am disappointed that it has gone through this process. More importantly, Labor has gone through a process which has truncated many of the normal ways of approaching these sorts of things. If I remember the evidence of the inquiry correctly, the Labor Cabinet meeting was barely constituted in any realistic sense and, as the report states, the determination was ultimately not made through Cabinet but through the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr McCarthy.
I am curious to know if the member for Barkly would care to fill us in during this debate about the story that came to my ears – I do not know if it is true – about the then Planning minister walking the lease paperwork to Unions NT. I have never heard a denial of that, and he could well satisfy us if we were to hear one. I would be very pleased one way or the other, because the absence of a denial raises the question – having made those observations I turn my attention to recommendation 17, as referred to by the Chief Minister. It says:
This recommendation is accepted by the Minister for Public Employment, and I will update the House on this recommendation during this debate. I will also update the House on a decision that my office has taken as the employer of all ministerial staff.
Recommendation 14 referred to an updated ministerial code of conduct. We have taken this recommendation seriously, and also take the opportunity to review the code of conduct that applies to ministerial staff. The existing code of conduct has been replaced with a statement of service standards for ministerial staff. The statement of service standards articulates 21 standards that ministerial employees are expected to uphold, including three that relate specifically to engaging with the public service:
‘The ministerial staff employed under the Northern Territory Contracts Act, and consultants, must:
10. ‘not knowingly, intentionally encourage or induce public officials by their decisions, directions or conduct, to breach the law or parliamentary obligations or fail to comply with applicable codes of ethical conduct
11. ‘acknowledge that ministerial staff do not have the power to direct the Northern Territory Public Service employees in their own right, and that Northern Territory Public Service employees are not subject to their direction
12. ‘recognise that executive decisions are the preserve of ministers and public servants, and not ministerial staff acting in their own right
13. ‘facilitate and direct effective communication between their minister’s department and their minister.’
Furthermore, the report says more about Mr Paton:
It is for that reason that we have introduced the rules we described earlier. A minister must, sooner or later, become responsible for what happens on the deck of their ship. Clearly, this was not the case in relation to the way the members opposite dealt with this. In opposition, I was often curious to see the breadth and depth of influence that ministerial staff had, and their capacity to become involved in decision-making processes. They are there to assist, advise and provide fearless and frank advice to ministers, but they do not or should not have a decision-making role.
The exposure of these staff demonstrates that they may well have been trapped between a minister who was not entirely across his portfolio and the desire, perhaps, to keep their own jobs. I cannot know what their motivation was. In any instance, it is clear that ministerial staff were being asked to involve themselves in ways that were inappropriate. If the minister had knowledge of particularly Mr Paton’s role on the NT Workers Club subcommittee, that should have been an issue of grave concern to the minister.
One of the things I noticed when I was in opposition, particularly when I saw ministers during the Alice Springs sittings, was their desire to surround themselves with their own ministerial staff, and seek fraternity with them. My office runs on a fairly strict hierarchy; whilst it is a warm and amicable office it also enjoys a number of formalities. There is a clear structure in place, so that the familiarity I have seen occurring in Labor offices does not lead to the contempt it may well have done there, because familiarity, as all members know, leads to contempt. I do not believe, necessarily, in a particularly familiar office. We have a lot of work to do, and we work very hard to make sure our offices work well.
There is clearly no doubt about what occurred in the circumstances surrounding the Stella Maris inquiry. It was a means to make the Stella Maris block available for the unions, so that it would free up the Woods Street site, I presume, for development to occur. It is that obvious; it is clear for all to see and, quite frankly, I was disappointed to hear that the former government went to such lengths to try to secure it. I call on the former Treasurer and Planning minister, Delia Lawrie, the now Leader of the Opposition, to apologise because Territorians deserve an apology for the way this whole thing was handled. It was a mates’ deal nobbled together under the radar immediately before the beginning of the caretaker process. The bets were on that they would win government, and they could sail out the other end without anybody noticing what had happened.
I am sure that the former Chief Minister, Mr Henderson, was quite surprised when he lost government. This whole arrangement then became apparent to anybody who looked at it, and it caused the government to move for an inquiry. The former government is not covered in glory in relation to this matter; it must revisit and reconsider the way it has conducted itself, and an apology from the Leader of the Opposition would be an awfully good step to take.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I think we will adjourn after this, so we might go out with a bang. There is nothing like it, and perhaps it will give Kon something to remember.
This inquiry revealed Labor’s dodgy deal of a rent-free lease to its union mates for a $3m CBD property, the Stella Maris building. The Stella Maris inquiry shows once and for all that the Northern Territory Labor Party, be it in government or in opposition, simply cannot be trusted. It is devious and underhanded, power hungry and will do anything to get its way. The member for Karama is the worst of the lot. She has been exposed as, not proper’, and ‘unfair to the public’.
Is there a worse assessment of an elected member of parliament than that? She has been exposed as the puppet master, and the chief architect of Labor’s ugly, dodgy and deceitful underbelly. She cannot be trusted or believed. She must not be trusted or believed.
The Stella Maris report found that Delia Lawrie’s involvement was critical to closing down the recommended open expression of interest process on the heritage building. The report said:
I repeat:
The commissioner goes on to state that the then Deputy Chief Minister had involved herself in a process that:
I repeat that the commissioner found the member for Karama’s behaviour to be:
The Stella Maris deal, as highlighted today and when this report was handed down a couple of months ago, is the icing on the cake of 11 years of Labor government. It was its swansong. You do not have to trawl back through history too far to see more incompetence and dodgy deals by the previous Labor government. For 11 years the Labor Party and the member for Karama engaged in a culture of cover-up to hide the truth from Territorians. Who can forget Red Rooster-gate? In 2009 the Deputy Chief Minister – the member for Karama – directed her department’s CEO to withdraw the prosecution against the owner of the Tennant Creek Red Rooster for not having a building certificate. This is how it was reported by ABC News online on 20 February 2009:
Who can forget the Bonson telephone call? That was another episode involving the member for Karama; yet again, she used and abused proper process. Who could forget the damning revelations in 2009 that showed that she bypassed applications for the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner’s job in favour of her own hand-picked candidate? Once again, we find that when the doors of the Labor Cabinet are flung open the skeletons fall out of the closet. There is a familiar figure lurking in the background, time and time again: the member for Karama. It is a familiar figure at the helm of this toxic ship that is the Labor Party: the member for Karama.
What else did Labor hide from Territorians for 11 years? The list goes on. What else did the member for Karama hide from Territorians? The Power and Water debacle on Channel Island springs to mind. As the Treasurer and shareholding minister for Power and Water at the time, the member for Karama once again had her hands all over the cover-up.
In 2009 the then Labor government spent $53m of Territory taxpayers’ money purchasing diesel fuel to power Channel Island because of the delay in delivering gas from the Blacktip gas field. It was a complete disaster, and as always with the Labor way, Territorians were kept in the dark – literally. Territorians were going about their everyday business, watching television, cooking dinner and having showers, with no clue that the member for Karama was spending $53m of their money to desperately keep the lights on because of her monumental stuff-up; eventually, she was forced to fess up. Speaking of Power and Water, let us reflect on the Casuarina substation debacle. Remember the explosion? That was another Power and Water debacle with Delia Lawrie’s, hands all over it. In 2008 the Treasurer’s failure to properly fund Power and Water left its maintenance budget in tatters, resulting in a catastrophic failure at the Casuarina substation. Fifteen thousand households were left without power for days, and Labor’s solution to the crisis was to tell those Territorians affected to buy a generator – unbelievable.
As the Attorney-General, the member for Karama was known to be completely incompetent. Let us remember the begging blunder; what a master stroke of legislation that was by the member for Karama. In 2009 it was a good year for the member for Karama, but a bad one for Territorians. The then Attorney-General amended the Summary Offences Act that saw begging attract fines of $6500. The member for Karama was forced to rectify the embarrassing mistake, and guess who she blamed? It was the hard-working public service.
That brings me to the BDR – the Banned Drinker Register – or maybe it was the banned buyer register. As an alcohol policy, the member for Karama presided over the BDR. It was another demonstration of her commitment to mislead Territorians to cover up her failings; it has been the hallmark of the member for Karama and will continue to be so. She claimed that the BDR would turn problem drinkers off tap, and we all know that to be untrue. The BDR did not stop problem drinkers from drinking; it stopped drinkers from buying, but it did not stop anyone from drinking. A case in point is Mr 117. During the BDR’s operation, one banned drinker was picked up for drunkenness 117 times. That drinker was sent to the now defunct alcohol tribunal 114 times, but never once attended. The top 60 banned drinkers on the register were apprehended more than 2000 times. Territory-wide assaults and domestic violence rates continued to rise. The year before the $18m BDR, or banned buyers’ register, was put into place 20 354 drunks were taken into protective custody. The year it opened 19 998 drunks were taken into protective custody. There was a reduction of a whopping 336, one less per day at a cost of $50 000 per drunk.
Who can forget the debt? We certainly cannot because we are left with it. There was a $5.5bn projected debt when we came to government in 2012 – spend, spend, spend, nothing like it. Is it any wonder that Territorians were heading towards a ballooning debt of interest payments – $1.1m per day by 2015-16, money that could be spent on doctors, more police, better health services and more teachers.
Some of the other highlights of the member for Karama’s reign as Treasurer: there is the Taj Mahal prison, which leaves a $1.8bn debt or $60m per year for 30 years, and we have not even made the first payment yet. It equates to about $1.1m every week or first division Lotto for the next 30 years. The Asset Management System: this had a $70m budget, and still did not work. There was a $3bn Power and Water debt, which is $7000 for every man, woman and child in the Northern Territory.
Under the former Treasurer infrastructure went backwards, and building approvals and small business confidence was down. When Labor came to office in 2001, small business confidence was at 51%, but by 2010 this had dropped to just 27%. Retail sales and jobs were also down.
There was one thing that went up under Labor: crime. Crime skyrocketed; under Labor law and order become so bad that business operators in Alice Springs and Darwin were forced to sleep in their workplaces to try to deal with criminals breaking into their premises. Can you believe that is how bad it became? It is hard to believe, but that is how bad it became. People were forced to sleep in their own workplaces to stop the crooks breaking in. Under Labor and the former Attorney-General and Deputy Chief Minister a massive spike in violent crime occurred across the Territory, culminating in an unprecedented week of violence in Palmerston in November 2008, which saw gangs assault nine innocent people. Under Labor crime rates in the Northern Territory were twice as high as the national average. Under Labor violent crime continued to rise; the rate of violent assault offences increased by 80% during Labor’s decade of denial. Alice Springs felt the brunt of Labor’s soft approach on crime. For example, from 2004-05 to 2009-10, robbery went up 450%; assaults rose by 87%; sexual assault went up by 97%; house break-ins were up 64%; commercial break-ins went up 185%; motor vehicle theft went up 97%; and property damage rose by 71%.
Halfway through the Giles CLP government’s first term the statistics show property crime has plummeted, and alcohol-related violence is trending down. Property crime, in two years under the Giles Country Liberals government, is at its lowest level in 14 years, nearly a decade-and-a-half. The latest crime figures confirm that the total number of offences Territory-wide dropped by 1886 in the year to June, compared to the previous 12 months. The graphs speak for themselves; the figures confirm that we are already meeting our targets on property crime, and violent crime is trending down under our new policies. But there is still much work to be done.
Household break-ins are down 26%. Our full suite of alcohol measures, including alcohol mandatory treatment, Alcohol Protection Orders, intensive temporary beat locations and Darwin Safe has only been in effect since Christmas, and there have been dramatic reductions in personal crime since then.
The June crime statistics show that assaults are down 14% Territory-wide, and alcohol-related assaults are down 18% across the Northern Territory in the past six months, compared to the same time last year. Alcohol-related assaults are down 3%. Police PROMIS data also shows that during the time that Alcohol Protection Orders and Darwin Safe have been operating, assaults in Mitchell Street have dropped by 24%, compared to the same time last year.
Labor had 11 years to do something about crime across the Northern Territory, but it skyrocketed. In two years we have started to arrest and dramatically reverse Labor’s upward trend.
Labor’s handling of child protection is also another sad and sorry affair. If there was ever an example that Labor neglected Territorians, it was with child protection. During its 11 years in government, there was case after case of child neglect. Who can forget the Little Children are Sacred report? That was the trigger for the emergency response by the federal government.
Under Labor, rents and house prices skyrocketed, and waiting lists ballooned. The list goes on and on – a litany of failures under the previous government.
I have page after page of more highlights of that 11 years – it was quite a decade. Labor racked up quite a book of failures over 11 years, but we do not have the time to go through it all.
I return to the dodgy Stella Maris inquiry, because I have a few minutes to go. The report said:
The report goes on to say:
The report said:
It reeks of bias and direct intervention – ‘without minister Lawrie’. Can you see that there is a theme forming here? Delia Lawrie, the member for Karama, was front and centre in a proposal that was unfair to the public and other community groups.
That is an extraordinary claim against the member for Karama. Can there be a greater slur tabled against any elected member than that? A great deal of stuff is passed around in this place, but an ‘unfair to the public’ comment would have to be about it.
Labor wants to brush this sorry, dark, sordid history under the carpet. Once again it is misleading Territorians. If Labor is to be believed, the 11 years of Labor were 11 years where nothing went wrong; Territorians lived in some sort of utopia. There was no chaos, crises, reshuffles, disasters or failed policies and no abusing the separation of powers, etcetera; everything was just fine. But we know that was not the case. The Stella Maris deal is the icing on the cake of 11 long years of Labor’s grubby politics. On the eve of the caretaker period ahead of the 2012 election Labor thought it would get away with it. Guess what? It has not.
The least you can do is apologise to Territorians, but, alas, I do not think that is forthcoming. You continue to do what you do best on that side of the House; rack up debt and make your dodgy deals with the unions, and leave the running of the Northern Territory to those who do it best: the Country Liberals government.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I will speak for the last time in this House to say goodbye after 13 years in the Legislative Assembly and Territory politics, and to thank the many people who, in one way or another, helped me to be a good local member for the people of Casuarina and a minister in successive Labor governments.
In my wildest dreams I never thought that I would live in Australia, and be a member of an Australian parliament. It is not that I was never interested in politics. I was very interested in politics, especially since I grew up in the midst of the political turmoil of the military dictatorship in Greece from 1967 to 1974, and the restoration of democracy in the country where it was born, not to mention the fiery student politics that I was involved in when I was in college in Athens. During those years, I formed my strong beliefs in the democratic process, and the rights of people to live, work and be educated freely.
In 1983, as a 26-year-old man, I migrated to Australia with my late wife Linda, and soon afterwards I commenced my studies at the Western Australian Institute of Technology, which is now Curtin University. I obtained a job in local government, continued my studies and lived a comfortable life in Fremantle.
Linda and her family were very strong Labor supporters, and with my past it was natural for me to join the Australian Labor Party. I am eternally thankful to them, because as early as 1983 I was on the way to entering politics in Australia.
I joined the Melville branch of the Labor Party in Perth in 1983. I took part in debates, branch meetings and election campaigns, and became a founding member of the Greek branch of the Labor Party in Perth, standing as a candidate for the seat of Clontarf in 1986. That was my first exposure to the hustle and bustle of the political process in Australia, and what a training ground it was.
After a three-year stint in Port Hedland working for the Town of Port Hedland in the 1990s, Darwin and a job in the Northern Territory Health department beckoned. I moved to the Territory in 1993 with my young family, and the original plan was to be here for two years before returning to Perth, but like so many other people, we fell in love with the Territory and the two years became four, and so on.
We came to the Territory with our five-year-old son Alexander, and we then had Michael, which helped to grow our roots here. We became part of this community, as well as the close-knit Greek community, and we enjoyed every minute of it.
Soon afterwards, I joined Labor. At that time I met many of my friends, including my very good friend, Paul Henderson. I was a founding member of the Millner branch, and soon afterwards I worked with Paul on his election campaign for the seat of Nightcliff and, later, Wanguri. I met Clare Martin during her attempt to win the seat of Casuarina. As many would remember from the year 2000 things were not very good in the Territory. The then CLP government was floundering and, with the 2001 election looming, I decided to stand for election, and was selected to contest the seat of Nightcliff. After my nomination I received a call from Clare, who suggested that I stand for Casuarina, rather than Nightcliff.
I was very hesitant at first, since Casuarina had been in the CLP’s hands for 27 years, and the seat was occupied by the then Minister for Education, but after I looked at the electoral roll and found out that 10% of its residents were people of Greek descent, as well as there being 8% Filipinos and 5% Chinese, I thought Casuarina was winnable.
It took many hours of doorknocking and three pairs of shoes, but Casuarina changed hands in 2001. Labor was elected for the first time on 18 August 2001, after 27 years in the wilderness, and that was where the fun began.
A number of my colleagues and I were elected for the first time to the Legislative Assembly. We knew nothing about parliament and its processes and, to make things worse, some of us found ourselves becoming ministers. We had no experience, no manual and nobody to advise us, since none of our team had been a minister or even a ministerial adviser before.
We were given a bundle of books, and told to go home, read them and come back on Monday to run our portfolios. We did it.
The first thing I did as a minister was attend a ministerial council on the Environment in Canberra. I remember my CEO John Pinney coming to my office, minutes after I was sworn in as a minister, to tell me that I had to say goodbye to my family and fly with him to Canberra. We did, but I had a small problem – as many Territorians do – in that I did not have a suit. The first thing we did when we got off the plane was buy me a suit and tie, so I could wear it to the first ministerial council I attended. It got better; I arrived at the ministerial council, and because of the excitement of the previous days and the cold weather, I had lost my voice. The CEO of the department of the Environment, Bill Freeland, suffered an allergic reaction because of a chemical in the room at Parliament House. He turned red, and had to leave the building very quickly. That was a good start as a minister!
I served as a minister for 11 years in, I believe, 21 portfolios. Some of them were easy, and some of them were not so easy, some of them I loved, and some of them I did not like as much. Some of them gave me no trouble at all, while some kept me awake at night.
I received my first lessons in the first month of being a minister when I was dropped in the midst of some unpleasant situations. The department of Lands decided to acquire some land for services for ConocoPhillips, an acquisition that became a major issue; they drafted the plans, but nobody took the time to find out what was on those pieces of land that were to be acquired. Guess what? There were some houses. I had to speak on the radio to justify the whole process, but I made sure that from then on there was a process in place. If there was an acquisition taking place, somebody had to put their signature on paperwork to say they had visited the site and performed an inspection. The department found out that the minister could swear fluently in Greek and English.
There is the story of the flight ban over Katherine Gorge, which was introduced on the advice of the department CEO, Bill Freeland, and supported by legal opinion. I learned a lot from those two incidents, including to trust my political instinct. I also went to the ABC shop and bought the whole series of Yes, Minister; it is the real manual for any aspiring politician or minister. There were times when I said, ‘Hold on, I have seen that episode’, because it was happening around me.
During 11 years we all worked very hard. We did not get everything right all the time, but we mostly did. When I did not get something right, I was the first to admit it and try to fix it so it would not happen again. In our minds we thought that whatever we did was for the benefit of Territorians. I am proud of what we achieved, and in many areas we put the foundations in place for a bigger and better Territory.
Some of the examples: through the sports portfolio, the first ever Northern Territory Institute of Sport scholarship was awarded to Tahnee Afuhaamango, and the Australian Paralympic Committee selected the Arafura Games as a qualifying event for the Paralympics, with paralympians taking part from around the world.
As the minister for Fisheries I think I will be remembered for the boat ramps I constructed, as well as the mud crab restrictions. I was in so much trouble at the beginning, even from my colleague, Chris Burns, but a few years later the industry said it was the best decision ever made.
As the minister for Mines, I started the China-Japan investment attraction strategy, a good initiative, and I am very pleased to see that the current government has recognised its value and decided to continue it.
As the Child Protection minister we established the sole Child Protection department. As the Health minister, I was very pleased to see the opening of the oncology unit, the upgrades to the Royal Darwin Hospital, the Palmerston health clinic, the medical school at CDU and especially the construction of the Alice Springs Hospital’s emergency department.
There were some high moments and some funny moments. One high moment was the visit to Darwin by the then Vice President of China – now current president – Xi Jinping, proof that our China investment attraction strategy was working in putting the Territory on the world map, something that was later confirmed by Fraser Institute surveys.
A funny moment occurred when I was asked by the protocol unit to welcome the prime minister of a foreign country at the airport. I was told that it would only be for 20 minutes, but they forgot to tell me that it would actually be four hours, as well as the fact that it was the Prime Minister of Turkey arriving at his first stop in Australia. He was surprised to be welcomed to Australia by a minister of Greek descent. Funnily enough, the Greek newspapers down south found out about it, and I remember the headline very well. It was ‘Turkish Prime Minister welcomed to Australia by Greek minister’, with a big photograph.
The fact that I was elected for four terms to represent Casuarina, and was a minister for 11 years, did not happen because of me alone. Many people supported me along the way, and I wish to thank them all.
First and foremost, I thank my late wife Linda and her family for supporting me in Australia when I first arrived and took my first tentative steps into politics. I also thank Margaret and our sons, Alexander and Michael, who not only supported me when I put my hand up for pre-selection, but also put up with me not being at home for long periods of time. I missed you boys growing up, and not being able to do things with you at the time, but I am proud that you were great, and you never did anything to put me on the front page of the NT News. Perhaps this is because I told you that if you did something wrong you would receive a seven-month holiday to Greece, and you would discover after six months that you were conscripted.
I also thank my wife, AiHong, and our son, Kevin. What a wonderful coincidence meeting AiHong, just a month after she arrived in Australia, at a function in this building. We were also married here on 1 December 2012. Thank you, AiHong, for coming into my life at a difficult time. You made everything bright and happy again.
Qin ai de AiHong. Wo ai Ni, wo sihuan ni. Wo ai ni women de bobei.
I also thank Clare Martin and Paul Henderson for trusting me. I especially thank my dear friend Paul for giving me the Health and Child Protection portfolios. The NT News at the time said that if you have friends like that – for me it was a show of trust and belief in my abilities. Thank you, Paul, for your trust and friendship.
Thank you to all of my parliamentary colleagues, from 2001 to date. There is the old guard, Syd Stirling, Jane Aagaard, Marion Scrymgour, Chris Burns and Delia Lawrie, to name a few. I also thank the new ones sitting beside me today: Lynne Walker, Ken Vowles, Gerry McCarthy, Natasha Fyles and Michael Gunner. Good luck to Nicole Manison. Sorry if I forgot anybody, but I hope you understand. Thank you guys for your love, support and trust.
To the people on the other side, we are as good as you are. If you give us a hard time, you see how good we are, and on many occasions, I have enjoyed having a bit of a ruffle with the members for Greatorex and Araluen. I enjoyed our battles, and I also enjoyed attending some of the programs of the member for Greatorex when he had a radio show in Alice Springs. He tried to take something out of me, but I never rose to it, so I enjoyed that.
Thank you to the various CEOs who I worked for – you work for your CEOs, they do not work for you, trust me – John Pinney, Barry Chambers, Andrew Macrides, Richard Galton, Clare Gardiner-Barnes, Geoff Moffatt and many others who I cannot recall at the time. I thank my chief of staff, Melinda Maddock, who was the first person to walk into my office on my first day as a minister. She had just travelled back to Australia from England, and was an experienced political animal. Within two hours I had a fully functional ministerial office. She moved to Tasmania, and I believe she is now married with two kids.
I thank and will never forget Alf Leonardi, who was of Italian descent, alongside me as a Greek. Alf had a ‘Wogs at Work’ sign on the wall, which was really good. I also thank Sean Kennedy, Michael Gunner, Fred McCue, Mark Hough, Emily Beresford-Cane, Helen Nezeritis and all of my advisers; there are so many, and I cannot recall the total number. In 21 portfolios there are too many advisers.
I thank the people who made it all happen, the ones who worked tirelessly to help me be elected and re-elected, starting with Andrew Fyles in 2001 and, later, Natasha Fyles. I also thank the tireless staff who worked on my campaigns, as well as my supporters.
I thank my electoral officers, Kaylen Chaproniere, Margreet Sadlo, Victoria PolifronIe and, of course, the one who I believe is the longest-serving electorate officer in the Territory, my dear Debbie Rowland. She has been my electorate officer for nearly 12 years, and what a wonderful person she is.
To my constituents, thank you for your support during the past 13 years. I have loved being the local member, and getting out and about in the electorate. It was fun to attend the school assemblies. I hope I was the member you expected to have, and was able to help with any issues that you had.
My advice, as one of the elders of this parliament – as some people keep reminding me – is that politics is politics. We are here with our own ideas and beliefs, but the ultimate purpose is to serve the people of the Northern Territory and make this place a better place for all.
Look to the future and make sure the Territory takes its right place in Australia, because it is young, dynamic and can-do. This is what we aspired to during our time in government.
Remember that we still have endless opportunities and, of course, the Northern Territory is location, location, location. Look north, colleagues; we are closer to Asia than the southern capital cities, and Asia is where the future is. Yes, developing the north should be our focus, but make sure it is developed without cutting corners, endangering our environment or destroying our unique way of life.
In your endeavour to develop the Territory and the north, do not forget the people of the Northern Territory, especially Indigenous Territorians. They should share the wealth; it was their country, since they were the first inhabitants of this place.
Also, do not forget the people who have come from somewhere else – another state, another continent, or another country – to make the Territory their home. Take the people with you to guarantee that you succeed in your plans.
Do not forget that you have a family, which is the most important thing in your life. After everything ends, your family will still be with you.
I am saying goodbye to politics, but ‘hello’ to a new life. We will be in in Darwin; Kevin is enrolled in Darwin High School for Year 10, and AiHong and I will still live in our home, but with one small addition, because we are expecting our first child.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a past Deputy Chief Minister and member of this parliament, Marion Scrymgour. Welcome, Marion.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also seek your indulgence to table a report not required, but very important. It is a report on a visit by a delegation from the Northern Territory to Niue in June 2014, with assistance from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is great to see Marion in the Chamber tonight. It is a pity that you did not come earlier, as we could have had the numbers to roll Delia. You would have made five, so it would have been all right.
I thank the member for Casuarina for his 13 years of service to this parliament. I am assuming, Kon, that this is your last sitting day, as we are still waiting for a formal resignation. I do not want to have to make this speech twice.
While we may sit on opposite sides of the Assembly, I have always considered Kon Vatskalis to be one of the good guys in politics. Kon has made friends on both sides because of his willingness to work with whoever it takes to achieve a result, and his understanding that we work in parliament because we want to and that we want to make a difference. Everyone has something to offer.
Kon first became involved in politics in Greece during the 1970s, attending democracy rallies that eventually led to the removal of the Greek monarchy.
He emigrated to Australia from Greece in 1983, and worked as a surveyor in Western Australia. He moved to Darwin in 1993 to manage the Territory’s urban environmental health unit. He was elected to parliament in 2001, and held 25 ministerial portfolios during his – it is actually 28, as I said earlier today, because he held three of them twice – 11 years of government. That is more than two portfolios a year.
Let me run through some of Kon’s portfolios. He was the:
Minister for Asian Relations
Minister for Business and Economic Development
Minister for Business and Employment
Minister for Child Protection
Minister for Children and Families
Minister for Defence Support
Minister for Essential Services
Minister for Ethnic Affairs
Minister for Health
Minister for Housing
Minister for Lands and Planning
Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment
Minister for Local Government
Minister for Mines and Energy
Minister for Multicultural Affairs
Minister for Parks and Wildlife
Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries
Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources
Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing
Minister for Regional Development
Minister for Sport and Recreation
Minister for Tourism
Minister for Transport and Infrastructure.
After 13 years, with 11-and-a-half years in government, it is no wonder you feel that you have done your duty, Kon. You must have wondered whether you were coming or going with taking all those portfolios in such a short time frame, with two portfolios a year on average. In fact, between you and the member for Karama you have held a total of 39 ministerial appointments since 2001. That must be some sort of ministerial reshuffling record.
The member for Casuarina lists one of the highlights of his time in politics as securing a visit by the Vice President of China to Darwin to open business discussions. It was a significant achievement in its time, and one that Kon is right to feel proud of. We have come a long way since then, and this government’s Asian engagement strategy has seen the value of Territory exports to Asia grow to $6.4bn or more than 90% of our total exports. Asia has become the driving force behind the development of northern Australia, a plan that is creating jobs, jobs and more jobs, along with wealth and prosperity for all Territorians in the future. Unfortunately, while Kon was organising historic visits, the former Treasurer and now Opposition Leader was sending the Territory bankrupt, so we have a lot of hard work to do to recover from that mess. We want to make sure that Kon’s hard work in the Asian buildup was not in vain.
During his term in office the member for Casuarina has worked under three Labor leaders, and at the same time became a big fan of the British sitcom Yes, Minister. Not long after coming to government Kon bought himself an entire series, and to this day still believes that Yes, Minister is an accurate reflection of politics. I understand that he would go home some nights and switch on the next episode, only to realise that he had already seen it at work earlier that day. With leaders like the Opposition Leader, I am not surprised.
To quote from Yes, Minister:
When the member for Casuarina was recently asked about the current Labor leadership he politely, but very tellingly, said that leaders come and go, but when they do not perform they have to go. As I said, it is good to see the former Deputy Chief Minister, Marion Scrymgour, in the Chamber; she could have added some value tonight.
The member for Casuarina’s 13 years working in parliament has meant him missing a large part of watching his two children grow up, and he does not want to repeat that mistake. The government is building a better future for our children, and after so many years of service it is only fitting that the member for Casuarina takes time to enjoy his own family.
Kon’s departure from politics will obviously leave Labor with a gaping hole, bereft of talent. The quality of debate in this House will significantly lessen with his departure, which is very sad for democracy in the Territory.
The member for Casuarina has earned time with his family. There is no doubt that Kon has plenty of time left in him yet, and he wants to do something else with his life before he retires. As he said, the world is his oyster; he has had enough, and that is fair enough.
Kon, I wish you well in your endeavours and, in the spirit of your willingness to work with both sides of politics, I happily extend to you the same courtesy. Thank you for your service; I hope your life after politics is as professional as your days in parliament have been. You have provided a solid contribution; 13 years is a large part of your life, and I hope you enjoy your retirement.
On a final note I see that we also have Jane Aagaard and Dr Chris Burns with Marion; we could really do the numbers on Delia tonight. You could all line up, and Kon, you can probably stay for a couple more days with another vote. The Minister for Education has a membership form for the CLP, should you be sick and tired of your current leadership. We look forward to bringing you on board with us, Kon.
Mate, I hope you have a great time reuniting with your family, and you spend a fair amount of time on leisure activities while reflecting on your political career with much pride. I hope you spend a lot of time thinking about the good, the bad and indifferent times, and I hope you drop by like Chris does from time to time to say g’day.
All the best, you have done a good job.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of past members of this Chamber, former Speaker Jane Aagaard and Dr Chris Burns, a past Leader of Government Business. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, it is with great privilege, but also sadness, that I contribute to the adjournment debate in recognising one of the iconic politicians of the Northern Territory. I am sure that anyone who compiles a history of political studies in the Northern Territory will carve out some extra special chapters for the member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis.
There is no doubt that Kon has a broad following and respect. People who meet him like him. He has the most passionate enthusiasm for the Northern Territory, and he does not have an off switch. Kon has an incredible energy and capacity to keep going, whether it is long days, nights or weeks. He will encourage anyone working with him to share that passion and drive, and do anything he can to improve the Northern Territory.
What I really love about Kon the person is his capacity to love. I have witnessed his capacity to love for well over a decade.
Kon and I met when I returned to the Territory in the late 1990s; I saw this enthusiastic, engaging, interesting and intelligent man taking part in political debates with my mother. I thought, ‘Wow, what a breath of fresh air in the Labor Party, this is fantastic’. Kon made no bones about it; he wanted to be a member of parliament, and he was not even remotely unsure about that path. He went after it, and has obviously pursued it with success.
Kon’s love extends to his family. I watched the way he supported – even though he worked long hours – his then wife. I watched the way he supported a funding institute in Perth for his late first wife. He is a passionate believer in supporting those with cystic fibrosis – which took the life of his first wife – on their very sad journey.
I have seen the love that he has for his sons, Michael and Alexander, and watched them grow up. It makes us feel a bit old, having seen them grow from little guys to being so tall, mature and capable. They are a reflection of their father’s engagement with them in the family. There were long, difficult hours, but I see many mannerisms and values that Alexander and Michael exhibit where Kon shines through. I have watched him support Margaret through the years, knowing that she was carrying the greater burden of parenting because of his hours and commitment to the job.
I watched Kon fall in love all over again with the beautiful AiHong and Kevin, their son. Kon’s capacity to love has been a beautiful thing to witness, and it exudes through him into others in that you start to take on that compassion, the nurturing quality and positive side of life through being in his company. I listened to the words he spoke about AiHong, which I reflect on. Good people come into our lives at important times, and that time was right for AiHong to enter Kon’s life.
I watched the parenting of Kevin; he teaches Kon things, and they have a beautiful step-relationship. None of us could have been more excited when Kon shared the news with us, and the public today, that there will be another little Kon – or Kon-ette – running around at some time. We said the kid will be awesome. No offence, Kon, but we hope the kid looks like AiHong, with her gorgeous looks, but with your amazing personality. What a knockout that child will be globally, because it is a beautiful mix of a family. I wish you all the best in that journey ahead. It is exciting news, and makes some people understand why he has chosen to retire at this time for family reasons.
Deb Rowland, Kon’s right hand woman at Casuarina – the loyalty Kon receives by the way he treats people – is a shining example of that; there is a strength of loyalty there because you know Kon will be open and completely honest about what he thinks, says and does. There is no mistaking or confusion, and it is there in front of you writ large. Deb has a fantastic Territory personality which embraces that, so thank you, Deb, for being on that journey with Kon. You have been a phenomenal team to watch.
I acknowledge my colleagues in the gallery from the class of 2001, Marion Scrymgour, Jane Aagaard and Chris Burns. We have never lost any connection. Gerry Wood is in that class too. There is something about that special year that will bind us for the rest of our lives. I have a strange view that when we have more time in our lives we will catch up around some crazy dinner tables with some incredible conversations, talking not just about our lives as parliamentarians, but outside of parliament as well, which are so rich through our friends and family.
Kon, as you have heard, worked across many different portfolios; it did not matter what it was, he would bring passion to it. I recall a conversation with his great colleague and friend, former Chief Minister Paul Henderson, about the potential of Kon as an incoming Health minister. One thing about Kon is that with his environmental health background he understood many of the issues immediately. However, another thing about him – which most people do not know because he is so gregarious and fun to be with – is that he is an incredibly learned man. He reads volumes of information, absorbs and analyses it, and is able to hold a very clear view on how to deal with it and deliver change. Kon has taught me so much about ancient and contemporary Greek history, and he teases me by saying, ‘You are almost Greek because of the relationship between the Greeks and the Jews’, but it taught me just how learned he is. I have not spent a day in his company without learning something. That is an exciting workplace to exist in, and it is a great opportunity that I have had working alongside Kon to continue learning from him every day.
Kon is retiring from parliament, but he is not retiring from the Labor Party. He is Labor to his core. He told us the wonderful stories of his mother and the campaigns that she has taken, and the great socialist stories of Greece. His values are Labor values, and he loves the Labor Party and the Labor family, particularly in the Northern Territory. He is not going away from us; he is moving into a slightly different role. I am excited about the time and ongoing opportunity that we will have to work with Kon, because there is still a lot to learn from our colleague, the member for Casuarina.
He also has this capacity to ask endless questions about parliamentary process. I will lose about 20% of the tricky questions with the departure of the member for Casuarina. Yes, we were all elected in 2001, but it is somewhat of a disadvantage to know parliamentary procedure and standing orders, having grown up around Parliament House, with mum being the member for Nightcliff for so many years. Kon is not silly. He cottoned on straight away that there was someone nearby who seemed to know these bizarre different things about standing orders and procedures. Kon has never let me leave that role, and I feel as though I am in a constant whip role with him; he will ask me what is happening, and I will explain situations to him. I keep on saying, ‘But we have been in for the same amount of time’, except that Kon will not fill his head with the minor, boring procedural details because he is thinking of ideas with vision and passion. I will take a breather from that one little quirk, with 20% fewer questions on parliamentary procedure.
All of the things that you have brought to us, Kon, have been an adventure. You treat life as an adventure. You seem to have the capacity to embrace every day for what it brings, as well as the joys of those days. It is one of the rarest capacities I have ever experienced; it is awesome. It is something that have I tried to learn from Kon. This is a hard gig, but he has made it fun. He has made it an incredibly fun time for all of us who have worked with him. He has been successful in changing the lives of so many Territorians for the better and, for this, Kon Vatskalis, you have truly served your community and your party, and I thank you for that.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, there is something fundamentally wrong with me. I came into this parliament in 1997; why am I seeing the last of the class of 2001 – were you there in 2001? Okay, so you are the last one ...
Ms Lawrie: No, there is Gerry too.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, okay. In that case, I feel better or even worse about that.
I place on the record my deep and abiding thanks, as a citizen of the Northern Territory, and having lived in Central Australia and Darwin, for the service that Kon Vatskalis has delivered to the people of the Northern Territory. He referred directly to two instances that stood out in his political career, which both occurred reasonably early. It is clear, with the passage of time, that he learned from them.
One of the things about being a minister is that you realise – it is even truer for a Chief Minister – that you have less and less room to move the higher up the pole you go. If I look back at some of the circumstances that surrounded Kon Vatskalis, and then look at things like the Montara oil field blowout, which landed in his lap in a most awkward fashion, could he have done better? Who knows? That is a matter for the historians to debate. Was he left in the lurch by somebody in the Commonwealth? I suspect so, but we will see. Maybe the historians will know one day. You are jammed into incredibly difficult situations where you have so much more to say, and you know full well that if you say it, you will be damned. But such is the nature of leadership. To dreadfully abuse a phrase, I was thinking, ‘Who will rid me of this turbulent Greek?’ It turns out that the turbulent Greek is doing it himself. Turbulent he may have been, but if you want to do anything in politics you must drive it with love and passion in your heart.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition talk about Kon’s love; I believe that he has that, and brought it to the job that he has done in the Northern Territory. He has been a minister for most of that time, 13 years in the political environment, and I know the toll that job has taken on Kon and his family. I would like to momentarily think about all of those families where this job does so much harm, because it bloody well does. It is tough, and it is the families who often pay the penalty.
When passing Kon in the corridors from time to time he will remind me that I am the father of two little girls, not because he wants to pull a guilt trip on me, but he wants my daughters to have a father; that tells me that he is a bloke who cares, and I am very grateful to him for it. It is not without an occasional thought in the evening, when I choose to finally put my pen down and go home because it is time to tell my girls a boxer story before they go to bed. It is that reminder that still rings in my ears, and I thank Kon for taking the time to remind me to have a relationship with my daughters.
I am very grateful to the Northern Territory News which, from time to time, calls me a hard worker. I take that as a compliment, but even that comes at a price. It is a price that is paid by our families, who have to listen to their loved ones being dragged over the coals, abused, and dealt with in the most obnoxious fashion. They are the family members who sit at home and watch the computer screen, now that we have a live streaming feed, feeling anguish for their loved ones. Are they partisan? Yes, they care very much about the people they love. At least we get to yell at each other; our families do not. They have to suffer in silence, and all too often, and in truth, suffer they do.
To take up a role in politics is difficult, and to take up the role of a minister is extremely hard. To believe in something and drive forward, in spite of the fact that I may not agree with the Labor philosophy – a person taking up the cudgels and driving forward with passion in their heart must always be acknowledged. I acknowledge and pay tribute to Kon Vatskalis, and the work that he has done for the people of the Northern Territory.
It is not something I say lightly. It is not something that I would cast around wildly, but I suggest to the people of the Northern Territory that with the departure of Kon Vatskalis, this House will have lost a good, honest and reputable person. I will direct whoever replaces him after the inevitable by-election, whether it is a person on our side or your side, to cast their mind to the conduct of Kon Vatskalis as a benchmark of how you should conduct yourself as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
I offer my very best wishes to Kon on his renaissance, and I hope that his new life is one of great joy. I am delighted to hear about the impending addition to your family; I hope that you are there for the little one at all times, and that every time she looks for her dad, he is there.
There is not much more I can say, so perhaps I can condense it into a single expression: thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the sons of Lynne Walker, Harry and Patrick. Welcome. I also welcome the member for Barkly’s wife Dawn, AiHong and son Kevin, as well as Debbie and Deirdre.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I celebrate the great political career of Kon Vatskalis MLA, the member for Casuarina. Kon, you have been at the forefront of the Labor movement in the Territory, as part of the first Labor government here. Many people behind that movement respect you for leading and conducting yourself with true Labor values.
There has been a strong groundswell in the bush. I can remember 20 years under the CLP, and the strong groundswell sought change, looking for Labor values and a new way of doing business in the Northern Territory. The system did not empowering the groups that I worked with that represented Aboriginal people disenfranchised from that democracy, but over 20 years that changed, and the first Labor government came to power. Kon, you were part of that, and that is part of your history.
It is worth mentioning that Labor values were part of very important changes, and there were so many, but one has to remember secondary education for remote students in the bush. The other change, coming from a regional remote area, was to do with dialysis units for Aboriginal people in regional areas. It was another movement of people coming home, under Labor values, to be with family and achieve better outcomes. The irony was that Kon Vatskalis went on to be the Health minister, embarking on further changes. With a great, dynamic, changing team, Labor started to stamp its values on the Northern Territory.
Kon, you have had that many ministerial portfolios and ministerial duties that you are a well-versed minister. You are the Cabinet minister and local member who could write the workshop manual. As a new MLA coming into this very privileged place, I remember entering the Cabinet room and looking across the table at very experienced senior ministers, and learning from each one, but there was also a special minister: Kon Vatskalis. He had two mobile phones going, an iPad and a Cabinet book with enough paper to choke a goat, but he was across all of it, as well as the Cabinet discussions on top of that. I remember thinking that if there was a new communication technology device where you could use your toes, Kon would turn up in an elegant suit with no boots on, because he would take that next step.
Kon, there are many legacies that you will leave behind, but with regard to the workshop manual for candidates, there is that classic photo of two feet in the air in a pair of RM Williams boots, and the soles were completely worn out. That is not a good advertisement for RM Williams, but it is a good advertisement for anybody embarking on a political campaign as a candidate, because the picture painted a thousand words, and it spoke volumes. I remember that photo, with your face beaming. When that team started to take shape that was the announcement, and I look forward to the book when it comes out.
You have been a great mentor, not only to me but also to my family and parliamentary colleagues, and I thank you for that. In a social and cultural context, I see you as the quintessential exponent of multiculturalism. Darwin is the best exponent of that in Australia, and we can expand on that into the Northern Territory. Kon, you have taught me so many lessons about multiculturalism. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about your flamboyant nature, and how that fuses with others. I have watched your very important work across the world and back home in the multicultural city of Darwin.
It is an incredible legacy that you leave, and an incredible lesson that we can all learn from in what is a turbulent world; those pragmatic examples are worth putting at the forefront of political policy and decision-making, and living our lives together.
Kon, I send best wishes on behalf of my family and me. You have made a big impact. Your visits to Tennant Creek were notable, particularly one night when you entertained Labor Party people, general community members and a prominent journalist; you held the floor, and it was a show of all shows. We should have been buying tickets for it. It was funny and entertaining, but it was also informative, and people could engage with a government minister. Across all those areas of fun, entertainment, good conversation and good cheer, we also learned and took away lessons about you, the Labor Party and political processes.
It is good when you learn from people. I have said this before, and I will say it again: I like people who I learn from, and I thank you, Kon, for being part of my very special learning in this very privileged position, but also as a Territorian. Go well, mate, and good luck to your family as well; enjoy the next chapter. I feel privileged to know that whereever I bump into Kon Vatskalis or his family I can say, ‘I know you guys’, and I look forward to sharing that space and time. Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of members of our Scottish community. I see a gentleman up there with bag pipes; I hope you will not be playing them. The member for Casuarina is retiring, and everyone is delivering adjournment speeches in his honour.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I too acknowledge Dr Chris Burns, Marion Scrymgour and Jane Aagaard, the previous member for Nightcliff.
I thank Kon. I still remember the first time I met you; it must have been in the early 1990s at the back of John Bailey’s electorate office.
The vet was next door, and there must have been people with Christmas drinks spilling out on to the steps. I remember how young your boys were; they were probably as old as mine are now. To think we would be sitting next to each other all this time later in parliament is almost unbelievable.
I remember when you stood for the seat of Casuarina, and I learned today that you had wished to stand for Nightcliff. I always thought that you wanted to represent Casuarina, where I grew up. I remember …
Mr Wood: The truth is out.
Ms FYLES: Remember that I was a rural member for four days, Gerry. I remember how hard you worked, Kon. It was about 18 months before the election, and you had started campaigning and doorknocking. You worked endlessly, and that continued when you were elected to parliament, with your school visits, barbecues and doorknocking. It is almost the stuff of legends in the sense that all the students in the schools at that time probably now end up voting for you.
Kon Vatskalis was known by all the kids in the community; your barbecues were very popular. I have still not reached that success, but we are getting there slowly. Your endless doorknocking – I remember visiting mum and dad on the weekend, and I would invariably see you, your sign or your car. That is something to aspire to as a member of parliament.
As a minister, you were respected. There was a story about one of your department CEOs. I will not name names, but you were the minister when everything sent out was in crisis. In all seriousness we must recognise the effort you put into Health and Child Protection. You grabbed the Child Protection portfolio, took it forward and started a department from scratch, which involved a lot of hard work.
I note your comments about family, and I will keep them with me as I go through my political career. Your love of family is something that we have all felt. We really are one big family, and it means a lot to have someone like you as an uncle figure.
Thank you for all your support. A Fyles family member has run all of your campaigns except for one, so we have had a close relationship over the years. I am sure my father, who could not be here today as he is travelling, would like me to pass on his thoughts and best wishes.
I look forward to now representing you as your local member. AiHong, if he is annoying you at home with a bit too much spare time on his hands, just send him my way; we always have lots of letterboxing work to be shared. Kon, thank you for everything you have done for the Casuarina community and the Northern Territory. We will miss you, take care.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I first met Kon in the early 1990s. We had many a discussion; the discussions I remember the most were outside the Nightcliff post office where we used to debate politics. Neither of us was in politics, and at that stage neither of us even looked like being involved in it. Apart from getting home late because we would be there for an hour debating issues, I recall being on a peer level with Kon in those days. We both worked in the community, and had a passion for what we did. We had great debates, and I remember them very well. I also used to get into a bit of trouble for getting home late, for which I blamed you
We both had a great interest in politics, and Kon went his way and I went mine. It is very interesting that, after some years, we both ended up in the same place. I remember having great respect for Kon, because of his passion and his belief. That was reciprocated, as I am sure that Kon had great respect for me because we were both passionate and committed to what we doing. You see those qualities in Kon’s community involvement. Before I entered this House, when Kon was already a member of parliament, I used to run into him all the time through working in the community – as I had done for many years – and that respect never, and still has not, changed.
I hold Kon in high regard as someone who has followed his beliefs, passions, family and commitment to his community. Those are great traits. Irrespective of which side of the House we are on, I admire people who have those qualities. You are here for all the right reasons.
You are passionate about your community. I am sure, as you go forward, that whatever you do after politics will involve the same thing. You will be in a different chamber somewhere, doing exactly the same sort of thing for your community. I have a slight inkling, from knowing your nature, about what you will do. I have heard a few stories about where you will go and what you will do. If you do that, you will be rewarded in the same manner that you have been rewarded for the service you have given to the people of the Northern Territory.
Thanks for all those conversations, and for helping me hone my political skills through the debates that we had. I had an idea of what was coming when I was elected to this House, as you were. You have done a terrific job, and worked hard. We are on opposite sides of politics, and we have slightly different philosophical beliefs, but you have made a great commitment. If we did not have the ying and yang in politics, it would all be one-sided. I appreciate the job that you have done for the people of the Northern Territory, and I hope you have a lot of personal satisfaction about the commitment that you have given. Thank you.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker –Konstantine, it is time to go; he has made that decision, and on this side, and probably on that side as well, many people are very sad about it, as we have heard tonight already.
We know that you arrived in 1993 after Greece kicked you out. You came to Australia and headed to the Territory, because WA probably kicked you out as well. You are in folklore, along with the member for Karama and the former members who have gladly, out of respect for you, come here tonight – Dr Chris Burns, Marion and Jane. It is very respectful …
Mr Wood: They said they had turned up for me.
Mr VOWLES: Sorry, it is not for you, Gerry. Are you announcing your retirement? Sorry, mate; if you speak next you could probably use your time to announce your retirement then.
I respect Kon. His former staff members, such as Deb, have come to support him and show their respect and admiration for a man I have admired for a number of years, and this continued after my election.
It was a great honour to follow in the footsteps of Dr Chris Burns. Kon always said that no matter how pressured this place is or how many jibes are sent from the other side, when we leave this Chamber we must make sure we spend time with our families. We lose sight of that sometimes; we have heard tonight that family comes first, and I have adopted that thinking in this role. In that way I will never forget the first two years of my parliamentary career. The thoughts about family have been reinforced, because this job can swallow you up. It can take all your time, and Kon’s family has suffered over the years, which he has acknowledged.
I am sure that Alexander and Michael will spend a lot more time with their dad. They probably do not like it, but they will expect a lot more time. You go down in folklore, alongside everything I have said, because of the 2001 election win. That win taught me, as well as the victories afterwards, about hard work, which you and other members brought to this place. You have to work hard, no matter what you are doing, such as in meeting your constituents and following up any issues they may have, etcetera. Then, if you are lucky enough to be elected to parliament and become a minister, as you were for 11 years, you must work hard and do what is right for everybody. Having said that, you must also make time for your family.
I was very fortunate to be invited to Kon’s wedding, as he attended mine, and they were beautiful moments. To AiHong, Kevin, Alexander and Michael, you are getting a father and husband back, and we know that Kon will be very busy in whatever he does.
One word that comes to mind with Kon is ‘hyperactive’ or perhaps ‘ADD’. Whatever he does, it will be interesting, funny and, like most things, he will work hard at what he does. As the Minister for Asian Engagement, you took it to a whole new level in meeting AiHong. Marrying her was a great, beautiful moment. I am very glad when one of my friends, as Kon is, finds happiness; I know that AiHong has found that with you too. I know that Kevin has found somebody he admires, respects and can look up to, and Alexander and Michael will get their father back. Good luck, mate, take care.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I confess that I had not heard of Kon Vatskalis until 2001, when Labor achieved its historic win and took government. For Kon, Delia Lawrie and the others here this evening, Chris Burns, Marion Scrymgour and Jane Aagaard – we all recall that victory, which Kon was at the forefront of.
Here we are, 13 years later, paying tribute to Kon and acknowledging his contribution, not only to the electorate of Casuarina, which he has represented well, but also to the Territory. It is up to the individual whether they think 13 years is a long time or not, but those of us who live and breathe the game of politics know that 13 years is a fair old slog, and Kon, we pay tribute to you for it.
As has been acknowledged, during those 11 years in government, you held multiple portfolios. I have tried to think of the ones that you did not hold – perhaps education?
Mr Vatskalis: Attorney-General and Police.
Ms WALKER: There you go. Education, Attorney-General, Police, Treasury and the Chief Ministry were the only portfolios that you did not hold, but if you think of what remains, Kon had a go at everything. It was more than just a go; he served extremely well in those portfolios, and he worked hard and delivered.
While I first heard of Kon in the lead-up to the 2001 election, I do not think we met until 2008, when I became the candidate for Nhulunbuy. From the outset, I appreciated his warm welcome to me, and the sage advice that he offered.
There are a number of things that I took away from Kon, and one of them has already been mentioned tonight: his capacity to work incredibly hard. I have an image from after the election of the photograph that the member for Barkly mentioned – a photograph of Kon, sitting with his feet up, and you could see that the soles of his RM Williams boots had been worn through, as he had been on the campaign trail, doorknocking around his electorate. That is a powerful image for me, as it shows the capacity to work hard. There is nothing like wearing the soles of your boots out to demonstrate that you have been working hard.
I have also noticed, as others have, Kon’s incredible capacity to build networks; perhaps working in all those portfolio areas was a big part of that. In the time that I have known and worked with Kon, it would not matter where you went, there would always be someone he knew, and who would greet him. Similarly, Kon always knew who those people were; he remembered their names and stories. I heard Hendo say on more than one occasion that there are few people who can work a room like Kon Vatskalis. That is a tribute to not only his hard work and determination to get to know people, but also his genuine desire to communicate with people and be personable. That is a very important attribute when you step into public life, to get around and meet people, listen to their stories and, very importantly, remember who you have met along the way.
As Kon said, family is the most important thing in our lives, and sometimes we may struggle to juggle the priorities and remember that family comes first. I know, and I am sure that it is the same for everybody else, that every time I see Kon on my arrival into Darwin from Nhulunbuy, whether I am coming in for a Caucus meeting or the commencement of parliamentary sittings, the first thing that he always asks me is, ‘How are the kids?’ He wants to know how my family is and how things are at home, which is gold. The next question from Kon, as a result of his work in various portfolios, is, ‘How is Nhulunbuy?’ All of my colleagues have had a great interest in Nhulunbuy, given the events of the last couple of years.
I remember two stories, quite vividly, associated with his time as the Health minister. In early 2009, there were some difficulties recruiting doctors to Gove hospital with obstetrics skills – I am sure you recall it – and it is quite a busy maternity ward there. The ward closed for a few weeks – it would not have been more than five or six weeks – and women had to travel to the Royal Darwin Hospital to deliver their babies.
There was a process under way to recruit and train GPs with obstetrics skills and, today, we benefit from a program that is now in place which ensures that there is a constant stream of training and sending doctors through Gove hospital, which is fantastic. At that time it was very difficult to convince a fairly large contingent of pregnant women that it was not a move to close the ward for good. They were distressed, and it was difficult to convince them that was not the government’s plan.
It took the Health minister to meet with these women, who, at the outset, were a little cranky, and wanting to ask questions. Kon worked his charm with those women, convincing them that it was not the government’s plan to close down maternity services at Gove hospital. What was potentially a negative story resulted in a fantastic photograph, with all of these women wanting to sidle up alongside Kon Vatskalis, with their arms around him. It made the front page of our local paper, everybody with beaming smiles and a headline which said ‘Mums meet the minister’ or something like that. That was Kon’s capacity to work with people, to assure them and deliver on what was the right thing to do.
I also remember, unfortunately, a visit that Kon had to cancel when he was the Health minister, because it was November – or it may have been early December – and Gove was on a cyclone warning. Kon had planned a visit to Gove, but on the advice of, I think, the Police Commissioner travel was not recommended. It so happened that the CEO Jeff Moffet, had travelled out a day earlier and was already there. Kon’s visit to the hospital was anticipated by its workers, so I went instead. I was a poor substitute, Kon, but I went around the hospital, to every department, with Jeff Moffet. You had asked to go to every department around Gove hospital to say hello to people.
The message had obviously not gotten around to everybody that the minister was not able to come, and I hate to tell you this, Kon, but there were some people who did not know that Jeff Moffet was not the minister. I do not know how they did not know who Kon Vatskalis was. God bless Jeff Moffet, who when warmly greeted with handshakes in certain departments as the minister – ‘minister, how nice to see you here’ – very politely nodded and did not correct them, which was nice.
Kon, there are many memories that we share with you this evening across both sides of the House. I wish you well in the time ahead away from politics. I have noticed that when colleagues leave this House they start to look younger, more relaxed and a bit happier within a fairly short period of time. I am sure that is something we all aspire to, but to you and your family, Aihong, Kevin, Michael and Alexander, we wish you all the best and thank you hugely for your contribution and friendship. Good luck, Kon.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table two documents from Mr Norm McCleary.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: Tonight, I will put on the record what the Chief Minister and Attorney-General will not. At lunchtime today I was contacted by a Western Australian who had watched my speech during the censure debate. His name is Mr Norm McCleary, and what he told me was startling.
Mr McCleary is the client at the heart of the 13 questions from the NT News that Peter Maley would not answer. He outlined a serious allegation against Mr Maley, which also concerns the CLP and the former Deputy Chief Minister and member for Fong Lim. He told me that he had e-mailed the Chief Minister on three occasions to act on it, and the Chief Minister failed in his duty to take any action.
I now read from an e-mail sent to the Chief Minister:
In May this year Chief Minister Adam Giles was informed of these serious allegations by Mr McCleary against Mr Maley, which also concern the CLP and Dave Tollner. Mr McCleary is under no doubt that Mr Maley was saying to him, ‘If you give the CLP $10 000 you will receive the information that you want when we win government’.
Adam Giles is the Chief Minister, but he is also the Police minister. We understand this matter has not been referred to the Police Commissioner. We know that the Chief Minister is aware of this matter because he wrote back to Mr McCleary on 25 May, after Mr McCleary sent him a second e-mail accusing the CLP of extorting the money from him. That was three months ago. The Chief Minister responded to Mr McCleary, yet in this House all week, he has been playing dumb, telling us that he had no knowledge of the issue that led to Mr Maley’s resignation. His e-mail back to Mr McCleary said, ‘Thank you for your e-mail Norm. I have flicked your e-mail to Dave Tollner, and he will get back to you. Please let me know if he does not make contact.’
Mr McCleary informed me of these e-mails today by telephone, and told me that he has provided them to the NT News. We know about Mr McCleary’s trust money donation of $4825.60, from Maley Pty Ltd to the CLP – which was rounded up by 40c to $4826 – because it was published in the party’s annual return for that year.
What of the $5174.40 that was paid to NT Broadcasters for CLP election advertising? We have been unable to find any declaration of that amount, and will be referring it to the NT and Australian Electoral Commissions for investigation.
The complainant gave the money over on a promise of receiving sensitive information from the new government that he had, hitherto, been unable to obtain by normal channels. Not only was Mr Maley Mr McCleary’s solicitor at the time that he asked for the $10 000, but he had been retained to act for Mr McCleary in the court case on the matter detailed in the e-mail to Mr Giles.
What of the member for Fong Lim’s role in all this? According to Mr McCleary, he is up to his eyeballs in this matter. Mr McCleary has said that Mr Maley asked for the $10 000 on behalf of the CLP and the member for Fong Lim. He actually met the member for Fong Lim some time later while he was walking in the mall with his lawyer, Mr Maley. Mr Maley introduced the two men, and the member for Fong Lim thanked him. When Mr McCleary was asked if he believed that the member for Fong Lim was thanking him for the $10 000, he said he had no doubt that he was.
The allegation by Mr McCleary is that the member for Fong Lim gave Mr Maley riding instructions to offer Mr McCleary a favour in return for a $10 000 donation. It is not surprising to hear how the CLP does business, and the failure of leadership and duty is a great one.
The Chief Minister has known about these allegations since May, and has done nothing about them. He should have immediately referred the matter to the Police Commissioner. His failure is even greater because he is also the Police minister. It is clear that the Chief Minister has failed to maintain the high standards of probity that his office demands, and the community expects.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to the member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis, who has given much time in his life to Territorians, and for that he should be commended.
Kon has been a good operator, and kept me on my toes quite a few times. He is one of those guys who never can turn off; he is always playing politics. It does not matter whether it is in this House, at a dinner or at a function, he will always have something to say, and usually it is that I am in the wrong party and that I should be in the Labor Party, rather than a conservative one. He is wrong. He would always joke that he had an application form in his top pocket for the Labor Party for me to sign. I have a membership form for the Country Liberals here, and it has Mr Kon Vatskalis’ name on it, just in case. Now that you are leaving the Labor Party you could sign this and join the Country Liberals. After all those years you deserve it.
In all good humour he has been a remarkable member and advocate for his constituents in Casuarina. He has done a remarkable job, and the one thing that is often not spoken about in this House is the time and commitment that people must give to this role. We do not always agree on ideology or policies and the issues we deal with, but we appreciate each other for the time and effort that we put in. It is often unseen, with the biggest hole found in families, and it is no different for the member for Casuarina.
Kon, I wish you all the very best for the future. You have been a great advocate for your party, particularly for your constituents and for Territorians. Thank you – the membership is here, so I will bring it up.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the member for Casuarina has one different characteristic from the rest of us, as he is the only one who can speak Greek English. When he first came into parliament, I had trouble understanding what he was saying, and he was the butt of a few jokes, but that showed you cannot take the Greek out of Kon. He is an Aussie, but he loves Greece as well. As an example of that, I quote from the NT News; I am not 100% sure of the date, but Kon might recognise it. It is called, ‘Speech: a blast from the past’ – Kon, you would be surprised that I am using a bit of IT here. Kon is an IT nut, but in my case it takes a bit of work.
The article says:
It must have been in 2001:
I did not know that was your title:
That is one of the great things about this parliament, that we are able to have people like Kon who bring another flavour to the Northern Territory, and his Greek background was part of that.
I have some nice pictures of Kon with nearly black hair. If there is one thing you notice about members of parliament who have been here for a while, especially males, it is that their hair colour changes. His certainly did. Because you are retiring, I am not sure if your hair will turn black again, but you were obviously a handsome bloke in those days; I am not saying that you are not now.
I remember Kon for having cups of coffee in the mall; he had his little Greek enclave, either in the Galleria or at this end of the mall. I do not know what they were talking about, because it was all Greek to me, but it was obviously something very special. He has great relationships with people of Greek origin, but that does not mean he does not have good relationships with others as well, otherwise he would not have been re-elected four times – the same as me. He was a very popular local member.
Kon has not shown off about soccer for a number of years. When Litchfield football, or soccer, club started, Casuarina would flog us 20-0, and you would never hear the end of it from the member for Casuarina – what a show off! But you cannot say that so much today, as that mob out bush knows how to play the game now, and is doing pretty well, so I hope to see you at Litchfield one day. I am refereeing on Sunday at 8.30 am; I do not think it is you though.
He also loved his computers, and it was mentioned earlier that it occasionally got him into trouble. He once sat over here, and he was doing something that he should not have been doing, in looking at cars on the computer; there must have been a boring speech going on in parliament. Some of the sneaky media – you can never trust them – who sit up there have eyes in the back of their head. They knew what he was doing, and it appeared in ‘Bushranger’. I understand that sometimes the speeches in here can put you to sleep, and you have to do something else with your time.
Kon came from an environmental health background – I remember the Humpty Doo landfill site. We had some brawls on this side about trying to preserve that. Along with Dr Burns, the member for Johnston, who was the minister for Lands and Planning, there was Kon, the Minister for Health, who knew everything you could know about environmental health, and I was one of the local members fighting to retain the landfill site at Humpty Doo. There were some passionate debates, but I was up against it and lost. But that is life.
Kon is a man of the people. On 14 September 2002, he looked much better, because he had lost all his hair. He raised $10 000 for a cancer charity, there is a picture of him in which he looks like a Greek Yul Brynner.
He was one of those people who took his job seriously. As has been said, he had a heap of portfolios; I think it was 20. He was also very much a member of the community. Someone said that he was also able to get around parties and meet people, but I have a feeling that has something to do with a red liquid. He liked a bit of that; I know that because I met him sometimes after he had drunk a few glasses of that – he is nodding his head. That was all part of keeping the economy of the Northern Territory going; we appreciate that, as a minister, you have to do some of those things some of the time.
I will miss you. We are reducing the number of 2001 members considerably, and it is a bit scary. There is the Leader of the Opposition and the Attorney-General, who has had a bit of a bump – he regards himself as part of the crew too. We are down to about three now, and the Remuneration Tribunal will be pleased because there will be fewer pensions going out.
Kon, you have been a great person in this parliament, but even more so you have been a great Territorian. I have never regarded you as Labor, but as a good bloke who worked very hard and very diligently, and as someone who took a lot of punishment, sometimes from people in the opposition – I might have lost my temper. I cannot remember Kon ever losing his temper. He took a lot of flak sometimes that was not called for, but he stood up as a gentleman, took it on the chin and turned the other cheek most of the time. For that, Kon, you are a great bloke.
You have done very well for the people of Casuarina and the Northern Territory. I wish you all the best for your retirement, and do not forget that if it is a baby boy, there is a great name that you could you use. I do not know what Gerry is in Greek, but I am trying here, as you never know. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I pay my respects and give tribute to Kon Vatskalis, a gentleman and someone who I have enjoyed the odd debate with over the last four years. He was indeed a very strong minister, leader and tenacious politician. I like and admire Kon because he is a true gentleman, always very respectful, well-mannered and a decent human being. He always asks how my family are, and he is just a good bloke. I wish you all the best, Kon; you are one of the true gentlemen in this Chamber. Kindness goes a long way in the Assembly, and you have always demonstrated that towards me, which I sincerely thank you for.
I inform the Assembly about a Northern Territory-based research project investigating alternative and more practical treatments for impetigo. This project will not only benefit Northern Territory and Australian children, but could also benefit the millions of children worldwide who suffer from this infection. The Menzies School of Health Research has conducted a trial that proves the benefits of a new, non-injection based treatment.
In Australia, research has found that eight out of every 10 children living in remote Aboriginal communities will have skin sores at least once before their first birthday. About 50% of the preschool and school-age children in these communities currently have skin sores. The sores are due to an infection from a bacteria that has been linked to chronic kidney and rheumatic heart disease. The Menzies School of Health Research has completed one of the largest clinical trials of skin sores treatment ever conducted in Australia; it is outstanding work. Over a three-year period 508 Indigenous children with skin sores, aged three months to 13 years, from communities across northern and Central Australia were randomly assigned to receive either an oral treatment or the traditional injection for skin sores. Five children ran away when they discovered that they were part of the injection arm of the study, and 30% of children had pain at the injection site 48 hours afterwards.
The study showed that simple, short duration oral treatments, trialled either twice a day over three days or once a day over five days, worked just as well as an injection in resolving the skin sore infection within seven days. This is great news for children desperately needing treatment of their sores, as the regimen is simple and pain-free. We now know that the oral treatment works just as well as the injection, and also that it is palatable, pain-free, practical and an easily administered alternative.
The Department of Health supports the findings of this important study, and has begun implementing them in the Northern Territory. The use of this oral therapy is now included in local guidelines for the treatment of skin sores, as well as being included in the upcoming national therapeutic guidelines for the treatment of this condition.
The Country Liberals government supports medical research, and is committed to improving health outcomes for all Territorians. I am proud, as the Minister for Health, to talk about this kind of important research being undertaken on home soil, not only to improve the health outcomes for Northern Territory children, but potentially around the world. This is significant work that has the potential to greatly improve the health of Australians and millions of others around the world.
I congratulate the authors of the impetigo research paper published in The Lancet including Dr Asha Bowen, Dr Steven Tong, Professor Ross Andrews, Irene O’Meara, Mark Chatfield, Professor Bart Currie, former director of Menzies and now Director of the Telethon Kids Institute Professor Jonathan Carapetis, and James Cook University’s associate professor Malcolm McDonald.
This is excellent research work done in the Northern Territory to change the lives of children across the Northern Territory and, indeed, the world.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to Nan C Miller. Nan passed away on 23 December 2013 at home in Darwin, the beloved wife of Trevor Miller and loving mother of Ginger and Kerry.
Nan was born in the United States in 1940 and, as a young girl, her parents moved to a Ute Indian reservation. They went there to operate a trading post. Soon after this they moved into the Navajo Nation reservation to operate a trading post, and it was there that Nan found a connection with Indigenous people. The Navajo Nation adopted her and gave her a special name in their culture.
Nan was educated in a small, one-room classroom building with the Navajo, and finished primary school a year early. She finished high school two years early. Nan then went to university to study nursing. While there, she met Bob, and they were married and had three children, Ginger, Kerry and Kenny. Bob was a track official at a racing circuit. Sadly one day, Nan received the news that a car had lost control and left the track, hitting and killing Bob.
Kenny had seizures, and when he had grown too large for Nan to pick up she had to have him placed in a nursing home. Nan also lost both of her parents in a domestic violence dispute, where her mother was killed by her father.
Despite all of this, Nan recovered. She raised her children, went back to university and completed her nursing degree. She also married a man by the name Art, and life was getting back to normal. Art was an air traffic controller, and when Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers in the US, he and Nan moved to Australia. Nan and Art had two boys named Sean and David.
They separated in 1985, and Nan applied for a job with Territory Health. After an initial unsuccessful attempt to get work in the Northern Territory, she moved here to work as a nurse. She quickly showed her skills, and became the deputy head of the Communicable Diseases Centre.
In 1986, she married Trevor Miller, and her life and career really hit their straps. In 1989, Nan became the immunisation program’s senior project officer, and pioneered a Hepatitis B vaccination program. She contributed heavily to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination programs and, on a lighter note, was part of the project design team that created the HIB monster, a dragon that was part of a vaccination campaign that went around to Indigenous communities and the greater Northern Territory area to encourage people to be vaccinated against HIB.
Nan was also instrumental in setting up the AIDS council. In 1989, she worked hard on this, and created a stir in Darwin when she handed out condoms at the Royal Darwin Show as part of a safe sex campaign. She would often be up late working on contact tracing, which involves tracking the spread of communicable diseases and notifying people to be checked out for infection. If a child had measles, they would want to know which classrooms that child had been in, so they could contact the parents of other children to make sure that they could be checked. If any of those children turned up positive, they would then track to see if other people needed to be notified and warned about that infection.
In 1990, Nan went back to study and completed her Master’s degree in Public Health. Her treatise to complete this study was a groundbreaking piece of work that looked at the cold chain of vaccines. Basically, vaccines need to remain in very specific temperature ranges in order to remain viable. It was found that about half of the vaccines being used were not viable at all and, therefore, were ineffective. Her work led to changes in the cold chain policy that became a model for Australia and the world. A cold chain is where people look at the cycle from production to end use. They investigate exactly what is happening, where they are stored, how they are transported and in what kind of containers. Nan’s work helped put together something to improve this area.
Nan put together a framework and wrote further papers and manuals about vaccination programs and vaccine handling. These included Universal Hepatitis B Vaccination: hospital factors influencing first-dose uptake for neonates in Darwin; Cold chain in a hot climate – about giving vaccines; Changes to the Northern Territory Childhood Vaccination Schedule-MMR; Factors affecting Hepatitis A vaccination uptake among childcare workers in the NT; and School Age Hepatitis B Program.
Her studies and papers on cold chains for vaccines became the basis for other states rewriting their policies on cold chains, and her work was borrowed profusely. Rather than being upset by others using her work without permission, Nan was pleased that it was being used and glad that policy changes would be saving lives.
Businesses and other health professionals worked with Nan to create better methods of storage and transporting vaccines. A firm in the US worked with her to build thermometers that could record highest and lowest temperatures within the cold chain to ensure the viability of a vaccine all the way to the end user.
It was for these contributions to the Northern Territory that we honour her, and we stand with all Territorians to remember the important and valuable contribution that Nan made. At the end of her career she worked in Papua New Guinea as an immunisation field officer, which shows that she cared about people’s health, and wanted to be back on the ground working with Indigenous people, as she did during her childhood with the Navajo.
In 2006, Nan received a Living Legend Award at the Northern Territory Nursing and Midwifery Awards night. This award was well-deserved, as Nan was what the Territory loves, a person who can work through adversity and, with great love and passion, come out the other side and do great things. Despite all of the loss Nan experienced in her life – three children, a husband and her parents – this 5.1 ft, 40 kg woman had a big spirit and heart. She has directly and indirectly touched many thousands of lives through her work and life, and she will be missed by her workmates and dogs, which she loved coming home to. She was quoted in the NT News as saying:
She will be missed by her friends who loved her energy and passion, her family, her daughters in the US and her husband, who was to be here tonight, if the timing had worked better.
The Territory says thank you to Nan. In this House we remember her; rest in peace, Nan Miller.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the member for Casuarina, Mr Kon Vatskalis, and his contribution to the Northern Territory and its parliament since, I think, 2001, when he was elected. He was one of the easier people on that side to get along with. I obviously disagree with Kon’s politics, but he and I always got along quite well, and he was one with whom you could have a decent, well-mannered conversation, which I appreciate. I wish you the very best for the next stage of your life, whatever that may bring, and you can rest assured that you made some great contributions to the Northern Territory.
I remember a great Territorian, friend, family man and tireless contributor to the Northern Territory’s public service. Dr Masood Ahmad of the Department of Mines and Energy’s NT Geological Survey team passed away on Sunday 10 August this year. A couple of his colleagues from the Department of Mines and Energy are in the gallery tonight, and I acknowledge them.
Dr Ahmad first joined the department’s geological survey team in 1982, and he was an integral part of the NTGS for over 20 years. As the assistant director in charge of the metallogenic section, Dr Ahmad was responsible for all NT Geological Survey studies aimed at gaining a better understanding of the Northern Territory’s mineral deposits.
In 2004, he moved out of his managerial role and into the position of chief geoscientist, which he held until his recent retirement.
Dr Ahmad had many achievements with the NTGS team. He was responsible for compiling the first modern geological map of the Northern Territory. He established the Northern Territory’s mineral occurrence database. He authored numerous reports on mineral deposits in the Northern Territory, and was considered a leader and mentor to many NTGS geologists.
His most enduring achievement is likely to be the development of the Geology and mineral resources of the Northern Territory book. Masood devoted most of his time during his final years with the NTGS to compiling this book, which is now considered the definitive volume on the Territory’s geology and resources. To put that work into context, this is the volume that Masood worked on. It was a real pleasure and honour to help Masood, the NTGS team and all those who contributed to this book to launch it on Speaker’s Green some months ago. I was very fortunate and privileged to have those who contributed to the book sign it at the front. I am looking at Masood’s signature, and I will be proud to cherish this book, because it represents not only a wonderful volume of work about the Northern Territory’s geology, but also a huge contribution made by Masood. He was a great man.
Masood was a gentle and humble man with a great passion for the Territory’s geology and resources. He was known for his integrity and dedication to the NT Geological Survey. The Geology and mineral resources of the Northern Territory book is the first ever comprehensive description and detailed analysis of the geology, mineralogy and petroleum resources of the entire Northern Territory.
As I mentioned, I had the pleasure of launching the book last year. It was designed to be an essential reference work for all geoscientists with an interest in the Northern Territory, particularly those involved with minerals and petroleum exploration. With the publication of this book, mineral and petroleum explorers now, for the first time, have a single point of reference to access the latest in geological knowledge and understanding of the Territory’s resources.
The Geology and mineral resources of the Northern Territory book includes descriptions of every named geological unit in the Territory, as well as all significant mineral deposits and petroleum fields. It describes each geological province and basin in the Territory, and also includes a summary of the Territory’s geological history. It is a fitting tribute to Masood and the many years of dedication he gave to developing this book. It will not only be a definitive reference for existing explorers, but will also act as a prospectus to attract further investments to the Territory.
Fortunately, if you want to peruse this book, you do not have to pick up a hard copy. I understand that it is available on DVD, but it is a wonderful read. I have not had a chance to read it from cover to cover, but I have glanced through it a number of times to familiarise myself with the geology of the Northern Territory and what Masood did.
He began his transition into retirement a year ago, following the completion and launch of this volume. I understand that Masood was utilising the remainder of his leave before formally retiring. It is unfortunate that his official retirement was scheduled to begin later this month.
Dr Masood Ahmad will be remembered fondly within the Department of Mines and Energy, and, on behalf of the Northern Territory government, I acknowledge his tireless work and passion within the field of geology.
Vale Masood Ahmad.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 6 classes from Driver Primary School, accompanied by Brianna Grazioli and Bryan Downing. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Wanguri
Member for Wanguri
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I ask that leave of absence be granted to the member for Wanguri today for personal reasons. Before anyone jumps to conclusions, we are not expecting baby Manison any time soon.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we support the motion. We are all aware of the member for Wanguri’s circumstances and I am sure I can comfortably speak for all members of this House in wishing her the very best.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Independents, I also wish the member for Wanguri all the best. If it is a boy, she knows what to call it.
Leave granted.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arafura
Member for Arafura
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Arafura for personal reasons.
Leave granted.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and CLP Government
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and CLP Government
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this House censures the Chief Minister and the CLP government for their lies, culture of cover-up and failure to govern with the integrity and honesty Territorians require.
This motion will be no surprise to Territorians. It has been the most disgraceful period of any Chief Minister, and the last 18 months under his failed leadership have left the public wondering where the shreds of integrity exist in government today. We saw, for the third Question Time this week, consistent with Question Time last week, this government, the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General fail and refuse to answer basic questions about the resignation of magistrate Peter Maley, just as last week they failed to grapple and deal with what the public knew was wrong: the homophobic rant by the Deputy Chief Minister. The disgraced member for Fong Lim, if this Chief Minister gets his way, will be returned as Deputy Chief Minister on Monday.
The member for Fong Lim is holding the government to ransom because he has threatened to leave parliament, prompting a by-election in his electorate. There is a stench around this government; there is more to be revealed about the scandalous Peter Maley affair, the scandalous CLP connections and the scandalous government, which risks losing the seat of Fong Lim. If the government risks losing the seat of Fong Lim, it risks entering minority government, the same situation as earlier this year.
That is the real threat the member for Fong Lim is holding over the head of his government. It is a disgrace that a Chief Minister does not have the authority to exert on his parliamentary wing over the choice of a Deputy Chief Minister, and to have a deputy next to him in the Chamber. It is unprecedented in any Australian parliament that there is not a Deputy Chief Minister or a Deputy Premier filling a seat going into a sittings period. It is unprecedented that you leave such an important public office vacant. There is a vacuum of leadership under this Chief Minister.
This censure is about breaching Territorians’ trust. They reasonably expect that a government will operate ethically, free from undue influence, rather than in the interests of a few select mates who exert undue influence on government decision-making through close financial ties.
In the two short years since the CLP came to office there have been persistent conflicts of interest, cover-ups, scandals and blatant lies. The modus operandi of this government is always to deny, cover-up and deceive when unethical, inappropriate or corrupt behaviour is exposed. There is no clearer example of this than the Chief Minister’s persistent denials of links with Foundation 51.
This is what he said in this House:
- In relation to Foundation 51 and any directorship Peter Maley may or may not have, I am not aware of how it works nor do I know about Foundation 51. There is no connection between Foundation 51 and the CLP as a legal body.
- I have made the Chief Minister aware of this probability, much to his concern. He and I have on many occasions discussed the matter of the Foundation, and he is well disposed to having the Foundation continue its activity, with the wall between the entities currently, fixed in place.
Deceit like this does not get more brazen. The Chief Minister has clearly known about the nature and activities of this CLP slush fund for a very long time. Not only has he known about it all along, and not only has he lied to Territorians about his knowledge, but he has actively encouraged the CLP and the slush fund directors to operate in the clandestine way they do.
There is a clear pattern in the Chief Minister’s behaviour of denying wrongdoing and misleading parliament when he is exposed, and then covering up his direct involvement. It is clear that this Chief Minister and his crooked CLP government have set about to deliberatively mislead this parliament and deliberately lie to Territorians.
Another example of the CLP’s behaviour is the over-allocation of water from vital Territory aquifers to facilitate the granting of licences to its mates.
Evidence from estimates hearings confirms the Minister for Land Resource Management – although he had previously denied it – was directly involved in the allocation of huge water licences to former CLP candidate Tina MacFarlane and former magistrate, CLP member of parliament and director of Foundation 51, Peter Maley.
In response to a written question, the minister denied he had ever discussed these licences with either Tina MacFarlane or Peter Maley but, under the pressure of questions during estimates, he confirmed he had held discussions, behind closed doors, about the licences and their business interests. On 17 June this year, the member for Katherine said:
- I can confirm that I have had a discussion with Tina MacFarlane about her water licence, which occurred, to the best of my recollection, in January 2013 at my electorate office in Katherine.
He also said:
- I have had one meeting, I think, with Peter Maley … It was only a few months ago.
He was following the lead of his Chief Minister, who denied in parliament any involvement of his Cabinet in the allocation of water licences.
In awarding these licences, the government has ignored the legitimate interests of our stakeholders, including farmers, AFANT, Indigenous communities and the NT Environment Centre.
The appointment of Graeme Lewis as a director of the CLP slush fund, Foundation 51, was a clear conflict of interest from the start. He was appointed as Chair of the government’s Land Development Corporation. E-mails from Mr Lewis tabled in this Assembly, clearly indicate that, despite the denials, Foundation 51 fundraises for the CLP and supported its recent Blain by-election campaign. This is a clear breach of political donation disclosure provisions in Territory and Commonwealth legislation.
Former magistrate Peter Maley admitted recently that he had donated money to Foundation 51, and it is on the public record that he continued his directorship of the organisation whilst sitting as a magistrate. Despite this, the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General have persistently refused to investigate or terminate Mr Maley’s appointment.
We understand the Australian Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission are investigating the CLP’s slush fund, Foundation 51.
There are very close parallels between Foundation 51 and the corrupt activities of Eight by Five, a Liberal Party slush fund recently exposed by ICAC in New South Wales. A common thread between the New South Wales Liberal Party’s slush funds and Foundation 51 is the appointment of political mates to key positions in commercial and regulatory environments.
Let me run through some of the clear conflicts of interest on this list. Graeme Lewis, director of Foundation 51 and member of the CLP management committee, was appointed as Chair of the Land Development Corporation, and Denis Burke, a former CLP Chief Minister and political lobbyist, was appointed as Chair of the Development Consent Authority, causing grave concern in the Territory development community.
The Chief Minister has refused to disclose the details of financial arrangements and secret discussions with former Chief Minister Terry Mills, prior to his appointment to the created position of NT Commissioner to Indonesia and ASEAN, a role with a budget of $750 000 per year, footed by the Territory taxpayer.
This is extraordinary cronyism, which is causing concern across our community. This culture of cover-up and denial has been evident in the last two weeks in relation to the Chief Minister’s failure of leadership in dealing with the appalling behaviour of the member for Fong Lim. The CLP defended the indefensible. The Chief Minister refused to discipline the member for Fong Lim, and it took community outrage for you to even concede that Dave Tollner’s homophobic slur was inappropriate. Now, only a few days later, you are keeping open his return to the position of Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister because you lack leadership and the ability to maintain any standards of decency or governance. If it had not been for the leadership of the members for Goyder and Araluen in speaking out against this appalling behaviour, Dave Tollner would still be the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer.
On top of all this, the Chief Minister has refused to come clean on what he knows about the circumstances of magistrate Peter Maley’s resignation. The Chief Minister and Attorney-General have refused point blank to tell the truth about what they know about these serious matters. Why will they not come clean to Territorians? Why have they refused to conduct an inquiry? We have an inexperienced, arrogant and out of touch Chief Minister leading a government ridden by personal acrimony and dysfunction, imbued with a culture of cover-up. Stop the cover-up!
The CLP should accept the responsibility of cleaning up its party and government, and embark on good governance for the Northern Territory. The first step in this process of rehabilitation would be the removal of the Chief Minister who clearly is not up to the job.
The Chief Minister pretends his government is creating jobs, when unemployment has doubled under his watch. He pretends the carbon tax reduction in power prices is the family saviour, after his government has slugged households with $2000 in tariff increases, and small businesses have been slugged with increases in excess of $4500; that was apparently made up by Labor, despite appearing in a media release from the former CLP Treasurer, the member for Araluen.
He is a Chief Minister who pretends he is getting on with the job of improving education, when the government has slashed the Education budget by $15m. He pretends that only 35 teachers have been sacked from our schools when, during estimates, we discovered that number is at least 125. The Chief Minister pretends it is okay in the schools and that teachers are receiving great support, when the CLP has sacked 60 support staff. The Chief Minister pretends he is helping the most disadvantaged students, when he rejected the funding contained in the Gonski program. That funding would have gone to our most disadvantaged students who attend schools across the remote communities of the Northern Territory. Shame on you, Chief Minister! He pretends that slashing secondary education across remote areas of the Northern Territory is the right thing to do, when the people and families in communities are saying, ‘Leave our secondary education system in the bush. Do not strip it away. Do not have just a boarding school model for the Northern Territory.’ By all means, give our kids choice. Let there be boarding schools, but there should also be secondary education in remote communities across the Territory. You are a disgrace!
The Chief Minister pretends the $11m cut to the Health budget will not mean a cut to services in real terms, because he is busy pretending the reduction in elective surgery waiting lists is all because of him and his government, when it was achieved through federal funding provided under a federal health agreement delivered by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. That is okay, keep pretending. The Territorians accessing our services can see you are lying to them.
You pretend Labor is making up the crisis at Royal Darwin Hospital, when the Australian Medical Association called it that. The Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation said RDH is in crisis. Anyone who attends the Royal Darwin Hospital is spending an extraordinary amount of time in the ED, not through the fault of staff doing an amazing job, but because you, Chief Minister, keep lying about the state of our health system. You have presided over multimillion dollar cuts to the Health budget, whilst finding an extra $33m to add to the Department of the Chief Minister’s budget for one year. What does that department do? It provides advice to you, Chief Minister. It does not provide nurses, doctors or support staff in our hospital system, nor the teachers and support staff in our schools. It simply provides advice to the Chief Minister.
It is okay for you to have a $33m slush fund to pay for the glossy brochures you so desperately cling to during Question Time, and you are okay with the cuts to our schools and to watch our hospital in crisis. You pretend you are getting on with delivering Palmerston Regional Hospital, when the CLP has chosen an unserviced site, a decision that has blown out the hospital project by four years. We needed that hospital to continue on the time line set in place with a serviced site, but in your arrogance you had to choose a different one. You had to do that, despite the needs of the people of Palmerston and the rural area.
It is a disgrace. You put yourself before every Territorian and their needs. It is all about you; it is all about having fun and taking care of your job and your mates, and it is about jobs for the boys. It is all about how you can wash through the CLP’s slush fund money that you need to cling to power. You are a disgrace; you are not a Territorian, you are a blow-in. People say to me, ‘When is that blow-in going away? He does not represent us, he does not talk the way we do. When is he going away?’ It is unbelievable the way people talk about you, Chief Minister, because they can see real arrogance when it shouts at them from the television; they see it and they do not like it.
Territorians want a government that consults with the community. They want a government that puts education priorities ahead of its own $33m glossy brochure fund in the Department of the Chief Minister, and a government that will acknowledge the crisis at RDH. They want a government that admits it made a fundamental error when it stopped the use of the 100-bed medi-hotel, built for purpose to deal with subacute cases and to alleviate crowding at the Royal Darwin Hospital. You will not even state the figure; is it seven alcoholics or 15? In your culture of cover-up, whatever you do, do not state the real figure, but use the Territory-wide figure to say, ‘We have put 400 people through mandatory rehab’. Do not talk about the number of clients in the 100-bed medi-hotel, putting our hospital into crisis.
There are so many things, Chief Minister, that you get so terribly wrong. In planning, you hit the panic button because there was no land release in the booming Darwin and Palmerston environment that you could stamp as a CLP land release, even though you will rename, rebadge and reclaim Labor land releases across Johnston, Zuccoli – Mitchell Creek Green is to come – Muirhead and The Heights. You say, ‘These are our houses’. They are not, and Territorians know the truth. They know Labor planned and funded the infrastructure to turn off those new suburbs. You have desperately tried to find a place where you can say, ‘This is our land release’, and you chose the area we know as Holtze – in your arrogance you called it Palmerston north – and you chose Berrimah. What is happening to the research facilities at Berrimah, Chief Minister?
You are keeping the prison to put our juveniles and alcoholics in. We look forward to seeing your plans on what you can yield from a site that has a research farm and a gaol that will stay, or will we find out, at some stage, that what you have been saying is not true, and that the research farm will go? Who knows with this government, because what it says and what it does are two entirely different things. That is the lack of trust that Territorians have in you.
What you say and how you act do not match up. You will not rule out the return of Dave Tollner as Deputy Chief Minister, even though our community collectively decried his behaviour. You still defended him and will not rule out his return, such is your arrogance to press on with taking care of your mates above the interests of Territorians.
We hear the numbers are being crunched against you – little wonder. The polls tell us what we hear on the ground; you are sliding towards losing government, and there is no handbrake to put on. You are sliding because Territorians see through your lies; they cannot stand your arrogance and they see you do things against their interests.
As a Territory parent, I challenge the CLP government to reinstate education funding. As a person born and raised in Darwin, with family here to use the Royal Darwin Hospital, I challenge you, Chief Minister, to accept that the hospital is in crisis. Do not only bring 30 beds online in September; use the 100 beds at the medi-hostel that you blocked in your arrogance and haste.
You will not even listen to your own community in Alice Springs; you pretend that it is fantastic. You will not acknowledge that 120 businesses in Alice Springs, under your watch, have closed their doors. You will not count the number of empty leases in the Alice Springs mall. You will not acknowledge that one of the biggest manufacturers, OneSteel, has shut up shop in Alice Springs. You will not recognise the 340 business across the Territory which have closed their doors under your watch, because that does not matter to you. That is not what you are looking at; you are too busy trying to brand yourself as the man of northern Australia, a glossy brochure exercise in branding that is as shallow as a petri dish.
There is not a Territorian who does not want to see development; previous CLP and Labor governments have all worked for the development of northern Australia, but in your arrogance it is all about you calling yourself the only person – you said it on television the other day, and it was extraordinary to watch – able to bring these projects. No, Chief Minister, the projects are coming because of the work of those people in the role before you, and because we have the brownfield sites. The projects exist because Labor invested in a Marine Supply Base and the opportunity of chasing Ichthys, as well as investing time and energy to bring Bayu-Undan gas onshore to DLNG.
The conversation started under the previous CLP government, but it was landed by Labor. You are not big enough – you have not put the big boy pants on – to recognise who did the work. You are incapable of that, because it is all about you.
For the sake of the Territory, it is time for parliament to censure this incompetent Chief Minister. You cannot keep lying in the Chamber like you do and not be held accountable for it. There are things I would like to say in this debate about how grubby you were during Question Time today, form that you exhibit consistently. I will not, as I have Supreme Court action under way. As a Territorian, I believe in justice, the pursuit of natural justice and the sanctity and integrity of our judicial system. I do not blur the separation of powers as you, Chief Minister, so arrogantly and wrongfully choose to do.
You have brought this censure upon yourself through your actions.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, someone call the doctor; the Leader of the Opposition is on life support. That was one of the most embarrassing contributions I have ever heard in this Chamber. If ever there was an Opposition Leader on their last legs it is you.
Today is the day the member for Casuarina quits parliament. We are supposed to adjourn at 5 pm to speak in acknowledgement of his performance and service over the last 13 years, but instead of holding normal parliamentary debate and acknowledging his hard work, the Opposition Leader has put that in jeopardy.
Everyone who was to come in at 5 pm to listen to adjournment speeches and pay our respects as a House – it has now been thrown out the door, and we know the Leader of the Opposition …
Ms Fyles: Is that all you can say in response?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, I will not have one more interjection. Everyone on the other side was quiet while the Opposition Leader spoke, and I expect the same from that side. Thank you.
Mr GILES: We have a Leader of the Opposition on life support. The member for Casuarina, who should quite rightly be thanked for his performance in this Chamber – we know he is unhappy with the Leader of the Opposition; the eight members on the other side are divided at four all. We now have someone walking out in disgust with the Leader of the Opposition’s performance and, in a last gasp opportunity for vitriol and to drive the knife into the member for Casuarina, the member for Karama has decided to delay his acknowledgements at 5 pm. We must now decide if we should try to rush through things, so we can acknowledge the member for Casuarina on time and support him, or should we play the political game of the dirty, grubby Leader of the Opposition, who spoke lies throughout her speech?
I will tell you the first one – jump up, member for Nightcliff, and say you cannot use the word ‘lie’. Standing orders have been suspended; you must learn that one, surely.
The first lie was about price rises on small households – up by $2000 for electricity. What a complete lie! You know when Delia is lying because her lips are moving. It was disgraceful to hear that.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Surely we would continue to refer to members by their electorate names.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please refer to members by their electorate name, thank you.
Mr GILES: Yes, sorry, that was a slip of the tongue; I should have said ‘Leader of the Opposition’.
You know that whenever she stands to speak it will be a lie. Should I try to debate as a response to this pathetic censure motion or should I say, ‘What a waste of time in parliament’? We will listen to everyone say good things about the member for Casuarina – hopefully later today we can call him Kon, rather than the member for Casuarina – but we would like to say nice things about him at that point in time.
Let us talk about a couple of the other lies, one being the $30m of funding for the Chief Minister’s department. What is it? We have moved the Office of Asian Engagement and Trade from the Department of Business into the Chief Minister’s department. We have created the Northern Australia Development Office, and these things do cost money. The Indigenous economic development role is now in the Chief Minister’s department, along with $10m in additional regional roads infrastructure funding. There is $30m, but it is going towards roads, building businesses, creating economic opportunities, working with Asia and developing trade. It is ridiculous; you must develop a better argument.
You then talked about the cost of living; you did not talk about what we have done to reduce it. You did not talk about us increasing childcare subsidies by 10%; increasing the value of our Sport Voucher Scheme, which was introduced in the first two years of this government – from $75 to $200, with two $100-a-year instalments at the start and the middle of the year; doubling the value of the Back to School voucher; and allocating $132m for land release in this year’s budget – 6500 new blocks to achieve a better balance in the supply and demand equation for land.
No, the Leader of the Opposition did not talk about any of those issues. She also did not talk about things such as when Labor first came to government. I recall the former member for Millner, Matthew Bonson, releasing a flyer about the cost of living when he was standing for the seat of Millner. Amongst other things on the flyer, he said, ‘Labor’s petrol petition – why do we pay so much?’ He also urged people to sign the petrol price petition. That was Matty Bonson’s response to address petrol prices. How successful was he? On the flyer, it also says, ‘Darwin, the dearest for meat, fruit, veggies and petrol’ – again – as well as, ‘Labor takes action.’
What action did Labor take? When we came to government on 25 August 2012, what action had Matty Bonson taken? What action had the former Labor government Treasurer taken? Nothing!
Mr Westra van Holthe: Nothing. They drove up the cost of living.
Mr GILES: They drove up the cost of living, something we inherited. It is something we are taking action on across a range of areas and reducing costs to families, particularly through the work we are doing with the Sport Voucher Scheme, Back to School vouchers, childcare subsidies and land release.
Removing the carbon tax: Labor paraded the carbon tax, which has now been removed by the Coalition, saving a large household $245 per annum on average. That is a good thing. Labor fought hard all the way to stop the removal of the carbon tax.
I hear snide jibes and remarks from the Leader of the Opposition about portfolio or ministerial changes. These things happen in governments all the time. It is not about us, it is about the Territory and Territorians. To keep referring to that means you have lost control of what the game is about. Those of us involved in politics are in a bubble; we see it every day. You must look outside the bubble, Leader of the Opposition, and start recognising that it is about the Territory and Territorians.
That is why Territorians are so happy that we have reduced crime to the lowest level since the 1990s and wiped $1.3bn of Labor debt off our books. Our economy is the second strongest in the nation – jobs and growth. It is about our future, and ensuring our kids and grandkids have a future in the Northern Territory.
I have just referred to the member for Casuarina. The Leader of the Opposition talked the other day about changing ministries; did you know the member for Casuarina has been a minister on 28 occasions during his 13 years in parliament? I will talk about this later, Kon. Congratulations on being a minister, but if the Leader of the Opposition wants to say, ‘You have changed your ministry’, she should look in her own back yard – 28 ministries. You could say it was really 25, because he was given three ministries twice. But …
Mr McCarthy : Are you talking about 13 years or two years?
Mr GILES: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is chiming in. You must pat yourself on the back; this is the only time you will ever be the deputy.
The Leader of the Opposition then had the hide to talk about our northern Australia policy. She criticises it everywhere she goes, and she cannot stand it. She hates the fact that we have a plan for the future. The member for Casuarina supports it; he is a firm believer. He believes in cattle, mining, development, jobs and engagement with Asia. The Leader of the Opposition hates it. Now the member for Casuarina is leaving, who knows if we will keep the Leader of the Opposition or not? We will see which numbers come in. She lost her factional fight during the Casuarina pre-selection process, but we will see if there is someone with the smarts to get rid of the Leader of the Opposition and her deputy.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition do not support the northern Australia agenda, the member for Nhulunbuy hates everything under the sun – including the north Australia policy – the member for Nightcliff hates northern Australia and Ken Vowles is still learning to read about it, but I am sure he will take a similar line to the Leader of the Opposition because he …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62. That comment about the member for Johnston was offensive.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What was the comment? I missed it.
Mr GILES: I said he is still reading about the north Australia policy.
Ms FYLES: No, you said he is still learning to read.
Mr GILES: He is still learning to read about the north Australia development policy.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not find that offensive. Continue, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: I will send you some information on it.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask for a ruling under Standing Order 62; I found that offensive. Also, Standing Order 65 – refer to me by my electorate name.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been withdrawn. Continue, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: They do not support the north Australia policy agenda, and the member for Johnston just showed his ignorance about it. Everyone on this side of the Chamber supports initiatives to develop northern Australia, as do all of the stakeholders involved. The kids and the grandkids who want jobs tomorrow support north Australia development. The mums and dads who want to ensure we have a strong economy in the Northern Territory support it. The Coalition supports it, but who else supports it?
On the agenda for the Australian Labor Party’s Alice Springs branch meeting, held at 5.30 pm on Tuesday 26 August 2014 in Warren Snowdon’s office, under the guidance of president Adam Findlay, secretary Chansey Paech – also a councillor on the Alice Springs Town Council – and treasurer Judy Buckley, was a discussion about northern Australia development initiatives; this was Item 9.3, under general business.
While the Leader of the Opposition and her deputy, the member for Nhulunbuy and the members for Nightcliff and Johnston – I am unsure about the member for Fannie Bay, as he seems to show more intelligence around these policy initiatives. While they do not support it, even the Labor Party in Alice Springs is supporting it, calling for people to chat to them about northern Australia policy initiatives. Labor’s own branch in Alice Springs is supporting it, but the Leader of the Opposition is not. It is no wonder she does not have the support of the ALP in Alice Springs.
Returning to some of the lies the Leader of the Opposition likes to peddle, she is running a line saying 340 businesses are closing across the Territory. That is a lie. Three-hundred-and-forty businesses that have changed names, ownership or some statutory responsibility within their business structure have been picked up in a report. The Leader of the Opposition, who was a former Treasurer and Minister for Business, unashamedly seems to believe these businesses are closing, which they are not. She does not talk about the businesses that are opening and those businesses that are thriving in the Northern Territory.
During her contribution, a last gasp effort of her dying leadership of NT Labor, she made comments that many would take as offensive. I did not take it as offensive, but she made reference to me not being born in the Northern Territory, as if that is a bad thing. Leader of the Opposition, how many people living in the Northern Territory were not born here, and is there anything wrong with that? Is it wrong to be an Australian and move to the Northern Territory? What a derogatory thing to say, and what a sure sign that she is struggling under the mounting pressure of being the Leader of the Opposition, being incompetent in her role and not holding the support of four of the eight people she is supposed to represent. The cracks are showing. She is under extreme pressure, and it is time for her to go.
Member for Fannie Bay, when will you have the numbers again? Perhaps wait until after the Casuarina by-election, and you might achieve them by then. You might be able to convince someone; surely the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows it is time to get rid of her. He might swing his vote to you. Surely, member for Fannie Bay, you can put some intelligence into the other side of the debate.
As I said yesterday during Question Time, Territorians expect us to have good governance, policy, debate and direction. If we were not performing as a government I would take on the commentary, but crime and alcohol consumption are at their lowest levels since the 1990s, we have the biggest land release program in the Territory’s history and we have the second strongest economy.
I am leading the push to bring more gas coming onshore, as well as supply bases; I am the only one who can deliver it. When these things are happening, surely you must say there are good things occurring. You must be questioning why you do not have any policies on your side, apart from what you announced during the week about supporting award wages for prisoners who mow lawns for people in the community. Award wages for prisoners is the Labor Party’s policy. It was not on the agenda of the Labor Party meeting in Alice Springs, but the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to roll out this new gold policy of award wages for prisoners. It is unheard of, but I am not surprised, because she did not back the prison officers when they were under threat and had to use tear gas to save themselves. When prisoners were rioting, they had to use tear gas. No one likes to see tear gas used on kids, but you must protect employees. You would expect any political leader to back the staff and ensure they are safe. She does not back the staff, but decides to back the prisoners and call for award wages. It is outrageous, but I am not surprised, with the union base they operate in the Northern Territory.
That brings me to what we have done in two years. We are a government that likes to be open and transparent, and we are accountable and do not mislead. We call it as we see it. The question about who will be the next deputy leader – there are 13 people on this side. I am not nominating, but I hope all 12 will nominate. We want competition. We will not mislead, and I will talk about some of our successes. Of our successes, what has Labor fought?
Education: there has been a 4.4% increase in the Education budget, with total expenditure reaching $870m, and there is an additional $84m for education infrastructure. We have established a behavioural task force to tackle serious issues like bullying and antisocial behaviour. We have established a commission on Indigenous education, the first of its kind in more than a decade, to improve Indigenous education outcomes. We have made secondary school performance information available to parents, where Labor hid it in the past. We have identified five trial sites where will work to deliver better educational outcomes for some of our remote constituents in the Territory; this will be carried out through the school of the air.
In regard to Health, we will build the Palmerston hospital. We have not put up a fence and a sign, to be left forever. We have started building it on a bigger and better site, including a 24-hour emergency department. There is a two-year construction time line, starting in 2016. The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme has been reviewed, with subsidies increased for Territory families travelling interstate for medical reasons.
Cardiac surgery patients in Darwin and Alice Springs no longer have to travel interstate for CT coronary angiograms. We have allocated $4.46m for an additional 400 elective surgeries, and the Royal Darwin Hospital has also received $22.5m in upgrades, as has Alice Springs Hospital, with $24.9m spent on a new emergency department.
Four hundred people have completed the mandatory alcohol treatment program, helping them to beat the challenges of alcohol abuse and misuse. The program offers three months off the grog, restoring cognitive ability so these people have the opportunity to make decisions about whether they want to go back on the grog or change their lives. Many will go back on the grog, and we will put them back into the program for three months to help restore their cognitive ability again.
It is important to reflect on community safety, because crime is at its lowest level since the 1990s. We have abolished the Banned Drinker Register and introduced Alcohol Protection Orders, which are showing amazing results. Since we started in Tennant Creek, alcohol-based assaults are down 47%. If you were the New South Wales Premier Mike Baird, and you had achieved a 1% drop in alcohol-based violent assaults or crime, you would be singing it from the rooftops, and receiving much praise. We have achieved a 47% drop in Tennant Creek, and what does the member for Barkly have to say about it? Nothing! A 47% drop is amazing.
The Sentenced to a Job program for low-security prisoners: they are working in real jobs and contributing to the community they offended against, which saw them go to gaol.
We are strengthening and prioritising the role of school-based police officers, making sure they know their role is so important, and that their interaction with students to teach them the rights and wrongs in our society – to keep them out of gaol – is so important.
We have introduced tougher sentencing for violent crimes, including one punch legislation. I think we were the first jurisdiction in the nation to introduce one punch legislation, and others are now coming on board. We do not hide our crime statistics. Labor used to hide them; it would not release crime statistics to the public in case there was bad news. Not only are we driving down crime, but we are telling everybody about it. It is open to the public on a website, with monthly data released so people can see what has happened.
We have increased breath-testing programs to catch more drunk drivers, as we know that drink-driving is the biggest killer on the road, along with not wearing a seat belt.
We have installed CCTV cameras in many additional locations across the Territory, with 182 now operating. I look forward to announcing an increased roll-out into the future. It is not only about performance; we are also providing greater levels of resources to the security area.
Police all receive iPads so they have more opportunities to be out of the office and still access the computer system while on the beat, whether that is riding horses, being on motorbikes, in cars, walking or even on our new Segways. They have greater access to information to keep them out of the office and on the beat, which officers enjoy.
Labor likes to say nothing has been done in the bush. The bush is receiving all of our attention all of the time, and I will give a few examples of what we have done.
The Homelands Extra Allowance program: I wrote this policy in opposition; I looked at how we supported people living on homelands and outstations. Off the top of my head there were three categories of how homelands and outstations were funded. It was based on homes being one-, two-, or three-bedroom. A one-bedroom home was given about $685 per annum. I cannot remember the price of the two-bedroom home, but the three-bedroom home received around $1200 per annum. That funding was to support repairs and maintenance and capital upgrades.
Many would say outstations and homelands are on Aboriginal land, so they should have nothing to do with government and people should look after homes themselves. I understand why people say that, but I do not support that philosophical approach. There are roughly 5000 homeland/outstation dwellings in the Northern Territory, and if we do not support those dwellings with repairs and maintenance from an asset management point of view, and they deteriorate to the point of being no longer habitable, all of a sudden we will have families from 5000 homes entering the public housing system, if they cannot get into private or community housing. That presents an economic challenge for government in how to fund that, so it is better for us to look at funding those outstations and homelands houses properly, so they remain habitable.
We can provide a more supportive environment for families, people can choose to live on-country and not come into an urban location, and it also helps us in the longer run with the need for greater levels of investment in those 5000 homes. We sought to identify funding for that. I ran an economic analysis over repairs and maintenance funding across the Northern Territory, picked the Tennant Creek model, under which an average spend was, I think, about $5200 – this was spent per annum on an average home there – and we applied that formula across the Northern Territory.
It does not matter if you have a one-, two- or three-bedroom home, you are now supported through a $5200 one-off grant each year that can be rolled over to support capital management through upgrades, whether it is kitchens and bathrooms or replacements.
We have provided that $5200 so people have that more supportive environment. That is unheard of, going from $685 to $5200 a year, and is a massive increase for those homelands and outstations. It is an enormous capital investment, but we know the importance of people wanting to live on their homelands, remain on-country and live on their outstations, rather than in a dilapidated dwelling that is unhealthy, has inadequate environmental health infrastructure and is not a safe environment for kids. We have provided that supportive environment, and it is one example of what we have done in the bush.
We have also made structural changes to the Pastoral Act so pastoralists can invest in non-pastoral activities such as horticulture, growing fruit and veggies and sandalwood. It is the greatest change to the pastoral industry for a long time. We have said that pastoralists can have a lease on non-pastoral activity for 30 years – with a 30-year option – which means there is now not only a new alternate business investment model, but there can be a tradeable commodity, should pastoralists wish to sell it, based on infrastructure investment. It is a fantastic outcome.
Let us look at what we have done about the cost of living, for families and for the Territory lifestyle.
Every submission that comes to Cabinet has a cost of living measurement indicator. We consider if we are increasing or decreasing the cost of living. When the Cabinet submission came in regarding the doubling of the Back to School vouchers, it reduced the cost of living by $75. It was a fantastic investment. The value of sports vouchers has now increased from $75 to $200, putting downward pressure on the cost of living for parents and families across the Territory. There was the 10% increase in childcare subsidies, as well as broadening the scope of who they are supplied to.
We have started Festivals NT, an exciting new concept for events across the Northern Territory, included extra funding for the Darwin Festival, but also trying to link that to Asia and a greater level of Asian content, because Asia is our closest neighbour.
We have introduced a speed limit trial north of Alice Springs, as well as opened motor vehicle registries on Saturdays. We have also introduced online registration and a greater level of online transaction opportunities for those people attending the MVR or seeking to use MVR services, in order for them to have that access on weekends, not only during the week.
We have brought national and international sporting events to the Northern Territory, not only to watch them, but so we can participate and those sporting codes can invest in the Territory, potentially providing a pathway for Territorians to compete at a national elite level.
We have opened recreational fishing in Chambers and Finke Bays with the buy-back of commercial licences, something which was unpopular but which supported lifestyle opportunities for Territory anglers.
We established an independent NT Environmental Protection Authority, which runs the ruler over developments in the Northern Territory to ensure we are not developing willy-nilly and that we have a framework around environmental aspects to protect the Northern Territory into the future.
They are just a few of the commitments and new initiatives of the Giles Country Liberals government. It is fantastic to be part of such a team. In regard to the potential opposite, I shudder to think what would happen if Labor was in government. Crime would be through the roof, it would not be safe to walk the streets in Alice Springs again and it would not be safe in Tennant Creek or Katherine. Debt would be spiralling out of control, and investment in infrastructure would be stalling because of debt interest repayments. We would have more issues such as Territory government assets being handed over for free to union mates, such as what happened under the Stella Maris deal. They would remember the Stella Maris deal, when a $3m government asset was given to union mates with the flick of a pen by the Deputy Opposition Leader when he was the minister for Lands and Planning, on the eve of the 2012 election – a most despicable act.
Yet, Labor members like to criticise upstanding citizens such as the new appointee to the DCA, who went through a rigorous application process – I think there were seven applicants – and who came highly recommended as the best candidate. They also criticised the recommendation received by Cabinet, through the Attorney-General framework, regarding the appointment of Peter Maley. We received that recommendation, supported by the Attorney-General, and instead of being congratulated on the hard work they did in the past and will do in the future, candidates are attacked for their political thoughts, not because of their performance or ability.
The Leader of the Opposition, on some sort of life support vessel, trying to cling to her job in a last-gasp effort, delivered a rambling statement to parliament that made no sense at all, all the while checking for the member for Fannie Bay turning up with a knife to try to take her position. Member for Fannie Bay, you should do it.
This censure motion will not be supported. In fact, if I had my time again I would probably amend it to censure the Leader of the Opposition for her failure as an Opposition Leader in the Northern Territory.
___________________________
Statement by Speaker
Use of Standing Orders
Use of Standing Orders
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, before we proceed I want to point out to members – I thought the Speaker had clarified this during the March sittings – that when there is a censure motion the standing orders are not suspended. The standing orders are suspended to allow the moving of the motion. Once the motion has been moved the standing orders prevail. I would like to point out to everyone that the standing orders are still there.
___________________________
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we are censuring the Chief Minister and this government for their lies, culture of cover-up and failure to govern with the integrity and honesty Territorians require.
This is a matter of trust. Territorians no longer trust this government to govern, to keep its promises, to do the right thing and to tell the truth.
The Leader of the Opposition told us of this government’s litany of failures and the reasons why this Assembly must censure the Chief Minister. I will focus on the poor judgment this government has exhibited over the two years – it is two years this week – since it was elected. I am, talking about the Maley affair, but what is it?
The following facts are not disputed. Peter Maley is a former CLP member of parliament, a personal friend of the member for Port Darwin, and was a director of Foundation 51, which has links to the CLP. He made a financial donation to the member for Port Darwin; the member for Port Darwin submitted Peter Maley’s name to Cabinet for appointment as a magistrate. Peter Maley was appointed a magistrate by Cabinet. The NT Bar Association asked for an independent inquiry into magistrate Maley’s conduct, but the Attorney-General and Chief Minister said no to this request. The NT News put 13 questions to magistrate Maley about some serious allegations; he has resigned. The Attorney-General said he was aware of the serious allegations.
As we know, Peter Maley was a CLP member of this House, which we have no problem with. In 2012 Mr Maley made a $5000 donation to the member for Port Darwin’s campaign, which was duly declared, and the opposition has no problem with that. The Attorney-General has confessed that Peter Maley is a friend, which we also have no problem with; the Territory is a small place. We know Peter Maley supervised the member for Port Darwin in his law firm while the future Attorney-General worked his way through his Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice – no problem.
In September last year Peter Maley was appointed as a magistrate. Who sponsored the submission brought to Cabinet? It was the Attorney-General, and he admitted this during estimates this year. I quote from the estimates transcript:
- Mr GUNNER: Peter Maley was appointed as a magistrate by Cabinet. I understand you stood aside from those Cabinet deliberations, and were not part of that decision. Under whose name did the Cabinet submission go in under?
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, God, I cannot recall. It probably came under mine as the submission.
- Mr GUNNER: So, for the same reason that was appropriate for you to step aside from the Cabinet deliberations, do you agree it would have been appropriate for the Cabinet submission to have not gone up under your name?
Mr ELFERINK: It is a vehicle by which it comes into Cabinet. I went through a process which I absented myself from in the selection.
The member for Port Darwin excused himself from the vote, but he would never be rolled by Cabinet. The mere sponsoring of the Cabinet submission was tantamount to a vote. The member for Port Darwin’s Cabinet colleagues received a note from him, the first law officer, and he absented himself from the room, but his note remained. Those Cabinet ministers have a relationship with the Attorney-General, as they should, and in front of them was a note from the member for Port Darwin, based on which Mr Maley became magistrate Maley.
The member for Port Darwin wrote the note that saw his mate become an NT magistrate. Mr Maley helped the member for Port Darwin get elected and he helped him achieve his diploma. The Cabinet submission going in under the member for Port Darwin’s name made it a done deal.
In September last year solicitor Peter Maley accepted his commission and became a judicial officer, but it is soon apparent that he is not aware of how he should be conducting himself as a judicial officer. Every judicial officer in the land knows, or should know, of the Guide to Judicial Conduct (Second Edition). It is published on behalf of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia, including the NT Chief Justice. It is the bible on how judicial officers should act, and it is unequivocal. It says:
- Judges should bear in mind that the principle of judicial independence extends well beyond the traditional separation of powers …
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to table this. I understand it is available online, but I have the formal copy in my electorate office.
Mr Elferink: I just want to read it. I am not trying to be smart; I need something to refer to while I am talking.
Mr GUNNER: The document says:
- Judges should bear in mind that the principle of judicial independence extends well beyond the traditional separation of powers and requires that a judge be, and be seen to be, independent of all sources of power or influence in society, including the media and commercial interests.
It obviously contains more than that. Point 2.2, ‘Judicial independence’ says:
- Much has been written about judicial independence both in its institutional and individual aspects. Judicial independence is sometimes mistakenly perceived as a privilege enjoyed by judges, whereas it is in fact a cornerstone of our system of government in a democratic society and a safeguard of the freedom and rights of the citizen under the rule of law. There are two aspects of this concept that are important for present purposes: Constitutional independence and independence in discharge of judicial duties.
- The principle of the separation of powers requires that the judiciary, whether viewed as an entity or in its individual membership, must be, and be seen to be, independent of the legislative and executive branches of government.
- Judges are entitled to exercise the rights and freedoms available to all citizens. It is in the public interest that judges participate in the life and affairs of the community, so that they remain in touch with the community.
On the other hand, appointment to judicial office brings with it some limitations on private and public conduct. By accepting an appointment, a judge agrees to accept those limitations.
Two months before the Blain by-election, Peter Maley crossed a more serious line. In January this year he became a director of Foundation 51. It is here in black and white. ASIC confirms that magistrate Maley was a director of the CLP’s slush fund, so why should we be concerned, as an opposition and as Territorians, about the Attorney-General’s lack of judgment, the Chief Minister’s lack of judgement and that magistrate Maley donated to and was a member of the CLP, as well as campaigning and fundraising for the party?
It is because it breaks every principle of independence that judicial officers are supposed to uphold. It is a breach of the guide to judicial conduct, the code of ethics and the doctrine of the separation of powers. It jeopardises the independence of the NT judiciary.
Do not take this from me as an ordinary member of parliament. Let us look at the concerns of the profession, the custodians of the integrity of the system. Members of the profession raised seven issues:
- Dear Attorney,
Paragraph 2.8 of the Constitution of the Northern Territory Bar Association provides that one of the objects and purposes of the Association is to promote and protect the independence of the judiciary … I refer to the recent press coverage in relation to the apparent involvement of Mr Peter Maley SM … in the Country Liberal Party after his appointment as a magistrate in September 2013.
In particular, I note that …
- 1. It was reported in the press that the Magistrate resigned from the Country Liberal Party on Friday 9 May 2014, which suggests that he had been a member for the whole of the period following his appointment until 9 May 2014.
- 2. ASIC records reveal the magistrate’s appointment as a director of Foundation 51 Pty Ltd … on 2 January 2014. A search …
I held those documents up before.
- ... of ASIC records on 27 May 2014 suggests that his appointment is still current.
3. The precise business being conducted by Foundation 51 Pty Ltd is not clear. However, it has been described by a former CLP Senior Advisor as ‘a mental and monetary creature of the Country Liberal Party’. The press has referred to the company ‘as a CLP-aligned research company that ‘contributed significantly’ to the Blain by-election’. Mr Graeme Lewis, one of its directors, has described it as ‘a supporter of the CLP in political terms’. Foundation 51 Pty Ltd also shares the same postal address as the Darwin Branch of the CLP.
- 4. A member of the Legislative Assembly, Ms Larissa Lee, stated in Parliament on 15 May 2014 that:
- ‘Chief Minister, you are the chair of the Cabinet which appointed Peter Maley as a magistrate. You are aware that on Saturday 23 February 2014 he called me and offered me an inducement. He stated I would have my own cheque book. Further, there was also an implied threat that if I left the CLP I would no longer be protected. Shortly after that I was called by the Attorney-General, who also tried to stop me leaving the CLP and repeated I would no longer be protected if I left.’
- 5. In a subsequent media report, whilst he was reported as denying Ms Lee’s ‘characterisation of the conversation’ as an attempt to bribe her, the Magistrate is reported as having admitted that he had telephoned her and, it appears (by disputing only the ‘characterisation’ of the conversation), that he was doing so on behalf of or in order to promote the interests of the Country Liberal Party.
- 6. It has also been reported that the Magistrate was handing out ‘how to vote cards for the Country Liberal Party at the Blain by-election on 12 April 2014. A photograph has been published which appears to support this suggestion.
7. Questions have been raised in Parliament about the circumstances which apparently saw the current Government grant two water licenses on a property in the Douglas Daly region which is owned by a company in which the Magistrate is a shareholder.
The Northern Territory Bar Council is extremely concerned about the implications of these matters for both the fact and appearance of the independence of the Magistrate as a Territory Magistrate and the Territory Magistracy generally.
- In Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 ...
- ‘Fundamental to the common law system of adversarial trial is that it is conducted by an independent and impartial tribunal. Perhaps the deepest historical roots of this principle can be traced to Magna Carta (with its declaration that right and justice shall not be sold) and the Act of Settlement 1700 (UK) (with its provisions for the better securing in England of judicial independence).
It is a principle which could be seen to be behind the confrontation in 1607 between Coke CJ v King James about the supremacy of law. It could be seen to be applied when Bacon was stripped of office and punished for taking bribes from litigants. Many other examples could be drawn from history. It is unnecessary, however, to explore the historical origins of the principle. It is fundamental to the Australian judicial system’.
That principle applies to Territory Magistrates. In North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley’ ...
…
Their Honours said:
… ‘that the boundary of legislative power, in the present case that of the Territory:’
- ‘is crossed when the vesting of those functions or duties might lead ordinary reasonable members of the public to conclude that the [Territory] court as an institution was not free of government influence in administering the judicial functions invested in the court.’
Justice Thomas, in the 3rd edition of Judicial Ethics in Australia makes it clear that ‘apolitical conduct (is) now expected’ of any person holding judicial office.
He says at paragraph 11.15 …
- ‘After appointment a judge should not be an active member of any political party, should not fraternise with those in the echelons of political power, and should not actively support causes which produce partisan reaction in the community. It would be improper for a judge to participate in a political party convention. As the divorce from political partisanship needs to be complete, a judge should resign from membership of any party. Continued silent membership could be seen as clandestine support.
Political cronyism is a more serious problem than it looks on both sides of politics. As a counsel of prudence, judges should immediately on appointment take steps strictly to limit any political connections they may have. This is not just an abstract disassociation. Quite bluntly, if a judge is friendly with people who are active in politics, steps should be taken to minimise future contacts with them.
It may be tempting to some judges to keep up friendships of this kind actively, with at least the subconscious thought that they may improve their own career prospects. Whatever the motive, these connections are extremely dangerous. There is nothing more damaging to the standing of courts than the suspicion that judges may be actively cultivating political connections, and thereby compromising not only their appearance, but also their very independence. These things do not go unnoticed by other judges or by the many judge-watchers in the community.’
Those were the serious concerns of the NT Bar Association, which begged for an independent inquiry, but this was refused by the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister.
After eight months in office, the penny dropped, and Peter Maley suddenly knew something was wrong; his resignation letter from the CLP and Foundation 51 acknowledged as much. I will quote from magistrate Maley’s statement, ‘I have resigned from the Country Liberals. I have informed Graeme Lewis that I will no longer have any involvement with Foundation 51. After careful consideration, I now recognise it is not appropriate for judicial officers to be a continuing part of the political process.’
Despite the magistrate acknowledging that and resigning, the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister were defending magistrate Maley’s actions, saying he should be welcomed as a member of a political party and allowed to campaign.
After months of withstanding pressure and hanging on to his judicial office by his fingernails, suddenly, Mr Maley resigned in a dead of night phone call to the Attorney-General. Why would he do that? After just 11 months, why would he suddenly pull the pin? He cleared the decks. He was no longer a member of the CLP; we know this from the party president, Ross Connolly, and magistrate Maley’s resignation. He was no longer a director of Foundation 51, and we know that from his statement.
According to the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General, he was a great magistrate doing a fine job, but he quit. Why? It is not in his nature. What is the truth? He said it is because he wants to return to private practice, but there is a road block there. If you look at the guide to judicial conduct, the one that was ignored, it is a no-no between one and five years. The Chief Minister and the Attorney-General know the real reason; the Attorney-General admitted it in this House and the media yesterday. It is not believable that Peter Maley resigned on the phone and did not tell the Attorney-General why.
The NT News is skewering you; it is a death by 1000 cuts. However, we have always preferred a Shakespearian death to a Hollywood one. Today, we learned that on 26 May this year Peter Maley was e-mailing a client. Why does a magistrate have a client? He wrote to the client that government would take on board ‘what business people like you and I say’. What have you taken on board, Chief Minister? What meetings have taken place? What lobbying has been done on behalf of his clients? How many ministers have met with him? What are you hiding?
On this side of the parliament, we have a hunch. We know that you are trying to save your skins over there, but the truth will come out. What did this government know? When did this government know it? What does it know about the serious allegations that have been put to the magistrate by the NT News? How complicit is the government in those allegations? We know the truth on this will come out. We know the NT News put 13 questions to magistrate Maley, and we know that the NT News is aware of the allegations. Magistrate Maley is obviously aware of the allegations, and has now resigned. The Attorney-General said in this House and in the media yesterday that he was aware of the allegations. Yet despite being aware of those allegations and the NT Bar Association’s concerns, he said no to an independent inquiry. We know the truth on this will come out; it always does. We on this side cannot wait to hear it.
Debate suspended.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Allegations against the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
Allegations against the Speaker and Deputy Speaker
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If anyone wishes to make an accusation that the Speaker or Deputy Speaker are influenced by anything the Chief Minister says, I ask them to repeat it when they are called upon, rather than under their breath.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and CLP Government
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and CLP Government
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not normally vote on censure motions, but this gives me an opportunity to say a few words.
There was a famous comedy group around in the early 1930s, probably the 1920s as well, called Laurel and Hardy. I will quote from one of their movies called Chickens Come Home from 1931:
- Oliver: Well …
Stanley: Here’s another fine mess I got you into
I will talk about the Peter Maley issue from my point of view, and tell you why the government has lost the plot. During the last election Peter Maley, who I have known for many years, stood at the Kormilda College election booth with his CLP mates, the member for Fong Lim, and our federal member, Senator Scullion. I was surprised – I thought they were good people – when they pulled out my how-to-vote card as people crossed the line and said, ‘If you vote for Gerry Wood, you vote for Labor’, which was an outright lie. That method was used at other polling booths, and I was disgusted.
My wife is not a political person, but she was upset at that polling booth because she had known Peter Maley for a long time. My sister, who travels from down south every time there is an election, stood up to those three people and told them that they were lying; she was trembling after she said it. That was my first knowledge of Peter Maley being involved in CLP politics.
We know – it is on the record – that Mr Maley donated to the Attorney-General as part of the same election campaign, and that has been declared by the Attorney-General. Peter Maley was then appointed as a magistrate by the newly-elected government in September last year. There is still a question about which committee elected him. We have not heard the names of the people on the committee that made the appointment.
Peter Maley was, whilst a magistrate, involved in party politics – I cannot believe that – during the Blain by-election. The Legislative Assembly passed a motion during this sittings period to inquire into political donations, and a few days after that Peter Maley resigned. No reasons were stated for his resignation, except for the Attorney-General saying, as quoted in the NT News, that he wanted to return to private practice.
The NT News also sent detailed questions to Mr Maley related to events before he was appointed to the bench and, according to the NT News, he responded with a threat to sue for aggravated damages if the story was printed.
I have been on the receiving end of letters which have said, ‘If you say any more, we will sue you’. Those types of comments mean two things, that there is an issue someone does not want to be aired in public or someone is trying to frighten you off.
The government, regardless of whether you believe everything is above board in relation to this matter – to the average punter who has seen and heard all of this, it looks like a farce brought on by what has become part of this government’s trademark: employing people who are members of the CLP in many influential arms of the government, and now it has come back to bite it.
I do not know why Mr Maley resigned, but if you want to clear the air, some further statements must be made, otherwise this will continue.
Perceptions in the community mean a lot more than what we say in here. The perception is that the government has gotten itself into another fine mess, and only has itself to blame.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, the approach to this motion by the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat superficial in that she started well and then petered out for a conversation around the room. Is there real passion in this censure motion? I suspect not. It is all part of political manoeuvring.
I listened to many complaints and manoeuvring comments in relation to the soon to be former magistrate, Mr Peter Maley, and I will make these observations. The process in which he was selected was unusual in that I was not involved in the committee’s decision, other than to establish the committee itself. The magistrate who took on the role very quickly built a reputation as a good, fair magistrate; I received that feedback. Did he make mistakes of judgement about his roles in the CLP? Perhaps he did, but that is now largely academic because he has resigned.
The arguments put forward by members of the NT Bar Association were about Mr Maley’s continued role in the Country Liberals, in spite of the fact he resigned his membership. It was an exercise in overreach, because by the time it was over, Mr Lawrence had declared – this was acknowledged in a question by the Leader of the Opposition – that democracy was dead in the Northern Territory and the rule of law no longer existed, or words to that effect.
I could not help but think of the irony, for a person to suggest during Question Time that democracy is dead; you have missed the point.
I will not revisit any more of that, as enough has been said and people will have formed their own opinions. That is that.
I will talk about opposition members’ comments about the separation of powers. There were quotes provided from the Guide to Judicial Conduct about how judicial officers should conduct themselves, and it is a document that sets a very high bar, but I would like you to think about that in the context of the community in which we live as well, in one important way. A city of 150 000 people is a village when you compare it to some of the larger jurisdictions down south. The level of separation encouraged in that document qualifies it in terms of judgement. The doctrine of the separation of powers, at its most fundamental expression, is that a judge, or somebody who is a member of the judiciary, cannot be employed in the executive, nor can they hold a seat in a parliament. A person who is a member of the executive, namely a paid public servant, cannot be a judicial officer, nor can that person sit in a parliament.
As a member of parliament I cannot take the king’s shilling, which means that if I was to work on behalf of the Crown – for example if I became a part-time officer in the Army Reserve – I could not be paid because of the position I hold in the Legislative Assembly.
The doctrine of the separation of powers was something that grew from the English system of conventions over many hundreds of years and was adopted by a French philosopher, Montesquieu, who looked at it very closely and then sought to describe it as being separate in a different way. That is the way it is expressed in the United States, where the head of state is elected, whereas our head of state is the Crown through the Governor-General and the Administrator. Being an elected head of state they can choose their own ministry or Cabinet, who are not ministers as you and I would recognise them. They are essentially CEOs of departments; they are part of the executive, completely separate from the judiciary.
The President of the United States does not walk into Congress but by way of special invitation. Members of Congress cannot be part of the executive in the United States and be on the judiciary; it is a very clear set of delineations. In the Westminster system, through growing up over years and through a series of conventions, it is not as clearly articulated, and by virtue of the fact that you have members of the executive council occupying seats in this House, it is a different system that has developed as a result of the establishment of conventions.
Many people are surprised to learn that England does not have a written constitution. It has a series of doctrines and conventions. One of those doctrines is the doctrine of responsible government, which means that members of the executive – in a sense, they are ministers of the Crown who provide advice to the Crown – are held accountable to the people through also being members of parliament.
People would be surprised to discover that in the Australian Constitution you can be a minister of the Crown without being a member of parliament for as much as, I think, three months, so there are ways that conventions are observed. Over time, this has been extrapolated to create even greater distances between the branches, but you cannot get to the point in our system where the distance between the branches is so extreme that they stop talking to each other.
If you were to use that yard stick – and it is the one suggested by the member for Fannie Bay – if I was invited to a CLANT conference, and the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory was there arguing against mandatory sentencing in an effort to influence the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, you could argue that it was an attempt to breach the separation of powers in trying to bring pressure to bear on the Attorney-General. That would be errant nonsense; of course I expect jurists to speak to me about matters of social policy, as they do all the time.
Am I allowed to socially engage with members of the judiciary? I heard the member for Fannie Bay suggest that I should not be able to, and they should not be able to engage with me. What does it mean when I have dinner with a number of magistrates, at their invitation? It means that I have dinner and a social engagement but, during that dinner, issues of social public policy come up, and they make suggestions and provide ideas. That is not a breach of the separation of powers, but is it strictly within the bounds of the Guide to Judicial Conduct, as interpreted by the member for Fannie Bay? It is not at all.
The member for Fannie Bay and others have interpreted how the separation of powers works. He created such a rarefied example of it that, in a community of 150 000 people, in a Territory of 250 000 people, it is almost impossible to meet the expectations of the member for Fannie Bay. Should he ever become a minister of the Crown, I suspect that whenever a jurist comes within 200 yards of him, he will place a bucket on his head and pretend not to see them.
Moving on to other comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, I am very irritated by the attack on what we are doing in the Corrections system in the Northern Territory. I fully endorse the irritation of the Chief Minister, who answered the first question during Question Time on that topic, which the Leader of the Opposition has called slave labour. When Labor was in government, prisoners were paid between $22 and $44 per week to clean gutters and parks and work in people’s gardens. It was a good program, and we extended it. To them, that is not slave labour, that is part of, when you are in government, saying to a person, ‘You are accountable for your actions; you will do penance and pay back to the society you have wronged.’ Acknowledging that, and expanding that program, was something this government chose to do. The now well- established Sentenced to a Job program, through which many people go to work for full-time wages every day, is a program that continues to enjoy success. I acknowledge and thank the members opposite, historically, for their support of the program, but that seems to be waning.
We have reached the stage where the members opposite have said that any person who is working must automatically be paid award wages when they are in the prison system. That is a long bow to draw. We provide labour from the prison system into the commercial space, a commodity that there continues to be a shortage of, particularly in a number of industries in the Northern Territory. We know that because many of those jobs are not filled by Territorians; they are filled by backpackers and 457 visa workers. Of all the money that is earned by these people, some of it is spent in the Northern Territory, the rest is saved and there are no jobs, whilst Aboriginal people continue to languish, unemployed, in gaols and their communities.
From time to time, sadly, people come through the gaol system. We can stick them in a cell and do nothing with them except feed them, clothe them and then lead them to the front door at the expiration of their sentence, open it in front of them and let them step through before it hits them on the backside, and they are just as unemployed and unemployable as the day they arrived. How is that a good outcome?
The former minister for Corrections acknowledged this and, to his credit, started some work release programs, of which there could have been many more. When I became the Minister for Correctional Services, not only did I think work should be part of the prison system, I thought it should be the core of it.
I am often asked how many Aboriginal people are in custody, and the answer is 80% to 85%, depending on the time of the week. The better question to ask is: how many people were unemployed and welfare-dependent at the time of their offending? The former question smacks of eugenics, whilst the latter question smacks of humanity. Unemployed people who are welfare-dependent are over-represented in a more pronounced way than Aboriginal people in the Corrections system. We should attend to the strongest correlation when comparing the two.
Aboriginality does not factor into the Sentenced to a Job program. If you are Aboriginal, female, male, Muslim, Buddhist or a Christian you will not be measured by that. You will be measured by whether or not you are doing what is necessary to achieve a full-time, fully-paying job in the community.
When I took over the Corrections system the number of open-rated prisoners – those prisoners established as being capable of leaving custody and trusted to do so – was about 50. Prison behaviour has changed since the opportunity for real training and real jobs in real workplaces has come up. We have not allowed the standard of measuring an open-rated prisoner to change. From day one I said that the classification system is at the heart of this whole thing, and integral to its continued success.
The continued success of the program is also reflected in an important way, in that without changing the classification system we have gone from about 50 open-rated prisoners to 350, because these people suddenly realise that whilst they are in gaol they have an opportunity to achieve full-time work. Some of these people also have an opportunity to be trained.
We told Sunbuild that we wanted to undertake some training and build some cattle yards, and we won a contract worth about $250 000 for the AACo abattoir in the Livingstone area. The only other tenderer for that contract was a Chinese company. The work could have gone to China, and the steel and equipment would have been purchased in China or, alternatively, the work could have gone to the Northern Territory as a training package. For that reason we have substantially increased the recruitment of people who are trade-skilled to become teachers of people in the Corrections system.
If we are offering labour to the community, the business model we use in value-adding that labour product with training makes sense. Once a person is trained in how to use a welder, in the business of constructing cattle yards or in whatever product is required, in partnership with local companies in competition with companies outside of this jurisdiction, that has to be so much better. All of a sudden we have achieved $250 000 worth of training, enthusiastically paid for by a company that wants to obtain its social licence, as well as the head contractor, AACo, wanting to support its social licence by helping people in the Corrections system. Is it more complex than putting a person in gaol? My word it is. Is it difficult and time-consuming to organise? Yes, it is, but initial figures from the Sentenced to a Job program demonstrate that the number of active recidivists who have come through it is substantially lower, so much so that I hope that we can coax a doctoral student in the not so distant future to do their thesis on what we are doing in the Sentenced to a Job domain.
I remain positive about what we do and what this government is doing. It is churlish for the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss it as slave labour when it is helping people to receive training, skills and full-time paid work, which the Leader of the Opposition says that she believes in.
I am proud of what we have achieved. I am proud of what we are doing, and this censure motion is errant nonsense.
- The Assembly divided:
Ayes 7 Noes 13
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Mr Vatskalis Mrs Finocchiaro
Mr Vowles Mr Giles
Ms Walker Mr Higgins
Mrs Lambley
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Establishment of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Establishment of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly establish the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee pursuant to terms circulated. I understand the Labor Party supports this, so what more can I say? This is the fulfilment of a promise made that when structural separation occurred the appropriate review processes would be adhered to, therefore, I have nothing more to say, and I will leave it to the opposition.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the member for Wanguri, as the shadow minister and a member of the Public Accounts Committee, has taken most interest in when the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing was to occur. We welcome the establishment of the committee and look forward to examining the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation.
There are many unanswered questions about the government’s management of the three GOCs. Whilst not an exhaustive list, issues that impact directly on Territory families and businesses include tariff increases for electricity, water and sewerage; the implications of the CLP’s privatisation agenda; higher prices and reduced reliability; the implementation of the Utility Commission’s recommendations arising from the disastrous System Black in March; the full cost of splitting the Power and Water Corporation, and the implications for consumers; the impact of network charges and how they will be managed under the new administrative arrangements of the three GOCs; the impact of the Power and Water Corporation’s split on Indigenous Essential Services and remote customers; and the government’s agenda for the Territory to enter the National Energy Market.
Now that the disgraced former Treasurer is languishing on the backbench, can the minister inform the House who will be the shareholding minister until the member for Fong Lim returns to his old job? I think that is decided on Monday. We thank the minister for establishing the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, and we support the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, to answer the question from the member opposite, the Chief Minister will make that determination once the Country Liberals determine who will be the deputy leader. Once the portfolios have been divvied up, the appropriate minister will be described by the Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Amendment to the Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Amendment to the Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I think this will be the shortest motion in the history of this parliament. I move that the Assembly amends its resolution of 26 March 2014 establishing the Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder by deleting ‘October’ in paragraph six and inserting instead the word ‘November’. I proceed without explanation.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): I have spoken to our members of the committee about this request. We support the motion, and we can move a quicker motion one day.
Motion agreed to.
FIREARMS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 94)
(Serial 94)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the paintball provisions in the Firearms Act. In 2007 the Firearms Act established paintball licensing in the Northern Territory. Paintball is now offered as a recreational sporting activity by three operators in the Northern Territory.
A review of paintball legislation was conducted in 2012 and updated in 2013.
This included interviews with local paintball operators, who all supported a reduced age limit. Both reviews have recommended that the age of paintball participation be reduced to the age of 14 years, with parental consent.
The purpose of the bill is to reduce the age of participation in paintball to 14 and older, with parental consent required between the ages of 14 and 18 years. The amendment brings the Northern Territory into comparative alignment with other jurisdictions, where the age of participation in most states and territories is under the age of 18. Western Australia and South Australia allow 12-year-olds to participate in this sport, but the NT police review recommended we change the age to 14.
The industry is already heavily regulated for safety, and operators will be required to ensure that the personal protective equipment they provide is age appropriate.
This bill supports the expansion of paintball businesses in the Northern Territory. It also supports the Northern Territory government’s commitment, as part of the Framing the Future blueprint, to improving business productivity and competitiveness, and supporting an active lifestyle in the Territory.
The government believes the change will expand the range of recreational activities for young Territorians, at the same time as making the Territory’s three paintball businesses more sustainable. Paintball is an increasingly popular outdoor activity for young people, and improving the business opportunities for paintball operators adds diversity to recreational options in the Territory.
Local operators have expressed strong support for the change, telling the government that they frequently have to turn young people away under the current arrangements. They have told the government that broadening the demographic of those able to participate will make their businesses more viable. This change is a win for young people and for business.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL
(Serial 95)
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 main purpose of this bill is to make consequential amendments to various Northern Territory laws, including updating superseded references and correcting typographical and grammatical errors and omissions. None of the amendments contained in the bill constitute changes in government policies or programs.
The bill follows the general pattern of statute law revision bills in revising and correcting the laws of the Northern Territory in minor respects. The bill provides for a comprehensive statute law revision of acts and regulations, including the:
Administration and Probate Act
Adult Guardianship Act
Advance Personal Planning Act and Regulations
Associations Act and Regulations
Building Regulations and Building (RBI and Fidelity Fund Schemes) Regulations
Bushfires Act and Regulations
Carers Recognition Act
Commercial and Private Agents Licensing Act
Commercial Passengers (Road) Transport Act
Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act
Crimes at Sea Act
Cross-border Justice Act
Darwin Port Corporation Act
Director of Public Prosecutions Act
Disability Services Act
Education (College and School Councils) Regulations
Evidence Act
Firearms Regulations
Fisheries Regulations
Gaming Machine Act
Gene Technology (Northern Territory) Act
Health and Community Services Complaints Act
Health Practitioners Act
Housing Act
Interpretation Act
Law of Property Act
Legal Profession Act and Regulations
Local Government (Accounting) Regulations
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) (Natural Uniform Legislation) Act
Mental Health and Related Services Act
Mineral Royalty Act
Misuse of Drugs Act
National Gas (Northern Territory) Act
Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act
Pastoral Land Act
Pearl Oyster Culture Industry Management Plan
Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act
Police Administration Act
Private Hospitals Act
Public and Environmental Health Act
Public Trustee Act
Racing and Betting Act
Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act
Serious Crime Control Regulations
Serious Sex Offenders Act
Stamp Duty Act
Status of Children Act
Surveillance Devices Act
Taxation Administration Act
Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
Terrorism (Emergency) Powers Act
Traffic Regulations
Transplantation and Anatomy Act
Uncollected Goods Regulations
Unlawful Betting Act
Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act
Waste Management and Pollution Control Act and Waste Management and Pollution Control (Administration) Regulations and
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
Most of the amendments in the bill are generally self-explanatory. However, I draw your attention to some of the amendments. Regulation 39C(3) of the Building Regulations; regulation 14(1)(d)(i) of the Education (College and School Councils) Regulations; section 146(1) of the Gaming Machine Act; regulation 5(2)(b) of the Local Government (Accounting) Regulations; and regulation 3 of the Advance Personal Planning Regulations are all amended to include the Institute of Public Accountants in their definitions of ‘accountant’. The Institute of Public Accountants is already included in the Associations Act, the Unit Titles (Management Modules) Regulations and the Unit Title Scheme (Management Modules) Regulations. These changes were made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 and it was suggested that there should be consistency across the statute book.
As a professional body of accountants in Australia, membership of the Institute of Public Accountants is equivalent to that of other bodies referred to in the legislation, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and the CPA Australia.
The Bushfires Act and Bushfires Regulations are amended to replace any reference to the ‘director’ with ‘chief executive officer’. This reflects changes in administrative arrangements, as the Director of the Parks and Wildlife Commission is no longer the appropriate office to have these powers. As such, the powers will be vested in the chief executive officer of the agency administering the act.
Amendments to the Crimes at Sea Act are based on amendments made to the corresponding Commonwealth and New South Wales crimes at sea legislation, including the repeal of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Cth).
The National Gas (Northern Territory) Act and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are amended to reflect the renaming of the Commonwealth Petroleum Act to the Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act (Cth).
Further, the bill repeals the following laws, which are redundant because the laws either relate to legislation that has been repealed or contain amending provisions that have been spent:
various ‘Amendment of Alice Springs (Control of Public Places) By-Laws’
Care and Protection of Children (Children’s Services) Regulations 2009 and amending regulations
New Tax System Price Exploitation Code (Northern Territory) Act 1999
Petroleum Products Subsidy Ordinance 1965 and amending legislation, and
Sentencing of Juveniles (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PAROLE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 96)
(Serial 96)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide the chairperson of the Northern Territory parole board with greater discretion regarding the attendance of members at parole board meetings. The bill will assist the parole board to fulfil its responsibilities to prisoners, victims and the community. The bill enables the chairperson to authorise a psychologist or medical practitioner who has already been appointed as a member of the parole board under section 3B(1)(d) to attend general meetings.
As it stands, the appointed psychologist or medical practitioner can only attend meetings that are scheduled to consider matters about a prisoner who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder. This will now allow the chairperson to utilise the expertise of those members appointed to the parole board in other serious matters where prisoners have received lengthy sentences of imprisonment for offences such as manslaughter and serious sexual offences.
With the introduction of self-government, the Parole of Prisoners Act commenced on 3 September 1979, replacing the Parole of Prisoners Ordinance 1971. Since commencement of this legislation there have been many changes to the operation of the parole board. The biggest changes of an operational nature are the increasing number of matters before the parole board for its consideration.
The pressure of increasing numbers was addressed by changes passed in October 2013 to increase the number of members of the parole board from 10 to 18. This increase in membership provides the chairperson with the flexibility to schedule two meetings a month. The two meeting model has been in operation now for five months.
With this legislation we seek to address the other major issue for the parole board; the increasing complexity of assessing the risk of recidivism and formulating appropriate conditions of parole for prisoners who have served lengthy sentences of imprisonment.
There is now much a greater recognition of the cognitive disabilities experienced by many prisoners who have committed serious offences. There are numerous factors which contribute to these disabilities, including foetal alcohol syndrome, exposure to domestic violence at a young age, substance misuse and the failure to thrive. Many prisoners who suffer from cognitive disabilities also suffer from a range of personality disorders. Consequently, making an accurate assessment of the crimogenic needs and risks of these prisoners and formulating the appropriate conditions of parole may be a very complex matter, and members of the parole board who are either a psychologist or medical practitioner are ideally qualified to assist the parole board in making such decisions.
Joint case management has also become a major issue. The prisoner may be engaged with other statutory systems such as child protection or mental health. Joint case management aims to ensure that there is a balance between the requirements of each agency, the needs of the parolee and the safety of the community.
Once again, members of the parole board who are either psychologists or medical practitioners are able to assist in formulating conditions of parole and management and supervision plans that ensure there are consistent messages, and that there is not a negative interaction between the case plans of the various agencies.
The use of psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ reports as part of sentencing and prisoner management is becoming more common. As a result, the parole board has increased access to specialist information about prisoners who are being considered for parole. This information can be complex, and if the proposed amendments are made the parole board will have the assistance of specialist input to ensure accurate interpretation.
Decisions made by the parole board have an impact on the community as a whole. These changes to the Parole of Prisoners Act will ensure that members of the parole board have access to appropriate specialist assistance in matters involving serious criminal offences, and that the interests of the community are protected. They will assist in ensuring that the Northern Territory does not experience the problems that have occurred interstate as a result of both the release of prisoners who should not have been released parole and the inadequate management of prisoners who have been released on parole.
The parole board is a critical element of the criminal justice system, and I believe it is essential that they are supported in this important role. I have taken advice from the Hon Justice Stephen Southwood, chairperson of the parole board. The chairperson identifies that there are an increasing number of matters before the parole board each month, which involve complexities that I have referred to, and where the parole board would be assisted by those members of the board who have specialised training and experience in dealing with these complexities. Consistent with the recent amendments to the Parole of Prisoners Act, this will ensure that there are no delays in considering matters before the parole board while clarification is sought about the content of expert reports and the assessments contained in them. It will also enable the parole board to expeditiously determine what are appropriate conditions of parole and how best to ensure the safety of the community and the best outcome for prisoners.
It is necessary to pass these amendments as soon as possible to prevent any hardship being caused to the board. This hardship is manifest in a number of ways; for prisoners it appears as delays in their applications; for victims it is the waiting on tenterhooks with each delay to hear an outcome; for the parole board it adds to an already increasing number of matters at each meeting.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Statements of Corporate Intent 2014-15 – Power Retail Corporation,
Power Generation Corporation and
Power and Water Corporation
Statements of Corporate Intent 2014-15 – Power Retail Corporation,
Power Generation Corporation and
Power and Water Corporation
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, In accordance with section 39(7)(a) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, as shareholding minister for the corporations I table the Power Retail Corporation, Power Generation Corporation and Power and Water Corporation interim 2014-15 Statements of Corporate Intent.
The SCI is the annual performance agreement between a government owned corporation and the shareholding minister on behalf of all Territorians as owners of the corporations.
Information of a commercially-sensitive nature has been removed from the SCIs tabled today on the basis that it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporations by disclosing commercially-sensitive information that no private sector business would be expected to release.
In early 2013 the Northern Territory government announced a package of reforms for the Territory electricity industry to improve its efficiency, as well as to facilitate greater levels of private sector investment. To achieve this, the Northern Territory government announced in September 2013 that it was separating the contestable generation and retail business units from the regulated network and water and sewerage functions of the Power and Water Corporation to create three stand-alone government-owned corporations.
Following the passage of the structural separation legislation in the Northern Territory parliament on 6 May 2014, the Power Retail Corporation and the Power Generation Corporation commenced operations on 1 July 2014 under the trading names Jacana Energy and Territory Generation, or the shortened trading name T-Gen.
Jacana Energy has taken up the functions previously performed by the Power and Water Corporation retail business unit, while T-Gen now undertakes the functions of the generation business unit. The residual Power and Water Corporation will continue to operate the electricity network, as well as provide water and sewerage services and deliver the Indigenous Essential Services program.
Under section 39(2)(c) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, the board of a government owned corporation is required to provide an SCI to the shareholding minister one month before the financial year it relates to or at the date agreed by the board and the shareholding minister. Given the large body of work, prior- and post-commencement of the financial year, to facilitate structural separation it was agreed with the boards of the three government owned corporations to delay the delivery and tabling of the SCIs until they had established starting financial positions. A post-structural separation due diligence exercise is being performed by the corporation’s respective boards to ensure they are in the best possible position to provide efficient electricity. As such, the SCIs I table today are interim in nature and do not yet fully reflect stand-alone corporations. The financial positions underpinning the SCIs are to be updated once the respective boards have completed their post-structural separation due diligence processes. These interim SCIs demonstrate that the boards of Jacana Energy, T-Gen and the Power and Water Corporation are focused on delivering their core business activities.
Under the old vertically integrated monopoly model such focus would not have been possible, due to the complexity of governing a multifaceted entity comprised of different business lines, each possessing its own unique challenges. This specialised focus will mean the boards can better drive efficiencies within their respective businesses. As Jacana Energy, T-Gen and the Power and Water Corporation become more efficient, so too will the electricity they supply, produce and transport. The aim of these reforms is to improve the financial transparency and accountability of the Territory’s owned utilities, which should ultimately deliver benefits for consumers.
TABLED PAPER
Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act Report
Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act Report
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I table the two-year report into the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act.
This report is somewhat damning of the plastic bag legislation not achieving its intention of reducing the amount of landfill. It is rather sad, because this is one of those areas where, again, the previous government, much like the cash for cans legislation, was very well intended. I have read this report time and time again; the surveys undertaken indicate people are accustomed to paying an extra 15c or 20c for a bag today, and some of the comments were that bags are of a better quality for shopping, etcetera. I recall the minister at the time saying that one of the intended outcomes was to improve the environment through less plastic entering landfill.
There has been an increase of over seven million reusable bags which, according to this report, need to be used a massive 10 times before they benefit the environment. This report also indicates that less than half of the bags are being used to the point where they benefit the community. In real terms there is more plastic in circulation, not less. That is worse for the environment, not better, and that is not good enough. This is a result of decisions made with good intentions, without any regard for what those intentions were supposed to achieve.
As legislators we are responsible for ensuring that changes we make to the law are for the benefit of Territorians, not to push a political barrow chasing green credentials. The same thing occurred with the Container Deposit Scheme, which was built on the back of a green agenda designed to benefit Labor at the ballot box, rather than the environment. It looks like the plastic bag scheme is another green basket case where we will be left to clean up the mess, just like cash for cans.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: this government does not chase green credentials. We get on with looking after the environment. There is a big difference between looking like you care for the environment and actually doing the job. The government is committed to delivering the latter, unlike those opposite, who only look to appease interest groups at the expense of the environment. This government will now work with the Northern Territory EPA – another environmental initiative of this government that is delivering results – to see how we can fix the mess. We have already done it with the Container Deposit Scheme, and we will do it again with the plastic bag ban.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, this does not mean we will, all of a sudden, throw this legislation out. It means we need to look at the legislation and, as with cash for cans, do what we have to do to see if it can meet the intended outcomes. As I said, I have repeatedly read this independent report, and the EPA has had it as well. Every time I read the report I think about minister Hampton’s statement, which said that the legislation was well intended. I understand that, but as the shadow Environment minister at the time I asked minister Hampton, ‘Have you considered other methods around the world? Have you considered other methods of reducing the amount of plastic bags going to landfill?’ Just like the cash for cans legislation, it appeared that the decision had been made and they were going to go ahead with it, whether it would work or not. I clearly remember minister Hampton saying at the time that it would lead to less plastic going to landfill.
There was not a very effective way of measuring the amount of plastic going to landfill at the time. I asked questions about how much plastic was currently entering landfill, and how much plastic would not go to landfill after the legislation was introduced. I wanted answers to my questions through this review.
How successful has this campaign been in reducing the amount of plastic entering landfill? It has not been a success. This legislation has led to Territorians paying more today for bags every time they go shopping, and the shops making a little money out of it. They love the scheme – not that they will tell you – but you must look at retail sales. Some of the figures we have seen indicate that the sale of plastic bags, like bin liners, has grown significantly since this legislation was introduced. These bags are costing between 3 c and 5 c to produce, and the companies are selling them for 15 c, so they are making a profit on each one. Many of these bags are being used once, perhaps twice. As I said earlier, these heavy-duty plastic bags must be used at least 10 times each before they provide a return to the environment. I do not know how many times people use these plastic bags, but I guarantee, given the figures, that the majority of the population do not use them anywhere near 10 times.
One of the schemes I asked minister Hampton to look at was one operating in Ireland, where there was a fee placed on bags, but it did not go back to the shopping centres or the retailers; it went towards environmental work. Under the Irish scheme the fee that was attached to every plastic bag sold went into a fund that directly supported environmental initiatives. There has been a remarkable turnaround in Ireland, with a reduction in plastic bag use; it is a phenomenal difference where once, every fence in windy areas of the country was covered with throwaway, single-use plastic bags. Today it is a different environment, with far less plastic entering landfill because of that initiative, and the environment directly benefits through the fund that was created, rather than the money returning to retailers.
Retailers, whether they are large ones like Coles or Woolworths, do not care how many bags are used today. They promote the use of as many bags as possible. Why? Because they make money out of them. But that does not directly help the environment.
This does not mean that this government will say that legislation is no good and throw it out. We will see what we can do about it. Firstly, I will prepare a report, based on this review’s findings, for Cabinet, and put it to Cabinet members that we must find a way to reduce the number of plastic bags entering landfill. If we must amend this legislation to achieve it, that should be our aim.
The community also needs to be involved in this, because the findings of this report indicate that most people are used to it, which is not hard to understand when the initiative has been in place for two years. People become accustomed to things after a period of time; people are now even used to cash for cans, whether they like the scheme or not.
We have worked hard to fix the legislation to ensure its continued success, and it is the same with the plastic bag component of this legislation. It is not reaching the intended outcomes that were first raised. It is well-intended legislation, but the mechanisms have not lead to an improvement in our environment.
We must, as a government and a community, ensure the intent of this legislation, the previous government and the previous minister, who I commend for trying to reduce the amount of plastic entering landfill – if the legislation that we enacted in this House is not working as intended, what should we do? Should we accept that people are used to it now, so keep it going and to hell with the environment? That is not good enough. If there is a way to strengthen or amend this legislation to reduce the amount of plastic going to our landfill, and we have the interests of the environment at heart, we should do it.
I table the review provided by RawTec for everyone to read. I hope when people have read it they will understand what I am trying to achieve. I am not trying to take away the intent of the original legislation of the previous government, but if the method is not working let us find one that will reduce the amount of plastic entering landfill.
MOTION
Note Paper – Stella Maris Inquiry Report
Continued from 19 June 2014.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, on 19 June this year I made a statement and laid on the table the Stella Maris inquiry report. At that time I moved that the paper be printed and sought leave to continue my remarks at a later time, which I do today.
The Stella Maris inquiry has revealed Labor’s true colours in giving its union mates a rent-free lease for a $3m CBD property. It was a grubby, underhanded deal that amounts to an outrageous betrayal of trust. On 5 December 2013 the Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to establish the inquiry into Stella Maris under the Inquires Act. On 18 December 2013 Her Honour the Administrator, Sally Thomas AC, appointed Mr John Lawler to conduct the inquiry into Stella Maris.
Mr Lawler is eminently qualified to lead the inquiry after 34 years in law enforcement and the past five years as Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission. This is a man who Labor’s attending counsel has smeared as biased.
Commissioner Lawler commenced work on the inquiry into Stella Maris on 13 January 2014, and delivered the inquiry report to the Administrator on 26 May 2014. The inquiry included a search warrant being executed at the offices of Unions NT, where documentation relevant to the inquiry was accessed. There was a call for public submissions to the inquiry, and public hearings were held across nine days in February 2014, five days in March 2014 and one day in April 2014. A number of summonses were also served on NT government agencies for relevant documentation.
Witnesses who appeared before the inquiry included former members of the Legislative Assembly, former ministerial advisors, current and former NT public servants and representatives from local government, community organisations and interest groups.
One former government minister, and the current Deputy Opposition Leader, Gerry McCarthy MLA, was recalled for misleading the inquiry. Commissioner Lawler undertook a comprehensive and broad inquiry into the decision by the former minister for Lands and Planning, Gerry McCarthy, to grant a lease over the Stella Maris site to Unions NT the day before the caretaker period of the 2012 election.
The report, titled Inquiry into Stella Maris – 2014, was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 19 June 2014. Commissioner Lawler produced 20 findings and 21 recommendations. I encourage those of you who have not read the report to read it online on the inquiry website. It is damning of the actions of those opposite.
The online version allows the reader to also become a listener. Through the use of enabling technology you can listen to the full evidence given by each witness to the inquiry, or by clicking on a footnote you can listen to the audio of short extracts of evidence that relate to specific sections of the report.
Firstly, let me draw the House’s attention to the main findings of the inquiry. The commissioner found that the decision to conduct the inquiry could have been avoided if the then minister for Lands and Planning and his office had followed transparent, due and proper processes when offering the community land grant for the site to Unions NT. This is a reference to Gerry McCarthy. The commissioner found that the Cabinet decision was a fait accompli. That means that the decision had been made even before it reached Cabinet. The commissioner found that Cabinet was not fully aware at the time of making Cabinet decision 4856 – which it should have been – of the real intentions of Unions NT or the likely financial benefit to be achieved by Unions NT through the offering of the Crown lease over the site.
The best estimate of the value of the 10-year lease to the Northern Territory government was $600 000. That means that the Labor Cabinet was not presented with all the facts, as it should have been in any good governance process. It gave its union mates a $600 000 present.
Another finding was that minister Gerry McCarthy’s offer of a community land grant to Unions NT on 3 August 2012 for a Crown lease on the site was arguably unreasonable in the administrative law sense, and would be susceptible to challenge before the Supreme Court on that basis.
Further, having considered all the factors in relation to the decision, Gerry McCarthy’s conduct was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest. It also found that the way minister Delia Lawrie involved herself in the process was not proper, and was unfair to the public and other community groups.
In reference to ministerial advisor Wolf Loenneker’s conduct, the commissioner found that his behaviour fell well short of the high standards expected of a senior ministerial adviser, and his decision-making was conflicted. The Unions NT executive had a responsibility to ensure that the application submitted on its behalf to the ministers was of a high standard and reflected Unions NT's true intentions, but it did not.
The commissioner found that there was a distinct lack of publicly available information about the decision, and this information void reflects poorly on the government. It is not an example of an open and transparent decision-making process.
Far from clearing the former government, as Labor claims, these findings put Gerry McCarthy and Delia Lawrie at the centre of this deal. It was a deal cooked up between Labor and its union mates, prior to the 2012 election, that the Stella Maris inquiry found was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest. Not once have Delia Lawrie or Gerry McCarthy apologised to Territorians or taken responsibility for their actions. Unions NT has refused at every turn to relinquish its questionable lease.
This government has carefully considered all the recommendations made by commissioner Lawler. I will go through every recommendation, and our response to each one. The relevant ministers will then update the House on the current status of each recommendation.
The commissioner made the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1:
- I recommend that the Northern Territory Government (the government), as a result of this report, immediately request Unions NT to relinquish any interest it may claim in the proposed Crown lease of Lot 5260, Town of Darwin (1 McMinn Street), commonly known as the Stella Maris site (the site) and invite Unions NT to join a future expression of interest process.
Recommendation 2:
- Whether or not Unions NT chooses to relinquish any interest it may claim in the site, and noting that no Crown lease is registered to Unions NT for the site at the Land Titles Office, I recommend that the site be reopened as soon as practicable to a formal expression of interest process under the provisions of s.12(2) of the Crown Lands Act, for low-scale community or commercial use for a Crown lease term of at least 35 years. The community access imperatives should be specified in the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment (the department) design objectives.
Recommendation 3:
- I recommend that consideration be given to a partnership agreement with the City of Darwin, with a view to including in the formal expression of interest process (as per Recommendation 2), part of Lot 6597 (approximately 317 square meters) which would enhance community access and overall utility of the site.
Recommendation 4:
- I recommend that the ‘Travellers Walk’, part of Lot 6597, be retained as a separate and important part of Darwin’s history.
Recommendation 5:
- I recommend the department’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) establish a broadbased panel, including community representatives, to assess the expressions of interest as outlined in Recommendation 2. I recommend that the CEO forward the panel’s recommendation on the preferred lessee to the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. The panel’s recommendation and the reasons for the Minister’s decision on the successful lessee should be advised through a public announcement at the time the decision is made.
This recommendation is supported in principle, and on the same basis as the previous recommendations. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment will update the House on the status of this recommendation.
Recommendation 6:
- I recommend that the Legislative Assembly consider whether there has been an alleged breach of the Northern Territory of Australia Legislative Assembly (Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act 2008, by Ms Delia Lawrie and Mr Gerald McCarthy, and whether under the provisions of s. 5(1) it wishes to refer any alleged breach of the code to the Privileges Committee.
- The Assembly may refer an alleged breach of the Code to the Privileges Committee to inquire into and report on the alleged breach.
Given it is recommended that the matter be considered by the Assembly, privileges issues are a matter for the Assembly to determine. If so required the Assembly, through the Speaker, the Privileges Committee or the Clerk, should seek legal advice from the Solicitor-General.
Recommendation 7:
- I recommend that the government considers legislative change that sets out the criteria to support a ‘reasonableness test’ in guiding ministerial decision-making. Such a test would aid accountability and be used as a mechanism for judging decisions made.
This recommendation is not accepted. While the commissioner’s recommendation is based upon aiding accountability, seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all test of reasonableness to every ministerial decision-making process would be completely unworkable. It would almost certainly lead to a series of challenges on the grounds of failing to take into account relevant considerations, and it would be inconsistent with the notion of ministerial responsibility and representative government.
Recommendation 8:
- I recommend that the community land grant and direct sale of Crown land business processes be included under the Crown Lands Regulations NT.
This recommendation is accepted.
Recommendation 9:
- I recommend that only the applicant should be able to make an application for a community land grant, or direct sale of Crown land and that a minister or minister’s office should have no role in the application process.
This recommendation is accepted.
Recommendation 10:
- I recommend that with any future Cabinet decision, made in conjunction with a community land grant or direct sale of Crown land, that the Cabinet decision should be the starting point in ensuring the full departmental business process is followed, as reflected in the Crown Lands Regulations (NT) (as amended in accordance with Recommendation 8).
Recommendation 11:
- I recommend that the department prepares a Cabinet Submission updating the Northern Territory Land Sale Policy.
This recommendation is also accepted.
Recommendation 12:
- I recommend that the Inquiries Act (NT) be reviewed and amended to allow for the seizure of documents and to provide a penalty for breaches of s.8(4) of the Act.
Pursuant to the Administrative Arrangement Orders of the Chief Minister, I have responsibility for the Inquiries Act. My department will now undertake a review of the act, and present recommendations to Cabinet for consideration by April 2015.
Recommendation 13:
- I recommend that a Cabinet Handbook, similar to the Commonwealth Cabinet Handbook, be prepared as an aide memoir for Cabinet ministers and to assist with briefing of new ministers in relation to their Cabinet responsibilities.
This recommendation is accepted, and its implementation is well advanced. The Cabinet Office is currently finalising the new draft Cabinet handbook for consideration at some time next month.
Recommendation 14:
- I also recommend that the Cabinet Handbook contain an updated Ministerial Code of Conduct. This handbook should be made public and tabled in the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
This recommendation is accepted, and as advised the new draft Cabinet handbook is nearing completion.
Recommendation 15:
- I recommend that the Cabinet Handbook contain specific guidance for the Cabinet Secretary on what must be recorded to ensure the proper maintenance of the official Cabinet records.
This recommendation is accepted, and will be incorporated into the new draft Cabinet handbook.
Recommendation 16:
- I recommend the Cabinet Office conduct an internal review on the caretaker conventions in light of fixed-term elections. The focus of the review should be the transparency of Cabinet decisions that are to be implemented during the caretaker period.
This recommendation is accepted, and the Cabinet Office will undertake the review.
Recommendation 17:
- I recommend that the Northern Territory Commissioner for Public Employment regularly promulgate clear advice to agency CEOs on how to manage the interface between ministerial advisors and departmental officers.
This recommendation is accepted. The Minister for Public Employment will update the House on this recommendation during the debate.
I also update the House on a decision that my office has taken as the employer of all ministerial staff. Recommendation 14 referred to an updated Ministerial Code of Conduct. We have taken this recommendation seriously and reviewed the code of conduct that applies to ministerial staff. The existing code of conduct has been replaced with a statement of service standards for ministerial staff. The statement of service articulates 21 standards that ministerial employees are expected to uphold, including three that relate specifically to engaging with the public service.
Ministerial staff and consultants employed under the Contracts Act must not knowingly or intentionally encourage or induce a public official, by their decisions, directions or conduct, to breach the law or parliamentary obligations, or fail to comply with an applicable code of ethical conduct.
The new service standards acknowledge that ministerial staff do not have the power to direct NTPS employees in their own right, and that NTPS employees are not subject to their direction. It recognises that executive decisions are the preserve of ministers and public servants, and not ministerial staff acting in their own right.
Recommendation 18:
- I recommend the Northern Territory Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, with additional support, be appointed the Northern Territory Integrity Commissioner to provide advice to ministers, the Legislative Assembly and the Northern Territory Public Sector, similar to the role of the Integrity Commissioners in other jurisdictions.
Recommendation 19:
- I recommend the Integrity Commissioner (appointed as per Recommendation 18) provide advice to government on any further legislative or other changes that would further strengthen the Northern Territory’s Integrity frameworks.
Recommendation 20:
- I recommend the department fully implement the necessary business improvements, as set out in Appendix H.
This recommendation is accepted. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment will speak about the improvements being undertaken in his department later in this debate.
Recommendation 21:
- I recommend that, with extra support, the Auditor-General conducts a performance management system audit, in consultation with the Inquiry Commissioner, on the effectiveness of and progress made in implementing the recommendations of this Inquiry that are accepted by government. I recommend that the Auditor-General presents a report to the Speaker for tabling in the Legislative Assembly by 26 October 2015.
This recommendation is accepted.
The Stella Maris inquiry has revealed the sort of grubby politics that we can expect from the Labor Party. It is a sad chapter in the Northern Territory’s history, but thanks to the hard work of commissioner John Lawler we now have a clear picture of what took place in those days prior to the 2012 election, and the lengths the Labor Party is willing to go to in order to look after its union mates. It is a sad indictment of a political party that claims to be our future. Instead, Labor represents no policies and a complete lack of morality.
We are still waiting for the Labor Party and Unions NT to hand the keys of Stella Maris back to Territorians. It is simply unacceptable that they have not heeded the advice of the independent commissioner. This is a matter of trust. Our community puts enormous trust in institutions. We trust that our courts will operate without fear or favour, our police are being firm but fair and our politicians will make decisions in the interests of the whole community, not just one section of it, and not only for Unions NT, as Labor did.
This report has opened the door of Labor’s Cabinet room, and found that the community was completely misguided and misrepresented. It describes the decision-making by Labor politicians on Stella Maris as not proper and unfair to the public, and that the code of conduct of members of the Labor Cabinet was not accountable and not responsible, nor in the public interest. It shows how a meeting of only four of eight Cabinet members helped them to manipulate our system of government to their own ends, and deliver a $600 000 gift to union buddies.
This report provides a glimpse of the inner machinations of the Labor Party, and what lengths it will go to in dirty, dodgy deals to support its union mates. It shows how the Labor Cabinet operated. It shows that the Labor Party abused the trust of Territorians. This report provides a rare insight into the normally secretive workings of Cabinet.
The highest decision-making body of executive government is the Cabinet. The room in which Cabinet sits is off-limits to all but a few. Its inner workings are known to an even smaller number. What we have with this report is proof that trust was abused by Delia Lawrie and Gerry McCarthy. How many times did this happen? We will probably never know.
I thank John Lawler for chairing this inquiry, and the Assembly for its support in asking for this inquiry to be undertaken. We know, as a result of this report, that Labor simply cannot be trusted. The Labor Party has failed the most basic test with Stella Maris, and that is honesty.
Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have taken senior counsel’s advice on how this matter should be handled by parliament. It is inappropriate for this Chamber to debate anything in relation to the Stella Maris report.
There is Supreme Court action under way which goes to the heart of the validity of this report. It would be inappropriate for parliament to consider the matters related to the inquiry at the same time as the Supreme Court.
It would be inappropriate for parliament, or a committee of parliament, to consider the matters related to the inquiry at the same time as the Supreme Court.
I have taken action in the Supreme Court on a matter of procedural fairness. I quote from the writ, ‘A declaration that, in reporting adversely to the plaintiff in his report entitled Inquiry into Stella Maris 2014 (the report) – purportedly pursuant to section 4A(3) of the Inquiries Act – the defendant failed to observe the requirements of procedural fairness:
2. ‘An order that the defendant pays the plaintiff’s costs in these proceedings.
3. ‘Such further or other orders as the court deems fit.’
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, as the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I first became aware of the lease proposed to Unions NT when a development application came across my desk. From that moment, I knew something was not right. It was a gut feeling, one of those things that you either grow up having or not.
I undertook some research and was shocked by what I found. The letter of offer, signed by the then Minister for Lands and Planning, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was dated, signed, accepted and paid for in the last days before the Territory election was called.
Everyone knows how these things usually work. Briefs are signed, returned to the department and distributed in an orderly and accountable fashion. Some of these things can take weeks, and bigger things can take months because of what is involved. For an offer like this to be made, accepted and signed in that short period of time means that the former minister, the member for Barkly, had to rush around town, see his union mates in Woods Street, and then hand deliver the paperwork to the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment – very unorthodox. I guess he was only following orders from the then Deputy Chief Minister, as she secured favours from her union mates.
The Country Liberals are undoing this deal. As recommended by the commissioner, I am pleased to advise that in accordance with section 12(2) of the Crown Lands Act, I have given approval for Lot 5260 to be released to an expression of interest process. Releasing land for significant sites such as this one should be undertaken in an open, transparent and accountable process; this was a clear outcome of the inquiry.
Importantly, Unions NT has not responded to repeated letters sent from the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, asking it to relinquish its interest, whether perceived or real, in this site. Notwithstanding the lack of response, the Stella Maris inquiry report recommended that this site be released through a formal expression of interest process; I am doing this, and following the recommendation.
I approved the site being released for community and commercial development. The process opened last week, and will close on 17 October 2014. This will allow time for community groups and others to put forward an expression of interest for the use and development of the site. In accordance with the report’s recommendations, the expression of interest process allows proponents to approach the council in relation to the inclusion of the adjoining Lot 6597, commonly referred to as Travellers’ Walk, so as to enhance community access and the overall utility of the site.
The significance of Travellers’ Walk will not be compromised, and I thank the Darwin city council for its assistance in this regard. The department will establish a broad-based panel, including community representatives, to assess the expressions of interest as outlined in the report recommendations. This department will establish the panel and hold those representations to ensure that it is an open and accountable process. This site is proximate to the vibrant Waterfront locality and the CBD. It is a unique site, and one that will allow for enhanced community use and access.
The Territory’s vision for the site is a low-scale community and commercial development. Development will promote access to and preserve the heritage value of the site, as well as enhance and integrate community access to Travellers’ Walk. I look forward to hearing the outcomes of this process, and the interest in the site.
To further expand on the process expressions of interest are designed to identify a suitable development plan for Lot 5260, taking into account its location and constraints, as well as the opportunities presented by engaging with the Darwin city council in relation to Lot 6597.
Following assessment of the proposals a preferred proponent may, at the discretion of the Territory, be selected to proceed to negotiations with the government. The Territory may seek additional information or presentations from all or any of the proponents, at its discretion.
Much has been achieved by the department prior to, and since the conclusion of, the inquiry’s report. The department has restructured its organisation to create a secretariat and policy unit and developed an internal policy group, led by executives, that is responsible for reviewing and recommending policies to government for approval. This group will also oversee policy development and coordinate legislative changes where required. It will undertake work to identify the many policies that provide the framework for land and regulatory dealings, and has developed a database to record and monitor the currency of policies. This includes a review of delegations, which is in progress. The department has provided regular reporting on applications and land releases through its Apex database, and is now turning its mind to better utilising mechanisms and assimilating with the Integrated Land Information Systems (ILIS) for an advanced level of reporting.
The department has reviewed and implemented the internal checklist and business processes for direct sales and community land grants. Importantly, it includes hold points for signing by managers and the director to ensure good governance in land allocation. The department has reviewed its induction program, which includes provision for staff to be inducted into legislation and policy relating to land release and the application and community land grant process.
The department trialled an online land application system for implementation; the aforementioned system complements the work I have outlined, as it relates to transparency and good governance. This online system supports the recommendations of the inquiry report, in that only the applicant will be able to access and lodge the necessary application online.
The department will be holding formal training for staff in October, and internal workshops will be held across the agency on good policy development and implementation, as well as record keeping.
The department has also reviewed its land grant policy and business processes, and will be providing recommendations to me for consideration, on the conclusion of the work. It is intended for the business process to be included in regulation. Updates to brochures and public information will be provided once approved. The department is well advanced in implementing the recommendations and actions listed in the report that impact on it. This important work is continuing as a priority.
The most important lesson from this matter is that it is necessary for government to operate in an open, transparent manner. This is critical for ensuring public confidence in government decisions, whether in the context of dealing with community groups or the business sector. It is vital that governments act according to basic principles of fairness, and be seen to be doing so.
We all live in a world based on perceptions and on what is reported, whether it is truthful or not. Governments of all persuasions work under difficult circumstances at times; there are discussions held around the barbecue, and those fertilised by oppositions and people who are not of your persuasion or working towards your interests. Wherever possible, a government should ensure that its processes are accountable, and that they can be openly scrutinised by the general public. Governments of all persuasions, not only in the Northern Territory but across this country and the world, face different times today compared to 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Modern technology: iPhones and cameras are used everywhere, and microphones are on wherever you go. There were shonky deals done in the past that cannot, and should not, be done today.
All in this House stand for goodness, for Territorians, and they expect a government to do the right thing. I cannot honestly say that every single person who has worked in this House before, or in any other government across Australia, has always worked in the best interests of their jurisdiction. Perhaps they have been corrupted, biased in their thoughts or even manipulated in some way, and maybe finances have been involved, but in life, once you have reached that level, there is no going back. I expect everyone in this House to play with a straight bat. Our laws, regulations and communities demand it. Regarding accountability and openness, in today’s society, with what can be obtained through FOI legislation and, as I said, what is available through phones, microphones and modern technology, it would be vain of people to think they can get away with things, particularly in the long term, as matters will always come back to haunt you, no matter what you say, do or hear.
As I said before, this was a file that came across my desk soon after I took over the Lands, Planning and the Environment portfolio. It did not seem right, and the inquiry has vindicated those initial thoughts. We expect a lot from our elected members and our government, and it is not too much for the community to expect this Country Liberals government to take the recommendations of this inquiry and do what it can to improve processes – whether they are in Lands and Planning or any other department – and be seen to be doing the right thing. Thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate, read this document a number of times, listened to the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not know anything about the legal ramifications that she spoke of. Obviously, they are matters for the Leader of the Opposition, so my comments will be about what I read in documents leading up to this inquiry. I hope the government will put as much effort into the political donations inquiry as it has into this one. If the government wants to be balanced it must make the same effort.
I support the inquiry and its recommendations. I am concerned and disappointed, having listened to the Chief Minister, that Recommendations 18 and 19 will not be accepted. The minister for Lands and Planning might remember one night when I raised a few issues about a proposal to subdivide some land – I hope the minister takes this the right way; Recommendation 18 mentions appointing an integrity commissioner, who would have been an ideal person to investigate whether the minister had a conflict of interest. I received this document on the night we were debating it, and that was one of the first recommendations I read. I have only heard a few words from the Chief Minister about why he will not accept that recommendation. We must look at this a little more deeply to see whether the reasons for rejecting it are valid. If we had an integrity commissioner a minister could ask for an independent assessment of a decision they were to make. I understand that ministers must take ministerial responsibility. Sometimes it might be worth checking that what you will do is correct, and that there is no conflict of interest before going down that path. I am disappointed about that point.
The minister for Lands and Planning spoke about perceptions; that is something that I raised during the censure motion debate. Perceptions are what people see. In this case the Labor government rushed something through. The recommendations in this report clearly state that there was not sufficient transparency. Finding 4 says:
- I find that neither Minister G McCarthy nor any member of the Cabinet involved in Cabinet decision 4856 received any financial benefit or personal advantage as a result of the decision to offer a community land grant exclusively to Unions NT.
I read that because in an earlier debate people referred to Gerry Obeid and Delia Obeid. This is not that type of debate. The Obeid scandal was about people making many millions of dollars profiteering from particular decisions. This is not the same, and that is clearly reflected in Finding 4.
Finding 9 says:
- I find that having considered all the factors in relation to the decision to offer a Crown lease to Unions NT for the site, Minister G McCarthy’s conduct was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest.
That is repeated for minister Lawrie at that stage, but you must put some of these findings into context. The report says that if the government of the day had done this in a particular manner, this issue would probably not have come before parliament in the first place.
The report says that if the process had occurred in a much more open and transparent way, which could have included Unions NT asking for the land, it might have been resolved. Finding 2 says:
- I find the public disquiet – as highlighted by the media, along with the decision to conduct this Inquiry – could have been avoided if the then Cabinet followed the recommended option in ‘The future of Stella Maris site’ Cabinet Submission and if the then Minister for Lands and Planning and his office followed transparent, due and proper process when offering the community land grant for the site to Unions NT.
I am not sure that the argument is necessarily against Unions NT having that land. It is entitled to ask for land like anyone else. I presume that it put its case based not only on being regarded as a non-profit organisation – even though it makes money – but also on having a connection with the land. That is fine, but there were other people interested in that land, and there are people concerned about it being developed.
I note that the minister mentioned that when this is released for expressions of interest – he used the words ‘and the development of the land’. I am interested to know whether the minister for Lands and Planning, when he said ‘development of the land’, meant that a multistorey block of flats could go up on that site? Is the site protected from development? That was not clear, and was one of the concerns of people like Margaret Clinch at PLan, in that it should not be developed and sold to a private developer, but should be retained as community purpose land.
I interjected, minister, when you were talking about Travellers’ Walk. Margaret Clinch fought for years to retain that walkway, and you must remember that many people fought the CLP government on the development of the escarpment, which was originally meant to be a green belt around the edge of the Esplanade. There is now a bit of a green belt there, as well as many high-rise units which rose up in the days of the CLP. That should never have happened in the first place.
I am only trying to bring this back to what the general population wants to hear. There were many figures bandied around – $3m – all of these figures are exaggerated. You can say someone has a lease for 50 years at $60 000 per year, which means it is worth umpteen million dollars. You quote the big figure, but you do not quote the $60 000 a year figure. It is done to overemphasise an argument about someone. That was not fair, and it was part of a political process, because there was a political reason, as well as a proper governance reason, for the inquiry occurring. We must split the political reason for pushing this, which can be seen in the language used as being against trying to fix some of the issues the commissioner identified in the system. That is the area I am more concerned about. The commissioner has tried to bring in changes to ensure this cannot happen again.
I emphasise again that there were things said – you must read the document carefully because people were accused of things. It was unfair, because the document that the government brought forward does not say that.
For instance, the commissioner said:
- A finding of corrupt conduct can have grave consequences for the person concerned and should only be made where the circumstances plainly justify it. They do not in this instance.
I have heard whispers about corruption. In Finding 1 the commissioner states that we do not have a statutory definition of corrupt conduct, but you must read the entire page to understand where that is coming from. The minister for Lands and Planning at the time, as well as the Opposition Leader, did not make any personal gain. One could argue that they had a conflict of interest when they decided on this, because the unions are closely affiliated with the Labor Party; that may be the case, and that is why this was not undertaken in a proper, transparent way.
We must balance things a bit to make sure that the government, when it is criticising Labor for the decision – the inquiry has shown that there were issues that were not dealt with as well as they should have been. I could mention some parcels of land that I know were given out in days gone by, by the CLP government, and I asked questions like, ‘How come?’ But no one held an inquiry into those actions.
The commissioner mentioned that people had talked about other parcels of land. This was not in the terms of reference given to him. Term of reference 7 says:
- Any other suggestions or recommendations the Commissioner considers relevant to the above matters.
He could have looked at any other cases that were worth considering.
There is nothing wrong with this inquiry in the sense that it clears the air, and if there are recommendations from this inquiry that improve governance, the way we do things and that make sure any government, when it is making decisions, is at arm’s length. That was the criticism I had of the minister for Lands and Planning. There was a block of land in the rural area which the DCA twice decided could not be developed, and the minister used a section of the Planning Act in order to act as the Development Consent Authority. I objected to that because I thought at that time – and I still do – that the minister had a conflict of interest. The Development Consent Authority is used to keep the minister away from making decisions that could be perceived as political or for someone’s gain. That is why it is important to have correct processes.
I reiterate that it is disappointing that the government spent money on these recommendations; when it comes to what I thought was a very important recommendation. I am open to a different view on it, but one of the key recommendations was about appointing an integrity commissioner. It seems that when we get down to some of the things that would help ensure that government operates properly and in a much more open and transparent way, which is what much of this debate today is about, the minister has decided that they will not accept those recommendations. That is disappointing.
We are two years on from the previous government being in power. People will gain mileage out of this, whichever way they think. I will repeat that the government at that time did not do this through what I call an open and transparent process which was fair to everybody. It would not have mattered to me, as I did not know this was happening. I expect any government offering a sale or the use of a parcel of land to publish advertisements, and give people the opportunity to put their two bob’s worth in as to why they would like that block of land.
I should make it clear that the minister was within his rights; he had the power to do what he did. The issue is not about whether he has broken the law, but it comes back to perception. That is the problem we have with the present government in some of the things that are being debated today. The best way to overcome perception issues is by having systems which are public and transparent. That way, you can ensure that your decisions are being scrutinised, not only by this House, but by the media and the general public. That means we have a healthy democracy and will hopefully reach proper and fair decisions through that process.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this statement. We have gone to all the trouble of doing this, but the minister has now said that this is a draft. I thought this was it, but I heard the word ‘draft’ at the beginning, which did not make sense to me.
The other issue was in relation to what the government is doing about Recommendation 6, which is to do with a members’ code of conduct and ethical standards. I read the members’ code of conduct and ethical standards. I am not a lawyer, but I wonder how the government is trying to put this matter into that area, as I could not see it in there. Obviously, the minister cannot see it either, as he has sent it to the Solicitor-General. It would be interesting to know a little more detail about that section. There was a lot of media hype about it at the time – going off to the Privileges Committee – yet all I heard today was that their advice will be based on what the Solicitor-General recommends. We have had this document for quite a while, and I would have expected some feedback on that recommendation. After all, the minister for Lands and Planning has been giving us his update on these recommendations, but I do not know where that is at.
I hope this document helps to improve the way we govern, and that we move on. The people involved should not be dragged along month after month. We must go through this document, pick up its recommendations and work towards better governance.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the comments made by the Chief Minister about the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s dodgy deal to hand a $3m asset to their union mates, making the point that, at the time, the member for Karama was the Deputy Chief Minister, and the member for Barkly was the minister responsible for this debacle. It is shameful.
As members of parliament we carry a level of trust from the constituency we represent. In government we carry the trust of all Territorians. When the Labor Party was in government it broke that trust, and it took the change of government to uncover how deceitful it was being to Territorians.
Our community puts enormous trust in its institutions. We trust that our police are acting in the public interest to keep our society safe, our teachers will provide good education to our children, our doctors and nurses will provide care for the sick and our politicians will make fair decisions in the interest of the whole Territory, not just a section of it or for union mates.
Trust implies a sense of hope that this is the way our society works and, at the same time, acknowledges that the community does not oversee every decision, ruling or arrest. This report exposes how the trust the community had in the member for Karama’s former Labor government was broken. It was abused. The people were wronged by the members for Karama and Barkly in that position of trust.
Now is the time that the members for Karama and Barkly are answerable, and now is the time that we, as a society, should say no to the type of behaviour shown by the Labor government through this debacle.
The report describes the decision-making by Labor politicians on Stella Maris as ‘not proper’. The report goes as far as to say the decision-making, ‘was unfair to the public’.
Again, that shows that Territorians’ trust which was placed in the Labor government, and particularly those two members, was broken. Further, the report says that the conduct of members of the Labor government was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest.
We know that Labor will say that it committed no crime and did nothing wrong. In its members’ eyes giving their main supporter a $3m asset is fine, the fact that it did not go to public tender is fine and the cover-up is fine. However, members for Barkly and Karama, it is not fine. All this does is prove how you failed to appreciate the trust that people placed in your government.
Stella Maris exposed Labor’s desire to advance its political interests over the wider interest, and is telling of how the former government operated. I cannot stress how deceitful this deal was. I repeat, a $3m public asset was gifted to Unions NT in a 10-year rent-free deal without a public expression of interest process.
An independent inquiry led by commissioner John Lawler found that Labor’s actions in stitching up the deal were not accountable, responsible or in the public interest. Despite the report and its recommendations, Unions NT has chosen to ignore numerous calls to relinquish its interest in the site.
I commend the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for readvertising the site and calling for an expression of interest. In his media release he said:
- This action I’m taking today is the right action, and exactly what Delia Lawrie and Gerry McCarthy should have done two years ago instead of cooking up an under-the-table deal in the dying days of the Labor Government …
It was pleasing to see the EOI process begin last Friday, and I look forward to hearing about who the successful tenderer is.
Our government will not be gifting Stella Maris to any group under the table. There is a public process under way, and we are proud of this. It is a symbol of the trust that we have reinstated with the Territory public. I hope to see community groups and organisations putting forward their proposals for this iconic site. It is important that it is used to benefit the wider community.
There is something else that I need to say, and it is a repeat of the call the Chief Minister has now made. The least the members for Karama and Barkly could do is apologise for this action, and I join the Chief Minister in calling for that public apology. I have some simple advice for the members for Karama and Barkly. A simple, ‘I am sorry’ to the people of the Northern Territory would go a long way in rebuilding that lost trust; in fact, it was not lost, it was stolen from Territorians.
Being unaccountable and not acting in the public interest, coupled with the failure to acknowledge this and to apologise, are not becoming of the Northern Territory parliament. Frankly, those members involved in this matter shame themselves and the party they represent.
As a government, we will see the keys of Stella Maris put in the hands of the community.
To sum up, I quote the words that commissioner Lawler wrote to the Administrator upon presentation of this report. He said:
- I thank you for the opportunity and I sincerely hope the report assists in promoting integrity, accountability, responsibility and transparency within government into the future.
I hope the members for Barkly and Karama and the Labor Party have learned their lesson from this. It is not okay to do these dodgy deals under the table without any element of transparency or scrutiny; it was the wrong thing to do. They should be ashamed of themselves; the actions of those two politicians have made me ashamed of parliamentarians in the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, it is appalling that the government is even considering sending this matter to privileges while it is before the courts. How will the government look if the court quashes the Stella Maris report – effectively rendering it null and void – but it then moves against two members of parliament, based on the report?
The Assembly should wait; the court will hear the issue in due course, and the Assembly will have time, if it so desires and the Stella Maris report is found to be valid, to consider these matters then.
It is worth putting on the record that none of the cases of contempt or privilege referred to in the House of Representatives Practice concern the exercise of executive power. This Assembly would be setting a precedent that the national parliament has never considered, and those opposite need to consider that.
Precedence for the Privileges Committee, historically, has always been in connection with something affecting the House or members in their capacity, as such. The Stella Maris decision of the previous Cabinet does not satisfy this test.
Like my colleagues on this side, I am saddened by the route this government is taking in considering the Privileges Committee. The government squandered $500 000 on the Stella Maris inquiry, money which could have been spent on schoolteachers or hospital beds. Instead, it was spent on finding that a decision of the previous government was entirely lawful. It was a political stunt from the outset, and the statement and report from the Chief Minister today clearly show that the government has learned nothing from the fizzer that was the Stella Maris inquiry.
This House should resoundingly reject the statement and the report from the Chief Minister.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, after hearing what the Chief Minister said about the Stella Maris deal I feel somewhat embarrassed to be in the same room as some of those opposite.
During my time as a police officer I served as a Fraud Squad detective. I joined the police force – serving for 27 years – because I had a great sense of justice and fairness.
I looked at a range of issues when I was a Fraud Squad detective, and when I look at the Stella Maris case I think, ‘Gee, that smells a lot’. We have heard speakers from both sides, with the opposition saying what a waste of time and money it has been. I beg to differ, and I hope the members saying that go back and read the report to see what it says.
It beggars belief that a Treasurer and minister for Lands and Planning could circumvent the executive decision-making process in the way he did, and give their union mates a $600 000 handout. The member for Nhulunbuy said, ‘$500 000 is a waste of money’. Imagine what could have been done with that. You could have done a few things; the deal was worth $600 000, if it had been done properly. What could the government do with $600 000? One looks at the amount of debt that Labor left the Northern Territory in; it could have reduced it by $600 000 by making a fair deal, but that was not the case.
It beggars belief that senior elected representatives of the Northern Territory community could put their integrity in the bottom drawer in this way. As an elected member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly it gives me a great deal of pride to serve the people of the Northern Territory and my electorate, and I consider it an honour to do so. In doing that there is an expectation that I will be fair and just, and those are qualities that have guided me through my life. They are the qualities that I gained, and that were drummed into me, by my parents and family, all the way through my childhood. When I became a police officer in Western Australia, again ideas of justice and fairness were drummed into me. I have heard other people comment that the opposition will say, ‘Oh, but we did no wrong, we did not commit a crime and we did not do this and that’.
It was a dirty, dodgy deal that was exposed. In my former life I looked at the various behavioural patterns of people who did these sorts of things, and quite often it was not the first and sometimes not the last time they would make such deals. This was done on the day before the government went into caretaker mode. A deal was made, things were signed off, and so much of the process and the checks and balances of government was circumvented. Why would you do that the day before, except to look after your mates and make a backroom deal, in the expectation that it would not be made public.
In my former life as a police officer, I found that many people did things because they believed that no one would find out. Things are great until it all turns pear-shaped; in this instance it has turned pear-shaped. That can be a bit sad for some people because when they believe that they will not be caught they suddenly have to stump up and be responsible for your actions. Inquiries like this hold people accountable for their actions.
When I look at the timing of the actions of the former Treasurer and current Leader of the Opposition, as well as the former government minister and now Deputy Opposition Leader, it is apparent they had decided that the approaching election was not theirs to win, and they had to have the grubby deal signed off as a matter of urgency before the government went into caretaker mode.
I ask those listening to and reading this to take note of those particular words, because this action was an enormous, sad betrayal of public trust. To give your mates a deal like that in those circumstances smells. I say again that it is an enormous betrayal of public trust; if I had done that I could not sleep at night. I would not be sitting over there, holding my head up high and saying, ‘I have done nothing wrong’. It was a shonky deal and, again, with what I have been taught through my family, as an individual, a community member and through my former life as a school-based police officer teaching 40 000 kids in 19 years – I taught students those things, and I hope that other people in this room would teach the same things if they worked with young people. I look at what people might be teaching them; they might teach them one set of rules, and then act differently. There are people on the other side who have teaching backgrounds. I hope they were teaching young people about fairness, justice and a sense of right and wrong, yet when it comes to this it has gone out of the window. Perhaps they do not take their own advice, which does not surprise me with some of the things I heard from those opposite. This clearly demonstrates that they feel no remorse for their actions.
I heard the member for Nhulunbuy say that this is nothing, and the government should be ashamed. I find that appalling, her saying that the government should be ashamed for the rotten, stinky deal the opposition made. Why should we feel ashamed about that? No doubt they are on that side, and I do not blame them. I said the other day in this House that I am a compassionate guy. I understand that if they have been caught, people will be embarrassed, and will probably do what they can to take the attention away from themselves; that is human nature. There is an old saying in the real world about fessing up if your hand is in the cookie jar, but so many people say, ‘It was not my hand in the cookie jar’. When you say, ‘There is a photograph of you with your hand in the cookie jar’, they still say, ‘It is not a photo of me’. One expects that, but at some stage people must really look in the mirror, and see if they have a conscience. It would be interesting to hear what answer they would give us.
The Lawler inquiry has clearly identified the culpability of the former Treasurer and minister for Lands and Planning. The fact that they sit opposite in denial is an even greater reason for concern for Territorians. How can you ever trust them in government? Day after day I listen to the opposition criticise the government; they say all sorts of things that they would like the public to understand. This morning the member for Port Darwin clearly indicated that they say what they want the public to believe. They have said that people are talking about this; the only people talking about this are across the Chamber. They are the only people who are saying that it was a great deal to give the unions a $3m property, and rip the taxpayer off for $600 000; that is okay, fair and that this government should be ashamed because they did that. That is appalling.
Their lack of remorse and denial of the truth is a good reason for asking if they are the representatives that we want in parliament? Those opposite need to get up every morning, look in the mirror and ask, ‘Am I the person that everybody wants to be in parliament?’ I leave that question for them to answer. If I was to take a straw poll of everyone who has been made aware of the unfair, unethical and grubby nature of the deal done for Labor’s union mates, the answer to that question would be a resounding no, and that these are not the type of people the public wants to represent it in the Northern Territory parliament. If they had any decency, they would resign, but perhaps not. The very least they can do, as the member for Katherine indicated, is apologise.
I have heard Labor frequently call on people from this side, such as the member for Port Darwin. He is a friend of a person who has done nothing wrong in the legal system. The Attorney-General has been the victim of a political witch-hunt, and they have called on him to resign. How dare he be friends with a – now former – magistrate? How dare he do that? What has he done wrong legally? Nothing! It is a political witch-hunt. That is someone they are attacking for political reasons.
There is a clear indication that a dirty, dodgy deal has been done, yet they apply double standards in this House. Why do they not call on themselves? They should look in the mirror and say, ‘Gee, I should resign’. Again, I find it appalling that they call on people over here who have done nothing wrong to resign, and say that they should be sacked. What is the Leader of the Opposition doing? Is her team saying how strange this is, and that they should be copping some flack over this issue? Have they said that she should resign? Is she calling for her own resignation? Does she look in the mirror and say, ‘I should resign today because I was part of a rotten, dirty, dodgy deal’? I do not think so, because those opposite think that they have done nothing.
I ask people who are listening to this or who read Hansard to ask the question and figure out the answer. It is the people who will decide what is and is not a dirty, rotten, dodgy deal. I do not know if I would want to do any polling on that, because they may not like the answer.
The Chief Minister advised the House that Unions NT has refused to relinquish its interest in the Stella Maris property. That action brings into question the integrity of the management of that organisation. There is a report, and you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that there is something wrong with this deal, yet Unions NT has not handed in the keys. Its representatives might like to look in the mirror and make some judgments about themselves first thing in the morning, and ask, ‘Am I doing the right thing by myself, my work colleagues, the people in the community and the Northern Territory?’ If they say, ‘Yes, I am’, I would be disappointed, and it is tragic if people think like that. I call upon Unions NT to relinquish its interests in that property. In continuing to refuse to take the honourable course of action, that organisation seems to have sunk to the same grubby level as the architects of this underhand, unfair violation of public trust, which took place outside of the public interest.
Sadly, I feel ashamed for members of the House who performed those actions. If they have a conscience they must have a good look at how they conduct themselves, not only in this Chamber, but in the greater community.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support the motion, and I am not constrained in the same way as the Leader of the Opposition. Certain things must put on the record to put this matter into perspective.
The Stella Maris inquiry was set up as a political stunt to try to damage the former government. Let us consider what the commissioner found. There was no corrupt conduct, no conflict of interest, no one gained financially and the decision was entirely lawful. The inquiry set up to damage the previous government was a fizzer. This government spent $500 000 in an elaborate stunt to damage the former government, and it did not receive value for money.
When the commissioner did not give it the result it needed the government had to find a way to save face. The Stella Maris inquiry was an own goal. The government spent $500 000 to be told that the former Cabinet acted entirely lawfully. The last recourse the government has is the Privileges Committee, but even then there is doubt over the constitutionality of whether this should be heard by privileges.
The Stella Maris decision was taken by the executive government of the day, not the parliament. The Privileges Committee has no right to second guess what takes place in Cabinet. It also points to whether the members’ code of conduct act of 2008 applies to the executive government. The opposition has been advised that it is a constitutional impossibility for the members’ code of conduct to apply to ministers. This has never been tested. In any event the code of conduct was not breached by any member of the previous Cabinet.
This government is clutching at straws with this, and I strongly urge the Assembly to end this political stunt and reject this report.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, the brevity of submissions to this House is a measure of culpability and, inversely and directly proportional to it, these people demonstrate a level of culpability in relation to their defence today. Having listened to the members opposite deliver some very tightly read statements, drafted, I suspect, by a lawyer somewhere in relation to this, the defence is hardly strident. There are double standards, because what we have is a report of the Stella Maris inquiry. I congratulate commissioner Lawler on his work, but I am intrigued, however, about some of the elements of this report, and the relationship between the Woods Street address and the Stella Maris site.
The Woods Street address, which was occupied prior to the unions wanting to move into the Stella Maris site, was subject to a number of titles. A number of titles rested with the union movement; however, one of the titles on the site rests with an organisation called Harold Nelson Holdings Pty Ltd. Harold Nelson Holdings Pty Ltd was mentioned during another debate in relation to political donations.
Harold Nelson Holdings is the financial arm of the Northern Territory Labor Party. It is curious how they want to talk about our relationship with Foundation 51; they will be disappointed in the proximity that they seem to think exists there. I understand that Harold Nelson Holdings and the Labor Party have a close relationship, and it would be a tragedy to see this group of people from the union movement move out of the Woods Street address, and conveniently find themselves in a place where they could have digs for a number of years – how long was the lease for Stella Maris?
Mr Styles: 10 years
Mr ELFERINK: It was 10 years at a peppercorn rent, giving it a CBD address. The units on the Woods Street site would then become available for redevelopment.
I listened to the member for Nelson say that there was no personal gain, but there was gain for the Australian Labor Party and the union movement, because it would have enabled them to redevelop the site. It is funny how the champions of the worker would appear to quickly become the champions of capital development. It is funny how they can change their spots from time to time.
Labor sidestepped process over the Stella Maris site, which is what this inquiry is about, because it shows an opposition that is more than prepared and happy, when in government, to sidestep processes completely.
The lectures about transparency we have received from the members opposite become utterly opaque when you consider the brevity of their submissions to this inquiry. I imagine that there will be observers of this inquiry who will be listening closely to what is said in this House, and those observers will doubtlessly be listening closely to what is said by government members more than the members opposite.
It is clear that the Stella Maris report has returned a series of findings which demonstrate that the government of the day was happy to sidestep processes that it argues for. The Stella Maris inquiry reveals that Labor, an alternative government of the Northern Territory, will sidestep processes if there is something in it for them, or alternatively, for its union mates.
I am disappointed that it has gone through this process. More importantly, Labor has gone through a process which has truncated many of the normal ways of approaching these sorts of things. If I remember the evidence of the inquiry correctly, the Labor Cabinet meeting was barely constituted in any realistic sense and, as the report states, the determination was ultimately not made through Cabinet but through the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr McCarthy.
I am curious to know if the member for Barkly would care to fill us in during this debate about the story that came to my ears – I do not know if it is true – about the then Planning minister walking the lease paperwork to Unions NT. I have never heard a denial of that, and he could well satisfy us if we were to hear one. I would be very pleased one way or the other, because the absence of a denial raises the question – having made those observations I turn my attention to recommendation 17, as referred to by the Chief Minister. It says:
- I recommend that the Northern Territory Commissioner for Public Employment regularly promulgate clear advice to agency CEOs on how to manage the interface between ministerial advisors and departmental officers.
This recommendation is accepted by the Minister for Public Employment, and I will update the House on this recommendation during this debate. I will also update the House on a decision that my office has taken as the employer of all ministerial staff.
Recommendation 14 referred to an updated ministerial code of conduct. We have taken this recommendation seriously, and also take the opportunity to review the code of conduct that applies to ministerial staff. The existing code of conduct has been replaced with a statement of service standards for ministerial staff. The statement of service standards articulates 21 standards that ministerial employees are expected to uphold, including three that relate specifically to engaging with the public service:
‘The ministerial staff employed under the Northern Territory Contracts Act, and consultants, must:
10. ‘not knowingly, intentionally encourage or induce public officials by their decisions, directions or conduct, to breach the law or parliamentary obligations or fail to comply with applicable codes of ethical conduct
11. ‘acknowledge that ministerial staff do not have the power to direct the Northern Territory Public Service employees in their own right, and that Northern Territory Public Service employees are not subject to their direction
12. ‘recognise that executive decisions are the preserve of ministers and public servants, and not ministerial staff acting in their own right
13. ‘facilitate and direct effective communication between their minister’s department and their minister.’
- It was Mr Loenneker’s responsibility, as an advisor to both Minister Lawrie and Minister G McCarthy, to ensure that Unions NT’s application was provided to the department when it was received by Minister Lawrie in 2009. Mr Loenneker did not provide the application to the department until 17 July 2012, seven days after the Cabinet decision, by which time it was three years out of date and largely irrelevant.
As a result, the department was deprived of the ability to follow its longstanding community land grant process, particularly:
seeking a detailed application
seeking payment of an application fee
making a thorough assessment of the application
making a formal request for a public advertisement and providing a 14-day comment period.
Mr Loenneker, as a former department employee, had an intimate knowledge of the community land grant processes and policies. He would have known, and should have informed the ministers, that due and proper process was not being followed with regard to Unions NT’s application.
Mr Loenneker should have ensured that Unions NT followed due and proper processes in submitting its application to the department. He should also have been more transparent and documented more fully for the department the outcomes that the ministers and Unions NT wanted.
Although Mr Loenneker’s conduct was not covered by any statue or code of conduct at this time his behaviour fell well short of the high standards expected of a senior ministerial advisor.
Furthermore, the report says more about Mr Paton:
- Mr Paton had a conflict of interest due to his role as a ministerial advisor and a member of Unions NT’s NT Workers Club Sub-committee, which was responsible for advancing the Union NT’s interest in the Stella Maris site.
Mr Paton briefed Minister G McCarthy about Unions NT’s application 2011 while still employed as a ministerial advisor and with an ongoing interest in the site as either a former or current member of the NT Workers Club Sub-committee. This was a clear conflict of interest. Given the lack of clarity around when Minister G McCarthy was briefed and the ongoing role of the NT Workers Club Sub-committee, the Inquiry was unable to establish if Mr Paton was an active member of the sub-committee when he briefed Mr G McCarthy in 2011.
Mr Paton discussed Cabinet timelines relating to the site at a meeting of the NT Workers Club Sub-committee in 2010 and provided directions to Mr Loenneker that clearly favoured Unions NT’s position. This was inappropriate.
Mr Paton advanced the Unions NT application between 17 and 20 July 2012 as the incoming Unions NT Secretary, while still employed as a ministerial advisor. This was clearly inappropriate and should not have occurred.
Although Mr Paton’s conduct was not covered by any statute or code of conduct at the time, he was conflicted and his behaviour fell well short of the high standard expected of a senior ministerial advisor.
It is for that reason that we have introduced the rules we described earlier. A minister must, sooner or later, become responsible for what happens on the deck of their ship. Clearly, this was not the case in relation to the way the members opposite dealt with this. In opposition, I was often curious to see the breadth and depth of influence that ministerial staff had, and their capacity to become involved in decision-making processes. They are there to assist, advise and provide fearless and frank advice to ministers, but they do not or should not have a decision-making role.
The exposure of these staff demonstrates that they may well have been trapped between a minister who was not entirely across his portfolio and the desire, perhaps, to keep their own jobs. I cannot know what their motivation was. In any instance, it is clear that ministerial staff were being asked to involve themselves in ways that were inappropriate. If the minister had knowledge of particularly Mr Paton’s role on the NT Workers Club subcommittee, that should have been an issue of grave concern to the minister.
One of the things I noticed when I was in opposition, particularly when I saw ministers during the Alice Springs sittings, was their desire to surround themselves with their own ministerial staff, and seek fraternity with them. My office runs on a fairly strict hierarchy; whilst it is a warm and amicable office it also enjoys a number of formalities. There is a clear structure in place, so that the familiarity I have seen occurring in Labor offices does not lead to the contempt it may well have done there, because familiarity, as all members know, leads to contempt. I do not believe, necessarily, in a particularly familiar office. We have a lot of work to do, and we work very hard to make sure our offices work well.
There is clearly no doubt about what occurred in the circumstances surrounding the Stella Maris inquiry. It was a means to make the Stella Maris block available for the unions, so that it would free up the Woods Street site, I presume, for development to occur. It is that obvious; it is clear for all to see and, quite frankly, I was disappointed to hear that the former government went to such lengths to try to secure it. I call on the former Treasurer and Planning minister, Delia Lawrie, the now Leader of the Opposition, to apologise because Territorians deserve an apology for the way this whole thing was handled. It was a mates’ deal nobbled together under the radar immediately before the beginning of the caretaker process. The bets were on that they would win government, and they could sail out the other end without anybody noticing what had happened.
I am sure that the former Chief Minister, Mr Henderson, was quite surprised when he lost government. This whole arrangement then became apparent to anybody who looked at it, and it caused the government to move for an inquiry. The former government is not covered in glory in relation to this matter; it must revisit and reconsider the way it has conducted itself, and an apology from the Leader of the Opposition would be an awfully good step to take.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I think we will adjourn after this, so we might go out with a bang. There is nothing like it, and perhaps it will give Kon something to remember.
This inquiry revealed Labor’s dodgy deal of a rent-free lease to its union mates for a $3m CBD property, the Stella Maris building. The Stella Maris inquiry shows once and for all that the Northern Territory Labor Party, be it in government or in opposition, simply cannot be trusted. It is devious and underhanded, power hungry and will do anything to get its way. The member for Karama is the worst of the lot. She has been exposed as, not proper’, and ‘unfair to the public’.
Is there a worse assessment of an elected member of parliament than that? She has been exposed as the puppet master, and the chief architect of Labor’s ugly, dodgy and deceitful underbelly. She cannot be trusted or believed. She must not be trusted or believed.
The Stella Maris report found that Delia Lawrie’s involvement was critical to closing down the recommended open expression of interest process on the heritage building. The report said:
- It is unlikely that the submission would have gone to that Cabinet meeting or that the letter of offer would have been made on 3 August 2012 without Minister Lawrie’s intervention.
I repeat:
- … without Minister Lawrie’s intervention.
The commissioner goes on to state that the then Deputy Chief Minister had involved herself in a process that:
- … was not proper and was unfair to the public and other community groups.
I repeat that the commissioner found the member for Karama’s behaviour to be:
- … not proper and was unfair to the public.
… was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest.
- … unreasonable because he did not have the necessary information to justify selectively choosing Unions NT over any other group.
The Stella Maris deal, as highlighted today and when this report was handed down a couple of months ago, is the icing on the cake of 11 years of Labor government. It was its swansong. You do not have to trawl back through history too far to see more incompetence and dodgy deals by the previous Labor government. For 11 years the Labor Party and the member for Karama engaged in a culture of cover-up to hide the truth from Territorians. Who can forget Red Rooster-gate? In 2009 the Deputy Chief Minister – the member for Karama – directed her department’s CEO to withdraw the prosecution against the owner of the Tennant Creek Red Rooster for not having a building certificate. This is how it was reported by ABC News online on 20 February 2009:
- The Northern Territory Planning Minister denies she ignored the separation of powers when she discussed a court case with her department.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure dropped a case against a Tennant Creek Red Rooster restaurant this month, after Delia Lawrie discussed the issue with chief executive Richard Hancock.
…
A leaked e-mail from Mr Hancock says Delia Lawrie verbally instructed him to stop the action.
Who can forget the Bonson telephone call? That was another episode involving the member for Karama; yet again, she used and abused proper process. Who could forget the damning revelations in 2009 that showed that she bypassed applications for the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner’s job in favour of her own hand-picked candidate? Once again, we find that when the doors of the Labor Cabinet are flung open the skeletons fall out of the closet. There is a familiar figure lurking in the background, time and time again: the member for Karama. It is a familiar figure at the helm of this toxic ship that is the Labor Party: the member for Karama.
What else did Labor hide from Territorians for 11 years? The list goes on. What else did the member for Karama hide from Territorians? The Power and Water debacle on Channel Island springs to mind. As the Treasurer and shareholding minister for Power and Water at the time, the member for Karama once again had her hands all over the cover-up.
In 2009 the then Labor government spent $53m of Territory taxpayers’ money purchasing diesel fuel to power Channel Island because of the delay in delivering gas from the Blacktip gas field. It was a complete disaster, and as always with the Labor way, Territorians were kept in the dark – literally. Territorians were going about their everyday business, watching television, cooking dinner and having showers, with no clue that the member for Karama was spending $53m of their money to desperately keep the lights on because of her monumental stuff-up; eventually, she was forced to fess up. Speaking of Power and Water, let us reflect on the Casuarina substation debacle. Remember the explosion? That was another Power and Water debacle with Delia Lawrie’s, hands all over it. In 2008 the Treasurer’s failure to properly fund Power and Water left its maintenance budget in tatters, resulting in a catastrophic failure at the Casuarina substation. Fifteen thousand households were left without power for days, and Labor’s solution to the crisis was to tell those Territorians affected to buy a generator – unbelievable.
As the Attorney-General, the member for Karama was known to be completely incompetent. Let us remember the begging blunder; what a master stroke of legislation that was by the member for Karama. In 2009 it was a good year for the member for Karama, but a bad one for Territorians. The then Attorney-General amended the Summary Offences Act that saw begging attract fines of $6500. The member for Karama was forced to rectify the embarrassing mistake, and guess who she blamed? It was the hard-working public service.
That brings me to the BDR – the Banned Drinker Register – or maybe it was the banned buyer register. As an alcohol policy, the member for Karama presided over the BDR. It was another demonstration of her commitment to mislead Territorians to cover up her failings; it has been the hallmark of the member for Karama and will continue to be so. She claimed that the BDR would turn problem drinkers off tap, and we all know that to be untrue. The BDR did not stop problem drinkers from drinking; it stopped drinkers from buying, but it did not stop anyone from drinking. A case in point is Mr 117. During the BDR’s operation, one banned drinker was picked up for drunkenness 117 times. That drinker was sent to the now defunct alcohol tribunal 114 times, but never once attended. The top 60 banned drinkers on the register were apprehended more than 2000 times. Territory-wide assaults and domestic violence rates continued to rise. The year before the $18m BDR, or banned buyers’ register, was put into place 20 354 drunks were taken into protective custody. The year it opened 19 998 drunks were taken into protective custody. There was a reduction of a whopping 336, one less per day at a cost of $50 000 per drunk.
Who can forget the debt? We certainly cannot because we are left with it. There was a $5.5bn projected debt when we came to government in 2012 – spend, spend, spend, nothing like it. Is it any wonder that Territorians were heading towards a ballooning debt of interest payments – $1.1m per day by 2015-16, money that could be spent on doctors, more police, better health services and more teachers.
Some of the other highlights of the member for Karama’s reign as Treasurer: there is the Taj Mahal prison, which leaves a $1.8bn debt or $60m per year for 30 years, and we have not even made the first payment yet. It equates to about $1.1m every week or first division Lotto for the next 30 years. The Asset Management System: this had a $70m budget, and still did not work. There was a $3bn Power and Water debt, which is $7000 for every man, woman and child in the Northern Territory.
Under the former Treasurer infrastructure went backwards, and building approvals and small business confidence was down. When Labor came to office in 2001, small business confidence was at 51%, but by 2010 this had dropped to just 27%. Retail sales and jobs were also down.
There was one thing that went up under Labor: crime. Crime skyrocketed; under Labor law and order become so bad that business operators in Alice Springs and Darwin were forced to sleep in their workplaces to try to deal with criminals breaking into their premises. Can you believe that is how bad it became? It is hard to believe, but that is how bad it became. People were forced to sleep in their own workplaces to stop the crooks breaking in. Under Labor and the former Attorney-General and Deputy Chief Minister a massive spike in violent crime occurred across the Territory, culminating in an unprecedented week of violence in Palmerston in November 2008, which saw gangs assault nine innocent people. Under Labor crime rates in the Northern Territory were twice as high as the national average. Under Labor violent crime continued to rise; the rate of violent assault offences increased by 80% during Labor’s decade of denial. Alice Springs felt the brunt of Labor’s soft approach on crime. For example, from 2004-05 to 2009-10, robbery went up 450%; assaults rose by 87%; sexual assault went up by 97%; house break-ins were up 64%; commercial break-ins went up 185%; motor vehicle theft went up 97%; and property damage rose by 71%.
Halfway through the Giles CLP government’s first term the statistics show property crime has plummeted, and alcohol-related violence is trending down. Property crime, in two years under the Giles Country Liberals government, is at its lowest level in 14 years, nearly a decade-and-a-half. The latest crime figures confirm that the total number of offences Territory-wide dropped by 1886 in the year to June, compared to the previous 12 months. The graphs speak for themselves; the figures confirm that we are already meeting our targets on property crime, and violent crime is trending down under our new policies. But there is still much work to be done.
Household break-ins are down 26%. Our full suite of alcohol measures, including alcohol mandatory treatment, Alcohol Protection Orders, intensive temporary beat locations and Darwin Safe has only been in effect since Christmas, and there have been dramatic reductions in personal crime since then.
The June crime statistics show that assaults are down 14% Territory-wide, and alcohol-related assaults are down 18% across the Northern Territory in the past six months, compared to the same time last year. Alcohol-related assaults are down 3%. Police PROMIS data also shows that during the time that Alcohol Protection Orders and Darwin Safe have been operating, assaults in Mitchell Street have dropped by 24%, compared to the same time last year.
Labor had 11 years to do something about crime across the Northern Territory, but it skyrocketed. In two years we have started to arrest and dramatically reverse Labor’s upward trend.
Labor’s handling of child protection is also another sad and sorry affair. If there was ever an example that Labor neglected Territorians, it was with child protection. During its 11 years in government, there was case after case of child neglect. Who can forget the Little Children are Sacred report? That was the trigger for the emergency response by the federal government.
Under Labor, rents and house prices skyrocketed, and waiting lists ballooned. The list goes on and on – a litany of failures under the previous government.
I have page after page of more highlights of that 11 years – it was quite a decade. Labor racked up quite a book of failures over 11 years, but we do not have the time to go through it all.
I return to the dodgy Stella Maris inquiry, because I have a few minutes to go. The report said:
- Substantial evidence before the Inquiry indicates that Minister Lawrie was determined for a decision on the Cabinet Submission to be made at that meeting, prior to the election caretaker period coming into effect. This is corroborated by an email Minister G McCarthy’s senior advisor …. sent to his minister on 9 July 2012, clearly outlining Minister Lawrie’s intentions:
‘Gerry
The Cabinet submission on Stella Maris is on the business list for tomorrow. I discussed this will Delia on Friday … and she asked that it go to Cabinet tomorrow so that Cabinet can approve the grant of the site to Unions NT.’
- ‘The recommendation in the submission is that Cabinet approve option 2 and release the site through an expressions of interest process for low scale community use or commercial development.
However, to allow the site to be granted directly to Unions NT (Delia’s preference), Cabinet needs to approve option 3 in the submission and approve the grant of a Crown lease for a term of ten years to Unions NT. I have advised Delia of this and hopefully it will all go through as planned.
Regards Wolf’
The report goes on to say:
- … the fact remains that Minister Lawrie acted with bias in favouring Unions NT over other community groups.
The report said:
- Without Minister Lawrie’s direct support and intervention, I am confident that Unions NT would not have been offered the exclusive Crown lease over the site on 3 August 2012.
It reeks of bias and direct intervention – ‘without minister Lawrie’. Can you see that there is a theme forming here? Delia Lawrie, the member for Karama, was front and centre in a proposal that was unfair to the public and other community groups.
That is an extraordinary claim against the member for Karama. Can there be a greater slur tabled against any elected member than that? A great deal of stuff is passed around in this place, but an ‘unfair to the public’ comment would have to be about it.
Labor wants to brush this sorry, dark, sordid history under the carpet. Once again it is misleading Territorians. If Labor is to be believed, the 11 years of Labor were 11 years where nothing went wrong; Territorians lived in some sort of utopia. There was no chaos, crises, reshuffles, disasters or failed policies and no abusing the separation of powers, etcetera; everything was just fine. But we know that was not the case. The Stella Maris deal is the icing on the cake of 11 long years of Labor’s grubby politics. On the eve of the caretaker period ahead of the 2012 election Labor thought it would get away with it. Guess what? It has not.
The least you can do is apologise to Territorians, but, alas, I do not think that is forthcoming. You continue to do what you do best on that side of the House; rack up debt and make your dodgy deals with the unions, and leave the running of the Northern Territory to those who do it best: the Country Liberals government.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I will speak for the last time in this House to say goodbye after 13 years in the Legislative Assembly and Territory politics, and to thank the many people who, in one way or another, helped me to be a good local member for the people of Casuarina and a minister in successive Labor governments.
In my wildest dreams I never thought that I would live in Australia, and be a member of an Australian parliament. It is not that I was never interested in politics. I was very interested in politics, especially since I grew up in the midst of the political turmoil of the military dictatorship in Greece from 1967 to 1974, and the restoration of democracy in the country where it was born, not to mention the fiery student politics that I was involved in when I was in college in Athens. During those years, I formed my strong beliefs in the democratic process, and the rights of people to live, work and be educated freely.
In 1983, as a 26-year-old man, I migrated to Australia with my late wife Linda, and soon afterwards I commenced my studies at the Western Australian Institute of Technology, which is now Curtin University. I obtained a job in local government, continued my studies and lived a comfortable life in Fremantle.
Linda and her family were very strong Labor supporters, and with my past it was natural for me to join the Australian Labor Party. I am eternally thankful to them, because as early as 1983 I was on the way to entering politics in Australia.
I joined the Melville branch of the Labor Party in Perth in 1983. I took part in debates, branch meetings and election campaigns, and became a founding member of the Greek branch of the Labor Party in Perth, standing as a candidate for the seat of Clontarf in 1986. That was my first exposure to the hustle and bustle of the political process in Australia, and what a training ground it was.
After a three-year stint in Port Hedland working for the Town of Port Hedland in the 1990s, Darwin and a job in the Northern Territory Health department beckoned. I moved to the Territory in 1993 with my young family, and the original plan was to be here for two years before returning to Perth, but like so many other people, we fell in love with the Territory and the two years became four, and so on.
We came to the Territory with our five-year-old son Alexander, and we then had Michael, which helped to grow our roots here. We became part of this community, as well as the close-knit Greek community, and we enjoyed every minute of it.
Soon afterwards, I joined Labor. At that time I met many of my friends, including my very good friend, Paul Henderson. I was a founding member of the Millner branch, and soon afterwards I worked with Paul on his election campaign for the seat of Nightcliff and, later, Wanguri. I met Clare Martin during her attempt to win the seat of Casuarina. As many would remember from the year 2000 things were not very good in the Territory. The then CLP government was floundering and, with the 2001 election looming, I decided to stand for election, and was selected to contest the seat of Nightcliff. After my nomination I received a call from Clare, who suggested that I stand for Casuarina, rather than Nightcliff.
I was very hesitant at first, since Casuarina had been in the CLP’s hands for 27 years, and the seat was occupied by the then Minister for Education, but after I looked at the electoral roll and found out that 10% of its residents were people of Greek descent, as well as there being 8% Filipinos and 5% Chinese, I thought Casuarina was winnable.
It took many hours of doorknocking and three pairs of shoes, but Casuarina changed hands in 2001. Labor was elected for the first time on 18 August 2001, after 27 years in the wilderness, and that was where the fun began.
A number of my colleagues and I were elected for the first time to the Legislative Assembly. We knew nothing about parliament and its processes and, to make things worse, some of us found ourselves becoming ministers. We had no experience, no manual and nobody to advise us, since none of our team had been a minister or even a ministerial adviser before.
We were given a bundle of books, and told to go home, read them and come back on Monday to run our portfolios. We did it.
The first thing I did as a minister was attend a ministerial council on the Environment in Canberra. I remember my CEO John Pinney coming to my office, minutes after I was sworn in as a minister, to tell me that I had to say goodbye to my family and fly with him to Canberra. We did, but I had a small problem – as many Territorians do – in that I did not have a suit. The first thing we did when we got off the plane was buy me a suit and tie, so I could wear it to the first ministerial council I attended. It got better; I arrived at the ministerial council, and because of the excitement of the previous days and the cold weather, I had lost my voice. The CEO of the department of the Environment, Bill Freeland, suffered an allergic reaction because of a chemical in the room at Parliament House. He turned red, and had to leave the building very quickly. That was a good start as a minister!
I served as a minister for 11 years in, I believe, 21 portfolios. Some of them were easy, and some of them were not so easy, some of them I loved, and some of them I did not like as much. Some of them gave me no trouble at all, while some kept me awake at night.
I received my first lessons in the first month of being a minister when I was dropped in the midst of some unpleasant situations. The department of Lands decided to acquire some land for services for ConocoPhillips, an acquisition that became a major issue; they drafted the plans, but nobody took the time to find out what was on those pieces of land that were to be acquired. Guess what? There were some houses. I had to speak on the radio to justify the whole process, but I made sure that from then on there was a process in place. If there was an acquisition taking place, somebody had to put their signature on paperwork to say they had visited the site and performed an inspection. The department found out that the minister could swear fluently in Greek and English.
There is the story of the flight ban over Katherine Gorge, which was introduced on the advice of the department CEO, Bill Freeland, and supported by legal opinion. I learned a lot from those two incidents, including to trust my political instinct. I also went to the ABC shop and bought the whole series of Yes, Minister; it is the real manual for any aspiring politician or minister. There were times when I said, ‘Hold on, I have seen that episode’, because it was happening around me.
During 11 years we all worked very hard. We did not get everything right all the time, but we mostly did. When I did not get something right, I was the first to admit it and try to fix it so it would not happen again. In our minds we thought that whatever we did was for the benefit of Territorians. I am proud of what we achieved, and in many areas we put the foundations in place for a bigger and better Territory.
Some of the examples: through the sports portfolio, the first ever Northern Territory Institute of Sport scholarship was awarded to Tahnee Afuhaamango, and the Australian Paralympic Committee selected the Arafura Games as a qualifying event for the Paralympics, with paralympians taking part from around the world.
As the minister for Fisheries I think I will be remembered for the boat ramps I constructed, as well as the mud crab restrictions. I was in so much trouble at the beginning, even from my colleague, Chris Burns, but a few years later the industry said it was the best decision ever made.
As the minister for Mines, I started the China-Japan investment attraction strategy, a good initiative, and I am very pleased to see that the current government has recognised its value and decided to continue it.
As the Child Protection minister we established the sole Child Protection department. As the Health minister, I was very pleased to see the opening of the oncology unit, the upgrades to the Royal Darwin Hospital, the Palmerston health clinic, the medical school at CDU and especially the construction of the Alice Springs Hospital’s emergency department.
There were some high moments and some funny moments. One high moment was the visit to Darwin by the then Vice President of China – now current president – Xi Jinping, proof that our China investment attraction strategy was working in putting the Territory on the world map, something that was later confirmed by Fraser Institute surveys.
A funny moment occurred when I was asked by the protocol unit to welcome the prime minister of a foreign country at the airport. I was told that it would only be for 20 minutes, but they forgot to tell me that it would actually be four hours, as well as the fact that it was the Prime Minister of Turkey arriving at his first stop in Australia. He was surprised to be welcomed to Australia by a minister of Greek descent. Funnily enough, the Greek newspapers down south found out about it, and I remember the headline very well. It was ‘Turkish Prime Minister welcomed to Australia by Greek minister’, with a big photograph.
The fact that I was elected for four terms to represent Casuarina, and was a minister for 11 years, did not happen because of me alone. Many people supported me along the way, and I wish to thank them all.
First and foremost, I thank my late wife Linda and her family for supporting me in Australia when I first arrived and took my first tentative steps into politics. I also thank Margaret and our sons, Alexander and Michael, who not only supported me when I put my hand up for pre-selection, but also put up with me not being at home for long periods of time. I missed you boys growing up, and not being able to do things with you at the time, but I am proud that you were great, and you never did anything to put me on the front page of the NT News. Perhaps this is because I told you that if you did something wrong you would receive a seven-month holiday to Greece, and you would discover after six months that you were conscripted.
I also thank my wife, AiHong, and our son, Kevin. What a wonderful coincidence meeting AiHong, just a month after she arrived in Australia, at a function in this building. We were also married here on 1 December 2012. Thank you, AiHong, for coming into my life at a difficult time. You made everything bright and happy again.
Qin ai de AiHong. Wo ai Ni, wo sihuan ni. Wo ai ni women de bobei.
I also thank Clare Martin and Paul Henderson for trusting me. I especially thank my dear friend Paul for giving me the Health and Child Protection portfolios. The NT News at the time said that if you have friends like that – for me it was a show of trust and belief in my abilities. Thank you, Paul, for your trust and friendship.
Thank you to all of my parliamentary colleagues, from 2001 to date. There is the old guard, Syd Stirling, Jane Aagaard, Marion Scrymgour, Chris Burns and Delia Lawrie, to name a few. I also thank the new ones sitting beside me today: Lynne Walker, Ken Vowles, Gerry McCarthy, Natasha Fyles and Michael Gunner. Good luck to Nicole Manison. Sorry if I forgot anybody, but I hope you understand. Thank you guys for your love, support and trust.
To the people on the other side, we are as good as you are. If you give us a hard time, you see how good we are, and on many occasions, I have enjoyed having a bit of a ruffle with the members for Greatorex and Araluen. I enjoyed our battles, and I also enjoyed attending some of the programs of the member for Greatorex when he had a radio show in Alice Springs. He tried to take something out of me, but I never rose to it, so I enjoyed that.
Thank you to the various CEOs who I worked for – you work for your CEOs, they do not work for you, trust me – John Pinney, Barry Chambers, Andrew Macrides, Richard Galton, Clare Gardiner-Barnes, Geoff Moffatt and many others who I cannot recall at the time. I thank my chief of staff, Melinda Maddock, who was the first person to walk into my office on my first day as a minister. She had just travelled back to Australia from England, and was an experienced political animal. Within two hours I had a fully functional ministerial office. She moved to Tasmania, and I believe she is now married with two kids.
I thank and will never forget Alf Leonardi, who was of Italian descent, alongside me as a Greek. Alf had a ‘Wogs at Work’ sign on the wall, which was really good. I also thank Sean Kennedy, Michael Gunner, Fred McCue, Mark Hough, Emily Beresford-Cane, Helen Nezeritis and all of my advisers; there are so many, and I cannot recall the total number. In 21 portfolios there are too many advisers.
I thank the people who made it all happen, the ones who worked tirelessly to help me be elected and re-elected, starting with Andrew Fyles in 2001 and, later, Natasha Fyles. I also thank the tireless staff who worked on my campaigns, as well as my supporters.
I thank my electoral officers, Kaylen Chaproniere, Margreet Sadlo, Victoria PolifronIe and, of course, the one who I believe is the longest-serving electorate officer in the Territory, my dear Debbie Rowland. She has been my electorate officer for nearly 12 years, and what a wonderful person she is.
To my constituents, thank you for your support during the past 13 years. I have loved being the local member, and getting out and about in the electorate. It was fun to attend the school assemblies. I hope I was the member you expected to have, and was able to help with any issues that you had.
My advice, as one of the elders of this parliament – as some people keep reminding me – is that politics is politics. We are here with our own ideas and beliefs, but the ultimate purpose is to serve the people of the Northern Territory and make this place a better place for all.
Look to the future and make sure the Territory takes its right place in Australia, because it is young, dynamic and can-do. This is what we aspired to during our time in government.
Remember that we still have endless opportunities and, of course, the Northern Territory is location, location, location. Look north, colleagues; we are closer to Asia than the southern capital cities, and Asia is where the future is. Yes, developing the north should be our focus, but make sure it is developed without cutting corners, endangering our environment or destroying our unique way of life.
In your endeavour to develop the Territory and the north, do not forget the people of the Northern Territory, especially Indigenous Territorians. They should share the wealth; it was their country, since they were the first inhabitants of this place.
Also, do not forget the people who have come from somewhere else – another state, another continent, or another country – to make the Territory their home. Take the people with you to guarantee that you succeed in your plans.
Do not forget that you have a family, which is the most important thing in your life. After everything ends, your family will still be with you.
I am saying goodbye to politics, but ‘hello’ to a new life. We will be in in Darwin; Kevin is enrolled in Darwin High School for Year 10, and AiHong and I will still live in our home, but with one small addition, because we are expecting our first child.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Ms Marion Scrymgour
Distinguished Visitor
Ms Marion Scrymgour
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a past Deputy Chief Minister and member of this parliament, Marion Scrymgour. Welcome, Marion.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________________
Tabled Paper
Report on Visit of Delegation to Niue
Tabled Paper
Report on Visit of Delegation to Niue
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also seek your indulgence to table a report not required, but very important. It is a report on a visit by a delegation from the Northern Territory to Niue in June 2014, with assistance from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
________________________________
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is great to see Marion in the Chamber tonight. It is a pity that you did not come earlier, as we could have had the numbers to roll Delia. You would have made five, so it would have been all right.
I thank the member for Casuarina for his 13 years of service to this parliament. I am assuming, Kon, that this is your last sitting day, as we are still waiting for a formal resignation. I do not want to have to make this speech twice.
While we may sit on opposite sides of the Assembly, I have always considered Kon Vatskalis to be one of the good guys in politics. Kon has made friends on both sides because of his willingness to work with whoever it takes to achieve a result, and his understanding that we work in parliament because we want to and that we want to make a difference. Everyone has something to offer.
Kon first became involved in politics in Greece during the 1970s, attending democracy rallies that eventually led to the removal of the Greek monarchy.
He emigrated to Australia from Greece in 1983, and worked as a surveyor in Western Australia. He moved to Darwin in 1993 to manage the Territory’s urban environmental health unit. He was elected to parliament in 2001, and held 25 ministerial portfolios during his – it is actually 28, as I said earlier today, because he held three of them twice – 11 years of government. That is more than two portfolios a year.
Let me run through some of Kon’s portfolios. He was the:
Minister for Asian Relations
Minister for Business and Economic Development
Minister for Business and Employment
Minister for Child Protection
Minister for Children and Families
Minister for Defence Support
Minister for Essential Services
Minister for Ethnic Affairs
Minister for Health
Minister for Housing
Minister for Lands and Planning
Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment
Minister for Local Government
Minister for Mines and Energy
Minister for Multicultural Affairs
Minister for Parks and Wildlife
Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries
Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources
Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing
Minister for Regional Development
Minister for Sport and Recreation
Minister for Tourism
Minister for Transport and Infrastructure.
After 13 years, with 11-and-a-half years in government, it is no wonder you feel that you have done your duty, Kon. You must have wondered whether you were coming or going with taking all those portfolios in such a short time frame, with two portfolios a year on average. In fact, between you and the member for Karama you have held a total of 39 ministerial appointments since 2001. That must be some sort of ministerial reshuffling record.
The member for Casuarina lists one of the highlights of his time in politics as securing a visit by the Vice President of China to Darwin to open business discussions. It was a significant achievement in its time, and one that Kon is right to feel proud of. We have come a long way since then, and this government’s Asian engagement strategy has seen the value of Territory exports to Asia grow to $6.4bn or more than 90% of our total exports. Asia has become the driving force behind the development of northern Australia, a plan that is creating jobs, jobs and more jobs, along with wealth and prosperity for all Territorians in the future. Unfortunately, while Kon was organising historic visits, the former Treasurer and now Opposition Leader was sending the Territory bankrupt, so we have a lot of hard work to do to recover from that mess. We want to make sure that Kon’s hard work in the Asian buildup was not in vain.
During his term in office the member for Casuarina has worked under three Labor leaders, and at the same time became a big fan of the British sitcom Yes, Minister. Not long after coming to government Kon bought himself an entire series, and to this day still believes that Yes, Minister is an accurate reflection of politics. I understand that he would go home some nights and switch on the next episode, only to realise that he had already seen it at work earlier that day. With leaders like the Opposition Leader, I am not surprised.
To quote from Yes, Minister:
- A career in politics is no preparation for government.
When the member for Casuarina was recently asked about the current Labor leadership he politely, but very tellingly, said that leaders come and go, but when they do not perform they have to go. As I said, it is good to see the former Deputy Chief Minister, Marion Scrymgour, in the Chamber; she could have added some value tonight.
The member for Casuarina’s 13 years working in parliament has meant him missing a large part of watching his two children grow up, and he does not want to repeat that mistake. The government is building a better future for our children, and after so many years of service it is only fitting that the member for Casuarina takes time to enjoy his own family.
Kon’s departure from politics will obviously leave Labor with a gaping hole, bereft of talent. The quality of debate in this House will significantly lessen with his departure, which is very sad for democracy in the Territory.
The member for Casuarina has earned time with his family. There is no doubt that Kon has plenty of time left in him yet, and he wants to do something else with his life before he retires. As he said, the world is his oyster; he has had enough, and that is fair enough.
Kon, I wish you well in your endeavours and, in the spirit of your willingness to work with both sides of politics, I happily extend to you the same courtesy. Thank you for your service; I hope your life after politics is as professional as your days in parliament have been. You have provided a solid contribution; 13 years is a large part of your life, and I hope you enjoy your retirement.
On a final note I see that we also have Jane Aagaard and Dr Chris Burns with Marion; we could really do the numbers on Delia tonight. You could all line up, and Kon, you can probably stay for a couple more days with another vote. The Minister for Education has a membership form for the CLP, should you be sick and tired of your current leadership. We look forward to bringing you on board with us, Kon.
Mate, I hope you have a great time reuniting with your family, and you spend a fair amount of time on leisure activities while reflecting on your political career with much pride. I hope you spend a lot of time thinking about the good, the bad and indifferent times, and I hope you drop by like Chris does from time to time to say g’day.
All the best, you have done a good job.
__________________________
Distinguished Visitors
Hon Jane Aagaard and Dr Chris Burns
Distinguished Visitors
Hon Jane Aagaard and Dr Chris Burns
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of past members of this Chamber, former Speaker Jane Aagaard and Dr Chris Burns, a past Leader of Government Business. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, it is with great privilege, but also sadness, that I contribute to the adjournment debate in recognising one of the iconic politicians of the Northern Territory. I am sure that anyone who compiles a history of political studies in the Northern Territory will carve out some extra special chapters for the member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis.
There is no doubt that Kon has a broad following and respect. People who meet him like him. He has the most passionate enthusiasm for the Northern Territory, and he does not have an off switch. Kon has an incredible energy and capacity to keep going, whether it is long days, nights or weeks. He will encourage anyone working with him to share that passion and drive, and do anything he can to improve the Northern Territory.
What I really love about Kon the person is his capacity to love. I have witnessed his capacity to love for well over a decade.
Kon and I met when I returned to the Territory in the late 1990s; I saw this enthusiastic, engaging, interesting and intelligent man taking part in political debates with my mother. I thought, ‘Wow, what a breath of fresh air in the Labor Party, this is fantastic’. Kon made no bones about it; he wanted to be a member of parliament, and he was not even remotely unsure about that path. He went after it, and has obviously pursued it with success.
Kon’s love extends to his family. I watched the way he supported – even though he worked long hours – his then wife. I watched the way he supported a funding institute in Perth for his late first wife. He is a passionate believer in supporting those with cystic fibrosis – which took the life of his first wife – on their very sad journey.
I have seen the love that he has for his sons, Michael and Alexander, and watched them grow up. It makes us feel a bit old, having seen them grow from little guys to being so tall, mature and capable. They are a reflection of their father’s engagement with them in the family. There were long, difficult hours, but I see many mannerisms and values that Alexander and Michael exhibit where Kon shines through. I have watched him support Margaret through the years, knowing that she was carrying the greater burden of parenting because of his hours and commitment to the job.
I watched Kon fall in love all over again with the beautiful AiHong and Kevin, their son. Kon’s capacity to love has been a beautiful thing to witness, and it exudes through him into others in that you start to take on that compassion, the nurturing quality and positive side of life through being in his company. I listened to the words he spoke about AiHong, which I reflect on. Good people come into our lives at important times, and that time was right for AiHong to enter Kon’s life.
I watched the parenting of Kevin; he teaches Kon things, and they have a beautiful step-relationship. None of us could have been more excited when Kon shared the news with us, and the public today, that there will be another little Kon – or Kon-ette – running around at some time. We said the kid will be awesome. No offence, Kon, but we hope the kid looks like AiHong, with her gorgeous looks, but with your amazing personality. What a knockout that child will be globally, because it is a beautiful mix of a family. I wish you all the best in that journey ahead. It is exciting news, and makes some people understand why he has chosen to retire at this time for family reasons.
Deb Rowland, Kon’s right hand woman at Casuarina – the loyalty Kon receives by the way he treats people – is a shining example of that; there is a strength of loyalty there because you know Kon will be open and completely honest about what he thinks, says and does. There is no mistaking or confusion, and it is there in front of you writ large. Deb has a fantastic Territory personality which embraces that, so thank you, Deb, for being on that journey with Kon. You have been a phenomenal team to watch.
I acknowledge my colleagues in the gallery from the class of 2001, Marion Scrymgour, Jane Aagaard and Chris Burns. We have never lost any connection. Gerry Wood is in that class too. There is something about that special year that will bind us for the rest of our lives. I have a strange view that when we have more time in our lives we will catch up around some crazy dinner tables with some incredible conversations, talking not just about our lives as parliamentarians, but outside of parliament as well, which are so rich through our friends and family.
Kon, as you have heard, worked across many different portfolios; it did not matter what it was, he would bring passion to it. I recall a conversation with his great colleague and friend, former Chief Minister Paul Henderson, about the potential of Kon as an incoming Health minister. One thing about Kon is that with his environmental health background he understood many of the issues immediately. However, another thing about him – which most people do not know because he is so gregarious and fun to be with – is that he is an incredibly learned man. He reads volumes of information, absorbs and analyses it, and is able to hold a very clear view on how to deal with it and deliver change. Kon has taught me so much about ancient and contemporary Greek history, and he teases me by saying, ‘You are almost Greek because of the relationship between the Greeks and the Jews’, but it taught me just how learned he is. I have not spent a day in his company without learning something. That is an exciting workplace to exist in, and it is a great opportunity that I have had working alongside Kon to continue learning from him every day.
Kon is retiring from parliament, but he is not retiring from the Labor Party. He is Labor to his core. He told us the wonderful stories of his mother and the campaigns that she has taken, and the great socialist stories of Greece. His values are Labor values, and he loves the Labor Party and the Labor family, particularly in the Northern Territory. He is not going away from us; he is moving into a slightly different role. I am excited about the time and ongoing opportunity that we will have to work with Kon, because there is still a lot to learn from our colleague, the member for Casuarina.
He also has this capacity to ask endless questions about parliamentary process. I will lose about 20% of the tricky questions with the departure of the member for Casuarina. Yes, we were all elected in 2001, but it is somewhat of a disadvantage to know parliamentary procedure and standing orders, having grown up around Parliament House, with mum being the member for Nightcliff for so many years. Kon is not silly. He cottoned on straight away that there was someone nearby who seemed to know these bizarre different things about standing orders and procedures. Kon has never let me leave that role, and I feel as though I am in a constant whip role with him; he will ask me what is happening, and I will explain situations to him. I keep on saying, ‘But we have been in for the same amount of time’, except that Kon will not fill his head with the minor, boring procedural details because he is thinking of ideas with vision and passion. I will take a breather from that one little quirk, with 20% fewer questions on parliamentary procedure.
All of the things that you have brought to us, Kon, have been an adventure. You treat life as an adventure. You seem to have the capacity to embrace every day for what it brings, as well as the joys of those days. It is one of the rarest capacities I have ever experienced; it is awesome. It is something that have I tried to learn from Kon. This is a hard gig, but he has made it fun. He has made it an incredibly fun time for all of us who have worked with him. He has been successful in changing the lives of so many Territorians for the better and, for this, Kon Vatskalis, you have truly served your community and your party, and I thank you for that.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, there is something fundamentally wrong with me. I came into this parliament in 1997; why am I seeing the last of the class of 2001 – were you there in 2001? Okay, so you are the last one ...
Ms Lawrie: No, there is Gerry too.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, okay. In that case, I feel better or even worse about that.
I place on the record my deep and abiding thanks, as a citizen of the Northern Territory, and having lived in Central Australia and Darwin, for the service that Kon Vatskalis has delivered to the people of the Northern Territory. He referred directly to two instances that stood out in his political career, which both occurred reasonably early. It is clear, with the passage of time, that he learned from them.
One of the things about being a minister is that you realise – it is even truer for a Chief Minister – that you have less and less room to move the higher up the pole you go. If I look back at some of the circumstances that surrounded Kon Vatskalis, and then look at things like the Montara oil field blowout, which landed in his lap in a most awkward fashion, could he have done better? Who knows? That is a matter for the historians to debate. Was he left in the lurch by somebody in the Commonwealth? I suspect so, but we will see. Maybe the historians will know one day. You are jammed into incredibly difficult situations where you have so much more to say, and you know full well that if you say it, you will be damned. But such is the nature of leadership. To dreadfully abuse a phrase, I was thinking, ‘Who will rid me of this turbulent Greek?’ It turns out that the turbulent Greek is doing it himself. Turbulent he may have been, but if you want to do anything in politics you must drive it with love and passion in your heart.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition talk about Kon’s love; I believe that he has that, and brought it to the job that he has done in the Northern Territory. He has been a minister for most of that time, 13 years in the political environment, and I know the toll that job has taken on Kon and his family. I would like to momentarily think about all of those families where this job does so much harm, because it bloody well does. It is tough, and it is the families who often pay the penalty.
When passing Kon in the corridors from time to time he will remind me that I am the father of two little girls, not because he wants to pull a guilt trip on me, but he wants my daughters to have a father; that tells me that he is a bloke who cares, and I am very grateful to him for it. It is not without an occasional thought in the evening, when I choose to finally put my pen down and go home because it is time to tell my girls a boxer story before they go to bed. It is that reminder that still rings in my ears, and I thank Kon for taking the time to remind me to have a relationship with my daughters.
I am very grateful to the Northern Territory News which, from time to time, calls me a hard worker. I take that as a compliment, but even that comes at a price. It is a price that is paid by our families, who have to listen to their loved ones being dragged over the coals, abused, and dealt with in the most obnoxious fashion. They are the family members who sit at home and watch the computer screen, now that we have a live streaming feed, feeling anguish for their loved ones. Are they partisan? Yes, they care very much about the people they love. At least we get to yell at each other; our families do not. They have to suffer in silence, and all too often, and in truth, suffer they do.
To take up a role in politics is difficult, and to take up the role of a minister is extremely hard. To believe in something and drive forward, in spite of the fact that I may not agree with the Labor philosophy – a person taking up the cudgels and driving forward with passion in their heart must always be acknowledged. I acknowledge and pay tribute to Kon Vatskalis, and the work that he has done for the people of the Northern Territory.
It is not something I say lightly. It is not something that I would cast around wildly, but I suggest to the people of the Northern Territory that with the departure of Kon Vatskalis, this House will have lost a good, honest and reputable person. I will direct whoever replaces him after the inevitable by-election, whether it is a person on our side or your side, to cast their mind to the conduct of Kon Vatskalis as a benchmark of how you should conduct yourself as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
I offer my very best wishes to Kon on his renaissance, and I hope that his new life is one of great joy. I am delighted to hear about the impending addition to your family; I hope that you are there for the little one at all times, and that every time she looks for her dad, he is there.
There is not much more I can say, so perhaps I can condense it into a single expression: thank you.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the sons of Lynne Walker, Harry and Patrick. Welcome. I also welcome the member for Barkly’s wife Dawn, AiHong and son Kevin, as well as Debbie and Deirdre.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I celebrate the great political career of Kon Vatskalis MLA, the member for Casuarina. Kon, you have been at the forefront of the Labor movement in the Territory, as part of the first Labor government here. Many people behind that movement respect you for leading and conducting yourself with true Labor values.
There has been a strong groundswell in the bush. I can remember 20 years under the CLP, and the strong groundswell sought change, looking for Labor values and a new way of doing business in the Northern Territory. The system did not empowering the groups that I worked with that represented Aboriginal people disenfranchised from that democracy, but over 20 years that changed, and the first Labor government came to power. Kon, you were part of that, and that is part of your history.
It is worth mentioning that Labor values were part of very important changes, and there were so many, but one has to remember secondary education for remote students in the bush. The other change, coming from a regional remote area, was to do with dialysis units for Aboriginal people in regional areas. It was another movement of people coming home, under Labor values, to be with family and achieve better outcomes. The irony was that Kon Vatskalis went on to be the Health minister, embarking on further changes. With a great, dynamic, changing team, Labor started to stamp its values on the Northern Territory.
Kon, you have had that many ministerial portfolios and ministerial duties that you are a well-versed minister. You are the Cabinet minister and local member who could write the workshop manual. As a new MLA coming into this very privileged place, I remember entering the Cabinet room and looking across the table at very experienced senior ministers, and learning from each one, but there was also a special minister: Kon Vatskalis. He had two mobile phones going, an iPad and a Cabinet book with enough paper to choke a goat, but he was across all of it, as well as the Cabinet discussions on top of that. I remember thinking that if there was a new communication technology device where you could use your toes, Kon would turn up in an elegant suit with no boots on, because he would take that next step.
Kon, there are many legacies that you will leave behind, but with regard to the workshop manual for candidates, there is that classic photo of two feet in the air in a pair of RM Williams boots, and the soles were completely worn out. That is not a good advertisement for RM Williams, but it is a good advertisement for anybody embarking on a political campaign as a candidate, because the picture painted a thousand words, and it spoke volumes. I remember that photo, with your face beaming. When that team started to take shape that was the announcement, and I look forward to the book when it comes out.
You have been a great mentor, not only to me but also to my family and parliamentary colleagues, and I thank you for that. In a social and cultural context, I see you as the quintessential exponent of multiculturalism. Darwin is the best exponent of that in Australia, and we can expand on that into the Northern Territory. Kon, you have taught me so many lessons about multiculturalism. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about your flamboyant nature, and how that fuses with others. I have watched your very important work across the world and back home in the multicultural city of Darwin.
It is an incredible legacy that you leave, and an incredible lesson that we can all learn from in what is a turbulent world; those pragmatic examples are worth putting at the forefront of political policy and decision-making, and living our lives together.
Kon, I send best wishes on behalf of my family and me. You have made a big impact. Your visits to Tennant Creek were notable, particularly one night when you entertained Labor Party people, general community members and a prominent journalist; you held the floor, and it was a show of all shows. We should have been buying tickets for it. It was funny and entertaining, but it was also informative, and people could engage with a government minister. Across all those areas of fun, entertainment, good conversation and good cheer, we also learned and took away lessons about you, the Labor Party and political processes.
It is good when you learn from people. I have said this before, and I will say it again: I like people who I learn from, and I thank you, Kon, for being part of my very special learning in this very privileged position, but also as a Territorian. Go well, mate, and good luck to your family as well; enjoy the next chapter. I feel privileged to know that whereever I bump into Kon Vatskalis or his family I can say, ‘I know you guys’, and I look forward to sharing that space and time. Thank you.
________________________________
Visitors
Darwin Pipes and Drums
Visitors
Darwin Pipes and Drums
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of members of our Scottish community. I see a gentleman up there with bag pipes; I hope you will not be playing them. The member for Casuarina is retiring, and everyone is delivering adjournment speeches in his honour.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________________
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I too acknowledge Dr Chris Burns, Marion Scrymgour and Jane Aagaard, the previous member for Nightcliff.
I thank Kon. I still remember the first time I met you; it must have been in the early 1990s at the back of John Bailey’s electorate office.
The vet was next door, and there must have been people with Christmas drinks spilling out on to the steps. I remember how young your boys were; they were probably as old as mine are now. To think we would be sitting next to each other all this time later in parliament is almost unbelievable.
I remember when you stood for the seat of Casuarina, and I learned today that you had wished to stand for Nightcliff. I always thought that you wanted to represent Casuarina, where I grew up. I remember …
Mr Wood: The truth is out.
Ms FYLES: Remember that I was a rural member for four days, Gerry. I remember how hard you worked, Kon. It was about 18 months before the election, and you had started campaigning and doorknocking. You worked endlessly, and that continued when you were elected to parliament, with your school visits, barbecues and doorknocking. It is almost the stuff of legends in the sense that all the students in the schools at that time probably now end up voting for you.
Kon Vatskalis was known by all the kids in the community; your barbecues were very popular. I have still not reached that success, but we are getting there slowly. Your endless doorknocking – I remember visiting mum and dad on the weekend, and I would invariably see you, your sign or your car. That is something to aspire to as a member of parliament.
As a minister, you were respected. There was a story about one of your department CEOs. I will not name names, but you were the minister when everything sent out was in crisis. In all seriousness we must recognise the effort you put into Health and Child Protection. You grabbed the Child Protection portfolio, took it forward and started a department from scratch, which involved a lot of hard work.
I note your comments about family, and I will keep them with me as I go through my political career. Your love of family is something that we have all felt. We really are one big family, and it means a lot to have someone like you as an uncle figure.
Thank you for all your support. A Fyles family member has run all of your campaigns except for one, so we have had a close relationship over the years. I am sure my father, who could not be here today as he is travelling, would like me to pass on his thoughts and best wishes.
I look forward to now representing you as your local member. AiHong, if he is annoying you at home with a bit too much spare time on his hands, just send him my way; we always have lots of letterboxing work to be shared. Kon, thank you for everything you have done for the Casuarina community and the Northern Territory. We will miss you, take care.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I first met Kon in the early 1990s. We had many a discussion; the discussions I remember the most were outside the Nightcliff post office where we used to debate politics. Neither of us was in politics, and at that stage neither of us even looked like being involved in it. Apart from getting home late because we would be there for an hour debating issues, I recall being on a peer level with Kon in those days. We both worked in the community, and had a passion for what we did. We had great debates, and I remember them very well. I also used to get into a bit of trouble for getting home late, for which I blamed you
We both had a great interest in politics, and Kon went his way and I went mine. It is very interesting that, after some years, we both ended up in the same place. I remember having great respect for Kon, because of his passion and his belief. That was reciprocated, as I am sure that Kon had great respect for me because we were both passionate and committed to what we doing. You see those qualities in Kon’s community involvement. Before I entered this House, when Kon was already a member of parliament, I used to run into him all the time through working in the community – as I had done for many years – and that respect never, and still has not, changed.
I hold Kon in high regard as someone who has followed his beliefs, passions, family and commitment to his community. Those are great traits. Irrespective of which side of the House we are on, I admire people who have those qualities. You are here for all the right reasons.
You are passionate about your community. I am sure, as you go forward, that whatever you do after politics will involve the same thing. You will be in a different chamber somewhere, doing exactly the same sort of thing for your community. I have a slight inkling, from knowing your nature, about what you will do. I have heard a few stories about where you will go and what you will do. If you do that, you will be rewarded in the same manner that you have been rewarded for the service you have given to the people of the Northern Territory.
Thanks for all those conversations, and for helping me hone my political skills through the debates that we had. I had an idea of what was coming when I was elected to this House, as you were. You have done a terrific job, and worked hard. We are on opposite sides of politics, and we have slightly different philosophical beliefs, but you have made a great commitment. If we did not have the ying and yang in politics, it would all be one-sided. I appreciate the job that you have done for the people of the Northern Territory, and I hope you have a lot of personal satisfaction about the commitment that you have given. Thank you.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker –Konstantine, it is time to go; he has made that decision, and on this side, and probably on that side as well, many people are very sad about it, as we have heard tonight already.
We know that you arrived in 1993 after Greece kicked you out. You came to Australia and headed to the Territory, because WA probably kicked you out as well. You are in folklore, along with the member for Karama and the former members who have gladly, out of respect for you, come here tonight – Dr Chris Burns, Marion and Jane. It is very respectful …
Mr Wood: They said they had turned up for me.
Mr VOWLES: Sorry, it is not for you, Gerry. Are you announcing your retirement? Sorry, mate; if you speak next you could probably use your time to announce your retirement then.
I respect Kon. His former staff members, such as Deb, have come to support him and show their respect and admiration for a man I have admired for a number of years, and this continued after my election.
It was a great honour to follow in the footsteps of Dr Chris Burns. Kon always said that no matter how pressured this place is or how many jibes are sent from the other side, when we leave this Chamber we must make sure we spend time with our families. We lose sight of that sometimes; we have heard tonight that family comes first, and I have adopted that thinking in this role. In that way I will never forget the first two years of my parliamentary career. The thoughts about family have been reinforced, because this job can swallow you up. It can take all your time, and Kon’s family has suffered over the years, which he has acknowledged.
I am sure that Alexander and Michael will spend a lot more time with their dad. They probably do not like it, but they will expect a lot more time. You go down in folklore, alongside everything I have said, because of the 2001 election win. That win taught me, as well as the victories afterwards, about hard work, which you and other members brought to this place. You have to work hard, no matter what you are doing, such as in meeting your constituents and following up any issues they may have, etcetera. Then, if you are lucky enough to be elected to parliament and become a minister, as you were for 11 years, you must work hard and do what is right for everybody. Having said that, you must also make time for your family.
I was very fortunate to be invited to Kon’s wedding, as he attended mine, and they were beautiful moments. To AiHong, Kevin, Alexander and Michael, you are getting a father and husband back, and we know that Kon will be very busy in whatever he does.
One word that comes to mind with Kon is ‘hyperactive’ or perhaps ‘ADD’. Whatever he does, it will be interesting, funny and, like most things, he will work hard at what he does. As the Minister for Asian Engagement, you took it to a whole new level in meeting AiHong. Marrying her was a great, beautiful moment. I am very glad when one of my friends, as Kon is, finds happiness; I know that AiHong has found that with you too. I know that Kevin has found somebody he admires, respects and can look up to, and Alexander and Michael will get their father back. Good luck, mate, take care.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I confess that I had not heard of Kon Vatskalis until 2001, when Labor achieved its historic win and took government. For Kon, Delia Lawrie and the others here this evening, Chris Burns, Marion Scrymgour and Jane Aagaard – we all recall that victory, which Kon was at the forefront of.
Here we are, 13 years later, paying tribute to Kon and acknowledging his contribution, not only to the electorate of Casuarina, which he has represented well, but also to the Territory. It is up to the individual whether they think 13 years is a long time or not, but those of us who live and breathe the game of politics know that 13 years is a fair old slog, and Kon, we pay tribute to you for it.
As has been acknowledged, during those 11 years in government, you held multiple portfolios. I have tried to think of the ones that you did not hold – perhaps education?
Mr Vatskalis: Attorney-General and Police.
Ms WALKER: There you go. Education, Attorney-General, Police, Treasury and the Chief Ministry were the only portfolios that you did not hold, but if you think of what remains, Kon had a go at everything. It was more than just a go; he served extremely well in those portfolios, and he worked hard and delivered.
While I first heard of Kon in the lead-up to the 2001 election, I do not think we met until 2008, when I became the candidate for Nhulunbuy. From the outset, I appreciated his warm welcome to me, and the sage advice that he offered.
There are a number of things that I took away from Kon, and one of them has already been mentioned tonight: his capacity to work incredibly hard. I have an image from after the election of the photograph that the member for Barkly mentioned – a photograph of Kon, sitting with his feet up, and you could see that the soles of his RM Williams boots had been worn through, as he had been on the campaign trail, doorknocking around his electorate. That is a powerful image for me, as it shows the capacity to work hard. There is nothing like wearing the soles of your boots out to demonstrate that you have been working hard.
I have also noticed, as others have, Kon’s incredible capacity to build networks; perhaps working in all those portfolio areas was a big part of that. In the time that I have known and worked with Kon, it would not matter where you went, there would always be someone he knew, and who would greet him. Similarly, Kon always knew who those people were; he remembered their names and stories. I heard Hendo say on more than one occasion that there are few people who can work a room like Kon Vatskalis. That is a tribute to not only his hard work and determination to get to know people, but also his genuine desire to communicate with people and be personable. That is a very important attribute when you step into public life, to get around and meet people, listen to their stories and, very importantly, remember who you have met along the way.
As Kon said, family is the most important thing in our lives, and sometimes we may struggle to juggle the priorities and remember that family comes first. I know, and I am sure that it is the same for everybody else, that every time I see Kon on my arrival into Darwin from Nhulunbuy, whether I am coming in for a Caucus meeting or the commencement of parliamentary sittings, the first thing that he always asks me is, ‘How are the kids?’ He wants to know how my family is and how things are at home, which is gold. The next question from Kon, as a result of his work in various portfolios, is, ‘How is Nhulunbuy?’ All of my colleagues have had a great interest in Nhulunbuy, given the events of the last couple of years.
I remember two stories, quite vividly, associated with his time as the Health minister. In early 2009, there were some difficulties recruiting doctors to Gove hospital with obstetrics skills – I am sure you recall it – and it is quite a busy maternity ward there. The ward closed for a few weeks – it would not have been more than five or six weeks – and women had to travel to the Royal Darwin Hospital to deliver their babies.
There was a process under way to recruit and train GPs with obstetrics skills and, today, we benefit from a program that is now in place which ensures that there is a constant stream of training and sending doctors through Gove hospital, which is fantastic. At that time it was very difficult to convince a fairly large contingent of pregnant women that it was not a move to close the ward for good. They were distressed, and it was difficult to convince them that was not the government’s plan.
It took the Health minister to meet with these women, who, at the outset, were a little cranky, and wanting to ask questions. Kon worked his charm with those women, convincing them that it was not the government’s plan to close down maternity services at Gove hospital. What was potentially a negative story resulted in a fantastic photograph, with all of these women wanting to sidle up alongside Kon Vatskalis, with their arms around him. It made the front page of our local paper, everybody with beaming smiles and a headline which said ‘Mums meet the minister’ or something like that. That was Kon’s capacity to work with people, to assure them and deliver on what was the right thing to do.
I also remember, unfortunately, a visit that Kon had to cancel when he was the Health minister, because it was November – or it may have been early December – and Gove was on a cyclone warning. Kon had planned a visit to Gove, but on the advice of, I think, the Police Commissioner travel was not recommended. It so happened that the CEO Jeff Moffet, had travelled out a day earlier and was already there. Kon’s visit to the hospital was anticipated by its workers, so I went instead. I was a poor substitute, Kon, but I went around the hospital, to every department, with Jeff Moffet. You had asked to go to every department around Gove hospital to say hello to people.
The message had obviously not gotten around to everybody that the minister was not able to come, and I hate to tell you this, Kon, but there were some people who did not know that Jeff Moffet was not the minister. I do not know how they did not know who Kon Vatskalis was. God bless Jeff Moffet, who when warmly greeted with handshakes in certain departments as the minister – ‘minister, how nice to see you here’ – very politely nodded and did not correct them, which was nice.
Kon, there are many memories that we share with you this evening across both sides of the House. I wish you well in the time ahead away from politics. I have noticed that when colleagues leave this House they start to look younger, more relaxed and a bit happier within a fairly short period of time. I am sure that is something we all aspire to, but to you and your family, Aihong, Kevin, Michael and Alexander, we wish you all the best and thank you hugely for your contribution and friendship. Good luck, Kon.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table two documents from Mr Norm McCleary.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: Tonight, I will put on the record what the Chief Minister and Attorney-General will not. At lunchtime today I was contacted by a Western Australian who had watched my speech during the censure debate. His name is Mr Norm McCleary, and what he told me was startling.
Mr McCleary is the client at the heart of the 13 questions from the NT News that Peter Maley would not answer. He outlined a serious allegation against Mr Maley, which also concerns the CLP and the former Deputy Chief Minister and member for Fong Lim. He told me that he had e-mailed the Chief Minister on three occasions to act on it, and the Chief Minister failed in his duty to take any action.
I now read from an e-mail sent to the Chief Minister:
- Dear Adam,
My name is Norm McCleary and I was resident in the NT from 1974-2000. I left the Territory to establish (float) Arafura Resources and to progress other mining interests I had in the Territory at that time. Approximately 10 years ago I was involved in pegging mining leases south of Alice Springs over what is known as the Pamela and Angela uranium prospects. At the time there was a court case over this matter and I was unable to assert ownership and the Court ruled against myself.
It has always been my contention that certain officers in the Department and the Labor Administration at the time colluded to frustrate my bonafide efforts. The current Head of the Department was one of those involved. I did make a request under the Territory’s FOI legislation to obtain the background on the Departments behaviour at the time, but as you may be aware the FOI legislation is a toothless tiger and nothing of any interest was forthcoming.
I am now in my 60th year and I am starting to tidy up those outstanding items in my life before fading from the big picture. This is one of those on my list. My solicitor in these matters at the time was Mr Peter Maley who had strong links to the CLP and in particular Mr Dave Tollner.
In July 2008 I received a phone call from Mr Peter Maley of Maleys Barristers and Solicitors. He stated he was ringing on behalf of the CLP and in particular Dave Tollner. He stated that the CLP was aware of what had occurred recently in regards to my pegging and application for mineral claims over the Pamela/Angela uranium prospects and that they were sympathetic in regards to what had occurred and that when they came to power I would be given the opportunity to review all files and documents relating to the matter. Also he said that the CLP was in a bind and was unable to raise enough funds for election advertising and if I would be prepared to contribute ‘say $10 000’ to help myself and the CLP. I agreed especially knowing that the CLP was sympathetic and intended to allow me access to the files so I would be able to understand what had occurred. I stated that my help would be money ‘well spent’ and authorised him to utilise $10 000 from my trust account at Maley’s for this reason. This was duly done on the 29.07.08 for the amount of $5174.40 and again on the 01.08.08 for the amount of $4825.60. The first amount was paid to NT Broadcasters Pty Ltd and the second amount went directly to the CLP.
The CLP is now in power and I have waited patiently, apart from my multiple contacts with Steve Doherty at Minister Tollners office and numerous calls to Peter Maley. To Date no outcome has eventuated as envisaged. I understand the Department may have refused the Minister access to the files, and considering that this matter in terms of court proceedings is long settled I find it difficult to understand their position.
Can you please look into this matter for me? I would like to think that the CLP is a Party which is true to its word and commitments.
Regards, Norm McCleary.
- Hi Peter, Now that Dave Tollner is in the right position can you please arrange for us to view all the documents and files surrounding my original case? With Regards Norm.
- I agree! I will give them a week to settle down, then I will contact Tollner!
In May this year Chief Minister Adam Giles was informed of these serious allegations by Mr McCleary against Mr Maley, which also concern the CLP and Dave Tollner. Mr McCleary is under no doubt that Mr Maley was saying to him, ‘If you give the CLP $10 000 you will receive the information that you want when we win government’.
Adam Giles is the Chief Minister, but he is also the Police minister. We understand this matter has not been referred to the Police Commissioner. We know that the Chief Minister is aware of this matter because he wrote back to Mr McCleary on 25 May, after Mr McCleary sent him a second e-mail accusing the CLP of extorting the money from him. That was three months ago. The Chief Minister responded to Mr McCleary, yet in this House all week, he has been playing dumb, telling us that he had no knowledge of the issue that led to Mr Maley’s resignation. His e-mail back to Mr McCleary said, ‘Thank you for your e-mail Norm. I have flicked your e-mail to Dave Tollner, and he will get back to you. Please let me know if he does not make contact.’
Mr McCleary informed me of these e-mails today by telephone, and told me that he has provided them to the NT News. We know about Mr McCleary’s trust money donation of $4825.60, from Maley Pty Ltd to the CLP – which was rounded up by 40c to $4826 – because it was published in the party’s annual return for that year.
What of the $5174.40 that was paid to NT Broadcasters for CLP election advertising? We have been unable to find any declaration of that amount, and will be referring it to the NT and Australian Electoral Commissions for investigation.
The complainant gave the money over on a promise of receiving sensitive information from the new government that he had, hitherto, been unable to obtain by normal channels. Not only was Mr Maley Mr McCleary’s solicitor at the time that he asked for the $10 000, but he had been retained to act for Mr McCleary in the court case on the matter detailed in the e-mail to Mr Giles.
What of the member for Fong Lim’s role in all this? According to Mr McCleary, he is up to his eyeballs in this matter. Mr McCleary has said that Mr Maley asked for the $10 000 on behalf of the CLP and the member for Fong Lim. He actually met the member for Fong Lim some time later while he was walking in the mall with his lawyer, Mr Maley. Mr Maley introduced the two men, and the member for Fong Lim thanked him. When Mr McCleary was asked if he believed that the member for Fong Lim was thanking him for the $10 000, he said he had no doubt that he was.
The allegation by Mr McCleary is that the member for Fong Lim gave Mr Maley riding instructions to offer Mr McCleary a favour in return for a $10 000 donation. It is not surprising to hear how the CLP does business, and the failure of leadership and duty is a great one.
The Chief Minister has known about these allegations since May, and has done nothing about them. He should have immediately referred the matter to the Police Commissioner. His failure is even greater because he is also the Police minister. It is clear that the Chief Minister has failed to maintain the high standards of probity that his office demands, and the community expects.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to the member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis, who has given much time in his life to Territorians, and for that he should be commended.
Kon has been a good operator, and kept me on my toes quite a few times. He is one of those guys who never can turn off; he is always playing politics. It does not matter whether it is in this House, at a dinner or at a function, he will always have something to say, and usually it is that I am in the wrong party and that I should be in the Labor Party, rather than a conservative one. He is wrong. He would always joke that he had an application form in his top pocket for the Labor Party for me to sign. I have a membership form for the Country Liberals here, and it has Mr Kon Vatskalis’ name on it, just in case. Now that you are leaving the Labor Party you could sign this and join the Country Liberals. After all those years you deserve it.
In all good humour he has been a remarkable member and advocate for his constituents in Casuarina. He has done a remarkable job, and the one thing that is often not spoken about in this House is the time and commitment that people must give to this role. We do not always agree on ideology or policies and the issues we deal with, but we appreciate each other for the time and effort that we put in. It is often unseen, with the biggest hole found in families, and it is no different for the member for Casuarina.
Kon, I wish you all the very best for the future. You have been a great advocate for your party, particularly for your constituents and for Territorians. Thank you – the membership is here, so I will bring it up.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the member for Casuarina has one different characteristic from the rest of us, as he is the only one who can speak Greek English. When he first came into parliament, I had trouble understanding what he was saying, and he was the butt of a few jokes, but that showed you cannot take the Greek out of Kon. He is an Aussie, but he loves Greece as well. As an example of that, I quote from the NT News; I am not 100% sure of the date, but Kon might recognise it. It is called, ‘Speech: a blast from the past’ – Kon, you would be surprised that I am using a bit of IT here. Kon is an IT nut, but in my case it takes a bit of work.
The article says:
- Territory parliamentarians were dumbfounded when Casuarina MLA Kon Vatskalis spoke about democracy during his maiden speech on Tuesday.
It must have been in 2001:
- But the NT legislature’s bewilderment had nothing to do with Mr Vatskalis’s accent or his definition of democracy.
He quoted a famous speech made by Pericles of Athens 2500 years ago in Greek, which left members of the House baffled about the meaning of his words.
He later translated the quote into English for the benefit of everyone in the House.
The Ethnic Affairs Minister …
I did not know that was your title:
- … said Pericles was the founder of democracy and the speech was so powerful that, in recent times, many conservative governments in Greece restricted its circulation as subversive.
Attorney-General Peter Toyne had to put forward an amendment that allowed Mr Vatskalis to finish his lengthy speech.
That is one of the great things about this parliament, that we are able to have people like Kon who bring another flavour to the Northern Territory, and his Greek background was part of that.
I have some nice pictures of Kon with nearly black hair. If there is one thing you notice about members of parliament who have been here for a while, especially males, it is that their hair colour changes. His certainly did. Because you are retiring, I am not sure if your hair will turn black again, but you were obviously a handsome bloke in those days; I am not saying that you are not now.
I remember Kon for having cups of coffee in the mall; he had his little Greek enclave, either in the Galleria or at this end of the mall. I do not know what they were talking about, because it was all Greek to me, but it was obviously something very special. He has great relationships with people of Greek origin, but that does not mean he does not have good relationships with others as well, otherwise he would not have been re-elected four times – the same as me. He was a very popular local member.
Kon has not shown off about soccer for a number of years. When Litchfield football, or soccer, club started, Casuarina would flog us 20-0, and you would never hear the end of it from the member for Casuarina – what a show off! But you cannot say that so much today, as that mob out bush knows how to play the game now, and is doing pretty well, so I hope to see you at Litchfield one day. I am refereeing on Sunday at 8.30 am; I do not think it is you though.
He also loved his computers, and it was mentioned earlier that it occasionally got him into trouble. He once sat over here, and he was doing something that he should not have been doing, in looking at cars on the computer; there must have been a boring speech going on in parliament. Some of the sneaky media – you can never trust them – who sit up there have eyes in the back of their head. They knew what he was doing, and it appeared in ‘Bushranger’. I understand that sometimes the speeches in here can put you to sleep, and you have to do something else with your time.
Kon came from an environmental health background – I remember the Humpty Doo landfill site. We had some brawls on this side about trying to preserve that. Along with Dr Burns, the member for Johnston, who was the minister for Lands and Planning, there was Kon, the Minister for Health, who knew everything you could know about environmental health, and I was one of the local members fighting to retain the landfill site at Humpty Doo. There were some passionate debates, but I was up against it and lost. But that is life.
Kon is a man of the people. On 14 September 2002, he looked much better, because he had lost all his hair. He raised $10 000 for a cancer charity, there is a picture of him in which he looks like a Greek Yul Brynner.
He was one of those people who took his job seriously. As has been said, he had a heap of portfolios; I think it was 20. He was also very much a member of the community. Someone said that he was also able to get around parties and meet people, but I have a feeling that has something to do with a red liquid. He liked a bit of that; I know that because I met him sometimes after he had drunk a few glasses of that – he is nodding his head. That was all part of keeping the economy of the Northern Territory going; we appreciate that, as a minister, you have to do some of those things some of the time.
I will miss you. We are reducing the number of 2001 members considerably, and it is a bit scary. There is the Leader of the Opposition and the Attorney-General, who has had a bit of a bump – he regards himself as part of the crew too. We are down to about three now, and the Remuneration Tribunal will be pleased because there will be fewer pensions going out.
Kon, you have been a great person in this parliament, but even more so you have been a great Territorian. I have never regarded you as Labor, but as a good bloke who worked very hard and very diligently, and as someone who took a lot of punishment, sometimes from people in the opposition – I might have lost my temper. I cannot remember Kon ever losing his temper. He took a lot of flak sometimes that was not called for, but he stood up as a gentleman, took it on the chin and turned the other cheek most of the time. For that, Kon, you are a great bloke.
You have done very well for the people of Casuarina and the Northern Territory. I wish you all the best for your retirement, and do not forget that if it is a baby boy, there is a great name that you could you use. I do not know what Gerry is in Greek, but I am trying here, as you never know. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I pay my respects and give tribute to Kon Vatskalis, a gentleman and someone who I have enjoyed the odd debate with over the last four years. He was indeed a very strong minister, leader and tenacious politician. I like and admire Kon because he is a true gentleman, always very respectful, well-mannered and a decent human being. He always asks how my family are, and he is just a good bloke. I wish you all the best, Kon; you are one of the true gentlemen in this Chamber. Kindness goes a long way in the Assembly, and you have always demonstrated that towards me, which I sincerely thank you for.
I inform the Assembly about a Northern Territory-based research project investigating alternative and more practical treatments for impetigo. This project will not only benefit Northern Territory and Australian children, but could also benefit the millions of children worldwide who suffer from this infection. The Menzies School of Health Research has conducted a trial that proves the benefits of a new, non-injection based treatment.
In Australia, research has found that eight out of every 10 children living in remote Aboriginal communities will have skin sores at least once before their first birthday. About 50% of the preschool and school-age children in these communities currently have skin sores. The sores are due to an infection from a bacteria that has been linked to chronic kidney and rheumatic heart disease. The Menzies School of Health Research has completed one of the largest clinical trials of skin sores treatment ever conducted in Australia; it is outstanding work. Over a three-year period 508 Indigenous children with skin sores, aged three months to 13 years, from communities across northern and Central Australia were randomly assigned to receive either an oral treatment or the traditional injection for skin sores. Five children ran away when they discovered that they were part of the injection arm of the study, and 30% of children had pain at the injection site 48 hours afterwards.
The study showed that simple, short duration oral treatments, trialled either twice a day over three days or once a day over five days, worked just as well as an injection in resolving the skin sore infection within seven days. This is great news for children desperately needing treatment of their sores, as the regimen is simple and pain-free. We now know that the oral treatment works just as well as the injection, and also that it is palatable, pain-free, practical and an easily administered alternative.
The Department of Health supports the findings of this important study, and has begun implementing them in the Northern Territory. The use of this oral therapy is now included in local guidelines for the treatment of skin sores, as well as being included in the upcoming national therapeutic guidelines for the treatment of this condition.
The Country Liberals government supports medical research, and is committed to improving health outcomes for all Territorians. I am proud, as the Minister for Health, to talk about this kind of important research being undertaken on home soil, not only to improve the health outcomes for Northern Territory children, but potentially around the world. This is significant work that has the potential to greatly improve the health of Australians and millions of others around the world.
I congratulate the authors of the impetigo research paper published in The Lancet including Dr Asha Bowen, Dr Steven Tong, Professor Ross Andrews, Irene O’Meara, Mark Chatfield, Professor Bart Currie, former director of Menzies and now Director of the Telethon Kids Institute Professor Jonathan Carapetis, and James Cook University’s associate professor Malcolm McDonald.
This is excellent research work done in the Northern Territory to change the lives of children across the Northern Territory and, indeed, the world.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to Nan C Miller. Nan passed away on 23 December 2013 at home in Darwin, the beloved wife of Trevor Miller and loving mother of Ginger and Kerry.
Nan was born in the United States in 1940 and, as a young girl, her parents moved to a Ute Indian reservation. They went there to operate a trading post. Soon after this they moved into the Navajo Nation reservation to operate a trading post, and it was there that Nan found a connection with Indigenous people. The Navajo Nation adopted her and gave her a special name in their culture.
Nan was educated in a small, one-room classroom building with the Navajo, and finished primary school a year early. She finished high school two years early. Nan then went to university to study nursing. While there, she met Bob, and they were married and had three children, Ginger, Kerry and Kenny. Bob was a track official at a racing circuit. Sadly one day, Nan received the news that a car had lost control and left the track, hitting and killing Bob.
Kenny had seizures, and when he had grown too large for Nan to pick up she had to have him placed in a nursing home. Nan also lost both of her parents in a domestic violence dispute, where her mother was killed by her father.
Despite all of this, Nan recovered. She raised her children, went back to university and completed her nursing degree. She also married a man by the name Art, and life was getting back to normal. Art was an air traffic controller, and when Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers in the US, he and Nan moved to Australia. Nan and Art had two boys named Sean and David.
They separated in 1985, and Nan applied for a job with Territory Health. After an initial unsuccessful attempt to get work in the Northern Territory, she moved here to work as a nurse. She quickly showed her skills, and became the deputy head of the Communicable Diseases Centre.
In 1986, she married Trevor Miller, and her life and career really hit their straps. In 1989, Nan became the immunisation program’s senior project officer, and pioneered a Hepatitis B vaccination program. She contributed heavily to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination programs and, on a lighter note, was part of the project design team that created the HIB monster, a dragon that was part of a vaccination campaign that went around to Indigenous communities and the greater Northern Territory area to encourage people to be vaccinated against HIB.
Nan was also instrumental in setting up the AIDS council. In 1989, she worked hard on this, and created a stir in Darwin when she handed out condoms at the Royal Darwin Show as part of a safe sex campaign. She would often be up late working on contact tracing, which involves tracking the spread of communicable diseases and notifying people to be checked out for infection. If a child had measles, they would want to know which classrooms that child had been in, so they could contact the parents of other children to make sure that they could be checked. If any of those children turned up positive, they would then track to see if other people needed to be notified and warned about that infection.
In 1990, Nan went back to study and completed her Master’s degree in Public Health. Her treatise to complete this study was a groundbreaking piece of work that looked at the cold chain of vaccines. Basically, vaccines need to remain in very specific temperature ranges in order to remain viable. It was found that about half of the vaccines being used were not viable at all and, therefore, were ineffective. Her work led to changes in the cold chain policy that became a model for Australia and the world. A cold chain is where people look at the cycle from production to end use. They investigate exactly what is happening, where they are stored, how they are transported and in what kind of containers. Nan’s work helped put together something to improve this area.
Nan put together a framework and wrote further papers and manuals about vaccination programs and vaccine handling. These included Universal Hepatitis B Vaccination: hospital factors influencing first-dose uptake for neonates in Darwin; Cold chain in a hot climate – about giving vaccines; Changes to the Northern Territory Childhood Vaccination Schedule-MMR; Factors affecting Hepatitis A vaccination uptake among childcare workers in the NT; and School Age Hepatitis B Program.
Her studies and papers on cold chains for vaccines became the basis for other states rewriting their policies on cold chains, and her work was borrowed profusely. Rather than being upset by others using her work without permission, Nan was pleased that it was being used and glad that policy changes would be saving lives.
Businesses and other health professionals worked with Nan to create better methods of storage and transporting vaccines. A firm in the US worked with her to build thermometers that could record highest and lowest temperatures within the cold chain to ensure the viability of a vaccine all the way to the end user.
It was for these contributions to the Northern Territory that we honour her, and we stand with all Territorians to remember the important and valuable contribution that Nan made. At the end of her career she worked in Papua New Guinea as an immunisation field officer, which shows that she cared about people’s health, and wanted to be back on the ground working with Indigenous people, as she did during her childhood with the Navajo.
In 2006, Nan received a Living Legend Award at the Northern Territory Nursing and Midwifery Awards night. This award was well-deserved, as Nan was what the Territory loves, a person who can work through adversity and, with great love and passion, come out the other side and do great things. Despite all of the loss Nan experienced in her life – three children, a husband and her parents – this 5.1 ft, 40 kg woman had a big spirit and heart. She has directly and indirectly touched many thousands of lives through her work and life, and she will be missed by her workmates and dogs, which she loved coming home to. She was quoted in the NT News as saying:
- Dogs are always there to welcome you, no matter how rotten a day you’ve had or what you look like.
She will be missed by her friends who loved her energy and passion, her family, her daughters in the US and her husband, who was to be here tonight, if the timing had worked better.
The Territory says thank you to Nan. In this House we remember her; rest in peace, Nan Miller.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the member for Casuarina, Mr Kon Vatskalis, and his contribution to the Northern Territory and its parliament since, I think, 2001, when he was elected. He was one of the easier people on that side to get along with. I obviously disagree with Kon’s politics, but he and I always got along quite well, and he was one with whom you could have a decent, well-mannered conversation, which I appreciate. I wish you the very best for the next stage of your life, whatever that may bring, and you can rest assured that you made some great contributions to the Northern Territory.
I remember a great Territorian, friend, family man and tireless contributor to the Northern Territory’s public service. Dr Masood Ahmad of the Department of Mines and Energy’s NT Geological Survey team passed away on Sunday 10 August this year. A couple of his colleagues from the Department of Mines and Energy are in the gallery tonight, and I acknowledge them.
Dr Ahmad first joined the department’s geological survey team in 1982, and he was an integral part of the NTGS for over 20 years. As the assistant director in charge of the metallogenic section, Dr Ahmad was responsible for all NT Geological Survey studies aimed at gaining a better understanding of the Northern Territory’s mineral deposits.
In 2004, he moved out of his managerial role and into the position of chief geoscientist, which he held until his recent retirement.
Dr Ahmad had many achievements with the NTGS team. He was responsible for compiling the first modern geological map of the Northern Territory. He established the Northern Territory’s mineral occurrence database. He authored numerous reports on mineral deposits in the Northern Territory, and was considered a leader and mentor to many NTGS geologists.
His most enduring achievement is likely to be the development of the Geology and mineral resources of the Northern Territory book. Masood devoted most of his time during his final years with the NTGS to compiling this book, which is now considered the definitive volume on the Territory’s geology and resources. To put that work into context, this is the volume that Masood worked on. It was a real pleasure and honour to help Masood, the NTGS team and all those who contributed to this book to launch it on Speaker’s Green some months ago. I was very fortunate and privileged to have those who contributed to the book sign it at the front. I am looking at Masood’s signature, and I will be proud to cherish this book, because it represents not only a wonderful volume of work about the Northern Territory’s geology, but also a huge contribution made by Masood. He was a great man.
Masood was a gentle and humble man with a great passion for the Territory’s geology and resources. He was known for his integrity and dedication to the NT Geological Survey. The Geology and mineral resources of the Northern Territory book is the first ever comprehensive description and detailed analysis of the geology, mineralogy and petroleum resources of the entire Northern Territory.
As I mentioned, I had the pleasure of launching the book last year. It was designed to be an essential reference work for all geoscientists with an interest in the Northern Territory, particularly those involved with minerals and petroleum exploration. With the publication of this book, mineral and petroleum explorers now, for the first time, have a single point of reference to access the latest in geological knowledge and understanding of the Territory’s resources.
The Geology and mineral resources of the Northern Territory book includes descriptions of every named geological unit in the Territory, as well as all significant mineral deposits and petroleum fields. It describes each geological province and basin in the Territory, and also includes a summary of the Territory’s geological history. It is a fitting tribute to Masood and the many years of dedication he gave to developing this book. It will not only be a definitive reference for existing explorers, but will also act as a prospectus to attract further investments to the Territory.
Fortunately, if you want to peruse this book, you do not have to pick up a hard copy. I understand that it is available on DVD, but it is a wonderful read. I have not had a chance to read it from cover to cover, but I have glanced through it a number of times to familiarise myself with the geology of the Northern Territory and what Masood did.
He began his transition into retirement a year ago, following the completion and launch of this volume. I understand that Masood was utilising the remainder of his leave before formally retiring. It is unfortunate that his official retirement was scheduled to begin later this month.
Dr Masood Ahmad will be remembered fondly within the Department of Mines and Energy, and, on behalf of the Northern Territory government, I acknowledge his tireless work and passion within the field of geology.
Vale Masood Ahmad.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016